" GOOD OLD LLOYD GEORGE! "
[To THE EDITOR OP THE " SPECTATOR."'
SER,—You were good enough to insert a letter I wrote in your issue of the 10th inst., inviting suggestions either from your- self or your correspondents for the amendment of that section of the Insurance Act which deals with Post Office con- tributors. In a footnote to this letter you invited such suggestions, not surely through any inability to supply them yourself, after your scathing remarks on the existing pro- visions. I have eagerly scanned your issues of the 17th and 24th inst., and have found no response. There is therefore left to me but one conclusion, that you and your friex1ds have no alternative proposal to make, and that after all the Government hold the field with their three years' test of the present system, and then an amendment based upon experience. I feel almost inclined to express my feelings in the familiar way—perhaps somewhat unfamiliar in your columns—and say, " Good old Lloyd George ! "—I am, Sir, &c., [When a thorough mess has been made it is often most difficult or even impossible to clear it up. Would our corre- spondent argue therefrom that the original maker of the mess was fully justified P We frankly admit we cannot say how Mr. Lloyd George's appalling mess is to be cleared up, and we are not in the least surprised that our readers are equally nonplussed for a remedy.—En. Spectator.1
Previous page
