The Daily News. TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1911. A STATESMAN'S TRIUMPH.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 296, 9 May 1911, Page 4

The Daily News. TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1911. A STATESMAN'S TRIUMPH.

The excellent precis of Mr. LloydGeorge's' national insurance scheme, recently cabled, gives a clear view of one of the most important reforms ever attempted in Britain. With infinite patience the Chancellor of the Exchequer, aided by men who have been able to see the vital needs of the people, has evolved a scheme that must enormously reduce poverty, increase comfort and efficiency, and benefit the race. In crowded countries—especially those countries whose people are largely engaged in manufactures —there are countless tragedies, and the sickness of the breadwinners is the greatest of them all, for sickness means that they can win 110 more bread until they are well, and probably can get no work when they are again able to labor. The hopelessness of the case of a worJccr who, with his family, immediately falls into poverty as soon as he is ill, is apparent to all, and with the successful inauguration of the invalidity and unemployment scheme the pitiful and innumerable cases of starvation and wretchedness will bte minimised. It is proposed that between the State, the employers and the workers the great sums necessary for national insurance shall be found. We believe that any body of employers would see that t-ho spending of their proportion of the necessary sum would be a payable proposition. It would ensure better physical health among the workers, enhanced self-respect, and finer service. In its criticism of the new scheme, the Pall Mall Gazette remarks that deducting wages to the extent of eleven million pounds per annum is not essentially different to taxing the people's food to that extent. The paper infers that the workers of Britain are so poor that there is 110 margin between the money they earn and the money they spend for necessities. This is a peculiarly cast-iron Tory view, and pre-supposes that workers should have no more wages than the bare amount that will keep the wolf from the door. A paper that regards the payment of 2V»d per week by a worker as an expense he must go hungry to meet. is hardly bubbling over with the milk of human kindness. The view might be taken that when the scheme has been successfully working for some time, the increased efficiency and health of workers may he such that employers will concede increased wages as a result of better service. The compulsory nature of the contributions by upwards of nine million workers would, in our view, not he a heavy tax, but would ensure greater thrift in order to attain definite benefits. The workers who may voluntarily join the national insurance scheme will afford the best indication of its popularity. If the number who voluntarily join are as large as those who are compelled to join, the "food tax" contention will lie proved unsound. The invalidity insurance scheme is of the highest possible importance from a national standpoint, because under the ordinary harsh conditions of "no job, 110 food" thousands of workers have necessarily. in times past, been obliged to work in an unlit condition. It is only necessary in order to show what a large proportion of indoor workers is always ill to quote from the remark of a North

of England manufacturer, who, employing one thousand people, stated: "lliave always to count 150 off for sickness." An important phase of this invalidity scheme is that the State intends to look after and help the working mothers. The urgent necessity of getting hack to work in order that the cupboard may not be empty lia.s lost thousands of mothers and infants to Britain. Lack of system has allowed a scandalous state of affairs to continue. Thus the thirty shillings that in England will cover ordinary maternity expenses will be one of the most humane boons under the system. The compulsory rest of one month is a concession that will have an effect of national importance. So far from interfering with the work of friendly societies in Britain, the new scheme will enormously increase their usefulness, by asking their aid in furtherance of the reforms. A peculiarly "Fatman" objection is the one voiced by a Tofy paper that it will be unfair to an employer who has to insure out of his own pocket a workman who earns less than fifteen shillings a week. Perhaps this is the type of worker the Pall Mall Gazette is ,so frightened will have his food taxed by being compulsorily insured against sickness and unemployment. The Toriest Tory who would refuse to pay a few pence a week in order to keep a fifteon-shillings-a-week father of a family fed, might be expected to snarl at the Budget. Some Unionist members believe that unemployment insurance will add to the cost of manufacture. This is also pathetically Tory. The cost of manufacture in Britain—from the prioe of labor standpoint alone—is computed to be half the cost in similar trades in America, the difference being made up in America by 'cuter machinery. To be explicit, the operative who earns one pound per week in Britain would earn twelve dollars in America, where a man and not a machine is to be employed. It is refreshing to know that the Tories, however, believe that workers are fit to live, and that the invalidity scheme is good. The enthusiastic acceptance by workers who are not compelled to join the scheme will, it is hoped, demonstrate its advantages.