How successful were they?

• 2012: To what extent did the Liberal reforms of
1906 to 1914 make a significant improvement to the lives of the British people?
• 2011: “The Liberals failed to deal with the real problems facing the British people.” How valid is this view of the Liberals’ social reforms from 1906 to 1914?
• 2010: How successfully did the Liberal Reforms of
1906−1914 deal with the problem of poverty in
Britain in the early 1900s?

YESU

• Instead of looking at causation, this question judges how effective or ineffective the reforms were.
• So your approach to this style of question should be to take each groups in turn and identify what they did (KU points) and evaluate/judge how far they achieved their aim. You must be balanced and include any limitations of the acts.
• By your conclusion, you should answer the question .

• Liberal reforms= landmark social change, acceptance that national state intervention is required.
• Liberals – landslide victory based on free trade NOT welfare reforms
• 1906-14 – widespread reforms to address the needs of the ‘deserving poor’: YOUNG,
ELDERLY, SICK AND UNEMPLOYED.
• Identified that causes of poverty – ill health, too old to work, unemployment needed to be tackled therefore made reforms to solve these problems.
• LAID THE FOUNDATIONS FOR A WELFARE
STATE

• Did they significantly improve lives?
• How much did they resolve the problems of poverty?

GROUP
& AIM
NAME OF
REFORM
WHAT THEY
DID
(KU)
SUCCESS
(ARGUMENT)
FAILURE
(ARGUMENT)
YOUNG – children are deserving poor. Poverty is not their fault.

“Feed the stomach, then the mind”
Margaret McMillan
Young are poor through no fault of their own.
Government must nurture this future generation.
What did they do?
1906 Free School Meals
1907 Medical Inspections Act
1908 Children Act (‘Children’s Charter’)

• School meals 1906 – School meals given from 3 million in 1906 to 9 million in
1910 to 14million in 1914. But by 1912 half of local authorities did not provide meals.
• Medical Inspections 1907 - Detected a great deal of medical problems e.g. in
Glasgow, 30% of children were found to be “verminous”.
• Children’s Act, 1908 – Note 2 new rules to protect children from neglect.

• School meals - Rose to 14 million by 1914.
• During school holidays, health and growth declined therefore proving that school meals were essential to improving health and thus securing a better economic future for children.
• Inspections - Checked height, weight, teeth, eyes and identified a range of problems such as rickets.
• Charter - Some children’s lives did improve.
• Meals - Law not compulsory so by 1912, only half of the local authorities had a school meal provision in place
• Medical Inspections -
Identified the problem but medical treatment not provided until 1912.
• Charter - Slow to pass new laws which means help was limited to a small number.
• Limited success in restricting alcohol and smoking from children.

David Lloyd George , Budget speech (1909)
“This is a war Budget. It is for raising money to wage implacable warfare against poverty and squalidness . I cannot help hoping and believing that before this generation has passed away, we shall have advanced a great step towards that good time, when poverty, and the wretchedness and human degradation which as remote to the people of this country as the wolves which once infested its forests.”

• Identified by Rowntree survey as unavoidable stage of poverty cycle.
• Britain lagged behind Germany, Denmark and New
Zealand who had all introduced pension in 1880-90s.
• Pension provided elderly over the age of 70 between 1s
(5p) and 5s (25p) a week if annual income was between
£21 and £31. Married couples given 7s 6p (37p)

• Great success as
650,000 applicants. By
1914 there were
970,000.
• Elderly very grateful – gave post office workers flowers and praised ‘Lord George’!
• Kept elderly away from the workhouse.
• Pension was 2s (10p) short of the minimum amount needed established by Rowntree
(35p).
• Many pensioners had no birth certificate therefore no proof they were over 70.
• Many stopped working at 50.
• Few actually lived til 70
– life expectancy in industrial towns was mid
40s!

Illness was a major cause of poverty in a time when there was no NHS. Illness meant lost wages. Lloyd George emulated
Germany’s national insurance scheme.

• NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT 1911
PART 2– contributory scheme where employee paid 4p a week towards scheme, employer paid 3p and government paid 2p . SO – a sick person could get 9p from an outlay of 4p.
• When sick – 10s (50p) a week for first
13 weeks and then 5s (25p) a week for the following 13 weeks.

• Part 2 - It did provide some help to sick workers.
• Part 2 - Only the individual received medical help, not the family.
• Treatment by dentists and opticians not included
• Contributions meant a
‘wage cut’ so ironically would have exacerbated poverty!
• Did not help long term sick.

• NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT 1911 PART
1 – tackled problem of those who worked in industries that had frequent short-term contracts e.g. shipbuilding, construction, mechanical engineering.
• Insurance booklet stamp – 5p (2 ½p from employer), government gives 2p.
• Resulted in 7s (35p) a week for 15 weeks while unemployed. Carried out at Labour exchange.
• Labour exchanges also established.

• Part 1 – Prevented immediate poverty if unemployed.
• 15 weeks was adequate time to find employment.
• It was self-financing – it only worked as long as
5% were unemployed, after WWI it could not cope with long term unemployment.
• It only applied to 7 industries.
• Only 2.25 million helped.

• Read p66-67 – Briefly note the more positive achievements of other reforms.
• Read on to the assessment of the
Liberal reforms and identify some conclusive sentences/overall statements about the reforms.

The Liberal reforms added up to;
“ A significant shift away from minimum government in the laissez-faire tradition.”
D. Morrison
“The working classes were not wholeheartedly in favour of the efforts made on their behalf by the Liberals.”
E. Morrison
They viewed “the insurance schemes as little more than middle class interference.”
T. Monaghan
“Asquith’s administration laid the foundations of the Welfare State by taking responsibility for the most vulnerable groups in society and financing means to help them.”
L. Petheram
Other historians disagree
“They argue that the Liberal reforms were very limited in scope and failed to deal with such important welfare issues as education and housing.”
D. Morrison
“Lloyd George and Churchill saw their reforms as first steps, which were brought to a halt by the Great War.”
T. Monaghan

• Marked a dramatic shift away from laissez-faire.
• Never intended to be a welfare state
• A helping hand to ease the problem not an ultimate solution
• Based around the idea that support was given for those to help themselves out of poverty.
• Housing issue not tackled.

In conclusion, it can be argued the Liberals did improve the lives of the British people to a degree . While some peoples’ lives were not improved due to insufficient legislation, it has to be recognised the Liberals did make significant changes to many lives in a challenging period when poverty was a gigantic problem.
On one hand , the Liberals reforms improved the health, education and future of many of their young. Furthermore, many elderly, sick and unemployed were also relieved of the stress of poverty and misery of the workhouse when they received the new benefits.
On the other hand , the Liberals were limited in provision and restrained by cost and did not attempt to improve housing. However, it must be taken into account that they never did promise a solution to all problems faced, they still wanted people to strive for betterment as Churchill said: “We have not pretended to carry the toiler on to dry land, what we have done is to strap a lifebelt around him.”