PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 128, Issue 21368, 12 March 1941, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents whose letters are welcome, but for whoso views we have no responsibility. Correspondents are requested to write in ink. It is essential that anonymous writers enclose their proper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless this rule is complied with, their letters will not appear. “FREE” MEDICAL ATTENTION (To the Editor) Sir, —What are these cards that the Government is so keen for us to take up and get the medical benefits? Is there a catch in it? If the Government wants us to have them, why does it not post them to us? It knows our address when it wants to send a tax demand. Why have the people to be coaxed and tempted to “come along like a dear and have one?” Mother used to coax us like that when she wanted us to come and take castor oil. Is it something like this: This card entitles the holder to free medicine or an operation while he waits at any hospital. Should the holder of this card die he will be buried free of charge provided always, etc., etc., he sign on the dotted line, giving J time and date of death. I would be pleased to know just how I stand as I have need of medical attention for my dandruff. —I am, etc., PUZZLED. Hamilton, March 11. MOTOR LICENSING (To the Editor) | Sir, —Several correspondents have stressed the fact that a reduction in the licensing fee for motor-cars is well overdue. I think every motorist will agree, considering that on account of the petrol restrictions over the last 12 months thousands of pounds of wear and tear on the public roads of the Dominion must have been saved to the Government and local bodies. Another matter that could be equally stressed is a reduction in the premium for third party insurance. The companies carrying this risk were granted approximately a 30 per cent rise a couple of years ago, and here again through petrol restrictions motor travel has been reduced fully 30 per cent, and motorists have a right to expect a corresponding reduction in their third party insurance premiums while the restrictions remain force, which on the face of things will be for a considerable length of time.—l am, etc., W. ATKINSON. Hamilton, March 11. NEW SOCIAL ORDER (To the Editor) Sir, —Many people throughout the British Empire are giving a good deal of thought to a “new social order” that is to come into existence after the war. It is commonly said in Britain “that if the war is being waged to restore pre-war conditions of 1939, then it is not worth the sacrifices,” And great are the sacrifices being demanded of the British people. The growing demand of the masses of Britain for a clear statement of British war aims has to date been side-stepped by politicians with vague references to “a new social order.” It is interesting to speculate on the value of the references to “a new social order” by British politicians, when we place alongside those references the cabled remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a proposal to subsidise the living standards of British workers. In your issue of recent date the Bishop of Winchester in moving a motion in the House of Lords for a scheme of family allowance said “the estimated cost of supporting an allowance made only to families of three or more children would be £24,000,000 annually, that was to say the cost of two and a-half days’ war.” Viscount Samuel said “it was difficult to see why this reform had not been carried out. long since, but now in these days of war it was of immediate urgency.” Lord Moyne, speaking for the Government, agreed that a general rise in wages would not solve the question. It would merely alter the period at which the pinch would be felt. They had to bear in mind that organised labour had not so far supported the system of family allowances and no method of payment could possibly be adopted without the support of organised labour. Much had been done to reduce the cost of living. Over £100,000,000 annually was now being spent in keeping down the price of essentiai foodstuffs. The matter must be considered in the light of the whole planning oi post-war reconstruction, Lord Moyne added. He had discussed it with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Kingsley Wood. The Chancellor was not hostile to the idea of family allowances, but made it quite clear the country could not possibly afford at present to grant a large sum for the purpose. So there we are. Government spokesmen blame organised labour and lack of money for not carrying out an admitted urgent reform. It will be interesting to see what the people of Britain have to say to the remarks of Sir Kingsley Wood.—l am, etc., R. G. YOUNG. Gordonton, March 11.