How effective were the Labour welfare reforms in tackling the 5 giants?
Intro: In 1942, Sir William Beveridge published a report on the welfare of the British public.
In this report he classified the welfare problems attacking Britain as the ‘5 Giants’; want,
squalor, idleness, disease and ignorance. When Labour came to power in 1945 with a landslide
victory, they were chosen by people who believed in their vision to create a ‘New Jerusalem’
and introduce welfare reforms in response to Beveridge’s report. During their election
campaign, Michael Foot promised that the Labour Party would not rest until “every
citizen…has a good roof over his head…safe from the fears of unemployment, sickness and
worry.” However, the effectiveness of Labour’s welfare reforms are the source of much
historical debate. Historians such as Kenneth Morgan praise the work done by the Labour
government by arguing that they were “the most effective of any British Government since the
passage of the 1832 Reform Act”. On the other hand, others such as Webster are more critical
of Labour’s reforms and suggest that they missed opportunities to really tackle the welfare
problems of the time. This essay intends to argue that the Labour welfare reforms were largely
effective in tackling the 5 giants given Britain’s post war situation.
Para 1: Inadequate housing was a major problem for people in post war Britain. The reasons
for this are easily identifiable as squalor had been a long term problem which was made worse
by the effects of the Blitz which destroyed around 700,000 homes and left around one-third of
all British houses were in serious need of repair. Traditionally, housing was regarded as
Labour’s greatest failure; however, this essay recognises the attempts they made to tackle the
problem as effective in providing for those most in need. The Labour government introduced
a number of welfare reforms to provide short term and the long term housing relief. Firstly,
Labour built prefabricated houses as a temporary measure for those most in need. Indeed,
157,000 prefabs were built between 1945 and 1948 showing that Labour was providing
immediate provision for the areas most affected by housing shortages. However, this was not
enough to effectively deal with the housing shortage. As such, at the height of this shortage,
many families took to squatting in abandoned army camps. Labour recognised this as an
effective way to temporarily tackle the housing problem and instructed local councils to
provide water and electricity. For long term provision, Labour introduced the Housing Acts of
1946 and 49 which subsidised the building of 300,000 council houses by 1947.These were all
built in the areas with the greatest housing problems and were of low rent thereby helping those
with limited incomes who otherwise could not afford decent accommodation. Furthermore,
Labour introduced the New Towns Act in 1946. Agencies were tasked to oversee the building
of 14 new towns throughout Britain (e.g. East Kilbride and Livingstone) which were to provide
new homes and communities of a high standard. To do so effectively, the government took
control of precious building materials and house sizes were increased from 800sq feet to
1000sq feet. This meant that there was better housing conditions and so it would seem that this
reform was largely effective in tackling squalor as there were more houses available and less
people faced poor living conditions.
Yet, it has been argued that given the scale of the housing problem, Labour focused too
much on quality at a time when quantity was most needed to tackle the shortage. Indeed,
Labour’s house building does compare poorly with both pre-war levels and those of the
Conservative government of the 1950s. Indeed, the 1951 census revealed that there were
750,000 more households than there were homes which shows that many people were still
living in squalor. On the other hand, it must be remembered that the serious economic problems
as well as the extreme shortage of raw materials which faced post war Britain made it very
difficult for Labour to effectively deal with the housing problems during their term of 194551. Also, the building industry’s work forced had decreased from 1,000,000 in 1939 to less
than 340,000 and with the marriage and baby boom, Labour faced increased pressure on post
war housing. In the face of these problems, Labour still built over one million houses within
its six years in government – more than any other European country - and placed great focus
on providing for those most in need. They also tackled the giant of squalor by introducing the
Rent Control Acts of 1946 and 1949 to keep council house rent low to provide working class
families with affordable accommodation. Indeed, 4 out of 5 houses built by Labour were
council houses and so Labour prioritised tackling squalor for those most in need. Therefore,
this essay believes that although their record is not overwhelming, Labour’s achievements are
to their credit. Given the scale of the problem and the financial difficulties they faced in 1945,
they came remarkably close to their housing goals; to provide quality and affordable working
class homes. Thus arguing that Labour were largely effective in tackling the giant of squalor.
Para 2: Many people could not afford healthcare due to the costs involved (often 25p for a
GP’s visit) and the fact that wives and families were not included in the 1911 National
Insurance Act. As a result, working class people went without adequate healthcare. In 1946,
Labour introduced the National Health Service Act to tackle the giant of disease and this was
enforced in 1948. This was to tackle disease by providing every British person with free
medical, dental and optical services; including specialist services such as hearing aids and false
teeth. As argued by historian Peter Calvocoressi, many see the NHS as ‘the most beneficial
reform ever enacted’ in Britain because there is evidence to suggest that many people were not
being treated prior to the NHS because in 1948, doctors, dentists and opticians were inundated
with patients queuing up for free treatments. Indeed, prescriptions rose from 7 million per
month before the NHS was introduced to 13.5 million in September 1948. Additionally, a total
of 187 million prescriptions were issued in the first year. This shows that Labour were
effectively tackling health problems as people were obviously in need of medical help because
large numbers were using it to improve their health; something most would not have done prior
to 1948 due to the cost. 5 million glasses were prescribed in the first year and 8.5 dental patients
were treated which makes it clear that Labour were effectively tackling disease by providing
more than just the basics which would improve the lifestyle of British people. Even though
historians such as Webster suggest that the NHS failed to improve general medical services
available to most people there is further evidence to suggest that it did in fact effectively tackle
many health problems. Indeed, remarkably, infant mortality dropped from 300 per million to
48 per million which meant that babies were being born healthy from healthy mothers and were
able to survive due to the effective health provisions provided by the Labour Government.
However, the NHS proved too expensive to fund by National Insurance and so the government
raised taxes and introduced some charges. Indeed, in 1951 prescription charges were
introduced for some services e.g. charges of 5p were introduced for glasses. It would seem,
therefore, that the NHS was not completely free ‘at the point of contact’ because people were
still paying towards it through tax contributions, even if they weren’t using the services
available. Even so, the Labour government was effective in the way in which it delivered for
those most in need because it provided affordable and accessible health care for all; regardless
of social status. Overall, taking account of both views, this essay argues that the NHS was
largely effective in tackling the health problems of those most in need, although there was room
for improvement.
Para 3:
Even though Liberal welfare reforms had been expanded both before and during
WWII, these were not available as of right and so a large number of the British population
lacked adequate income. To effectively tackle this giant of ‘want’ the Labour Government
introduced several significant social security reforms. The Family Allowance Act was
introduced in 1945 to provide mothers with a fixed sum of 25p for every child after the first
(up to the age of 15, or 16 if in full-time education) which shows that Labour were trying to
tackle the problem of want in families. This can be regarded as effective – to an extent - as it
provided an additional subsidy income, yet Beveridge argued that it should have been 40p per
child which would have provided families with a subsistence payment in order to support the
purchase of necessities. As it was, many believed the 25p was - as Barbara Castle claimed - a
‘paltry sum’. Historian David Childs suggests that it would have been enough only to purchase
1lb of tea, Colgate toothpaste and a Mars bar. Even so, a payment of 25p was a welcomed
addition to top up their already inadequate income as the average manual wage was 6 pounds
a week. Labour was effective to an extent as by the summer of 1948, they were providing 3
million families with the Family Allowance payment.
To further tackle the problem of want, Labour also introduced the full and compulsory
National Insurance Act in 1946. It was to provide financial assistance for those in need, such
as the elderly, the pregnant, people in ill health and the unemployed from the “cradle to grave”.
On paper it would seem that Labour was trying to provide adequate income for those most in
need but there were serious flaws in this reform. Firstly, payments were decided in 1946 but
were not implemented until 1948, and as they were fixed for 5 years they did not rise with the
cost of living, it did not provide an adequate income for all. Yet, it can be argued that Labour
recognised the gaps in the provisions of National Insurance and so the National Assistance Act
was introduced in 1948 as a safety net for those for those not covered by the National Insurance
Act. This welfare reform was effective in tackling the problem of want as it provided lump
sums of money or weekly benefits to deal with times of inadequate income. This reform, it can
be argued was effective in tackling want because in 1949 it was claimed by 2 million people,
who would otherwise, under the National Insurance Act, been left without financial support.
Furthermore, statistics show that Labour did effectively tackle want by reducing poverty. In
1950, Rowntree’s investigation in York showed that poverty fell from 36% in 1936 to 2% in
1950. If this represents the bigger picture of Britain, then even though they did not eradicate
the problems of inadequate income, Labour deserves praise for providing a system which
supported people during times of most financial need.
Para 4:
Historians such as Brooke argue that “The single most important domestic
achievement of the Labour government was the maintenance of full employment after the war.”
Maintenance of low unemployment was a serious concern in 1945 as there was a worry that
the high unemployment of the 1930s would return. To prevent this from happening, the Labour
Government introduced a number of welfare reforms to create employment opportunities so
people could pay national insurance and support the implementation of the welfare state. The
short term concern was that soldiers would return to Britain and to unemployment. To prevent
that, Labour guaranteed all men who joined post May 1939 would receive their jobs back upon
returning home. For those who failed to find jobs, Labour provided training centres and grants
for new businesses, thus trying to tackle idleness. On a larger scale, Labour introduced a mixed
economy by nationalising key industries such as coal, electricity, gas and steel. This was
effective as it allowed the government to control the economy and thus protect jobs. Labour
also encouraged export industries which increased by 75% and this provided work in the
industries which were in most demand, thus showing that Labour actively provided
employment opportunities to fight idleness. Employment figures further demonstrate Labour’s
successes in tackling unemployment because between 1945 and 1951, unemployment averaged
310,000 a year compared to 1,716,000 for the period of 1935-1939.
On the other hand, some historians argue that Labour can take little credit for full
employment because most of the factors affecting employment were out with the government’s
control. For example, world demand was growing so Britain could sell her exports and to
countries restocking due to damage of WWII. It is possible to argue that Britain’s employment
figures would have been healthy in 1951, regardless of the party in power; Britain was rebuilding herself after near destruction in WWII. Furthermore, Labour inherited low
unemployment from the coalition government and also by raising the school leaving age,
Labour was able to further decrease unemployment. However, economic historians tend to
conclude that it was difficult to see how Labour’s performance could have been improved upon.
Labour did keep unemployment low at 2.5% and this can be regarded as a significant
achievement at a time of such economic downturn. Indeed, Simpson argues that both their own
reforms and the world economy had a role; “The government owed its success both to the good
sense of its policies and to the favourable trends in the world’s economy”. Significantly, in the
face of large economic problems people were clearly better off as the average wage in 1949
was 20% higher than in 1938 thus proving that Labour was effective in tackling the giant of
idleness.
Para 5: Beveridge identified education ‘ignorance’ as inadequate as secondary education
required fees which working class families simply could not afford, thus denying them the
opportunity of further education. In 1944, Labour pushed through the Butler education Act
(created by coalition government) in order to tackle the problem of ignorance by raising the
leaving age to 15 and made secondary education free and compulsory. This was an effective
way to tackle ignorance in the sense that it made secondary education accessible to all – not
just middle class children. The 11+ exam was designed as part of these changes with the aim
of providing children with an education which correlated to their IQ; irrespective of their social
class. However, this essay argues that there were many failings with this system and Labour
might have been expected to have done better in terms of equal opportunity. Indeed, it can be
argued that the reforms aimed at tackling ignorance were not effective because 11 years old is
too young to determine a child’s future, the exam favoured boys and there was still a very clear
social divide. Indeed, only 20% of places were available at grammar schools and these became
the focus of a ‘middle class scramble’ to gain places. Grammar schools were the only
establishments geared to send children to university; they had better resources and offered
academic subjects. Therefore, children attending technical schools and secondary moderns
(75% of places) studied practical subjects such as woodwork were not given equal
opportunities to attend university. Pigeon holing children and deciding their futures at such a
young age is generally regarded by historians as a major failing of Labour’s to effectively tackle
ignorance. Yet, it must be remembered that Labour did introduce 250 secondary schools and
train 35,000 teachers in the first year with emergency teacher training which shows that Labour
was making an effort to tackle ignorance. Also, free secondary education was there for the first
time, for all, and due to the scale of the economic problems of post war period, it is widely
recognised that it would have taken a generation to fully implement the Education Act. Labour
was in no position to be radical. Regardless, this essay agrees with Morgan that ‘it is hard to
avoid the view that education was an area where the labour government failed’ to provide
equality in education provision and thus did not effectively tackle ignorance.
Conc:
In conclusion, Labour was largely effective in tackling the 5 giants because their welfare
reforms, though not perfect, made significant improvements to the overall welfare conditions
of British people. Evidence has shown the NHS to have been the “jewel in the welfare crown”
because for the first time every British person – regardless of social status – had access to free
healthcare and indeed, remains the envy of other countries today. Within their 5 years in
government, Labour transformed welfare provisions in the broadest sense as it gave access to
better quality housing, adequate income in times of financial difficulty, free secondary
education for all, support in seeking employment as well as universal healthcare provision. Yet,
this essay concludes that these reforms were not without fault. PUT IN HERE ABOUT
MISSED OPPORTUNITY WITH EDUCATION & ONE OTHER FAILURE (NO LONG
DETAIL, JUST POINTS). Even so, when combined, Labour’s welfare reforms were, to a large
extent, effective in tackling want, squalor, idleness, disease and ignorance.