HOW EFFECTIVE WERE THE LIBERAL WELFARE REFORMS?
Throughout the 19th and early 20th century, poverty in Britain was becoming increasingly severe. This was demonstrated by Booth and Rowntree’s research into poverty, conducted in London and York respectively. Booth’s report into conditions in London identified that 30% of people could not afford basic provisions. Rowntree’s report was centred in York. His results demonstrated that in keeping with Booth’s reports almost 30% of people in York live below the poverty line. His reports also illustrated that some people found it impossible to find a job, regardless of their abilities. Additionally, wages for some jobs were simply inadequate to provide for a family. At this point, the government adopted a position of Lasseiz-Faire, meaning non-intervention. Poverty was seen as a poor people’s problem. In his book “self help” Samuel Smiles stated poor people were made of “inferior material”. The government and the middle classes believed that nothing could be done to alleviate poverty, nor should it be done.
A departure from this view was brought about by a number of factors, including increasing public disapproval of the ideology of Lasseiz Faire. Consequently, between 1906 and 1914, the Liberals embarked on one of the largest programmes of social reforms ever undertaken. They aimed to assist four of the most underprivileged groups in society: the elderly, the sick, the unemployed and poor children. In order to assess the effectiveness of the Liberal reforms it is necessary to critically examine what was done to help each group and whether or not the measures were effective.
The Liberals identified the elderly as a group in need of assistance. In 1908, the government started paying up to 5 shillings (25p) a week to those over 70 who had an annual income of up to £21 per annum. A married couple received 37.5p a week. Less was paid to those with a higher income. Those receiving over £31.50 annually received no pension. Similarly, those British citizens who have avoided work, had criminal records or were habitually drunk were exempt from payment.
While it is fair to suggest that these reforms made the lives of some poor elderly people better, it could be argued that they were not effective enough. Firstly, Rowntree’s study of poverty had calculated a poverty line, the minimum earnings required to buy the barest of necessities, at 35p per week. On this basis, it could be argued that a 25p a week pension was not a sufficient answer to old age poverty. Additionally, many people did not live to reach 70 and those that did needed help long before reaching this age. However, there were benefits of the pension schemes. For example as Cootes puts it: “Old people had no cause to feel sham at being given public money. Pensions, unlike poor relief, was paid as a right.” In this sense pensions were effective.
Another group targeted by the Liberals for help were poor children. In 1906, the government permitted local authorities to provide free school meals for poor children. Now that education was compulsory, teachers and authorities noticed that many children were going to school undernourished and in ill health.
This programme was effective in some schools as the poorest children were getting at least one square meal a day. However, free school meals were not compulsory and public money was to be used “only as a last resort”. Moreover, during school holidays the weight of many students dropped dramatically. Additionally, school meals were not made compulsory until 1914, meaning many children did not benefit from the scheme prior to this date.
The Liberals also aimed to aid the sick through their reforms. As soon as the Pensions Act had been passed in 1908, Lloyd George turned his attention to tackling ill health. The National Insurance Act part one provided compulsory health insurance for workers earning less than £160 per annum. The slogan for this scheme was “9d for 4d” as the employee paid 4d, the employer 3d and the state 2d per week to provide sickness benefit, free medical treatment and maternity payment.
Healthcare was provided as the names of everyone contributing to the scheme was placed on a list known as a “doctor’s panel” Doctors were paid by the government for all those that they treated.
However, this scheme suffered from numerous limitations. For example, the Conservatives argued that the government had no right to force people to contribute. More practically, only the contributor was entitled to medical treatment and his family were not covered as it had been argued that a healthier male worker would be better able to provide for his family.
Lloyd George’s Liberal government also aimed to help the unemployed. The National Insurance Act Part Two, passed in 1911 was a compulsory scheme of unemployment insurance for trades badly hit by periodic unemployment, such as shipbuilding and construction. Employees, employers and the state paid in 2½d per week into an unemployment fund. In return, workers were paid 7 shillings a week for up to 15 weeks in any year they are unemployed.
This scheme had its problems too though. For example, it was only set up to cover seven trades. Additionally, when long term increased after World War One the system started to crack as there was not enough people in employment and contributing to cover those out of work. However, historians have suggested that prior to this the system had achieved success in helping to improve the lives of those experiencing problems due to seasonal unemployment.
The Liberals renouncing Lasseiz Faire and adopting reform transformed many areas of life in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The introduction of free school meals for poor children achieved limited success in so far as it had a small effect on educational attainment and health standards. Similarly, the pension scheme brought about some improvement for a small number of old people, however by making the receiving age 70, the government did not make significant improvements in tackling poverty among the elderly. The sick gained some living standards improvements via the National Insurance Act Part One. However, again this programme was limited, as it did not cover the contributor’s family. The National Insurance Act also helped improve the lives of the seasonally unemployed. All these measures led to life being better for many than it had been previously, but simply did not do enough to fully alleviate poverty in Britain.
Thursday 11 January 2007
WHY DID BRITAIN BECOME MORE DEMOCRATIC?
WHY DID BRITAIN BECOME MORE DEMOCRATIC?
Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries Britain underwent a sustained period of massive social, economic and political change, which impacted every aspect of life. In the early 1800s Britain was the most technologically advanced nation in the world but was politically backward. Britain was an oligarchy as only 4.71% of the adult population were enfranchised and this minority was invariably the landed social elite. Additionally, the British electoral system was susceptible to bribery and corruption and Britain was an agrarian society.
However, by the end of the 19th century, there had been massive urbanisation, the British population had skyrocketed, the nation’s wealth had been redistributed by the Industrial Revolution and a new “middle class” had been created.
The first set of factors leading to democratic reform it is necessary to address are the social changes occurring between 1832 and 1928.
Firstly, the population of Britain increased exponentially. In 1831, the population was 18 million and by 1918 this figure had exceeded 40 million. In addition, this larger population had become more urbanised. As Britain became increasingly industrial, the majority of work was in the cities and consequently there was a mass exodus of agricultural labourers to the major cities.
Not only was the population larger and more urbanised, it grew increasingly inter-connected. In 1848, there was a mere 7360 km of rail track in Britain and by 1914 this had become 28800 km. Few country towns were far from a station an cities were the focus of major lines. This new rail system connected Britain like never before. There were many connotations of this, reverberating through every aspect of life in Britain. News spread at previously unheard of speed and this increased class awareness and interest in politics nationwide.
This was augmented by the passing of the 1870 and 1872 Education Acts, which increased the number of children included in compulsory schooling and detailed how long they must stay in education. This resulted in an increase in the intelligence of the average British person. This, it could be argued resulted in an increase in their political interest and capability. Some historians have argued that this was a key factor in the middle class’ demand for the vote. It also helped to debunk the long held belief among the upper class that the working class were an inferior, uneducated rabble.
Similarly, during the period under discussion the social role and perception of women changed radically. In the 1800’s women’s education, wage rates and legal status were invariably inferior to that of men. Women were seen as their husband’s possessions and if they did not marry, their standard of living was likely to be very low. This society did not see women as worthy of the franchise. However, by the passing of the 1918 Representation of the people act - in which some women were enfranchised- this had changed.
One factor prompting this was the Suffragette campaign. The Suffragettes were a political pressure group seeking women’s suffrage. They were formed by Mrs Emmeline Pankhurst who broke away from the moderate Suffragists to form her own, more radical, group. The Suffragette motto was “deeds not words”, their methods were ostentatiously unlawful and their campaign of civil disobedience frequently resulted in jail sentences. As the Suffragette campaign became increasingly violent in the early 20th century, public and political opposition to the cause of women’s suffrage stepped up.
However, this was balanced by the work of women during the First World War. While many men were abroad fighting, women filled their jobs an kept the home front running. There were many implications of this including; the perception of women changed. As they were seen to be carrying out men’s jobs they were perceived to be equally capable along side men. Additionally some historian have expressed the view that after the First World War the government felt obliged to give women the franchise as an acknowledgement of their work during wartime.
Another factor in women’s enfranchisement was the election of David Lloyd-George as Prime Minister during the Great War. It has been suggested that Lloyd-George was more ready to accept reform than his predecessor Herbert Asquith.
In keeping with the theme of World War One, it can be suggested that one factor in the enfranchisement of all men over 21 in 1918 was the government attempting to reward the soldiers who were returning home. A more cynical interpretation of this could be that the government felt that if these men were willing to fight and indeed die for their country then they should have a say in the country’s running.
Moreover, we must critically examine the economic factors prompting reform.
As aforementioned, the Industrial Revolution sent shockwaves through every aspect of British life. So much so that Thompson argues that: “ the Industrial revolution was the major factor in reform.” Britain was the first country in world to enter into this accelerated period of development and prosperity. Britain was in control of a massive empire. However, in spite of this dominance, Britain was politically backward. For example, in New Zealand, universal suffrage had been established while one third of men and no women in Britain had the vote. More significantly, by the 1900’s Germany had caught up with Britain economically and overtaken politically. It has been argued that reform was a product of this rivalry.
In addition, the industrial revolution had brought new wealth to many factory owners and businessmen. This new “middle class” bridged the gap between the landed elite and lowly working class. They were the cornerstone of British prosperity and industrial might. Consequently, they were seen as respectable and worthy of the franchise.
Similarly, towards the latter part of the 19th century, trade unionism had become increasingly prominent. This ideology had previously been seen as revolutionary as it prompted class awareness and galvanised the working class. It facilitated betted working conditions and induced reform.
From this unionism sprung the Labour movement and in 1906, the Labour Party. Cole argues that: ”the formation of the Labour Party was a major factor in reform.” By the formation of Labour, some working men had been given the vote and Labour offered them representation. This threatened the Tories and the Whigs and was a factor leading to their political pragmatism. They were forced to refine their policy and party structure and make an effort to appeal to the working class in order to compete with Labour.
Similarly, the lower classes increasingly saw socialism as a vehicle to improve their dreadful conditions. This worried the Tories and the Whigs and they felt they needed to appease the working man in order to turn him away from the socialist ideology. This undoubtedly encouraged political reform.
Political pragmatism did not only affect political parties, many politicians showed strong self-interest. By the 1860’s politicians supporting reform became public heroes. Some historians have argued that a major factor in reform was the rivalry between the Tories and the Whigs, and more specifically that between the parties leaders, Disraeli and Gladstone, the two most prominent politicians of the day. The Tories wanted to “dish the Whigs”. They believed that by enfranchising the working man they would secure his vote in future. Disraeli seize an opportunity for reform when the Liberal government collapsed over the issue of how much reform should be given and the Tories took power. It has been suggested by John Kerr that this was a key factor in the passing of the 1867 Reform Act.
It could be argued that political reform was caused by the cumulative effect of all the factors mentioned above. However, the Industrial Revolution can certainly be cited as a significant factor prompting reform as it had so many effects and changed the social and political structures in Britain so much that politics had no choice but to catch up .
However, it could also be argued that Cole was justified in his opinion that the formation of the Labour party was the most prevalent factor causing reform as the Whigs and the Tories were threatened into making changes.
It could also be said that the increased national communication and education and the consequential rise in class awareness, intelligence and political interest was a massive factor causing reform as British citizens were compelled to demand a say in their countries running.
Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries Britain underwent a sustained period of massive social, economic and political change, which impacted every aspect of life. In the early 1800s Britain was the most technologically advanced nation in the world but was politically backward. Britain was an oligarchy as only 4.71% of the adult population were enfranchised and this minority was invariably the landed social elite. Additionally, the British electoral system was susceptible to bribery and corruption and Britain was an agrarian society.
However, by the end of the 19th century, there had been massive urbanisation, the British population had skyrocketed, the nation’s wealth had been redistributed by the Industrial Revolution and a new “middle class” had been created.
The first set of factors leading to democratic reform it is necessary to address are the social changes occurring between 1832 and 1928.
Firstly, the population of Britain increased exponentially. In 1831, the population was 18 million and by 1918 this figure had exceeded 40 million. In addition, this larger population had become more urbanised. As Britain became increasingly industrial, the majority of work was in the cities and consequently there was a mass exodus of agricultural labourers to the major cities.
Not only was the population larger and more urbanised, it grew increasingly inter-connected. In 1848, there was a mere 7360 km of rail track in Britain and by 1914 this had become 28800 km. Few country towns were far from a station an cities were the focus of major lines. This new rail system connected Britain like never before. There were many connotations of this, reverberating through every aspect of life in Britain. News spread at previously unheard of speed and this increased class awareness and interest in politics nationwide.
This was augmented by the passing of the 1870 and 1872 Education Acts, which increased the number of children included in compulsory schooling and detailed how long they must stay in education. This resulted in an increase in the intelligence of the average British person. This, it could be argued resulted in an increase in their political interest and capability. Some historians have argued that this was a key factor in the middle class’ demand for the vote. It also helped to debunk the long held belief among the upper class that the working class were an inferior, uneducated rabble.
Similarly, during the period under discussion the social role and perception of women changed radically. In the 1800’s women’s education, wage rates and legal status were invariably inferior to that of men. Women were seen as their husband’s possessions and if they did not marry, their standard of living was likely to be very low. This society did not see women as worthy of the franchise. However, by the passing of the 1918 Representation of the people act - in which some women were enfranchised- this had changed.
One factor prompting this was the Suffragette campaign. The Suffragettes were a political pressure group seeking women’s suffrage. They were formed by Mrs Emmeline Pankhurst who broke away from the moderate Suffragists to form her own, more radical, group. The Suffragette motto was “deeds not words”, their methods were ostentatiously unlawful and their campaign of civil disobedience frequently resulted in jail sentences. As the Suffragette campaign became increasingly violent in the early 20th century, public and political opposition to the cause of women’s suffrage stepped up.
However, this was balanced by the work of women during the First World War. While many men were abroad fighting, women filled their jobs an kept the home front running. There were many implications of this including; the perception of women changed. As they were seen to be carrying out men’s jobs they were perceived to be equally capable along side men. Additionally some historian have expressed the view that after the First World War the government felt obliged to give women the franchise as an acknowledgement of their work during wartime.
Another factor in women’s enfranchisement was the election of David Lloyd-George as Prime Minister during the Great War. It has been suggested that Lloyd-George was more ready to accept reform than his predecessor Herbert Asquith.
In keeping with the theme of World War One, it can be suggested that one factor in the enfranchisement of all men over 21 in 1918 was the government attempting to reward the soldiers who were returning home. A more cynical interpretation of this could be that the government felt that if these men were willing to fight and indeed die for their country then they should have a say in the country’s running.
Moreover, we must critically examine the economic factors prompting reform.
As aforementioned, the Industrial Revolution sent shockwaves through every aspect of British life. So much so that Thompson argues that: “ the Industrial revolution was the major factor in reform.” Britain was the first country in world to enter into this accelerated period of development and prosperity. Britain was in control of a massive empire. However, in spite of this dominance, Britain was politically backward. For example, in New Zealand, universal suffrage had been established while one third of men and no women in Britain had the vote. More significantly, by the 1900’s Germany had caught up with Britain economically and overtaken politically. It has been argued that reform was a product of this rivalry.
In addition, the industrial revolution had brought new wealth to many factory owners and businessmen. This new “middle class” bridged the gap between the landed elite and lowly working class. They were the cornerstone of British prosperity and industrial might. Consequently, they were seen as respectable and worthy of the franchise.
Similarly, towards the latter part of the 19th century, trade unionism had become increasingly prominent. This ideology had previously been seen as revolutionary as it prompted class awareness and galvanised the working class. It facilitated betted working conditions and induced reform.
From this unionism sprung the Labour movement and in 1906, the Labour Party. Cole argues that: ”the formation of the Labour Party was a major factor in reform.” By the formation of Labour, some working men had been given the vote and Labour offered them representation. This threatened the Tories and the Whigs and was a factor leading to their political pragmatism. They were forced to refine their policy and party structure and make an effort to appeal to the working class in order to compete with Labour.
Similarly, the lower classes increasingly saw socialism as a vehicle to improve their dreadful conditions. This worried the Tories and the Whigs and they felt they needed to appease the working man in order to turn him away from the socialist ideology. This undoubtedly encouraged political reform.
Political pragmatism did not only affect political parties, many politicians showed strong self-interest. By the 1860’s politicians supporting reform became public heroes. Some historians have argued that a major factor in reform was the rivalry between the Tories and the Whigs, and more specifically that between the parties leaders, Disraeli and Gladstone, the two most prominent politicians of the day. The Tories wanted to “dish the Whigs”. They believed that by enfranchising the working man they would secure his vote in future. Disraeli seize an opportunity for reform when the Liberal government collapsed over the issue of how much reform should be given and the Tories took power. It has been suggested by John Kerr that this was a key factor in the passing of the 1867 Reform Act.
It could be argued that political reform was caused by the cumulative effect of all the factors mentioned above. However, the Industrial Revolution can certainly be cited as a significant factor prompting reform as it had so many effects and changed the social and political structures in Britain so much that politics had no choice but to catch up .
However, it could also be argued that Cole was justified in his opinion that the formation of the Labour party was the most prevalent factor causing reform as the Whigs and the Tories were threatened into making changes.
It could also be said that the increased national communication and education and the consequential rise in class awareness, intelligence and political interest was a massive factor causing reform as British citizens were compelled to demand a say in their countries running.
WHY DID THE LIBERALS PASS THEIR REFORMS BETWEEN 1906 AND 1914?
WHY DID THE LIBERALS PASS THEIR REFORMS BETWEEN 1906 AND 1914?
By the beginning of the 20th century poverty had become a massive problem. A German reformer, Friedrick Engals gave this vivid account of life in a Victorian town: “A horde of ragged women and children swarm about, a filthy as the swine who thrive on the garbage heaps and in the puddles… The race that lives in these ruinous cottages behind broken windows… or in dark, wet cellars in measureless filth and stench… must really have reached the lowest stages of humanity.” Engals was not exaggerating. Poverty was staggering. 60 of every 100 babies born in Manchester died before they reached the age of 5. Alcoholism, prostitution, cholera and overcrowding ran rife.
Still, the government saw poverty as the fault of the poor themselves. Norman Pearson, a nineteenth century writer believed the poor were made of “inferior material”. From this standpoint came the political ideology of Lasseiz Faire, literally: governmental non-intervention.
However this changed when between 1906 and 1914 the Liberal government under Disralei embarked on one of the largest programmes of social reform ever undertaken.
There were many factors prompting this reform. As we have seen, poverty was a massive problem as was highlighted by contemporary poverty reports. Two of the most prominent at the time were Booth and Rowntree whose studies into poverty were conducted in London and York respectively. They highlighted the scale of the problem, with both sets of results calculating that almost 30% of people in these cities could not afford basic necessities. The very fact that the results in York were as bad as those in London showed a problem as it had previously been thought that London was an isolated area of poverty.
Some historians have suggested that reform came about simply out of the government’s genuine desire to help. The Liberals had come to accept that poverty had become so bad that things absolutely had to change. This new departure from Lasseiz Faire and policy of intervention was called “New Liberalism”. The appointment of a new generation of Liberals such as David Lloyd George to important government positions prompted reform.
However, it has also been suggested that the Liberals were playing for political advantage. Since 1884, most workingmen had the vote and the Liberals wanted to attract these votes. H. Geoffrey states: “Political pragmatism was a major factor in reform”. The Liberals believed that if they were seen to be sympathetic and helping the poor then they would gain these votes in the future. It is could be argued that the liberals did not fully believe in government intervention, taking reformative action to benefit them politically.
Moreover, the formation of the Labour Party in 1906 threatened the ability of the Liberals to win the votes of the working class. It has been suggested that this pressured the Liberals into reform as they felt that if they did not take action then they would loose power. There was no grand plan for the welfare reforms, the government simply went about business on a day-to-day basis doing what they thought was best for them. The historian D. Fraser claims: “the formation of the Labour Party was the most significant factor in political reform.”
Another factor prompting reform was the concern over national defence and security. They majority of soldiers generally came from the working class and at the outbreak of the Boer war in 1899, 25% of volunteers were deemed “not fit to serve”. Britain had a massive global empire, which it needed to defend; this could not be achieved if the army was so weak. T Ferguson suggests that: ”poor health due to malnutrition” was a major factor in the Liberals passing their reforms. Many people in the early 1900’s anticipated World War 1 and felt that the British army would be unable to defend herself against a strong foreign force.
Similarly, there were concerns over national efficiency. By the end of the 19th century, Britain was no longer the world’s greatest economical and industrial super power and was facing real competition from newly emerging industrial nations such as Germany and Japan. Poor British labourers were weak and it was suggested that British economic power would be further reduced if the workforce was not improved.
In keeping with the theme of international competition, Germany had had a system of social welfare, such as benefits and old age pensions in place since the 1880’s. many historians have suggested that Britain felt pressured in to matching her main competitors reforms. In fact it has been suggested that the British pension system was based closely on that of Germany.
There were many social, economic and political factors causing the Liberal government to launch into a massive programme of social reform between 1906 and 1904. Based on the evidence presented above, it is fair to suggest that there were a multitude of reasons for this drastic change of policy. The pressure on the government induced by poverty reports and the dismantling of the myth that London was an isolated, problematic area were certainly significant in reform happening. The Liberal’s political pragmatism and their strong belief that a policy of reform would win them favour, and elections, also helped prompt reform. Moreover, the concern over national security and efficiency undoubtedly gave the government a practical incentive to improve living standards. British pride and the ongoing economic and military rivalry it held with Germany was also a factor. However, it has also been suggested that reform was the effect of the accumulation of all of the above factors and was an inevitability given the stranglehold poverty had on the British public.
By the beginning of the 20th century poverty had become a massive problem. A German reformer, Friedrick Engals gave this vivid account of life in a Victorian town: “A horde of ragged women and children swarm about, a filthy as the swine who thrive on the garbage heaps and in the puddles… The race that lives in these ruinous cottages behind broken windows… or in dark, wet cellars in measureless filth and stench… must really have reached the lowest stages of humanity.” Engals was not exaggerating. Poverty was staggering. 60 of every 100 babies born in Manchester died before they reached the age of 5. Alcoholism, prostitution, cholera and overcrowding ran rife.
Still, the government saw poverty as the fault of the poor themselves. Norman Pearson, a nineteenth century writer believed the poor were made of “inferior material”. From this standpoint came the political ideology of Lasseiz Faire, literally: governmental non-intervention.
However this changed when between 1906 and 1914 the Liberal government under Disralei embarked on one of the largest programmes of social reform ever undertaken.
There were many factors prompting this reform. As we have seen, poverty was a massive problem as was highlighted by contemporary poverty reports. Two of the most prominent at the time were Booth and Rowntree whose studies into poverty were conducted in London and York respectively. They highlighted the scale of the problem, with both sets of results calculating that almost 30% of people in these cities could not afford basic necessities. The very fact that the results in York were as bad as those in London showed a problem as it had previously been thought that London was an isolated area of poverty.
Some historians have suggested that reform came about simply out of the government’s genuine desire to help. The Liberals had come to accept that poverty had become so bad that things absolutely had to change. This new departure from Lasseiz Faire and policy of intervention was called “New Liberalism”. The appointment of a new generation of Liberals such as David Lloyd George to important government positions prompted reform.
However, it has also been suggested that the Liberals were playing for political advantage. Since 1884, most workingmen had the vote and the Liberals wanted to attract these votes. H. Geoffrey states: “Political pragmatism was a major factor in reform”. The Liberals believed that if they were seen to be sympathetic and helping the poor then they would gain these votes in the future. It is could be argued that the liberals did not fully believe in government intervention, taking reformative action to benefit them politically.
Moreover, the formation of the Labour Party in 1906 threatened the ability of the Liberals to win the votes of the working class. It has been suggested that this pressured the Liberals into reform as they felt that if they did not take action then they would loose power. There was no grand plan for the welfare reforms, the government simply went about business on a day-to-day basis doing what they thought was best for them. The historian D. Fraser claims: “the formation of the Labour Party was the most significant factor in political reform.”
Another factor prompting reform was the concern over national defence and security. They majority of soldiers generally came from the working class and at the outbreak of the Boer war in 1899, 25% of volunteers were deemed “not fit to serve”. Britain had a massive global empire, which it needed to defend; this could not be achieved if the army was so weak. T Ferguson suggests that: ”poor health due to malnutrition” was a major factor in the Liberals passing their reforms. Many people in the early 1900’s anticipated World War 1 and felt that the British army would be unable to defend herself against a strong foreign force.
Similarly, there were concerns over national efficiency. By the end of the 19th century, Britain was no longer the world’s greatest economical and industrial super power and was facing real competition from newly emerging industrial nations such as Germany and Japan. Poor British labourers were weak and it was suggested that British economic power would be further reduced if the workforce was not improved.
In keeping with the theme of international competition, Germany had had a system of social welfare, such as benefits and old age pensions in place since the 1880’s. many historians have suggested that Britain felt pressured in to matching her main competitors reforms. In fact it has been suggested that the British pension system was based closely on that of Germany.
There were many social, economic and political factors causing the Liberal government to launch into a massive programme of social reform between 1906 and 1904. Based on the evidence presented above, it is fair to suggest that there were a multitude of reasons for this drastic change of policy. The pressure on the government induced by poverty reports and the dismantling of the myth that London was an isolated, problematic area were certainly significant in reform happening. The Liberal’s political pragmatism and their strong belief that a policy of reform would win them favour, and elections, also helped prompt reform. Moreover, the concern over national security and efficiency undoubtedly gave the government a practical incentive to improve living standards. British pride and the ongoing economic and military rivalry it held with Germany was also a factor. However, it has also been suggested that reform was the effect of the accumulation of all of the above factors and was an inevitability given the stranglehold poverty had on the British public.
HOW DEMOCRATIC WAS BRITAIN BY 1910?
HOW DEMOCRATIC WAS BRITAIN BY 1910?
In order for any state to be deemed democratic, certain conditions must be in place. Primarily, universal suffrage must exist for all adults. However, this alone does not create a democracy. Additionally, there must be a choice of political parties at elections and the winning party must represent the voters. The electoral system itself must be free from bribery and corruption. Moreover there should be free and equal access to the political process and parliament must be accountable to the people. Former president of the United States of America Abraham Lincoln had famously defined democracy as : “a government of the people, by the people, for the people.”
Between mid-Victorian and Edwardian times, British society underwent a period of massive social, economic and political reformation. In the early 1800’s Britain was an oligarchy. The political process was controlled entirely be the land-owning elite. Only 4.71% of the population were enfranchised and politics was reserved as exclusive to society’s upper strata.
In order to assess how democratic Britain had become by 1914, we must critically examine the democratic reforms and how they facilitated the features of democracy mentioned above.
Firstly, we must address the theme of universal suffrage. The Industrial Revolution redistributed wealth in Britain and the newly created “middle class” yearned for the vote. This led to the passing of the Great Reform Act being passed in 1832. Hill describes this act as “the the first an greatest reform act.” However, this act only extended the vote to around 200,000 more people. In light of this, Hill could be accused of exaggeration and it could be suggested that the 1832 Reform Act had next to no effect on British politics.
The next reform act came in 1867,where the vote was extended to the upper tier of the working class. This was a large step towards democracy. The working class was becoming more informed with the advent of the newspapers and new railways allowed a much greater speed of communication.
However, the poorer working class were still totally unrepresented in parliament. This changed with the passing of the 1884 representation of the people act. This enfranchised many labourers and men in the countryside. Also, the requirements for the vote were evened out across the nation. However, we must be aware of the fact that even after the 1884 Act, a third of British men were still without the vote and women were completely excluded from politics. This was the final major reform act prior to 1910.
We must also analyse the system of voting to establish how democratic Britain had become by 1910. Throughout the 19th century, voting was carried out in public and this left elections susceptible to bribery and corruption. The 1872 secret ballot act was largely effective in bringing such malpractices to an end. Thompson supports this view stating: “after 1872, voters could use their votes freely.” However, it could also be argued that even with the Secret Ballot Act in place, vast sums of money were still being exchanged as bribes at elections. This was remedied by the 1883 Corrupt and Illegal Practises Act which gave a detailed list of all practises surrounding elections would be deemed illegal. The combination of the 1872 and 1883 acts did stop the manipulation of the political process effectively.
We must also consider whether voters had a real choice of political parties to vote for by 1910. In the early 19th century, when only he upper class had the vote, only the upper class needed representation. This meant there only needed to be two political parties. However, as the electorate increased and more social groups were incorporated into politics, there was a growing need for a larger choice of political parties. This call was answered by the formation of the Labour Party in 1906. Labour sought to represent the newly enfranchised middle class, who were not offered any representation by either of the two existing political parties. The formation of this third political party served to make Britain more democratic in another way; it forced the Tories and the Whigs to become more streamlined and clarify their policies. The Tories became the Conservative party and the Whigs the Liberal Party. However, there still was only three political parties to choose from so it is fair to suggest that voters did not have a full range of choices.
Even by 1910, an MP did not receive a wage and so most middle and working class men simply could not afford to run as an MP. There are two negative connotations of this. Firstly, free and equal access to the political process is not afforded to all citizens. Also, some social groups were not fairly represented in parliament.
As aforementioned, newspapers were becoming more accurate and as Britain become more interconnected by rail, they were becoming more readily available. This led to the average British citizen adopting an interest in the running of their country. This, coupled with the 1870 and 1872 Education Acts led to an increase in class awareness and average intelligence Nationwide. It could be argued that this resulted in Britain becoming more democratic as people became more politically capable.
The combined effect of the above factors certainly made Britain a more democratic society. By 1914, the electoral system had been made fair and free of bribery and corruption. Moreover, there was an increased and more diverse electorate who were better educated and more politically capable. A new party had been established and there was real competition for government and representation for all voters. Massive steps towards true democracy had been taken by 1914.
However, Britain was merely a fledgling democracy in comparison with New Zealand or Germany in 1914. By this date, a third of men and no women were not enfranchised and were thus excluded from politics. This was a fundamental flaw of British politics. Additionally, politics was not open to all citizens as it was not a paid position. This meant that, to an extent, politics remained the realm of the wealthy elite. Also, there were only three political parties established.
There is evidence to suggest that by 1914, while significant moves toward democracy had been achieved, Britain was by no means a true democracy, as had been described by Lincoln.
In order for any state to be deemed democratic, certain conditions must be in place. Primarily, universal suffrage must exist for all adults. However, this alone does not create a democracy. Additionally, there must be a choice of political parties at elections and the winning party must represent the voters. The electoral system itself must be free from bribery and corruption. Moreover there should be free and equal access to the political process and parliament must be accountable to the people. Former president of the United States of America Abraham Lincoln had famously defined democracy as : “a government of the people, by the people, for the people.”
Between mid-Victorian and Edwardian times, British society underwent a period of massive social, economic and political reformation. In the early 1800’s Britain was an oligarchy. The political process was controlled entirely be the land-owning elite. Only 4.71% of the population were enfranchised and politics was reserved as exclusive to society’s upper strata.
In order to assess how democratic Britain had become by 1914, we must critically examine the democratic reforms and how they facilitated the features of democracy mentioned above.
Firstly, we must address the theme of universal suffrage. The Industrial Revolution redistributed wealth in Britain and the newly created “middle class” yearned for the vote. This led to the passing of the Great Reform Act being passed in 1832. Hill describes this act as “the the first an greatest reform act.” However, this act only extended the vote to around 200,000 more people. In light of this, Hill could be accused of exaggeration and it could be suggested that the 1832 Reform Act had next to no effect on British politics.
The next reform act came in 1867,where the vote was extended to the upper tier of the working class. This was a large step towards democracy. The working class was becoming more informed with the advent of the newspapers and new railways allowed a much greater speed of communication.
However, the poorer working class were still totally unrepresented in parliament. This changed with the passing of the 1884 representation of the people act. This enfranchised many labourers and men in the countryside. Also, the requirements for the vote were evened out across the nation. However, we must be aware of the fact that even after the 1884 Act, a third of British men were still without the vote and women were completely excluded from politics. This was the final major reform act prior to 1910.
We must also analyse the system of voting to establish how democratic Britain had become by 1910. Throughout the 19th century, voting was carried out in public and this left elections susceptible to bribery and corruption. The 1872 secret ballot act was largely effective in bringing such malpractices to an end. Thompson supports this view stating: “after 1872, voters could use their votes freely.” However, it could also be argued that even with the Secret Ballot Act in place, vast sums of money were still being exchanged as bribes at elections. This was remedied by the 1883 Corrupt and Illegal Practises Act which gave a detailed list of all practises surrounding elections would be deemed illegal. The combination of the 1872 and 1883 acts did stop the manipulation of the political process effectively.
We must also consider whether voters had a real choice of political parties to vote for by 1910. In the early 19th century, when only he upper class had the vote, only the upper class needed representation. This meant there only needed to be two political parties. However, as the electorate increased and more social groups were incorporated into politics, there was a growing need for a larger choice of political parties. This call was answered by the formation of the Labour Party in 1906. Labour sought to represent the newly enfranchised middle class, who were not offered any representation by either of the two existing political parties. The formation of this third political party served to make Britain more democratic in another way; it forced the Tories and the Whigs to become more streamlined and clarify their policies. The Tories became the Conservative party and the Whigs the Liberal Party. However, there still was only three political parties to choose from so it is fair to suggest that voters did not have a full range of choices.
Even by 1910, an MP did not receive a wage and so most middle and working class men simply could not afford to run as an MP. There are two negative connotations of this. Firstly, free and equal access to the political process is not afforded to all citizens. Also, some social groups were not fairly represented in parliament.
As aforementioned, newspapers were becoming more accurate and as Britain become more interconnected by rail, they were becoming more readily available. This led to the average British citizen adopting an interest in the running of their country. This, coupled with the 1870 and 1872 Education Acts led to an increase in class awareness and average intelligence Nationwide. It could be argued that this resulted in Britain becoming more democratic as people became more politically capable.
The combined effect of the above factors certainly made Britain a more democratic society. By 1914, the electoral system had been made fair and free of bribery and corruption. Moreover, there was an increased and more diverse electorate who were better educated and more politically capable. A new party had been established and there was real competition for government and representation for all voters. Massive steps towards true democracy had been taken by 1914.
However, Britain was merely a fledgling democracy in comparison with New Zealand or Germany in 1914. By this date, a third of men and no women were not enfranchised and were thus excluded from politics. This was a fundamental flaw of British politics. Additionally, politics was not open to all citizens as it was not a paid position. This meant that, to an extent, politics remained the realm of the wealthy elite. Also, there were only three political parties established.
There is evidence to suggest that by 1914, while significant moves toward democracy had been achieved, Britain was by no means a true democracy, as had been described by Lincoln.
Blog
So I figured I'd set up a blog.
I need a place to collate all my essays safely so I figured I'd use the net.
Partially inspired by lenum. Seemed like a good idea.
I need a place to collate all my essays safely so I figured I'd use the net.
Partially inspired by lenum. Seemed like a good idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)