Original post by ChachapoyaOkay this is the essay, looks like it lacked analysis if I'm being honest with myself, too much facts and quotations. I hope it helps in some way.
To what extent did the Liberal reforms (1906-1914) improve the lives of the British people?
In 1906, the Liberal Party swept into power with a large majority over their Conservative counterparts. At this time attitudes were beginning to change a great deal. The belief of ‘Laissez Faire’, an attitude held by numerous politicians during this time meant that successive Governments felt that they could not be blamed for the problems of British society. The New Liberals were aware of the problems that many faced within British society, facilitating a move towards further state intervention. The Liberal Government was starting to gain reliable and comprehensive reports from social researchers such as Booth and Rowntree on the inherent problems of poverty in British society; furthermore, the Labour Party had sprung up and came with it increased political pressure to implement reform. The Liberals were shown to be motivated to help certain sectors of society as a result of these factors and consequently managed to put in place reform with regards to children, the elderly, the unemployed and the workers, along with the introduction of state intervention, which enviably helped out a great deal while advancing political reform. Reforms that related to these important areas were all successful to a certain extent as each had their successes and their limitations. Showing to what extent they helped is important to how we can evaluate how the Liberals improved the lives of the British people from 1906 to 1914.
The conversion of government philosophy from ‘Laissez Faire’ towards State Intervention played a large part in improving the lives of British people. The principle of Lassiez Faire meant that the wealthier classes and the government believed that those poorest in society should be left to their own devices in the hope that self-reliance would result in an improved life for all. The views of philosophers who supported the view of Laissez Faire helped to push forward opposition towards state intervention in the 19th century. One such philosopher being John Stuart Mill, who declared that “Letting alone should be general practice, every departure from it, unless required by some good, is a certain evil.” Some also assumed that government interference would lead to laziness, as people would be presumed to not bother themselves to get a good income and instead rely on state money.
Nevertheless, the push towards greater state intervention occurred in the early 20th century under the Liberal government. Information became apparent from key social reform activists, for example Seebohm Rowntree’s report into families who suffered from poverty concluded that 52% of the very poor were paid wages too low to maintain a decent standard of living. It was therefore evident that charity work alone and the declining Poor Law were not enough to help the most needing poor and so statistics such as these provided the catalyst for the introduction of social reform from the Liberals with the intension of improving the lives of the British people. It is also evident that stances within government changed considerably during this time when David Llyod George, the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted that it was his duty to attempt to improve the lives of the British people when he stated that “… I can hear the moaning’s of the wounded, and I want to carry relief to them in the alleys.” An obvious change had take place in British politics, allowing for the introduction of key reform that permitted the progress with regards to specific groups within British society between 1906 to 1914 and in the future.
The Liberal Government also made attempts to improve the lives of children.
Child poverty and neglect were becoming increasingly sensitive issues by the early 20th century. In an effort to try to combat the problems that children faced, the Liberals brought in acts of reform to help children. First of all, The 1906 Education Act resulted in local authorities were entitled to provide free school meals to poor children in the hope of aiding development and growth. The act was successful in providing meals for some; with some 158,000 children receiving meals after the act was implemented. Nonetheless, it was non-compulsory for local authorities and so many to save money did not take part and so therefore limited. In 1911 only a third of all authorities had taken up on the scheme. It was not until 1914 that the government realized the scheme was faltering and so made the system compulsory for all authorities. Limitation of this act is again shown by the fact that during the holidays children would revert back to a cycle of poor nutrition and so consequently the scheme was not so advantageous in reality.
The 1908 Children and young persons Act must also be considered with relation to the well being of children. This act aimed to specifically target areas that concerned the welfare of young people as they were now seen as “protected persons” and of separate responsibility to adults. The Act was successful in implementing measures by which children who broke the law were to be sent to separate prisons, preventing prisons from becoming ‘universities for crime’. Parents who were adjudged to have committed crimes of neglect could also be prosecuted and as a result could no take out insurance on their children. Author Roy Parker notes that- “The Children Act of 1908 was welcomed in many quarters as a charter that marked a new era in the way… vulnerable children, were to be regarded and treated.” However, this only reduced crimes of neglect to an extent as it was extremely had to police, with individuals often lying to protect themselves from prosecution and people often saw mistreatment of children as not as important of an issue in reality. The act had also put in raised the minimum age for buying cigarettes to 16 and introduced fines on those selling cigarettes to those under 16. Again, the extent to which this improved the lives of children is uncertain, with children still easily able to obtain cigarettes. Subsequently, reforms put in place specifically with the intension of helping children had only supported the lives of a select number as there was evidently still many uncared for and unhealthy children.
The assisting of the unemployed in Britain had also served to advance the lives of some in the population. Unemployment was shown to be a factor in poverty in certain areas. In the 1901 census it was shown that there was just over 38,000 unemployed people in Britain. The 1909 Labour Exchanges Act was set up with the aim of providing stable jobs for the unemployed. Prior to this act, there was no other scheme that offered assistance that would help those in unemployed to find work. The extent of the success is shown by the large growth of Labour Exchanges throughout the country. There was 420 Labour Exchanges in use by 1913 in Britain with 3000 people a day being given some kind of payed work by 1914. Labour Exchanges even provided washing facilities, clothes mending assistances and refreshments for the unemployed. Despite the successes, not all employers informed Labour Exchanges of available jobs in their businesses and only 25% of those who signed up to Labour Exchanges actually found employment.
The 1911 Insurance Act, Part 2 was also brought in to tackle unemployment. Those who contributed to the insurance scheme for a certain amount of time would be rewarded with benefit if they found themselves unemployed. There were many trades that had taken up on the system, including; ship building, mechanical engineering and construction, with workers and employers accepting the scheme as part of their job. Again, there was several limitations when looking at this act. It just covered temporary and not long term unemployed, which in reality was the greatest problem. It could also be said that government policy alone did not have such a profound influence as A J P Taylor outlines that “Factors other than government policy helped to improve employment prospects and reduce unemployment.” To summarise, the Liberals attempts to improve the lives of the unemployed were successful in helping in some ways in that people were starting to find work, however the scheme was not comprehensive enough and only laid the foundations of later reform.
Reforms had also been made in an effort to provide assistance to the elderly. Poverty in old age became a significant problem once people retired from work, as much of the population would not have made savings to cover themselves for the rest of their lives. The Liberals decided to step up their efforts to try and improve the lives of the elderly and so instigated reform. The 1908 Old age Pensions Act provided people over 70 with between 1 to 5 shillings per week to the elderly who earned an income of up to £21 per annum. It is documented by Martin Pugh that “By 1914 the number of pensioners had reached 967000", a significant number when considering how the British people’s lives were improved by the Liberal Reforms. Again, success is shown by the many elderly people were extremely thankful for the support they received, in the book Larkrise to Candleford it is noted that those who received pensions stated “God bless that Lord George”. However as with most of the Liberal reforms, there were drawbacks. People who had avoided work or had a criminal record were not entitled to the scheme and so it was therefore not universal. Pensions were also adjudged to be not enough to live on alone and many of the elderly were poor and had little or no savings and were still therefore subjected to a life of poverty.
The large cost of providing pensions was considered another limitation, as the balance between cost and effectiveness meant that many have questioned the usefulness of the reform. The lives of the elderly in poverty would therefore not be improved enough.
The workers are also to be considered under reforms brought in by the Liberals from 1906 to 1914. The working class in the early 20th century had grown to be a dominant force within society; this coincided with the rise of the Labour party meant that pressure from the workers resulted in acts to improve their welfare. The 1906 Workers Compensation Act aimed to provide improvement for the lives of the workers, as the act delivered compensation for those injured at work. This was crucial to those in heavy industry, were injury was common and so some sort of safety net was established therefore. However, there were exceptions to the act such as excluding non-manual workers on an annual pay of over £250 and also all of agricultural workers. So this did not cover much of the working populations lives, but the one’s who were permitted to the cover of compensation would have seen an improved life if there was injury. The Liberals also brought in The Trade Boards Act of 1909 was another act that aided the development of the life of the workers. The reform set up committees to negotiate a minimum wage, which applied to certain trades such as box, lace and tailoring trades. Churchill stated, “It is a national evil that any class of Her Majesties subject should receive less than a living wage.” Indicating the importance felt among politicians at the time with regards to this act and what it set out to achieve. The extent of this act covered around 200,000 workers in the population, but it was limited in the fact that it had only attempted to set up a minimum wage for a selected number and so others in the population were not accounted for.
Consequently, it is shown that reforms passed by the Liberals aimed to improve the lives of a number of workers, however, there was limitation in that schemes were not universal enough and were restricted to a select few.
In conclusion, reform brought in by the Liberal Government between 1906 and 1914 to improve the lives of the British people achieved a number of successes, although there were notable shortcomings. The reforms helped in further acceptance of state intervention in the lives of the poor, which could lead to reforms in the future. Reform acts passed were shown to have helped the young, the old and the unemployed in certain ways. On the other hand, reforms were not comprehensive enough as the government did not have an overall plan to tackle social problems in Britain and had only responded to specific and separate problems. Some of the vestiges of the old Poor Law remained such as the workhouses along with the shame attributed to them. There were also some sections of the population that were not covered by the reforms. Agricultural workers remained among the lowest paid workers and did not benefit specifically from the reforms. Poverty in Britain also still very much in existence and for many their situation remained the same as it was prior to the reforms. Reforms could be said to have only scratched the surface, as the reforms were not comprehensive enough in tackling all the social problems in Britain and the benefits were too low. In the words of Martin Pugh, they “Only tackled discrete parts of the problem of poverty.” So as a whole, the reforms introduced helped some and did not help others, but were the start of the process of social reform to improve the lives of British people.