Disraeli possessed neither a coherent social policy nor genuine interest in social problems. Discuss.

Authors Avatar

Disraeli possessed neither a coherent social policy nor  genuine interest in social problems. Discuss.

Social reform under Disraeli was one of the most complicated aspects of Disraelian conservatism because, as with all reforming governments of the day, there was always a conflict of interests. It is difficult to state with any assertion that Disraeli did or didn’t have a coherent social policy or a genuine interest in social problems because his ‘One Nation’ branch of conservatism, which is essence was to strengthen the importance of family, community and church alongside the need of the nation, and his Young England routes gave him the potential to be a reforming conservative leader whilst his obvious commitment to laissez-faire and the maintenance of the Monarch, the Anglican Church and the Aristocracy, dictated by his belief in the conservative party, almost ruled out any possibility of social reform. Combine these ideals with the fact that this was one of the most active periods of reform in the 19th century and a complicated situation emerges. The fact that Disraeli never aligned himself with one particular conservative ideal suggests that there was not coherent social policy planned, otherwise the ‘One National’ ideal would be much more apparent from him as it allowed for social reform to materialise. As to whether he himself had any genuine interest, there is sufficient evidence to suggest this was not the case.

        Many of the earlier social reforms, and also some of the most successful did were not proposed or produced by the conservatives, they were the work of the liberals, reborn by the conservatives and this suggests that the conservatives entered office without a specific plan of social reform of their own. The Employers and Workmen Act, which lifted the prohibition on peaceful picketing and the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act which gave workers a legal right to sue employers in the civil courts if they broke legally agreed contracts, both highlight the absence of a social policy and a genuine interest in their success. First off the Acts were never fully enforced, and after a successful honeymoon period the courts soon began to interpret much of the act in favor of the factory owners rendering them of little use to those who needed them most – the working class campaigning for a better working life. Secondly the ideas originally came from the liberal ideas dating as far back as 1871, and whilst Disraeli had to battle for the measure against a hostile cabinet, his true interest in the success of the acts were not that it benefited the people but that it would secure more votes and improve his image - a theme that is not uncommon in Disraeli‘s social reform. Similarly the Artisans Dwellings Act, which at the time was a landmark act, giving local government the powers of compulsory purchase of slums with the intent to improve them and laying down minimum requirements of size, space and sanitation, was again a liberal suggestion from as far back as 1868. it can be argued that this act, with its groundbreaking and extensive laws could only have been introduced because Disraeli and the Conservatives truly wanted the living conditions of English people to improve, that it was the heart of One Nation Conservatism.  However the act became so expensive to implement because of the extent of the slums, requirements of the Act and the lack of government funding because that would have been against the principle of laissez-faire and thus the conservatives meant that the act was rarely used, the most extensive use came from radical Birmingham mayor Joseph Chamberlain which was aligned to the liberals. The fact that it was to be private companies that built the houses was probably the biggest block to its success as the poor could not afford the rents charged to ensure a profit for the company. Had there been a genuine interest in the problems of the slums it is likely that Disraeli would have altered the proposals to ensure that they achieved what was intended – the improvement of living conditions. Disraeli only implemented that Act because he knew some action had to be taken as his ’One Nation’ ideal dictated this, but his commitment to laissez-faire dictated that there should be little intervention resulted in the Act never really succeeding. Disraeli’s interests were to keep his position rather than putting right what was wrong regardless of what threat to his position there was. Peel paved the way for Disraeli to be committed to reform that may not have been received well, but Disraeli did not have that characteristic and his failure to follow this path shows that he was never genuinely interested in tedious social reform, especially when he could be improving his kudos through imperial policy. Again the conservative appear to have no specific plan of their own, using proposals that have been in existence for some years to their benefit. There is, of course, the suggestion that the Acts used by the conservatives were done so because they felt that there was no need to improve them, and the absence of any distinct conservative elements could suggest that they were genuine but it is more likely that the lack of conservative elements is because there was no real interest in it.

Join now!

        The amendments to the licensing laws and the proposal of other measures to improve public heath, whilst sharing similar aims and thus complying to some sort of coherence, completely failed to win the interest of Disraeli , as shown by their clear shortcomings. The revised licensing laws, originating from pressure by the United Kingdom Alliance and its fellow temperance organization the Band of Hope Union were supposed limit the sale of alcohol through the requirement of a license to sell it, did the opposite of what was intended extending licensing hours in some cases. Similarly measures to protect rivers from excessive ...

This is a preview of the whole essay