SkyMinds ~ by Matt | Page 640 | Développeur WordPress et WooCommerce

The Beveridge Report: a Revolution?

18 February 202406 juillet 2007 by Matt Biscay · Lecture: 9 minutes

This is post 6 of 12 in the series “Inequalities in Great Britain” This series dissects the various facets of inequality, including economic disparity, social divides, and regional imbalances, offering a comprehensive view of contemporary British society.

William Beveridge

William Beveridge was born in 1879 and he became a social worker in the East End of London in 1903. Later, he visited Germany to see for himself the system of social insurance introduced by Bismarck.

Beveridge became a journalist, writing mainly on social policy. He was noticed by Churchill (still a Liberal at that time) and in 1908, Beveridge became a civil servant at the Board of Trade.

Over the next three years, he worked on a national system of labour exchanges, which were introduced by the Liberal Government of Lloyd George. This measure only covered 2.75m men, one in six of the workforce.

Beveridge remained a civil servant for the duration of World War I and after the war, he became the Director of the London School of Economics (LSE). He continued academic work at the Universities of London and Oxford.

In June 1941, he was asked to chair an interdepartmental committee on reconstruction problems and on the coordination of existing schemes of social insurance.

Kinsta: Premium Managed WordPress hosting

At this time, the social security “system” was in a confused state: 7 Government departments were involved in providing various cash benefits to some people.

The terms of reference were:

To undertake, with special reference to the inter-relation of the schemes, a survey of the existing national schemes of social insurance and allied services, including workmen’s compensation, and to make recommendations. (Beveridge, Beveridge Report : Social Insurance and Allied Services, 1942)

More electoral inequalities : the Road to Female Suffrage

18 February 202406 juillet 2007 by Matt Biscay · Lecture: 4 minutes

This is post 5 of 12 in the series “Inequalities in Great Britain” This series dissects the various facets of inequality, including economic disparity, social divides, and regional imbalances, offering a comprehensive view of contemporary British society.

Before the Industrial Revolution, men and women worked together as an economic unit, especially in rural communities. In well-off households, women would run the house.

The Industrial Revolution polarised women’s condition: the well-to-do withdrew from household management, leaving the way clear for the housekeeper. A woman was seen by the upper classes as an idealised creature, gentle, pure, and pious.

However, the ever more numerous working-class women would frequently work in factories. In 1851, 2.3m women and female children of working age out of 8m worked. Many women worked in service (1.2 million in 1881). Feminists disliked both these extremes.

Arguments against the franchise for women: women were disqualified by their sex; the franchise was based on property qualification; women were thought to be too emotional; most women did not need the vote (they were surrounded by men who often would have it).

For the rest, if vagrant and very poor men did not have the vote, then their women did not deserve it either; the “idealized” woman was above the dirty affairs of Parliament; female suffrage might well pose a threat to men’s sexual domination of women.

Women’s rights were limited if non-existent throughout the 19th century. Reforms were finally obtained after the perseverance of female/feminist activists.

Ante Bellum, Inter Bella : Legislation and the Depression

18 February 202406 juillet 2007 by Matt Biscay · Lecture: 10 minutes

This is post 4 of 12 in the series “Inequalities in Great Britain” This series dissects the various facets of inequality, including economic disparity, social divides, and regional imbalances, offering a comprehensive view of contemporary British society.

The work of Charles Booth and Rowntree (see Chapter 2: Victorian Philanthropy) influenced a new current within the Liberal Party: new Liberalism.

When the Liberal Party was returned to office in 1906, supported by the nascent Labour Party, it introduced several important pieces of legislation: Education (Provisions of Meals) Act (1906), Education (Administrative Provisions) Act (1907), Children Act (1908), Old Age Pensions Act (1908), Trade Boards Act (1909), Labour Exchanges Act (1909) and Health and Unemployment Act (1911).

Even if we take all these laws together, we only have a piecemeal attempt to deal with social protection. Lloyd George and Churchill (at the time a Liberal) were responsible for the 1911 legislation on unemployment insurance and believed that something should be done to improve a situation that had scarcely evolved since 1834.

The liberals were not overtly committed to social reform during the 1906 election campaign but espousing such a cause was a way of possibly stymying the nascent Labour Party and also preventing any more revolutionary attempts at changing the social system.

Not all workers were covered by this legislation. Only wage-earners were eligible and sexually transmitted and alcohol-related diseases were excluded.

Of course, the wives and children of the poor and the unemployed were also excluded. The Act was administered essentially by the former (private) insurance companies, which became richer, as did the “panel doctors”, guaranteed a per capita sum per “panel patient”.

← Précédent Suivant →