Tag: Conservatives

The Affluent Society : poverty rediscovered?

18 February 202406 juillet 2007 by Matt Biscay · Lecture: 27 minutes

This is post 8 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.

Post-war Britain is characterised by Butskellism, a hybrid word formed from part of the names of the Conservative (Butler) and Labour (Gaitskell) Chancellors of the Exchequer.

This socio-economic policy was a compromise between private and public responsibility for the individual and was seen to describe a consensus between right and left which was to last until 1975 (for the Conservatives) and 1979 (for the Labour Party).

The 50s and 60s were years of the acceptance by both sides in British politics of a Welfare State, which looked after the individual “from the cradle to the grave”.

Economic and social changes

Received wisdom indicates an increase in the standard of living for the majority of British people. The average male weekly wage for men in 1952 was £8 14s, the equivalent of £36 in 1976 when the same average weekly wage had reached £65.

This represented an increase in real terms of 80% in 24 years. Or there again, considering the percentage of homes owned by their residents, the figure in the same period jumped from 29% to 54%, an increase of 86%.

For the first time in their lives, many working-class and lower-middle-class people benefited considerably from the “affluent society”. They could borrow money at low rates of interest and buy new consumer goods and services. In 1951 there were 48 cars and 103 telephones for 1,000 people. In 1976, the figures were 103 and 392 respectively.

However, it must be remembered that economic growth was slower in Britain than in most other capitalist countries. This is often referred to as “relative” economic decline.

The Welfare State: an end to poverty and inequality ?

18 February 202406 juillet 2007 by Matt Biscay · Lecture: 14 minutes

This is post 7 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.

According to Beveridge, two points of view are presented concerning the introduction of the Welfare State. The established view is that it was introduced in a climate of consensus: wartime hardships, the Evacuation, national solidarity and the acceptance of an increased role for the State in central planning led to a bipartisan approach to the need for durable change in social and health policies in Britain, as in other Western countries.

More recently, it has been pointed out that the War did not eliminate social differences or resentment, Evacuation did not lead to an ending of social prejudice, and the Conservatives and Labour Party did not agree on the way forward.

Nevertheless, Beveridge concludes that the War “was a major watershed in the history of school medical provision… It undoubtedly led to a determination to do something about the burden of poverty and ill health which had been revealed.

The Butler Education Act (1944)

Even before the Labour victory of 1945, Conservative Minister R. A. Butler introduced the 1944 English Education Act: since education had, like social security and health care, developed haphazardly, it was felt the situation before 1944 was complex, wasteful of ability and inequitable.

The 1944 Act laid the responsibility for education in England on the State and LEAs (Local Education Authorities), a national system, where locally administered Education became a free and universal social service. A Minister of Education was created.

Public education was to be organised in 3 stages: primary, secondary and further. In every area of the country schools should be sufficient in number, character and equipment “to afford all pupils opportunities for education offering such variety of instruction and training as may be desirable given their different ages, abilities and aptitudes”.

The private fee-paying sector was left intact. Education for all became compulsory from 5 to 15. Every parent had to ensure his child received a “suitable education” and every LEA had to make suitable provisions for this.

At age 11, children would take a test in English, Arithmetic and General Knowledge (11 plus): in the function of the results obtained at this examination, children would be sent either to Grammar School (for those with the highest marks) or Secondary Modern/Technical School for the rest.

This was known as the tripartite system but in reality, it was bipartite since very few LEAs set up Secondary Technical Schools. Comprehensive Schools were not proscribed, nor were they encouraged.

At age 16, the “brighter” pupils would take GCE O-Levels (General Certificate of Education Ordinary-Level) in several subjects, the others CSE examinations (Certificate of Secondary Education), introduced in 1963. At age 18, the “brightest” pupils would take GCE A-Levels (Advanced), which enabled pupils to apply for university.

The Labour victory of 1945 was followed by a heavy legislative programme. There were bills concerning Coal Nationalisation, Industrial Injuries, National Insurance, New Towns, Housing, Trade Union Law, the National Health Service… Much of the social planning for this legislation had been carried out during the war.

A common name for this battery of legislation concerning public health, social security, pensions and children’s allowances, better educational opportunities, and even a greater role for the State in the economy of the country (through nationalisations) is the Welfare State.

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.

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)

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”.

The rise of the Scottish National Party (SNP)

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

This is post 4 of 6 in the series “Scotland's Road to Independence”

Explore the intricate weave of Scottish politics and devolution from historical struggles for autonomy to the modern debates on independence, dive deep into Scotland’s quest for self-governance.

Scotland: the State, the Nation, Home Rule, and Devolution
The Act of Union of 1707
Scottish Home Rule
The rise of the Scottish National Party (SNP)
The Scottish Parliament
Scotland: the Road to Independence

Introduction

The SNP was born in 1934. It was not very successful as a political party (poor results). In April 1945, the SNP sent for the first time an MP to Parliament (Motherwell by-election).

In July, of the same year, it lost its unique seat during the general election.

1950s: poor results

Due to the lack of cohesion within the party: there were lots of divisions on several issues. And it had a negative image in public opinion: nationalism was considered evil and often associated with Nazi Germany and World War II.

1960s: breakthrough

1967: Hamilton by-election won by the SNP. The candidate elected was a woman, Winnifred Ewing.

1968: local elections. Very good results for the SNP.

People felt Scotland was spared the benefits of the economic boom of the United Kingdom. Scotland was among the regions which benefited the least. There was a feeling of discontent among the Scots. The SNP made progress.

After 1968, the SNP started to be taken seriously by both the Labour and the Conservative parties. Reactions :

Conservative Party (in opposition)
In May 1968, Edward Heath (leader of the Conservative party) said he would give Scotland an Assembly: this is known as the “Declaration of Perth”. He created a constitutional committee presided by Sir Alec-Douglas-Home. The committee produced a report called “Scotland’s Government” in 1970.
Recommendations:
   – creation of a Scottish Assembly,
   – 125 members elected directly,
   – powers to initiate and discuss Bills (to be approved by the British Parliament in Westminster).
Labour Party (in office)
The Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, appointed the Royal Commission on the Constitution in 1968. The chairman was Lord Kilbrandon and it is referred to as the “Kilbrandon Commission”. It produced 2 reports in 1973.
Recommendations:
– creation of a Scottish Assembly,
– members elected directly by Proportional Representation (a major innovation compared to the first-past-the-post system).

Scottish Home Rule

18 February 202406 juillet 2007 by Matt Biscay · Lecture: 5 minutes

This is post 3 of 6 in the series “Scotland's Road to Independence”

Explore the intricate weave of Scottish politics and devolution from historical struggles for autonomy to the modern debates on independence, dive deep into Scotland’s quest for self-governance.

Introduction

After the Union of 1707, Scotland started to export goods massively: especially linen, cattle, and tobacco (Glasgow was nicknamed the “tobacco metropolis”).

Gradually the Union came to represent career opportunities for the upper-class and middle-class Scots: some joined the Army in India, some became merchants in London and some others migrated to North America as settlers.

1760s: 1st Industrial Revolution in Scotland. Until then, Scotland was a rural country. It became rapidly urbanized.

1760-1830: Scottish economy based on the textile industry (cotton, linen and wool).

After 1830, new industries appeared: the steel industry and the shipbuilding industry.

During Victorian Scotland (1837-1901), all industries were owned by the Scots. They were prosperous and exported their goods all over the world. There was no feeling of discontent for they were proud to be contributing to the Empire, adding up their prosperity.

In the 1880s, Scottish home rule (more autonomy) emerged as an issue in Scottish politics. It was the result of 3 factors: