THE UNEMPLOYMENT ALLOWANCE
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Snt,—While I am always interested in the Financial article by " A. W. K." in the Spectator, there is one thing I cannot at all understand. When " A. W. K." sneers at the opposing by the Parliamentary opposition of the reduction of the unemployment allowance, he suggests, as the Prime Minister suggested in the broadcast speech and since, that the unem- ployed are still in a better position than that of two years ago.
That may be quite right, but to many of us the question is not that at all. The question is, were the unemployed receiving a subsistence allowance in the case, let us say, of man, wife and children, that permitted a 10 per cent. reduc- tion ? If not, where is the sense, and where is the justice, in commencing the scheme of economy by first penalizing those who, from sheer misfortune, are least able to bear it ?
Was it not here mainly, if not wholly, where the much maligned Henderson and others separated from the Prime Minister ; and do not many people think they were justified in their action ?
This raises another question : If there was no interference or dictation from the bankers, either British or foreign, from whom did this demand for lowering the standard of subsistence originate ? If " A. W. K." can enlighten us here, he will be very helpful.—I am, Sir, &c., CITY MERCHANT.
[The unemployment allowance could not be, and was not intended to be, sufficient for the full maintenance of a man and his family. Otherwise it would have been a direct incentive to idleness.---En. Spectator.]
Previous page
