The Taihape Daily Times. AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE MONDAY, JUNE 30, 1919. THE WORKERS’ HOMES MEETING.

Taihape Daily Times, 30 June 1919, Page 4

The Taihape Daily Times. AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE

MONDAY, JUNE 30, 1919. THE WORKERS’ HOMES MEETING.

With which its incorporated " ‘The Taihape Post; and Waimarino News.”

H , The meeting of wo'rkers held in Taihaps on Friday night th.row.s into high light the absurd inadequacy of the Government.’s proposal to erect workers’ homes. Even those fifty or sixty workmen could not help remarking how thopeless it was to expect any efliciency in any public .ma.'tter which fell to the Government to administer or adjudicate upon. When Mr Smith told them that Taihn.pe’s share of the two hundred dwellings proposed would be about two rooms, or less than half one house, the disgust was complete. The men saw the pselcssness of paying l up their deposits and wasting time, but the more speculative said they would i put up their pounds, although "the chance was 1000 to 1 against them. About fifteen out of the gross attend‘ancc paid in their respective pounds, but the less speculative men said they would consider the workers’ dwelling proposal when the worlsfer had some [chance of success; it was too much ‘in the exiibryofiic state at present .to warrant any worker bothering about. i The men, it. cannot be denied, gave expression to the common-sense aspect of a proposal to erect 200 dwellings for ‘workers throughout the whole Dominion. They knew that, at the very least, ‘fifty of these dwellings were urgently i I needed in Taihapc; that a large proporiltion of that fifty, even, were required ‘ by workers in the Governnlent’s own lscrvicc, and the disgust. they exhibit- . ed, none can deny, was justifiable, The cryptological nature of the wor.din.g of _ , the Labour Department ’s inemorandunl _,= did not help to induce confidence in a ,lscheme for erecting workers’ homes _||which was to make its debut with a piigreat, flourish of words and only two _ hundred houses, which. were "to {be yiscraniblcd for by hundreds of thous[ands of comparatively liouselcss peoIplc. On the other hand, if this proiposal should he one for acquiring an approximate estimate of what the housing requirements really are, it becomes , quite ‘understandable, ‘.ll"o‘t~‘h'V£'ltllSil-fllld“ 1 ing the fact that it will aercatnie ob[jcct for which it is launched. _ As we ‘have stated, the chance of getting oneof the two hundred houses is so remote ithat. workers having no gambling ‘instinct, will not trouble to go through the ‘performance and pay down the sovereign that would enable them to !have such a chance. ' \Ve [believe the Labour Department } will realise this weakness in , the proposal if the intention is to ,’ascertain what. the Dominion demand {for workers’ homes really is, and will iadopt some much more reliable method. "The Departnlent’s mc~mo_ran(lum goes i on to state that: “So far as the funds lavailable from year to year permit, like practice of-the Department is to {provide dwfillings for the \-'ariCns apiplicants thron_qhout the Dominion in i the order in which the applications are im-made, having regard, ‘however, to the :;greater demand there may be at such places as Wellington.” We unhesitatingly contend that the bu'il.d'ing of worl~:ers’ homes in cities to the disadvantage of wo.v'kers in the country is likely to prové dis-astrously subversive of this country ’s most vital interests. It need hardly be said that supply creates the demand, and the tcndexicy of people in every country under the sun is to drift to large cities. Directly a man becomes worklcss he makes for a large «-enlgrc, where, he thinks, his chances of getting employment are greatest. Some statesmen are of opinion that this natural trend towards centralisation of labour is the chief cause of the present lamentable situation of the housing problem. in connection with which Mr Lloyd George publicly stated that Britain had to how her proiid head with shame in the presc-nee of Turkey, Russia, and such—like peoples. It does not condnce to peaceful and popular labour conditions in this Dominion for workers to know that they are housed worse than Turks and other only semiciviliscd peoples. Apart from this degrading aspect. which none can deny is existent after viewing the photographs of workmen’s homes (2) in the coalmining districts, that centralisation of labour in cities, encouraged by building workers ’ homes there in gifiatery proportion. than in the country, is "cantrary to the policy of “more production” to which this Dominion must, for its own salvation, apply itself’, Neglect to encourage decentralisation

Of lilbo.ur cu.n,only reéult in ki<;Lntinueds arm greater,_ dis_ruptio‘l-1 of production.‘ and of industry. . There seems to be ":1 lamentable xvaigf of consecutive, fisongruous and consistent reasoning out

'( of the menacing labour and production I problems with which the Dominion imavoidedly has to contend. Our statesmen, it seems to us, should evolve some _effective means of ‘combating the natural tendency to centralisation of labour in cities, instead of pursuing a. policy that must ‘take People fmm the land and horde them in lcondi‘t,ions which Mr Lloyd George has so forcefully impressed upon 118- The drift Of labour oif the land as a result of -at calamitous policy of land aggregation has made congestion in cities Very much worse than it need be, 50 much _ so, that the sup,rcme need 110 W is t 0 discover and evolve a policy 50 attrac- ! five, to labour that it will right-about-face the cityward drift, and disperse it «over the land, where it may have the pure air and live a. life under highest attainable healthful conditions. We .s'incel-cly and earnestly hope that the officcrs of the La.bour'Depa.rtmelft will be -allowed to revise their memorandum on the subject. of Workers’ homes, because to encourage ‘workers to flock into cities is only to seriously aggravate labour troubles, impede production, and, still worse, to set up such conditions as Britain f‘onn'd ‘itself when medically fit men were wanted Lfor ldriving back a powerful, ruthless, iagrcssive enemy. Through ill-housing‘ and semi-starvation in huge cities, half l ithc male population were unfit Ho fight and half the women ‘ were unfit to do -much to— ‘ piwards nrunition-mziking. The condition I is undeniably the result of a very feW| rich men owning all the land and rendering it either unproductive altogether or less productive than it sho-uld be to commence to cope with *thc food demands of a starving people. If members of the Government wish to show tlleir sincerity in their cry for “more production,” and in their desire to minimise labour ‘troubles, we trust they will see the danger of coaxing labour off the land into large cities. The home and hotbed of anarchy will be £011,113 in city rooke,ries,-‘it emanates from these roo_kel'ies.and spreads over the land; it _;lcv_er originates in the healthful atmosphere of’ the country. Realising this we dohopes the Labour Department m‘:iy"revisc its memorandum and set itself to do what little it can to prevent centralisation of workers in cities, by giving works:-rsl the encouragem.ent. of good homes in,’ the country. In Taihape w-orkcrs are li.ving two -and three families in one‘ house. and they very rca.sonn.bly think] they may rid themselves of such a life I if they flock to large centres of popula- ! tion. No man is infallible, but we do believe that labour troubles can be \=(-r_v considerably reduced by a land policy that will tend towards the break up of city rookeries. More and better] housing ac.com'modation in the country would bring inits Ti-'ain -:1. more contented rural labour, which would talzc, to some. extent, the venom out of city rookerios. more especially so would this be achieved by an immensely improved national production. Houses forworkers urc I"n's’r wanted in the country. f