Despite questions being raised as to what a woman’s role should be, hardly any action was taken. During wartime, women were still expected to be dutiful homemakers, as well as now being committed workers. The government, in spite of some temporary concessions, had little intention of meaningfully addressing this “double burden”. Politicians knew the obvious necessity of maintaining wartime production, although they were very reluctant to alter women’s role in the family. This resulted in an unwillingness to ensure any lasting or general changes to the social order in favour of meeting the needs of working wives and mothers. Even the frequently cited provision of state day nurseries for working mothers, which was undoubtedly a major improvement, was in itself the outcome of intense ideological debate between realists like Bevin in the Ministry of Labour and the traditionalists of the Ministry of Health. Although Bevin appeared to win, as witnessed by the fact that 1345 nurseries had been established by 1943 (compared with 14 existing in 1940), this did not represent a real victory for women workers. Firstly, it failed to satisfy the enormous demand or indeed to provide childcare for the duration of the mothers’ working day and secondly, it was always clear that this was a wartime introduction only. What the government provided, the government could easily remove.
Having said this, one wartime concession made by the government which still remains today is the advent of part-time work. This was undoubtedly a huge step forward as it gave women the freedom to work. Even so, the jobs which women were able to find were very poorly paid. During wartime, women worked for 60 per cent of the male wage. The Equal Pay Commission was set up in 1943 to try and recognise this. However, the commission was ineffective. Of course, it would have been remarkable if women had achieved equality in the workplace during wartime. This is because the fight for equal wages and equal rights with men is still going on today. Although this fight began, in many ways during World War Two. For the first time, women began to question social and economic rules and demand equal access to educational and career options.
Initially, the government made little action to meet these demands. It was commonly believed amongst politicians and trade unions at the time that women’s employment would end with the war. Many thought that when the war was over, there would be a shift back to the old values. This belief was shared by the women workers themselves. A survey conducted during wartime revealed that most women expected to lose their jobs once war had ended. One young married woman believed that “You can’t look on anything you do during the war as what you really mean to do: it’s just filling in time till you can live you own life again”. Another wartime survey demonstrated that three-quarters of women would give up work when they got married. This shows there was an element of continuity with the 1930s and that the war had changed very little. If the war had made any changes in the image of women, they were superficial and temporary. The reality was that most women returned to being homemakers during the prosperity of the 1950s. At the end of the war, there was a widespread fear that there would be another depression once the wartime economy was shut down. Therefore, women were asked to do their part by leaving the job market. This came as a relief to many women workers as they wanted to start families now that their husbands had returned. The evidence for this lies in an area known as the baby boom, when the birth rate soared dramatically after the war. The women workers who wanted to stay on were given very few options. Campaigns were set up by returning soldiers to put pressure on women to vacate their jobs. As a result of this, many women stopped working or were sacked so that the soldiers could be re-employed.
Despite the fact that the returning soldiers wanted continuity in the sense of getting their old jobs back, most were anxious for change. The great social-leveling influence of the war meant that they wanted a turn-around in the status quo. Members of the British armed forces were considerably better educated than they had been in the First World War. The soldier returning from the war was no longer in awe of his leaders; he had mixed loyalties. He was resentful of unemployment, wishing for a greater share in the nation's post-war restructuring and he did not trust a Conservative government to tackle the enormous social economic and political problems that they had done very little to solve between the wars. He wished for a change. As a consequence, Winston Churchill, who led Britain to victory during the war, found himself as a member of the opposition when the election of 1945 returned the Labour Party to power with a huge majority. This was perhaps one of the greatest swings of public confidence of the 20th century. Labour won overwhelming support while Churchill was left both surprised and stunned by the crushing defeat suffered by his Conservatives. How this swing of opinion came about is not only due the failings of the Conservative Party but also to Labour’s manifesto of social reform.
‘Let Us Face the Future’ captured the public mood for change that the war had created. In the manifesto, Labour offered a new comprehensive welfare policy that recognised the growing sense of social awareness. British civilians were ready and willing to give anything a go to improve their country and create a “Better Britain for All”. This transformation in public opinion can largely be attributed to the war. The hardship that Britons faced during wartime produced a desire for a better standard of living. As the war was coming to an end, people were looking for a new social change and a better tomorrow. This view was also held by Labour. With the same ideas as the British people, Labour wanted to create a new Britain, one in which everyone would benefit and would receive the same. This proved to be irresistible for voters. Also as a result of the war, it was acknowledged that state intervention was the only option to solve the deep social problems of Britain, which is the opposite of what the laissez-faire Conservatives would do. Many voters were also attracted to the party because of their determination to build “the New Jerusalem”.
In order to build this “New Jerusalem”, Labour politicains would apply the lessons of history and transform the role of government. Building on wartime experiences and institutions, they would make government into the protector and partner of the people and take on responsibility for the well-being of its citizens to a far greater extent than had been the case before the war. Moreover, Labour had the blueprint at hand. It was in the Beveridge Report, prepared by a government appointed commission during World War II under William Beveridge, a civil servant who had been head of the London School of Economics. The report proposed that all people of working age should pay a weekly national insurance contribution. In return, benefits would be paid to people who were sick, unemployed, retired or widowed. Beveridge argued that this system would provide a minimum standard of living “below which no one should be allowed to fall”. Beveridge recommended that the government should find ways of fighting the “Five Giants” of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. Socially within Britain, many people had witnessed the “Five Giants” at first hand with the evacuation of cities. Derek Fraser tells us “Bombs, unlike employment, knew no social distinctions…rich and poor alike were affected in the need for shelter and protection…Food rationing produced common shortage”. It is for this reason, alongside the popularity of the Beveridge Report, that universalism became the attitude for the Welfare State’s induction, as social justice and equality were in demand.
Although Beveridge laid down the foundation of the Welfare State, state provision was being made long before his report in 1942. Beveridge’s policies were said to be “evolutionary and not revolutionary” and I believe that this is because his ideas were based on previous legislations, which he simply brought up to date. It is proven by the number of similarities between Beveridge’s policies and the policies that had been in use previously e.g.; David Lloyd George’s 1911 insurance proposals. Even though the legislation put into practice had many clear references to past reforms, the ideas behind Labour’s reforms had changed. The need and public desire for a comprehensive, cohesive and universal Welfare State led to both the election of the party that embraced this idea to the greatest extent and the introduction of the reforms themselves. The impact of the war upon social philosophy led so quickly to the reforms as the psychological effects persuaded Britons to vote Labour.
Many see 1945 as the start of the end of the old established order that dominated Britain for centuries. Afterall, Labour had its first majority government which reflects a significant change in popular opinion. Also, the programme of nationalisation was the embodiment of socialism, as was the NHS. This was something completely new for Britain. But if we compare the effects of the war on Britain, with the effects of the war on Germany for example, we’d acknowledge that not much changed. Germany went from a dictatorship to a democracy. For Britain, the war brought no constitutional reform, only the consolidation of a Labour-Tory two-party system. Yet the uniqueness of British war experience lies in the combination of a threat of invasion, real but relatively limited civilian casualties and hardship, and a process of democratic mobilisation. British society was threatened and suffered, enough to have radicalising social effects; but not so much as to lead to defeat. Post-war British democracy was forged as a result of a severe test of state and society, in which the state directly mobilised society and society was in turn able to secure major reforms. Of course, there are other factors that contributed to the social reform aside from World War Two. The reform resulted partly from an awareness of the revolt generated in the first war, the disillusionment at the failure of social reform after it, and the need to overcome the resentments of the depression. If anything symbolised the change in society it was this programme of reforms that targeted the less well off. Without World War Two, these reforms, which are still relevant today, would never have been introduced. Therefore, I am inclined to agree with the view that the war produced major and long lasting changes in British society.
