NATIONAL INSURANCE.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SracrAroa."]
Srs,—As at once the honorary organ of the National Service League and the mainstay of the Referendum policy, may I venture to ask you if you feel that these two policies are com- patible, and if you arc prepared to submit the proposals for compulsory service to the poll of the people? If you have already answered this question in any previous issue I must apologize for raising it.
May I, at the same time, be allowed to express my astonish- ment that, with your consistent advocacy of a policy of thrift Ur the working classes, you should suggest in a recent issue that the National Insurance Scheme would be improved by a reduction of the sick benefit (already by no means adequate tuader any ordinary circumstances) and the addition of a Funeral benefit which, in so very many cases, is of little good le the living, and, in no case, is of any use to the dead ? The suggestion appeared to me absolutely contradictory to all that the Spectator has taught me regarding thrift during the past
[We have already stated that we are not only prepared to see a Bill for Universal Training submitted to the people, but should strongly support such a proposal. Unless the people desire compulsory service it would be useless to attempt to force it on them. Why our correspondent thinks the two policies of compulsory service and the Referendum incom- patible we are utterly at a loss to understand. Is he not aware that Switzerland is the home of the form of compulsory service which we desire to see instituted here, and also of the Referendum ? Not long ago the Swiss people, to their eternal credit, practically doubled the obligation of national service at a Referendum. Our correspondent has misunderstood our point as regards the Insurance Bill. We wanted to meet the case of working men who desire to leave something to their children at death—surely not an ignoble desire.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
