To what extent were the welfare reforms of the Liberal governments between 1906 and 1914 prompted by concerns over National Efficiency

by guppy123 (student)

To what extent were the welfare reforms of the Liberal governments between 1906 and 1914 prompted by concerns over ‘National Efficiency’

By 1906, various social problems had been created by industrialisation in towns, and these problems were becoming increasingly widespread. For example, the poverty investigation carried out by Booth between 1889 and 1903 produced a massive report which concluded that over 30% of all people in London were living below the poverty line, earning barely enough to survive. As well as the growth in social problems in Britain, politicians were becoming increasingly wary of the rise of Germany and its economic power, and many feared it would soon overtake Britain on the world stage. Between the period of 1906 and 1914, the Liberal government at the time tried to tackle these social problems, as well as the threat of Germany and the matter of national efficiency, through a series of reforms. Many historians believe the government passed these reforms mainly to solve the ‘national efficiency’ problem, which is most likely the main reason for the passing of the reforms, which had been made painfully aware to the government during the Boer War of 1899 to 1902, where almost 40% of all volunteers had been unit to serve. An example of just how bad the situation is that in one part of Manchester only 1200 men out of 9200 volunteers could be accepted. Many politicians feared Britain would be under threat if nothing was done; this prompted many to take action. However, some historians, such as Roy Hay, claim the reforms were simply passed as a method of social control and to gain a political advantage over the Tories and to stop the growth of the newly founded Labour party. Despite their being other causes for the reforms being passed, it is obvious the main reason was fear among politicians over National Efficiency.

After the Boer War, where 40% of all volunteers were rejected due to poor health, the government realised just how the serious the national problems were. It was not only politicians from just one party that were concerned by Britain’s various social problems, either, but members of all parties, both right and left, became increasingly concerned about the threat they could have to national efficiency and the security of the country. One Liberal MP is quoted as saying: “Empire cannot be built on rickety and flat chests.” This quote shows that politicians were becoming increasingly concerned by the threat the poor health of the nation may have on its power and influence, this fear was only increased by the growing economic and military power of Germany. It seems to suggest many politicians had finally realised just how seriously reforms were needed, but many felt they were only needed to solve the problem of the countries security, and did not support them for any other reason, such as genuine concern. As well as the actual defence of the country, both politicians and businessmen were concerned that Britain’s economy would start to lag behind the rest of the worlds, especially Germany and the US if something was not done about the unfit and poorly educated work force. Many industrialists started lobbying the government in order to force them into taking action. An example of this happening is the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce lobbying for a health insurance scheme like the one Germany had implemented, a similar scheme was soon implemented by Lloyd-George, this shows the reforms passed were not just due to concern over national efficiency from politicians, but also from many businessmen who relied on a healthy population. The various issues – healthy children, good food, public health and welfare – were kept at the top of the national priorities during the period due to the various campaigns ran. For many Liberals who already believed that action needed to be taken, known as ‘New Liberals’, the argument of national efficiency simply helped to persuade them they were right, and they often used the argument that Britain would fall behind the rest of the world if nothing was done. Although this was a major reason for why the Liberal government passed the reforms, it was most definitely not the only reason, and many historians believe political motives played a bigger role in persuading many MP’s to support the reforms, however, although political motives did play a major part in helping to persuade many politicians to support reform, it is more likely that the average politician was not selfish to value personal success over the safety of the entire country, so national efficiency was a more important reason for the passing of reform.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Although many historians believe national efficiency was the main reason for the reforms being passed, many others, such as Roy Hay, believe it was simply politicians trying to control society and prevent revolution while doing as little as possible, as well as gaining an advantage over the other main parties: Labour and the Tories. After 1906 the Labour party had 53 MP’s in the Commons, and their influence continued to grow during the period as they won several key bi-elections. The Liberal party feared that if nothing was done to solve the social problems of the country, then many of their working class voters would start voting Labour instead, the fear of this happening was enough to make many Liberal MP’s support the reforms in parliament. Evidence for this being the case is an extract from one of Asquith’s speeches on the matter:

“If at the end of an average term of officer it were found that a Liberal parliament had done nothing to cope seriously with the social conditions of the people, to remove the national degradation of slums and widespread poverty and destitution in a land glittering wit wealth”

This showed that even though Asquith himself may have had other reasons for supporting the reforms, he knew that showing many Liberal MP’s what could happen if they did not take action on the matters would persuade many of them to support the reforms, not because they particularly cared about the issue, but because they did not want to have their seats threatened. Further evidence for the Liberals being worried by the rise of the Labour party is that they stole many Labour ideas, and made them their own. For example the Old Age Pensions Act was originally an idea proposed by Labour MP’s, but the bill was hijacked by the Liberals, who hoped that by passing it themselves they would gain votes from the working class, this is very clearly evidence that shows that a major reason for the passing of many of the reforms in the period was to gain a political advantage over other parties, in particular the Labour party. As well as fear of the Labour party, many politicians feared the growth of socialism – there was over 40 million hours lose to strike action in 1912 – and Roy Hay argues this was the main reason for the passing of reform; the government was desperate to prevent a revolution from happening, and they hoped social reform would allow for more social control. After the national efficiency argument, this was most likely the second main reason for the passing of reforms by the Liberal government, and it most certainly played a major role in persuading many Liberal politicians to support the reforms. However, none of these arguments would have been valid if people had not been made aware of just how bad the situation by the poverty investigations of Booth and Rowntree, which were spread by those who called themselves ‘New Liberals’.

By the start of the C20th, knowledge of just how bad the situation of those living in poverty was began to grow, even amongst the political class, which led to a rise in genuine concern and determination to do something to help the poor in both parliament and the general population. This growth in knowledge of poverty, in turn, led to the rise of a new branch of the Liberal party, who felt something had to be done, both due to genuine concern, and for other reasons, such as the national efficiency argument. They were called the ‘New Liberals’. They supported the idea of ‘positive freedom’ which was the idea that government should allow people to become free by helping them. Churchill sums up the reasoning behind the whole system very well: “Trade was free. But hunger and squalor and cold were also free and the people demanded something more than liberty.” Here Churchill essentially argues that the current system of laissez-faire was not working, and although the Liberals were providing freedom, in doing so they were actually decreasing the living standards of many people. Churchill argues that government intervention was needed, and as Churchill was a New Liberal, this shows the new ideology was a major reason for the passing of social reform. Further evidence for New Liberalism having a large impact on the passing of reform is that after 1906 the Cabinet mainly consisted of New Liberals, such as Churchill, Lloyd George and Asquith (who was a pupil of one of the first New Liberals – T.H. Green) who had a direct influence on policy making. The fact that the New Liberals were basically completely in control of policy making in the period shows that the new ideology was a major reason for the passing of reform, however the ideology would not have existed were it not the raised awareness of poverty, which showed politicians laissez-faire was not working. As well as having genuine concern for the masses, though, the New Liberals were also incredibly worried about national efficiency and used this as their main argument to gain support from politicians who had less genuine concern for the people.

Although national efficiency may have been the main argument for reform, if the political class had not been made aware of the problem by various reports, such as those carried out by Booth in London and Rowntree in York, then they would have not realised just how urgent the need for action was. The new political ideology of New Liberalism was already becoming more wide spread, along with the idea of ‘positive freedom’. These poverty investigations were spread around Westminster by the Physical Deterioration Committee, which hoped that by raising politicians’ awareness of the issue they could be persuaded to take action. An example of this being actually happening is that Winston Churchill had changed from a devout Tory to New Liberal by 1906. This shows raised awareness of poverty played a key part in changing the views of many politicians, and therefore changed the policies passed in parliament, so the poverty investigations and general raised awareness of poverty was a major reason for the passing of the Liberal reforms. There is no doubt that the poverty investigations played a huge role in increasing awareness of the dire conditions in towns, and as a result led to a rise in genuine concern for the masses, but they also strengthened the argument of those who wished to pass the reforms simply to tackle the problem of national efficiency, which was arguably the main reason for the passing of reform.

The poverty investigations of the late C19th opened the politicians and publics eyes to just how bad the situation was in British towns and cities, this changed many people’s views on poverty, and some felt they genuinely needed to help the poor. However, a lot of historians say genuine concern had nothing to do with it; politicians were simply supporting the reforms for selfish reasons and because of concerns over national efficiency. For example, many argue that not even Lloyd George - who was seen as being a pioneer of New Liberalism, most likely because he was from a lower middle class background, unlike most other politicians - supported the reforms due to genuine concern, evidence they use is that he had shown no interest before the 1906 elections. However, this argument does not seem to actually be the case as Lloyd George was full prepared to provoke a constitutional crisis in order to make sure his ‘People’s Budget’ of 1909 passed through the House of Lords, and as this was the engine for social reform this shows Lloyd George must have had at least some genuine concern for the poor. This view is reinforced by a quote from him: “I look forward to the universal establishment of minimum standards of life and labour”. This supports the view of many historians that Lloyd George wanted to pass the reforms partly due to his genuine concern for the living standards and conditions of the working class, mainly due to his apparent excitement that his reforms will help the poor out. Many politicians who genuinely wanted to help out the poor due to a feeling of moral obligation were further persuaded that reforms could help by the influence of Germany, which had already implemented many such reforms, and they had appeared to dramatically improve the conditions and living standards of the very poor. However, it is likely more politicians supported the reforms due to concern over national efficiency not out of genuine concern, as the New Liberals were a minority in both their own part and parliament.

As well as being intimidated by the rapid growth of both Germany’s military and economic strength, British politicians were also increasingly impressed by the success of various reforms that were passed by the German government, aiming to tackle the various social problems the country had, which were basically the same as the ones Britain was experiencing. Many politicians felt Britain could not be allowed to fall behind Germany, and they saw the German reforms working, which persuaded many that something similar was needed in Britain. Evidence of this being the case is that Lloyd George visited Germany in the summer of 1908, and on returning home he shortly passed various health and national insurance schemes, which he would have seen at work in Germany. Kenneth Morgan claims it was his visit to Germany that persuaded Lloyd George to pass these reforms, suggesting that the influence of Germany was a reasonably large factor for the passing of reforms. However, Martin Pugh says Lloyd George was already convinced of the need for these reforms before his visit, seeing them at work in Germany simply provided him with evidence that they work, which he could use to persuade other MP’s; this seems like the most likely of the two arguments. However, there is no doubt that the influence of German reforms did further persuade British politicians that they were necessary, though it is likely they would have been passed anyway. Further evidence for British politicians being influenced by the example of Germany is one of Winston Churchill’s quotes: “We should thrust a big slice of Bismarckianism under the whole underside of our industrial system.” Here, Churchill is directly stating that he believes Britain should follow in Germany’s footsteps, however, it simply suggests Britain should copy the type of reform Germany had already passed, most politicians were already well aware of the need for reform before Germany had passed its own reforms. Germany had greater influence on the passing of reforms because of the fear it created amongst many British politicians due to its rapid growth economically and military wise, the actual influence of the reforms it passed was relatively trivial compared to other factors that contributed to their passing, especially national efficiency – the most important factor in the passing of the reforms.

Although there is no one factor that led to the passing of the reforms by the Liberal government, as it was a combination of several different reforms. There is no doubt that concern over ‘National Efficiency’ was the main reason for the passing of reform, due to concerns from both politicians and industrialists that Britain would fall behind the growing powers of Germany and the USA if nothing was done to fix the health problems of the general populace. As well as this there was also concern that Britain would not be able to survive a war with Germany, which seemed like it was going to happen more and more. After the Boer War, where 40% of all volunteers had been unfit, most politicians felt that something definitely had to be done to fix the situation. However, other historians differ in their point of view to this and claim National Efficiency was definitely not the main reason. For example, Roy Hay claims the government passed the reforms simply as a method of social control to prevent the spread of socialism. Although this was most definitely one of the reasons for why they were passed, there is no doubt national efficiency was a more important one, as it is most likely that politicians felt the threat of foreign powers was more immediate than the threat of problems caused from within the actual country. Other historians also argue that many politicians supported the reforms out of genuine concern, and although this was, like the argument of social control, a significant reason for the passing of reform, there were very few politicians in parliament who wanted to help the poor out because of a moral sense of duty, and most were far more concerned by the threat the poor health of the nation posed to its security. Although there is far more than one reason for why the reforms were passed by the Liberal government between 1906 and 1914, such as political motives, there is no doubt that the argument of ‘National Efficiency’ was the main reason.

Words: 2910