Assess the claim that the House of Lords provided the most serious opposition tothe Liberal party(TM)s policy to create a modern welfare state during the period from 1906 to 1914.

Authors Avatar

20/01/2009, JAMES LAWSON

HISTORY, LIBERALS & LABOUR        

MR JEPPESEN

Assess the claim that the House of Lords provided the most serious opposition tothe Liberal party’s policy to create a modern welfare state during the period from 1906 to 1914.

The Liberal reforms signaled a huge change in attitudes with the rise of progressive Liberalism and also helped bring about significant change; garnering much support. However the reforms faced much opposition & hindrance from a variety of different groups. Hostility from the House of Lords actively blocked the progress of Lloyd George’s ‘war budget’ (Lloyd George) which aimed to banish poverty from Britain like the ‘wolves which once infested its forests’, and hence this clash of ideologies brought about a crisis. This was not the only adversary the Liberals had to face, with more radical reform desired by Labour and many workers, anger amongst the Conservatives, and even waning support within the party itself as the reforms alienated more classical Gladstonian Liberals.

Although the reforms provided a fundamental shift of policy against poverty, they failed to achieve the resounding support of the poor, workers or Labour party. The reforms were severely limited as they were not preconceived as a welfare programme and failed to eradicate ‘poverty, and the wretchedness and human degradation which always follows in its camp’ (Lloyd George). The reforms were too limited for Labour party members, and did not achieve enough redistribution of income as they wished. Furthermore, many workers also objected to paying 4d per week to the National Insurance contributions and this lead to the creation of the popular chant "Taffy was a Welshman, Taffy was a thief". This opposition to the party’s attempts to create a welfare state is highlighted by the steady decline of the Liberal support amongst the poor and unions, and also by the ascension of Labour who were able to achieve 42 seats in 1910 highlighting the need for more radical change. However, in reality the opposition from Labour and workers was highly limited as they were happy to embrace as much reform as possible and much of Labour’s rising electoral success resulted from the Lib-Lab pact of 1903. As a result despite being a significant group who were not satisfied by Liberal policy, they did not provide very serious opposition.

Join now!

There was also significant opposition from within the party itself, and its core voter groups of businessmen, skilled workers and middle classes. The reforms were the work of more radical Liberals and conflicted with more classical views of limited intervention and laissez-faire. Many saw this level of government intervention as preventing self-help, decreasing incentive, and encouraging dependency on the state. This animosity against the reform from traditional Liberals was shown for example by the Liberal journalist and editor of the Economist, F. Hirst who wrote negatively about them. Opposition within the party, although rare was also significant, such as Harold ...

This is a preview of the whole essay