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.