The social reforms of the Labour Government of 1945-1951 failed to deal effectively with the needs of the British people. How valid is this view?
Before World War Two Britain was not a welfare state. Through the war the wartime administration was solely focused on victory however once The Allied forces started to advance on the Axis other priorities of the public were recognised by the government primarily "increasing thought for the future". In 1942, the Beveridge report was published by William Beveridge which consolidated these views from the public to determine the "five giants" that any postwar administration would have to deal with to satisfy the requirements of the British public. Once military success in continent had been secured, an election was imminent and despite the leadership of Churchill during war, it was the Labour government, who in their manifesto promised "peaceful revolution" in reference to Beveridge's words that "this is time for revolution not patching", who were voted in. It could be argued that the Labour government of 1945-1951 failed to deal effectively with the requirements of the British people. However making this view cannot merely focus on their manifesto promises but on the manner in which they dealt with Beveridge's "five giants", which are: disease; want; squalor; ignorance; and idleness.
Firstly, the giant of want was tussled with by the Labour government through their social reforms. In 1946, they passed the Industrial Injuries Act which promised financial compensation to those who sustained a permanent handicap or illness whilst at their job. The vital aspect of this act was that the responsibility of this payout was burdened now by the government. This was significant because up until this point no sympathy had been given to workers from employers but by removing the ball from their court the immediate response from government prevented people from dropping into the trap of life-long poverty and redundancy. However, though this gave time for people to recover it did not stop employers from firing these employees so many returned fit to no longer having a career, so was not as effective in combating unemployment. Also in 1946, the National Insurance act was further advanced by the Labour government to be available to all the working trades through a weekly payment scheme that in return offered pregnancy and mortality grants as well as elderly, widowers' and orphans' pensions. This was important because during the Second World War many families faced fatalities and so were left with an overall less gross income so these benefits meant that families could cope financially despite the loss of their partners and parents and now were looked after from the "cradle to the grave". This is also crucial because up until this point many had to support themselves during maternity putting a lot of pressure on the male worker to bring home the bacon and be unable to physically be at home caring for their partner, these payouts meant that more male workers could support their partners in this crucial period so would reduce mortality rates as they could provide for themselves during this time. However, this act did not include those not in work still so failed to support those who fell into redundancy and so saw them fall further out of work as they were forced to deal economically with other pressures in life such as maternity and death of a partner. Also the act relied on subtracting up to 5% of workers' pay to give these benefits so would in fact lessen the pay of the worker making it less effective as an overall solution to poverty in Britain. Though, the Labour government did sustain the Family Allowance act of 1945 which handed out monetary sums to mums with two or more children and did so without installing any means testing. This was crucial because many did not want the government prying into their personal lives so those who needed this financial help would apply for this because this was prevented and so the Labour government tackled domestic poverty through this sustenance. However, this could be dismissed primarily as the Labour government did not in fact pass the act and secondly this act was not applicable to fathers of two children who suffered the same economic struggle as a female. In contrary to this exclusion, it is widely agreed that the National Assistance Act of 1948 supported all members of society – those who could not afford the National Insurance scheme or in a situation of long-term redundancy – who could finally now submit an application for further help to a committee who would determine whether it was reasonable and respond appropriately and this was funded through national taxes. This was important because the Labour government controlled taxes to set aside an amount specifically for local councils to take action on poverty in their communities, especially those with a disability or facing physical deterioration through age, and so they were obliged to do so hence the public now had a security to halt themselves from ever facing severe poorness. However to be eligible for these benefits you had sit a means test which repelled many to the idea as there was a stigma for these to be harsh and personal making it overall less effective as less people would apply for the support. Historians such as Kenneth Morgan argue that social security "provided a comprehensive basis for insurance provision that hitherto been unknown" which suggests that all were adequately supported by the benefit schemes.
Secondly, the giant of squalor was a major issue that the Labour government responded to. By 1945 the devastation caused by German Bombardiers during World War Two resulted in need for fresh accommodation in Britain, Labour promised through a construction programme to create 200,000 homes every year. This was vital because Labour eventually were constructing sufficient housing for the public and doing so quickly with the likes of prefabs of a standard quality becoming available to the public. However, Labour did not meet it's target initially, for example in 1946 it missed its target by an approximately 144,000 houses furthermore this shortage carried up until 1951 with the requirement for housing increasing exponentially with a baby boom evident spawning reservation lists for council housing which shows that Labour did not fully anticipate or deal with the issue through this programme alone. Labour introduced in 1946 the New Towns Act which tried to create 14 New towns like East Kilbride to ease the pressure on housing in other crowded areas like the Gorbals. This was crucial because these new areas solved the issue of slums in Britain by adequately populating people throughout the country and in so doing brought businesses to these towns improving the quality of living condition for the population. On the other hand, though workers took these towns for abodes they held a job in the older cities which many argue murdered city centre communities and created lifeless housing domains so did not entirely appease the public. Historians Donald Morrison, Elliot Morrison and Tom Monaghan make the viewpoint that considering "the scale of social and economic problems facing the government in 1945" that "historians have tended to judge Labour less harshly than the voters in 1951" which only goes to show that Labour had improved the conditions of housing in Britain but not significantly enough to resolve the issue altogether and certainly not enough to satisfy the British electorate.
Thirdly, the giant of ignorance was dealt with by the Labour government through their social reforms.
Labour set the 1944 Education Act into action which included increasing the leaving age to fifteen and introducing free secondary school education. This was significant because this tried to offer those in poorer situations the opportunity to get the same education as those from wealthier backgrounds with R.A. Butler
, the man credited with the bill, debating that technical education was the way forward for Britain. However soon private institutions began to dismantle these reforms by installing a hierarchy in the quality of schools with some becoming private or known as grammar schools so education was not equal for all. Also as part of this act was the introduction of the eleven plus examination which required all pupils at the age of eleven to sit to determine whether they should be sent to a senior secondary school or a junior secondary school. This was important because this tried to separate pupils through ability offering those more academic the opportunity of advanced education regardless of background. Although it soon transpired that this created a system in which people were subjected to a worse life from the result of one examination because they were deemed not academic which was incredibly unfair for children of eleven to have their quality of life set at such a young age. Historians like Martin Pugh argues that "private education continued to offer advantages to the wealthy" and "that the reforms failed to eliminate" this and so there still lay great inequality in education.
Fourthly, the giant of idleness was tackled by the Labour government during 1945-1951. The Labour Government sought to achieve and sustain "Full Employment" and thought the means in which to do this was through nationalisation which insisted that the government take management of major industries and run them to assist the nation. Labour had indicated this in their left wing policies and utilising Marshall Aid ended up nationalising 20% of all industrial trades bringing them under the government's jurisdiction. This was significant because this allowed the Labour government to sustain a company that was suffering financial hardships so reduce the number of the workers fired from their work and this is the reason, it could be argued, that allowed them keep full employment. However, it was a very costly process to sustain these businesses and the public would suffer the debt caused by
sustenance of these companies which were of poorer production rates as they lacked experienced management in those fields. Historians such as Paul Addison put forward that "Full employment" was caused by "the boom in private investment after 1945" so disagrees starkly with the view that nationalisation was the reason for Labour keeping full employment.
Fifthly, the giant of disease was an immense problem the Labour government had to address during this time. Through the National Insurance act of 1946, Labour established the National Health Service to be opened from the 5th August 1948 based on the model from the Beveridge Report. One of the main criteria for the NHS was it be universally accessible. This was crucial because for once medical care was available to all classes for free despite their backgrounds so gave the government a greater duty towards it's people. Another point of criteria of the NHS was that it be comprehensive meaning it could provide medical assistance for any wound or illness etcetera for free. This was significant because this meant the public would not have to turn to private hospitals should they develop a more obscure disease. However it did not transpire that the NHS should provide this as soon their services became out of date and so unsuitable as definitive treatment so it was no longer fit for all problems. The third area of criteria for the NHS when it was set into society was that it be free at point of use which meant that through small contributions made by workers to the National Insurance act all patients could be given free services whenever they were necessary. This was vital because the public could now access free health services in times of emergency without any financial consulting beforehand so knew the NHS would be there to support them and their families whenever they needed it. However, this soon became void with dental treatment and optometry appointments in 1950 becoming charged for so no longer was all health issues "free for all". Historians like R.C Birch argue that the NHS was the "single greatest achievement of the story of the welfare state", showing the most significant of contributions from Labour to overcoming Britain's problems to be how they combated disease. However other historians such as Charles Webster debates that the NHS subjected working classes to embarrassing levels of healthcare and even more taxation for it and this highlights that the Labour governments had better attempts than others even their best were mightily flawed in many aspects.
In conclusion, the Labour Government in forming a welfare state did take action towards resolving the "five giants" during 1945-1951 but some of their responses were ineffective and so overall this view is valid. Their response to want is highly significant and involved a series of acts that set into place benefits to prevent people from falling into the trap of poverty. Although, these were well intended and utilised by some not all of the acts were Labour's original work and many did not take up the opportunity as they did not fall into the suitable criteria or would face social humiliation trying to justify their reasons for claiming through means tests should they decide to do so. Their handled of Disease is also highly significant which was encapsulated in building a fully accessible, fully free, fully capable National Health Service. Whilst they were successful to a great extent in putting this into operation, it eventually did not cover all health problems with some becoming chargeable and the services provided were often inadequate. Their response to squalor was moderately important as they did start housing initiatives and tried to set up new towns to compensate for the rapid rise in population. Once again though it was not entirely sufficient as they did not achieve their targets and in the process of building fresh towns they destroyed neighbourhood feeling that existed in these tightly packed cities. Their response to ignorance was also of moderate importance as they attempt to establish a system whereby pupils were forced to stay in school longer and were judged on their academic ability. However, it was not adequate schools became imbalanced in quality and the tests they set the pupils did not allow recognition of every pupils potential forcing many to turn to private schools. Finally, their action towards idleness was of little importance in showing the efficiency of their reforms as they did not enact any acts through government to handle this issue. Their only attempt lies in Nationalisation which though allowed government to secure some jobs in times of hardship was mostly ineffective because it was highly expensive and created inefficient businesses so the long-term economy would suffered as a result.