Laporan Beveridge

Laporan Beveridge


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Perang Dunia Kedua membantu mewujudkan perpaduan yang luar biasa di kalangan rakyat Inggeris. Sebilangan besar orang berpendapat bahawa satu-satunya cara untuk mengalahkan Nazi Jerman adalah berdiri bersama. Kesatuan itu jelas dinyatakan dalam kesediaan mereka untuk menerima pengorbanan perang yang dilakukan oleh Winston Churchill dan pemerintah gabungannya. Antara tahun 1940 dan 1945, kerajaan Inggeris mengandungi anggota ketiga-tiga kumpulan politik utama: Parti Konservatif, Parti Buruh dan Parti Liberal.

Terdapat perasaan kuat bahawa rakyat Britain harus dihargai atas pengorbanan dan ketetapan mereka. Untuk mendorong rakyat Inggeris untuk terus berjuang melawan kuasa paksi, pemerintah menjanjikan pembaharuan yang akan mewujudkan masyarakat yang lebih setara. Yang pertama adalah Akta Pendidikan 1944. Langkah ini menaikkan usia sekolah hingga 15 tahun dan memberikan pendidikan menengah percuma untuk semua kanak-kanak.

Kerajaan Britain juga meminta Sir William Beveridge untuk menulis laporan mengenai cara terbaik untuk menolong orang yang berpendapatan rendah. Pada bulan Disember 1942 Beveridge menerbitkan laporan yang mencadangkan agar semua orang yang berumur bekerja harus membayar sumbangan mingguan. Sebagai gantinya, faedah akan dibayar kepada orang yang sakit, menganggur, bersara atau janda. Beveridge berpendapat bahawa sistem ini akan memberikan taraf hidup minimum "di bawah yang tidak ada orang yang diizinkan jatuh". Langkah-langkah ini akhirnya diperkenalkan oleh Pemerintah Buruh yang dipilih pada tahun 1945.

Sir William Beveridge, anggota Parti Liberal, terpilih menjadi anggota Dewan Rakyat pada tahun 1944. Pada tahun berikutnya, Kerajaan Buruh yang baru memulakan proses pelaksanaan cadangan Beveridge yang menjadi dasar negara kesejahteraan moden.

Mereka memandang rendah Beveridge mereka. Dengan hanya sedikit kakitangan untuk membantunya, dia menghasilkan salah satu dokumen paling hebat dan paling revolusioner dalam sejarah sosial kita. Dia pastinya tidak bersalah menyatakan pencapaiannya. Ketika dia membuat laporannya sedikit lebih dari setahun kemudian, dia berkata dengan sederhana kepada saya: Ini adalah kemajuan terbesar dalam sejarah kita. Tidak boleh berpatah balik. Mulai sekarang Beveridge bukan nama lelaki; itu adalah nama cara hidup dan bukan hanya untuk Britain, tetapi untuk seluruh dunia yang bertamadun. '

Dia telah memberikan laporan yang memalukan dan memalukan kepada pengkritiknya, dengan cepat diterima sebagai cetak biru untuk Britain selepas perang. Ia disita di Parlimen. Dia menjadi, untuk pertama kalinya, bukan ahli Whitehall, tetapi tokoh nasional, dalam beberapa cara menjadi pertanda dari jenis dunia pascaperang yang ingin dilihat. Pendapat masyarakat memaksa penerimaan laporannya oleh Parlimen.

Beveridge adalah seorang genius pentadbiran, mungkin tidak selari pada abad ini. Tetapkan dia masalah - catuan makanan dalam Perang Dunia Pertama; panggilan dan penjatahan bahan bakar dalam Perang Dunia Kedua - dan dia akan bersara ke sebuah bilik kecil dan menghasilkan jawapan. Tetapi sebagai pentadbir praktikal dia menjadi bencana, kerana kesombongan dan kekasarannya terhadap mereka yang dilantik untuk bekerja dengannya dan ketidakmampuannya untuk mewakilkannya. Beberapa pembantu penyelidik, termasuk penulis sekarang, yang tinggal bersamanya, menggigit peluru, mendapati dia memberi inspirasi dan konstruktif dalam penyelidikan, mustahil dalam hubungan peribadi.

Skim keselamatan sosial Beveridge masih dalam perbahasan. Pemerintah telah mengusulkan penerapan bagian yang lebih besar tetapi pindaan Buruh di Dewan Rakyat yang menuntut penerapan skema ini secara keseluruhan menerima sebanyak 117 suara telah membicarakan skema Beveridge dalam komentar berita sebelumnya dan tidak '. Saya ingin memperincikan lagi peruntukannya. Saya hanya menyebutkan perbahasan yang sedang berlangsung untuk menekankan dua perkara. Salah satunya, bahawa apa pun yang dilalui, elaun keluarga pasti akan diterima pakai walaupun belum pasti pada skala berapa. Yang lain adalah bahawa prinsip insurans sosial telah berlaku dan bahkan para pemikir yang paling reaksioner di Britain sekarang tidak akan berani menentang ini. Skema Beveridge akhirnya dapat diadopsi dalam bentuk yang agak dimutilasi, tetapi ini adalah pencapaian bahkan untuk membahaskan perkara seperti itu di tengah-tengah perang putus asa di mana kita masih berjuang untuk bertahan.

Dewan Rakyat telah menyatakan pendapatnya. Ia tidak menolak Laporan Beveridge dengan tepat - sesungguhnya, sejauh kata-kata, ia memberikan sambutan. Laporan tersebut bahkan tidak dapat membunuh Laporan tersebut. Ia telah melakukan sesuatu yang berbeza. Ia telah mengisinya. Ia telah mengeluarkan struktur tulang belakang dan tulang. Ia menambah bahagian yang tinggal - dan memberi jaminan bahawa jumlahnya 70%. Enam belas bahagian daripada dua puluh tiga oleh perhitungan Herbert Morrison - dan satu-satunya syarat yang dilampirkan adalah bahawa tiada bahagian ini pasti dan akhirnya dijamin. Penentang Laporan - dari Sir John Anderson hingga Sir Herbert Williams - berbicara seolah-olah dasar Laporan adalah usaha untuk mengaut wang orang kaya atas nama orang miskin yang tidak sepenuhnya layak.

Ya. Mereka mungkin bersedia memberikan sesuatu. Mereka menyedari keadilan tuntutan itu. Tetapi tidak semua yang diminta. Dan tentu tidak sekarang. Dan yang terpenting, mereka tidak dapat membuat janji untuk masa depan. Sir Arnold Gridley tertanya-tanya "bagaimana kehendak itu ditakrifkan. Bolehkah ia dipenuhi dengan sejumlah wang tertentu? Keluarga seorang lelaki yang rajin dan berjimat cermat dapat hidup tanpa keinginan, mungkin pada £ 3 seminggu, sedangkan keluarga lelaki yang menyalahgunakan wangnya atau membelanjakannya untuk minuman atau perjudian, mungkin sukar untuk membayarnya jika upahnya £ 5 atau £ 6 seminggu. "

Ketakutan yang mungkin diambil oleh kanak-kanak kecil atau pesara usia tua untuk minum atau berjudi adalah sangat nyata bagi sebahagian besar Parti Konservatif.

Sir lan Fraser mengucapkan tahniah kepada Canselor kerana telah "melakukan perkara yang paling sukar". Dia telah memanggil Rumah itu "dari dongeng mewah di mana ia suka menikmati, menjadi kenyataan, dan dengan demikian memberikan layanan yang besar kepada kita semua." Selanjutnya dalam ucapannya, Sir LAN membawa gambaran yang salah ke padang mania. Membantah rancangan Sir William untuk menjadikan insurans wajib dan bersifat nasional, sehingga dapat memangkas sejumlah kecil biaya pungutan, dia menyatakan bahwa tujuan Sir William melakukan ini adalah "mencuri aset modal sehingga dapat memperoleh sejumlah pendapatan untuk skimnya" .

Akhirnya, Sir Herbert Williams mengeluarkan kucing peribadinya kucing terbesar yang dilepaskan di lantai House of Commons sejak Baldwin menjelaskan mengapa dia harus bertanding dalam pilihan raya 1935 dengan bohong. Dia melakukannya dengan kata-kata "Jika skema ditunda hingga enam bulan setelah penghentian permusuhan, Dewan Rakyat akan menolaknya dengan majoriti yang sangat besar." Tepat sekali. Sekiranya kita tidak meletakkan asas Britain baru semasa perang sedang berlangsung, kita tidak akan pernah meletakkannya sama sekali. Sir Herbert Williams dan yang lain dari jenis yang sama - atau yang hampir sama - akan melihatnya. Untuk pertimbangan yang begitu besar, Parti Konservatif harus langsung tidak mengetuai Sir Herbert.

Penolakan snivelling ini dikutip hanya untuk satu tujuan: untuk menunjukkan tahap rendah di mana penentang Laporan memilih untuk melakukan pertempuran. Mereka memperjuangkannya pada tahap Poor Law, tahap tiga halfnyny, ninepence-for-fourpence, Kingsley Wood dan Means Test. Orang biasa di negara ini meminta lebih banyak daripada yang dipilih oleh pengarah dan pengawal mereka untuk memberi mereka. Mereka dapat kembali ke tempat asal mereka, dan mengucapkan terima kasih, belas kasihan tidak lebih kecil.

Rancangan Beveridge diberi banyak publisiti untuk satu-satunya tujuan untuk menunjukkan kepada dunia tuntutan Britain terhadap kepemimpinan dalam bidang sosial. Di Eropah tidak ada tawa selain tawa atas usaha ini. Sekarang berlaku bahawa seluruh humbug Beveridge mempunyai kaki tanah liat. Minuman semangat golongan kiri Inggeris telah dikurangkan oleh pakar insurans, doktor, pegawai berpencen dan peniaga besar. Tidak ada yang akan kekal dari skema sosial yang komprehensif melainkan memastikan pemberian Negara untuk rawatan kucing dan anjing.

Hari Beveridge. Saya menghabiskan sebahagian besarnya di Dewan dan menyaksikan pemberontakan berkembang. The Whips tidak berpengetahuan, tidak sensitif terhadap pendapat dan khabar angin: dan Margesson yang banyak disalahgunakan kini terlepas. Herbert Morrison mengakhiri pemerintahan dengan pidato yang seimbang, cerdik, fasih dan mengungkapkan konservatisme yang semakin meningkat - apakah itu tawaran untuk kepemimpinan Kerajaan Koalisi di masa depan? Dewan yang penuh sesak mendengar dengan penuh minat dan bahkan para Sosialis yang lebih berhati-hati, sementara kemudian bersiap untuk memilih menentang pemimpin mereka, terlalu pengecut untuk menyerang Morrison.

Pada bulan Disember 1942, Sir William Beveridge adalah ketua Universiti College, Oxford. Setelah berjaya dalam perkhidmatan awam, dia telah dilantik sebagai pengarah London School of Economics, yang tinggal di sana dari 1919 hingga 1937, ketika dia pindah ke Oxford. Keprihatinannya terhadap masalah sosial telah berlangsung seumur hidup, sejak awal-awalnya sebagai pekerja sosial Toynbee Hall dan anak didik Sidney dan Beatrice Webb sekitar tahun 1905, sehingga pelantikannya pada tahun 1934 sebagai ketua sebuah jawatankuasa kerajaan mengenai insurans pengangguran. Selama minggu-minggu pertama perang, dalam artikel yang diterbitkan di The Times dia telah meminta perencanaan skala penuh ekonomi masa perang, dan keyakinannya telah diperkuat dengan apa yang dilihatnya sejak tahun 1940 - dalam peranannya sebagai pegawai negeri sementara di Kementerian Tenaga Kerja - mengenai kegagalan mengatur tenaga kerja sebagaimana yang dia rasakan semestinya teratur.

Peluang yang akan mendorong Beveridge lebih dari sekadar kemasyhuran instan telah disampaikan kepadanya cukup jelas, pada bulan Mei 1941, dengan pelantikannya sebagai ketua sebuah jawatankuasa antara jabatan, yang ringkasnya untuk menyiapkan "tinjauan skema insurans sosial yang ada dan perkhidmatan bersekutu, termasuk pampasan pekerja, dan untuk membuat cadangan ". Cara yang cukup tidak bersalah untuk menjaga jenazah pegawai kanan, ia akan muncul; namun dari kepompong yang sederhana ini akan muncul rancangan untuk mewujudkan keamanan penuh bagi semua warga Britain 'dari buaian hingga kubur', dan meletakkan asas praktikal untuk negara kesejahteraan pascaperang. Ini adalah Laporan Beveridge yang terkenal.

Aset pengarangnya untuk menyusun laporan adalah kemampuan yang sangat besar untuk kerja keras, keyakinan yang kuat dan pengetahuan yang mendalam mengenai subjeknya yang sangat kompleks. Dia juga, dalam batas yang ditentukan oleh wataknya, seorang politik yang mahir

manipulator yang pengalamannya dari Whitehall dari dalam, pemahaman ahli politik, dan penilaian yang bijak mengenai pengaruh pendapat popular dan sokongan akhbar dalam meletakkan kerjanya, akan membuatnya stabil. Namun, halangan serius dalam perjalanannya terletak pada aspek tertentu dari wataknya. Dia sekarang telah berada di posisi wewenang selama lebih dari dua puluh tahun dan kepastiannya atas keunggulannya sendiri, berubah menjadi cepat kesal jika dia dengan cara apapun ditantang, mengasingkan banyak orang yang sokongannya sangat dia perlukan. Sememangnya permusuhan yang diprovokasi olehnya mungkin telah merosakkan kesan dari semua pekerjaannya yang berharga, tetapi untuk nasib baik dalam soal masa.


Mahu, penyakit, kejahilan, kemelaratan dan kemalasan: adakah lima kejahatan Beveridge kembali?

Bulan Novembernya menandakan ulang tahun ke-75 laporan Beveridge - dokumen pengasas negara kesejahteraan moden dan jawapan kepada persoalan: apa yang akan dilakukan oleh Clement Attlee? Agenda radikal pemerintah Attlee, pada dasarnya, pada dasarnya menetapkan setiap saranan yang dibuat oleh reformis liberal patrician Sir William Beveridge, yang melebihi petunjuk ringkasnya - untuk meninjau program insurans sosial negara - dengan pelbagai cadangan yang bertujuan untuk membasmi apa yang disebutnya lima "kejahatan raksasa": keinginan, penyakit, kejahilan, kemelaratan dan kemalasan.

Apa pun yang difikirkan oleh Attlee, Beveridge bukanlah seorang sosialis. Dia berpendapat bahawa mengambil beban kos penjagaan kesihatan dan pencen daripada syarikat dan individu dan memberikannya kepada pemerintah akan meningkatkan daya saing industri Britain sambil menghasilkan pekerja yang lebih sihat, lebih kaya, lebih bermotivasi dan lebih produktif yang berminat untuk membeli barang Inggeris.

Dan dia betul. Tempoh pertumbuhan ekonomi pasca-perang dunia yang berterusan dan hampir penuh pekerjaan yang berlangsung hingga akhir 70-an menyaksikan kemiskinan, pembebasan kumuh, penubuhan sistem perkhidmatan kesihatan dan pendidikan percuma di samping peningkatan pendapatan sebenar dan penurunan ketidaksamaan - yang, seterusnya, menghasilkan pendapatan cukai yang lebih tinggi dan membantu Inggeris melunaskan hutang perangnya. Pada tahun 1950, Seebohm Rowntree - yang telah meninjau kemiskinan di York pada tahun 1899 dan 1936 - menyimpulkan bahawa masalah tersebut telah banyak dihapus.

Tujuh puluh lima tahun kemudian, kerja baik yang dilakukan oleh Laporan Beveridge berada dalam bahaya besar untuk dibatalkan sepenuhnya. "Lima raksasa" itu kembali ke arus utama kehidupan seharian kita. Seperti yang mereka lakukan, produktiviti kita merosot. Angka tahun penuh untuk tahun 2015 menunjukkan jurang produktiviti Inggeris dengan negara-negara lain yang paling teruk sejak rekod moden bermula. Apa yang akan dijumpai oleh Beveridge jika dia melaporkan hari ini?


Annette Beveridge

Pada bulan Oktober 1872 dia berlayar ke British India. Sekitar tahun 1875 dia terlibat dalam kontroversi publik dengan Keshub Chandra Sen, seorang ahli falsafah dan pembaharu sosial India yang berusaha memasukkan teologi Kristian dalam kerangka pemikiran Hindu. Akroyd terkejut dengan perbincangannya dengannya dan merasakan bahawa Sen, yang berbicara untuk pendidikan wanita di England, adalah seorang pemerhati Hindu yang biasa pulang ke India, berusaha untuk menyimpan pengetahuan dari pemikiran wanita. [4] Perselisihan ini menular ke pers asli dan berdampak pada Bethune School. Akroyd juga kecewa dengan rakan-rakan Sen seperti Bijoy Krishna Goswami, Aghore Nath Gupta dan Gour Govinda Ray, yang secara tradisional Hindu dalam latar belakang pendidikan dan menentang pendidikan wanita.

"Pak Sen mempunyai prasangka kuat terhadap pendidikan universiti, pada kenyataannya, terhadap apa yang umumnya dianggap sebagai pendidikan tinggi, terhadap wanita. Dia keberatan untuk mengajar mereka, misalnya, mata pelajaran seperti Matematik, Falsafah dan Sains, sedangkan pihak yang maju positif ingin memberi anak perempuan dan saudara perempuan mereka apa yang umumnya dianggap sebagai pendidikan tinggi. Mereka tidak membantah pendidikan universiti mereka dan tidak berminat untuk membuat perbezaan dalam pendidikan antara lelaki dan wanita. Tidak ada harapan untuk kompromi antara dua ekstrem tersebut mazhab pemikiran, Oleh itu, parti radikal terus memulakan sekolah perempuan mereka sendiri, yang disebut Hindu Mahila Vidyalaya untuk pendidikan wanita-wanita muda dewasa dari parti mereka. Cara yang berjaya di mana mereka meneruskan pekerjaan ini sekolah di bawah Miss Akroyd, kemudian Puan Beveridge, mendapat perhatian umum dan sangat dipuji oleh pegawai-pegawai Kerajaan. Sekolah ini berjaya ork selama bertahun-tahun dan kemudian dijalankan dengan nama Banga Mahila Vidyalaya dan akhirnya digabungkan dengan Bethune College untuk wanita, yang mana ia menyediakan beberapa pelajarnya yang paling terkenal. " [5]

Annette Beveridge menerjemahkan buku harian Kaisar Mughal Babur yang pertama, Baburnama, menerbitkannya dalam empat buku dari tahun 1912 hingga 1922. Dia menggunakan sumber Parsi dan Turki. [6] [7]

Dia juga menerjemahkan biografi Kaisar Mughal kedua, Humayun, dari Parsi ke dalam Bahasa Inggeris. Memoir itu ditulis oleh saudaranya Gulbadan Begum, yang Beveridge dengan senang hati memanggil "Puteri Rosebud". [8] [9] Karya terjemahannya yang lain termasuk Kunci hati pemula, 1908.

Pasangan ini mempunyai dua orang anak: seorang anak perempuan, Annette Jeanie Beveridge (w. 1956), yang pergi ke Somerville College, Oxford pada tahun 1899 dan menikah dengan RH Tawney, [11] dan seorang anak lelaki, William Beveridge (1879-1963), ahli ekonomi yang memberikan namanya kepada laporan yang berkaitan dengan asas negara berkebajikan. [12]


Laporan Beveridge dan asas-asas Negara Berkebajikan

Frontispiece of the Beveridge Report, 1942. Rujukan katalog: PREM 4/89/2

& # 8216Sekarang, ketika perang menghapuskan mercu tanda dari segala jenis, adalah kesempatan untuk menggunakan pengalaman dalam bidang yang jelas. Momen revolusi dalam sejarah dunia & # 8217 adalah masa untuk revolusi, bukan untuk menambal. & # 8217

Ini adalah panggilan jelas Sir William Beveridge ke Parlimen untuk mewujudkan sistem insurans sosial yang komprehensif untuk penduduk Britain & # 8217 dalam laporannya Perkhidmatan Insurans Sosial dan Sekutu, lebih dikenali sebagai Laporan Beveridge, yang dibentangkan ke Parlimen pada 24 November 1942 dan mempunyai ulang tahun ke-75 tahun ini.

Lima Kejahatan Besar

The Laporan Beveridge, untuk memetik Canselor Konservatif Kingsley Wood, & # 8216 panjang & # 8217 1, tinjauan terperinci mengenai keadaan kesejahteraan di Britain dan cadangan arah masa depannya.

Inti laporan tersebut adalah keputusan Beveridge bahawa tindakan masa depan untuk meningkatkan insurans sosial, langkah-langkah di jalan & # 8216 kemajuan sosial & # 8217, tidak boleh dihalangi oleh & # 8216 kepentingan & # 8217 & # 8211 sebaliknya kerajaan harus bekerja untuk menghapuskan & # 8216Five Great Evils & # 8217 yang menimpa masyarakat: Mahu, Penyakit, Kejahilan, Squalor dan Idleness. 2.

Perbendaharaan, pada waktu LaporPenulisan & # 8216s, mencirikan & # 8216Evils & # 8217 ini sebagai mempunyai & # 8216 peningkatan kekuatan dan keganasan & # 8217 dan Beveridge bersetuju, dengan mengatakan bahawa Want dalam beberapa cara adalah yang paling mudah dari raksasa ini untuk menyerang. Sesungguhnya - sementara laporannya mengangkat prospek reformasi pendidikan untuk memerangi Kejahilan, gelombang perumahan dewan pasca perang yang akan melakukan banyak hal untuk memerangi Squalor, dan prospek ekonomi pekerjaan penuh yang menghilangkan Kemalasan - Lapor menjadikan dirinya sebagai langkah pertama menuju & # 8216 kemajuan sosial & # 8217 kepada masyarakat yang bebas dari kejahatan ini.

Di tengah-tengah rancangan Beveridge & # 8217 untuk membebaskan Britain dari Want dan rakan-rakannya adalah sistem insurans sosial dan kebajikan yang komprehensif: faedah sejagat supaya keluarga tidak akan pernah & # 8216 kehilangan kaedah sara hidup yang sihat & # 8217 kerana kekurangan pekerjaan atau pendapatan. Beveridge menugaskan negara dengan menetapkan & # 8216 minimum nasional & # 8217, jaring pengaman di bawah yang tidak ada yang jatuh. Inti rancangannya adalah sistem penyumbang yang akan memberi hak kepada penduduk untuk mendapatkan faedah bersalin, anak dan pengangguran, pencen negara dan elaun pengebumian. Mendasari semua ini adalah percuma di sistem penjagaan kesihatan sejagat, untuk menjaga kesihatan negara tanpa mengira keadaan peribadi.

Kemiskinan sebelum perang

Orang di Britain, tentu saja, menghadapi kesulitan dan kesulitan yang luar biasa semasa Perang Dunia Kedua ketika Beveridge menulis laporannya - catuan, serangan udara, sumbangan nasional untuk usaha perang raksasa - tetapi Beveridge & # 8217s Lapor juga ditulis untuk memastikan bahawa kemiskinan mengerikan yang dialami oleh banyak orang di Britain dalam beberapa dekad ekonomi yang tertekan antara Perang Dunia Pertama dan Kedua tidak pernah kembali.

Dokumen dalam Arkib Negara memberi kita gambaran mengenai tahap kemiskinan yang dihadapi orang dalam tempoh ini.

Pada tahun 1936, tiga tahun sebelum perang, Lembaga Bantuan Pengangguran menugaskan Pilgrim Trust untuk membuat penyelidikan mengenai pengaruh pengangguran jangka panjang terhadap orang. Gambaran mengenai kehidupan mereka yang hidup dalam kemiskinan, yang terdapat dalam catatan The National Archives AST 7/255, sangat mengerikan.

Angka-angka dari The Pilgrim Trust Enquiry mengenai pengangguran jangka panjang, 1936-1938, meneliti kejadian & # 8216pyscho-neurosis & # 8217 pada orang yang menganggur jangka panjang. Rujukan Catalogye: AST 7/255

Laporan itu, berdasarkan wawancara dengan pengangguran di beberapa bandar yang berbeza, memberikan gambaran mengenai kitaran mingguan kehidupan miskin, yang berpusat pada hari ketika bantuan pengangguran dikeluarkan - satu atau dua makanan yang tepat dalam seminggu diikuti hanya dengan teh dan roti , berulang-alik ke kedai pajak gadai - satu kitaran di mana, & # 8216 tidak ada sedikit wang yang tersisa pada akhir minggu, tetapi beberapa wang pendek & # 8217. Ini merangkumi perihal keluarga empat atau lima orang yang tinggal di satu bilik kotor yang dikelilingi oleh & # 8216 linen bersih dan bau yang mengerikan & # 8217. Terdapat perincian mengenai kesan fizikal dan mental pengangguran kronik - lelaki dan wanita yang kekurangan zat makanan, lelaki yang mengalami & # 8216disukai & # 8217 dan tertekan oleh kemalasan mereka. Dengan latar belakang inilah Beveridge membuat cadangannya.

Kebimbangan Kabinet

Walaupun terdapat keperluan yang jelas untuk perombakan keselamatan sosial untuk mencegah kesulitan tersebut berulang, skop transformasi laporan Beveridge & komitmen politik dan ekonomi yang akan diterimanya masih mengejutkan Kabinet - terutama Winston Churchill dan Konservatif terdekatnya menteri, yang mempunyai keraguan mengenai kemungkinan skim cadangan Beveridge & # 8217.

Churchill menerima salinan laporan tersebut pada 11 November 1942, tetapi tidak diragukan lagi sibuk menjalankan perang, jadi memerintahkan kanselor Kingsley Wood untuk & # 8216memohon segera, ringkas laporan dibuat mengenai perkara ini untuk saya & # 8217. Dia segera menerima Wood & # 8217s & # 8216 pemerhatian kritikal & # 8217, serta komen dari rakan dan penasihat rapatnya Lord Cherwell.

Kedua-dua laporan ini merangkumi idea awal penerimaan idea Beveridge & # 8217 dari bulatan dalaman Perdana Menteri. Wood menggambarkan rancangan itu sebagai & # 8216ambitious & # 8217, tetapi bimbang ia melibatkan & # 8216an komitmen kewangan yang tidak dapat dilaksanakan & # 8217. Wood mengatakan bahawa & # 8216 penghapusan hasrat & # 8217 adalah objektif yang mengagumkan yang akan mempunyai & # 8216a daya tarikan popular & # 8217, tetapi dia bimbang bahawa rancangan Beveridge & # 8217 & # 8216 berdasarkan pertimbangan & # 8217.

Kayu juga menimbulkan sejumlah kekhawatiran mengenai penolakan dari pelbagai industri yang dipengaruhi oleh Lapor& # 8216s cadangan. Adakah doktor bersetuju untuk menjadi pegawai negeri? Bagaimana reaksi masyarakat jaminan industri ketika negara mengambil peranan mereka? Bagaimana perasaan majikan kerana perlu memberi sumbangan untuk pengangguran? Dia juga prihatin dengan sifat universal yang diuji dari manfaat Beveridge & # 8217 yang dicadangkan, dengan tegas mengulas bahawa:

& # 8216Peringkat mingguan jutawan ke pejabat pos untuk pencen usia tuanya akan mempunyai unsur kelucuan kerana pencen itu disediakan secara besar-besaran oleh pembayar cukai am. & # 8217

Wood, begitu juga Cherwell, juga menimbulkan kekhawatiran tentang bagaimana Amerika Syarikat (yang pada awalnya melakukan usaha perang Britain & # 8217) untuk bertindak balas terhadap cadangan berani untuk penyediaan negara oleh sebuah negara yang sangat rendah dari semua negara -melancarkan perang. Cherwell menegaskan bahawa penduduk AS mungkin mengambil kesempatan untuk membiayai pembentukan sebuah negara kebajikan yang jauh lebih murah hati daripada mereka sendiri. Wood bimbang akan kelihatan bahawa Britain telah & # 39; telah terlibat dalam pembahagian harta rampasan sementara mereka [AS] memikul beban utama perang & # 8217.

Kesimpulannya, Wood menyatakan sikap berhati-hati Lapor pada mulanya memprovokasi, mengulas:

& # 8216Banyak di negara ini meyakinkan diri mereka bahawa penghentian permusuhan akan menandakan pembukaan Zaman Emas: (banyak juga yang dipujuk terakhir kali juga). Namun demikian, masa untuk menyatakan dividen atas keuntungan Zaman Keemasan adalah masa di mana keuntungan tersebut telah direalisasikan sebenarnya, bukan hanya dalam khayalan. & # 8217 3

& # 8220Setelah keluar, dia dapat menyalak isi hatinya & # 8221 & # 8211 Winston Churchill & # 8217s minit sama ada Beveridge boleh dibenarkan bercakap mengenai laporannya. Rujukan katalog: PREM 4/89/2

Oleh kerana berhati-hati ini, ada banyak keprihatinan terhadap publisiti yang akan diterima oleh laporan tersebut, dan terutama di sekitar Beveridge sendiri yang membicarakannya dan mempromosikan ideanya. Bahkan sebelum laporan itu diterbitkan, ada kebocoran kepada media mengenai isi kandungannya, dan anggota Kabinet bimbang sekutu Beveridge akan meletakkan dasar untuk memastikan idea rakan mereka tidak dapat diabaikan. & # 8216Rakan-rakan Beveridge bermain politik & # 8217, Menteri Penerangan Konservatif, Brendan Bracken, menulis kepada Churchill pada bulan Oktober 1942, & # 8216dan ketika laporan itu akan ada ballyhoo besar mengenai pentingnya melaksanakan cadangan tanpa penundaan & # 8217 .

Untuk mencuba dan mengelakkannya, Kabinet memutuskan bahawa Beveridge dilarang membicarakannya Lapor, atau ideanya, sebelum atau pada hari pembentangannya ke Parlimen, dan mungkin selepas itu. Beveridge memprotes, mengatakan bahawa dia mesti dibenarkan untuk bercakap mengenai pekerjaannya. Churchill mengalah, dengan mengatakan bahawa setelah laporan itu diterbitkan secara rasmi, Beveridge dapat & # 8216 menyalurkan isi hatinya & # 8217 mengenainya. 4

Saham Beveridge & # 8217 dengan pemerintah merosot dengan penyebaran laporannya. Pada 30 Januari 1943 Beveridge menulis kepada Churchill bertanya apakah dia mungkin bertemu dengannya, untuk membincangkan peranan masa depannya dalam pemerintahan dan juga keselamatan sosial. Surat Beveridge & # 8217 adalah pujian yang berkesan: dia memberitahu Perdana Menteri bahawa, semasa berbulan madu baru-baru ini, dia dan isterinya telah membaca biografi Churchill & nenek moyangnya dari 1 Duke of Marlborough. Beveridge memberitahu Churchill bahawa buku itu harus & # 8216bacaan wajib bagi negarawan dari semua negeri & # 8230 Saya telah mencatat sekurang-kurangnya selusin petikan prognostik yang harus mereka pelajari dengan hati & # 8217.

Akan tetapi, Beveridge harus menunggu dua minggu lebih lama untuk mendapatkan jawapan dari Churchill dan ketika sampai, ia menyatakan sikap Perdana Menteri yang tenang kepada lelaki yang laporannya telah membuatnya berada dalam kedudukan politik yang sukar. & # 8216Saya berharap peluang perbincangan dengan anda akan berlaku pada masa akan datang & # 8217, Churchill menulis kepada Beveridge, & # 8216 tetapi sudah tentu saya harus memberi perhatian utama kepada perang & # 8217.

Winston Churchill menolak permintaan Beveridge & # 8217 untuk mesyuarat, 16 Februari 1943. Rujukan katalog: PREM 4/89/2

Reaksi orang ramai & # 8217s

Tetapi semasa Laporan Beveridge mungkin dilihat dengan berhati-hati oleh anggota pemerintah, pandangan masyarakat Inggeris adalah perkara lain sepenuhnya, dan sangat menentukan dalam memastikan bahawa begitu banyak visi Beveridge untuk Britain dilaksanakan.

Tinjauan dan pemantauan pendapat publik pemerintah dari bulan Desember 1942 (ketika laporan itu tersedia untuk umum) dan seterusnya menunjukkan betapa baiknya reaksi itu, dan betapa skeptisnya beberapa hal yang akan terjadi.

British Institute for Public Opinion melakukan tinjauan di seluruh negara mengenai Lapor sejurus selepas penerbitan amnya. Penemuan ini sangat jelas: 95% pernah mendengar mengenai Lapor dan sebilangan besar penduduk menyetujui cadangannya dan berpendapat mereka harus dilaksanakan, terutamanya skema untuk perkhidmatan perubatan negara yang komprehensif. Walau bagaimanapun, sementara orang walaupun Beveridge & # 8217s merancang semestinya berlaku, tinjauan mendapati sedikit yang menyangka akan berlaku.

& # 8216Laporan Beveridge dan tinjauan Umum & # 8217. Rujukan katalog: PREM 4/89/2

Dalam tempoh ini, Kementerian Penerangan menghasilkan & # 8216 Laporan Perisikan Rumah & # 8217 setiap minggu untuk kerajaan dan ini juga menunjukkan sejauh mana Lapor diterima oleh warga Britain. Dalam satu minggu pada bulan Desember 1942, misalnya, penyensor pos memeriksa 947 surat yang telah dikirimkan mengenai Laporan Beveridge, hampir semua menguntungkan. Seorang penulis menyatakan bahawa rancangan itu akan memberi, & # 8216 anak lelaki yang bertarung dengan sesuatu untuk dinantikan & # 8217, sementara yang lain menyatakan bahawa LaporCadangan & # 8216 akan mewujudkan & # 8216 revolusi sosial yang lengkap & # 8230 tanpa pertumpahan darah & # 8217. 5

Laporan Perisikan Rumah Maklumat Kementerian, 10 Disember 1942. Rujukan katalog: INF 1/292

Memang, menurut laporan 10 Disember (hanya beberapa hari selepas Lapor disediakan) Pelan Beveridge & # 8217s adalah yang topik yang paling banyak dibincangkan di negara ini. Beberapa minggu kemudian, orang-orang dikatakan tidak sabar untuk tidur semasa cuti Krismas untuk benar-benar membuat kajian tentangnya. Tetapi reaksi positif ini nampaknya diwarnai dengan keraguan dan kemarahan. Laporan tersebut menyatakan bahawa banyak orang berpendapat bahawa perniagaan besar akan & # 8216 membunuh & # 8217 laporan itu, sementara satu lagi penyensor pos menemui sepucuk surat yang meramalkan & # 8216 masalah serius di negara ini setelah perang & # 8217 jika laporan itu tidak diterima. 6

Warisan

Dalam menghadapi reaksi ini, pemerintah bersikap pragmatik, tidak memperdulikan keraguannya tetapi membuat pengumuman kepada Parlimen bahawa ia akan mempertimbangkan Lapor dan berkomitmen untuk meningkatkan insurans sosial, tetapi tidak akan membuat komitmen tertentu pada masa ini. Reaksi dari ahli parlimen pembangkang dan orang ramai, sekali lagi dicatat dalam pelbagai laporan perisik pendapat, membawa kerajaan kembali ke Parlimen, kali ini membuat pernyataan yang lebih eksplisit mengenai niat mereka untuk melaksanakan rancangan Beveridge sejauh mungkin.

Risalah Perkhidmatan Kesihatan Nasional, 1948. Rujukan katalog: INF 2/66

Pada akhirnya, kedua-dua pihak Buruh dan Konservatif menjadikan sistem komprehensif perawatan perubatan dan insurans sosial sebagai bagian dari platform mereka pada Pilihan Raya Umum 1945. Parti Buruh Clement Attlee & # 8217s memasuki pemerintahan setelah pilihan raya, dan meneruskan kerja pemerintah masa perang untuk menubuhkan Perkhidmatan Kesihatan Nasional, yang ditubuhkan pada tahun 1948 - mungkin salah satu bahagian yang paling bertahan dari visi Beveridge & # 8217 yang direalisasikan, yang sendiri meraikannya Ulang tahun ke-70 tahun depan.

The Laporan Beveridge disusun dalam peperangan, rancangan berani untuk negara yang telah banyak berkorban. Tujuh puluh lima tahun lagi, kita masih dapat melihat kesan & # 8216 revolusi tanpa darah & # 8217 yang dimulakan.


Sejarah Britsh 1955-1994

Asal: Pada pilihan raya umum 1945, Buruh memperoleh kemenangan besar atas pemerintahan konservatif yang dipimpin oleh Sir Winston Churchill. Dengan majoriti keseluruhan di Parlimen, pemerintah baru mulai menjalankan program reformasinya. Orang awam Britain percaya bahawa pemerintah Buruh akan lebih cenderung untuk mencapai reformasi sosial. Pembaharuan buruh didasarkan pada Laporan Beveridge sehingga dimulakan dengan menangani lima raksasa yang dikenal pasti dalam Laporan Beveridge.

1. Mahu :
Kemiskinan dilihat sebagai masalah sosial utama yang mempengaruhi semua orang lain. Akta Insurans Nasional diluluskan yang memberikan insurans komprehensif terhadap kemungkinan besar. Ia memberikan faedah sakit dan pengangguran, pencen persaraan dan balu dan faedah bersalin. Dikatakan bahawa penyediaan sosial dibuat untuk warga negara dari 'buaian ke kubur', memenuhi keperluan mereka dari saat lahir hingga kematian mereka.

2. Penyakit:
Pada tahun 1946, Akta Perkhidmatan Kesihatan Nasional diluluskan yang menyaksikan pengenalan kepada perkhidmatan kesihatan baru (The NHS). Warganegara Britain boleh mendapat perkhidmatan perubatan, pergigian dan optik secara percuma. Rawatan oleh doktor dan hospital juga percuma. Manfaat ini percuma semasa penggunaan, tidak ada pesakit yang diminta membayar sebarang rawatan.

3. Squalor: Sebilangan besar Britain masih mempunyai kawasan kumuh terutama di London. Kesesakan yang terlalu banyak adalah masalah serius yang diperburuk semasa Blitz. Untuk mengatasi masalah kemelaratan, pemerintah menumpukan perhatian untuk membangun rumah yang layak untuk kelas pekerja setelah perang.

4. kejahilan: Pada tahun 1944 pemerintah Gabungan masa perang meluluskan akta Pendidikan. The act was passed the Labour government but originally a Conservative government idea. The act said that secondary education shouuld become compulsory until the age of 15 years with pupils to be provided meals and medical services at every school.

5. idleness: After the war, Britain gradually rebuilt itself. The Labour Government succeeded in maintaining high levels of employment after the war. Job vacances became more readily avalible by 1946, unemployment was reduced to 2.5 %. Despite post-war problems such as shortages of raw materials and massive war debts to pay off. One way in which the government kept almost full employment was through nationalisation.


1. The Inter-departmental Committee on Social Insurance and Allied Services were appointed in June, 1941, by the Minister without Portfolio, then responsible for the consideration of reconstruction problems. The terms of reference required the Committee “to undertake, with special reference to the inter-relation of the schemes, a survey of the existing national schemes of social insurance and allied services, including workmen’s compensation and to make recommendations.” The first duty of the Committee was to survey, the second to recommend. For the reasons stated below in-paragraph 40 the duty of recommendation was confined later to the Chairman of the Committee.

The Committee’s Survey And Its Results

2. The schemes of social insurance and allied services which the Inter-departmental Committee have been called on to survey have grown piece-meal. Apart from the Poor Law, which dates from the time of Elizabeth, the schemes surveyed are the product of the last 45 years beginning with the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1897. That Act, applying in the first instance to a limited number of occupations, was made general in 1906. Compulsory health insurance began in 1912. Unemployment insurance began for a few industries in 1912 and was made general in 1920. The first Pensions Act, giving non-contributory pensions subject to a means test at the age of 70, was passed in 1908. In 1925 came the Act which started contributory pensions for old age, for widows and for orphans. Unemployment insurance, after a troubled history, was put on a fresh basis by the Unemployment Act of 1934, which set up at the same time a new national service of Unemployment Assistance. Meantime, the local machinery for relief of destitution, after having been exhaustively examined by the Royal Commission of 1905-1909, has been changed both by the new treatment of unemployment and in many other ways, including a transfer of the responsibilities of the Boards of Guardians to Local Authorities. Separate provision for special types of disability — such as blindness- — has been made from time to time. Together with this growth of social insurance and impinging on it at many points have gone developments of medical treatment, particularly in hospitals and other institutions developments of services devoted to the welfare of children, in school and before it and a vast growth of voluntary provision for death and other contingencies, made by persons of the insured classes through Industrial Life Offices, Friendly Societies and Trade Unions.

In all this change and development, each problem has been dealt with separately with little or no reference to allied problems. The first task of the Committee has been to attempt for the first time a comprehensive survey of the whole field of social insurance and allied services to show just what provision is now made and how it is made for many different forms of need. The results of this survey are set out in Appendix B describing social insurance and the allied services as they exist today in Britain. The picture presented is impressive in two ways. First, it shows that provision for most of the many varieties of need through interruption of earnings and other causes that may arise in modern industrial communities has already been made in Britain on a scale not surpassed and hardly rivalled in any other country of the world. In one respect only of the first importance, namely limitation of medical service^ both in the range of treatment which is provided as of right and in respect of the classes of persons for whom it is provided, does Britain’s achieve­ment fall seriously short of what has been accomplished elsewhere it falls short also in its provision for cash benefit for maternity and funerals and through the defects of its system for workmen’s compensation. In all other fields British provision for security, in adequacy of amount and in compre­hensiveness, will stand comparison with that of any other country few countries will stand comparison with Britain. Second, social insurance and /the allied services, as they exist today, are conducted by a complex of disconnected administrative organs, proceeding on different principles, doing invaluable service but at a cost in money and trouble and anomalous treatment of identical problems for which there is no justification. In a system of social security better on the whole than can be found in almost any other country there are serious deficiencies which call for remedy.

Thus limitation of compulsory insurance to persons under contract of service and below a certain remuneration if engaged on non-manual work is a serious gap. Many persons working on their own account are poorer and more in need of State insurance than employees the remuneration limit for non-manual employees is arbitrary and takes no account of family responsibility. There is, again, no real difference between the income needs of persons who are sick and those who are unemployed, but they get different rates of benefit involving different contribution conditions and with | meaningless distinctions between persons of different ages. An adult insured man with a wife and two children receives 38/- per week should he become unemployed if after some weeks of unemployment he becomes sick and not available for work, his insurance income falls to 18/-. On the other hand a youth of 17 obtains 9/- when he is unemployed, but should he become sick his insurance income rises to 12/- per week. There are, to take another example, three different means tests for non-contributory pensions, for supplementary pensions and for public assistance, with a fourth test—for unemployment assistance—differing from that for supplementary pensions in some particulars.

Many other such examples could be given they are the natural result of the way in which social security has grown in Britain. It is not open to question that, by closer co-ordination, the existing social services could be made at once more beneficial and more intelligible to those whom they serve and more economical in their administration.


The Beveridge Report: Making the Welfare State

Britain&rsquos welfare state is often spoken of as a triumph of peacetime, however, Beveridge's plan for it was drawn while the world was at war. Politicians were united on the need to change the system of social care but divided on how to make it work and how much of the Beveridge Report to put into practice.

In February 1943 as a result a further committee was formed to look in detail at implementing the recommendations of the report (the Sheepshanks Committee) in April.

The Conservative Party supported aspects of the report. Churchill, the leader of the Conservative Party, coined the phrase 'from the Cradle to the Grave' in a radio broadcast in March 1943 to describe the need for some form of social insurance to give security to every class of citizen in the state. However, Churchill was against too much state intervention and supported &lsquofreedom of choice&rsquo in healthcare.

The Liberal Party supported the Beveridge Report, including the inclusion of voluntary groups and charities in providing social security.

The Labour Party agreed with the main recommendations of the Beveridge Report but thought the State should provide full benefits and free healthcare for all and exclude voluntary societies.

The 1945 General Election

After World War Two, a general election was immediately called as the wartime coalition government of the major parties (Labour, Conservative and National Government) split apart. The General Election took place on 5 July 1945. The results were not all counted until 26 July due to the need to collect votes from the enormous number of men and women in the armed services, which were stationed across the world.

At the centre of the Labour Party Manifesto for the 1945 election is the implementation of the report&rsquos recommendations around national insurance and health. Key Labour politicians had also run some of the most relevant domestic departments during the war, such as Ernest Bevin Minister of Labour and National Service.

Labour Victory

The 1945 election led to a Labour Party victory and they had over 100 MPs more than any other party. The new Labour government introduced the steps for the National Health Service (NHS) and the implementation of other areas identified within the Beveridge Report, such as national insurance.

The inclusion or use of voluntary and &lsquofriendly societies&rsquo was not included in practical enactment of report by the Labour Government. All functions were controlled by the State.

The three decades following 1945 are known as a time of post-War consensus: an agreement by the main political parties that the Beveridge welfare state and a mixed economy would best keep inequality in check and stop poverty.

The National Health Service

Even before the election, parts of the Beveridge Report were being put into place by the coalition wartime government. The Labour Government introduced the laws and infrastructure needed for social security and the National Health Service (NHS):

  • 1944 Education Act (wartime coalition)
  • 1945 Family Allowances Act
  • 1946 National Insurance Act and National Health Services Act
  • 1946 USA 50 year loan to UK of $3.75 Billion
  • 5 July 1948 National Health Service established

Glosari

National Insurance - a universal (i.e. everyone pays the same amount of their salary) system of social insurance paid by the state with contributions made by employers and employees from their pay.

Welfare State - describes a system of state support funded by contributions from people and businesses. This system is sometimes called social security.


Beveridge and After: the Implementation of the Report’s Proposals

15The wholehearted endorsement of the Beveridge Report by the Labour Party – and the initial reluctance of Winston Churchill to commit the government to what appeared a very costly programme in the middle of a very expensive war – helped to secure an overwhelming Labour victory in the election of�. Following this triumph, legislation to implement Beveridge Report was put in place. Two of the three ‘assumptions’ had already been addressed: legislation to introduce tax-funded family allowances had been passed before the election and an official White Paper on Full Employment had been published shortly before Beveridge’s book on the subject. The Labour government took immediate steps to establish a National Health Service and new legislation to introduce the Beveridge’s social insurance scheme was passed in�, supplemented in� by the introduction of National Assistance – a measure that effectively centralised future means-tested social assistance, previously administered at local level. Contemporaries (not least Beveridge himself) understood the need for means-tests to be transitory these were destined, like the Marxist state, to wither away. However, central consolidation of means-tested assistance was to prove prescient for the future development of British social security.

16From the outset, the report’s recommendations encountered practical difficulties. Universal subsistence-level benefits proved particularly problematic for two main reasons: their overall expense and the difficulty in establishing a level of subsistence in a country where the cost of living (notably housing costs) varied considerably. From the start, the Beveridge Plan was viewed as potentially expensive in terms of its impact on industrial costs and thus on post-war exports and economic recovery. Its author was forced into early detailed recalculations to demonstrate how future financial burdens might be kept within limits. Three main problem areas had been identified in the report itself. First, rents varied considerably by family size, social class and by geographic location, [26] thereby challenging the principle of a flat rate subsistence-level benefit for all claimants. Second, the introduction of the first state pension at subsistence level and conditional on retirement [27] posed a particularly heavy burden that threatened the balances of the new insurance fund. Numbers of elderly were rising and, with old age poverty already a pressing concern, [28] the wartime government had already come under pressure to raise pensions. Finally, while the non-contributing housewife added to the scheme’s overall expense, the plight of deserted or divorced wives required attention. The report offered its own solutions: housewives should be admitted to all benefits bar unemployment benefit by virtue of their husbands’ contributions – including the divorced and deserted. The problem of variable rent could not be allowed to upset the principle of a flat-rate benefit for all, but those living with high accommodation costs might be permitted to appeal for supplementation. Finally the pensions issue (the most sensitive and difficult) might be tackled by phasing in the subsistence level pension over a㺔-year period, to allow insurance contributions to accumulate and post-war economic growth to lessen the burden. In the interim, lower pensions would encourage older workers to postpone retirement and/or encourage personal savings. Beveridge argued with some cogency that, whereas sickness or unemployment might strike without warning, old age was less a risk than a stage in the lifecycle for which the working person should be expected to plan.

17The author’s analysis cut little ice with the official committee set up to inspect the Beveridge Report on behalf of the wartime Cabinet (Phillips Committee). This committee, in view of the substantial extension in state-run insurance envisaged by Beveridge, criticised his report on a number of moral and economic grounds. It would pamper the feckless because it abandoned the principle of deterrence on which social relief in Britain had long been based. Phillips also attacked the principle of subsistence as unaffordable and impractical in light of the variation in the cost of living around the country. [29] Such criticisms were later embellished by the Treasury, which argued that most of the proposed changes were unnecessary, threatened the future balance of payments (as insurance contributions would create higher prices for exported goods), undermined work incentives and penalised entrepreneurship by perpetuating high taxation. [30] Moreover, contributions were unlikely to sustain benefit expenditure over the long run. Benefits for divorced wives in particular were interpreted as "subsidising sin." [31] As the National Council for Women was demanding a regular allowance for all housewives (a proposal the report rejected), Beveridge found himself isolated between organisations demanding more benefits for women and the Treasury demanding fewer. In consequence, the bulk of proposals to help women were eradicated. [32] Treasury objections underpinned the cuts in level and duration of benefit that appeared in subsequent white papers on social security that laid down the wartime government’s proposals for reform. [33] While the idea of unifying and rationalising social security administration was accepted, Whitehall officials and the Conservative Party looked askance at the implications of the Beveridge Report for future tax burdens and the damage inflicted on work incentives.

18Thus considerable inroads had been made by into Beveridge’s proposals well before the general election of�. However, the results of that election – which gave Labour its first ever absolute majority in the House of Commons – reflected the evident popularity of the Beveridge Report and the new government set about its implementation without delay. However, there were real problems. First, it proved impossible to balance the books: subsistence level benefits could not be funded by flat-rate contributions at a level that low-paid workers could sustain. The alternative, to raise the industrial contribution, threatened the post-war export drive. Second, the variation in the cost of living (largely due to rents) made a uniform subsistence level benefit incapable of a clear definition. Third, the cost of living index on which official calculations were based failed to account for either wartime or post-war inflation with any accuracy. Finally, although Beveridge had recommended that subsistence-level pensions should be phased in over a twenty-year period, the new Labour government found it quite impossible to leave established provision for pensioners untouched. Bowing to popular demand, the government decided to introduce the new pensions immediately (in�), while encouraging pensioners to stay in work by not offsetting additional earnings (post-war labour shortages were chronic). [34] However, although old age pensions were introduced at more generous rates than family allowances (arguably on the grounds that old people voted but children did not, as The Masa remarked), the elderly proved particularly vulnerable to inflation. Social insurance benefit rates remained unindexed and were only reviewed every five years price rises in the later�s corroded state pension values. This meant that one of Beveridge’s most popular promises – the abolition of means testing – was never realised as many poorer pensioners were forced to claim social assistance.

19The National Assistance Board (NAB), created in� to replace pre-war local authority means-tested assistance, was originally intended by Beveridge to cater only for a tiny remnant of cases. Although levels of poverty fell in the aftermath of the war, the work of the NAB remained substantial. By�, 500.000 pensioners were still applying for means-tested help and by the early�s, this figure topped one million. In the early�s, investigations by the London School of Economics revealed the high levels of poverty that persisted among the elderly, many too proud to apply to the NAB and to submit to the indignity of the means test. [35] In the absence of index-linked insurance benefits and with an ageing population, this figure continued to grow: today, state social security in Britain is overwhelmingly reliant on means tests. Viewed in the long run, we are forced to conclude that the nineteenth century poor law has made a deeper impact on British social policy than the Beveridge Report ever did.

20In the more immediate term, however, the popularity of Labour’s welfare measures guaranteed their survival. During and after the� elections, the reformist wing of the incoming Conservative government overcame earlier resistance to allow the NHS and the principle of universal benefits to survive intact. However, by the later�s, arguments against universality were being revived. The objections heard in wartime Whitehall, detailed above, concerning the damage universal benefits imposed by undermining work incentives, sustaining ‘unrealistic’ wages and raising industrial costs – all began to command a wider audience. Burdening the public sector by paying benefits to those who did not strictly need state support was a waste of resources. Hence the situation began to change: memories of the�s had faded, full employment and the spread of private welfare systems (notably for pensions) guaranteed that the level of state benefits was becoming irrelevant to anyone but the very poor. Slowly, traditional assumptions about the role of the state in supporting the indigent re-emerged, thus setting the stage for their full-bodied resuscitation with the election of Mrs Thatcher in�. The traditional tenets of British political economy about the minimal role of the state in supporting the indigent had, in spite of Beveridge’s best efforts, never really gone away.


The battle for Beveridge’s welfare state

Enthusiastic crowds queued to buy Beveridge's plan for a welfare state. How would a modern-day Beveridge restore the standing of his creaking creation?

William Beveridge discusses his report at the Ministry of Information. Photo: AP/Rex/Shutterstocks

On 30th November, 75 years ago, in the middle of the Second World War, an anticipatory queue formed on London’s Kingsway, the then headquarters of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Barely a fortnight earlier, Winston Churchill had ordered that the church bells be rung in recognition of Montgomery’s victory at El Alamein. It was the first domestic cause for rejoicing after three years of a war where there had been nothing to celebrate aside from the retreat from Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain, and stoic defiance of the Blitz. It was El Alamein—the first victory—that brought forth Churchill’s famous declaration that “Now is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is perhaps the end of the beginning.”

The lengthening queue on Kingsway, however, was not focused on the end of anything they were after a new beginning. They were there for the somewhat unlikely purpose of buying an often-immensely technical 300-page government-commissioned report, written by a retired civil servant, with the uninspiring title “Social Insurance and Allied Services.”

Much of the report was as hard going as the title suggests. But its 20-page introduction and 20-page summary, which were sold as a cheaper cut-down version, punchily dug the foundations on which the post-war welfare state would rest. These parts of the report were stuffed with inspirational rhetoric—“five giants on the road to reconstruction,” “a revolutionary moment in the world’s history is a time for revolutions, not for patching”: language that no government report, on any subject, has rivalled since.

In the context of the welfare state today, after seven years of austerity and with more to come, it is pretty hard to imagine news about anything other than cuts. The NHS is in the midst of the biggest squeeze in its history. Social care is in crisis. Spending per pupil is due to stop rising, and to fall in real terms. And entitlements to working age benefits—having been cut—are due to be cut again. Even back in the New Labour years, when the government was mobilising serious resources to make work pay and avoid the poorest families falling behind, there was almost an element of embarrassment about the endeavour. Certainly, nobody queued down Kingsway, Whitehall or anywhere else to hear about Gordon Brown’s tax credits, which were expressly designed to disguise a poverty-reduction programme as tax cuts, the calculation being that the war on want would be unpopular and so must be waged with stealth. Compared to 1942, it is another world.

Source: Institute for Fiscal Studies

The author of the report that caused such a stir 75 years ago was William Beveridge, an egotistical 63-year-old who already had more careers behind him than most ever enjoy—not just in Whitehall, but also as a journalist, broadcaster, permanent secretary, and head of both the LSE and University College, Oxford. He seemed to switch opinions almost as often as he did jobs. At times he held distinctly free-market views, but advocated for dirigiste planning during both world wars. He sometimes spoke in generous terms about social welfare, but at others of the economic necessity of “the whip of starvation.” Just four years before his report, Beatrice Webb, the great Fabian reformer, recorded his view in her diary after a walk across the Hampshire downs, that “the only remedy for unemployment is lower wages… he admitted, almost defiantly, that he was not personally concerned with the condition of the common people.” And he had something of the crank about him. The young Harold Wilson, for a time Beveridge’s researcher, recalled having in the 1930s to talk him out of a theory that it was the “sunspot” cycle—solar eruptions which supposedly bore on crop yields—that chiefly explained unemployment.

When he was appointed, it must thus have been tough to know how his report would turn out. In 1942, however, he was to prove admirably clear about what he wanted to do. His report did indeed offer—as was trumpeted on publication day by newspapers as diverse as the Telegraf Harian dan juga Daily Mirror—“cradle to grave” social security. It really did promise a clean break with the hardships not just of the war, but with the pre-war past. And the British welfare state that it set out in blueprint is, for all the challenges that it faces, still with us today.

Beveridge’s core aim was to tackle the poverty that had so scarred the 1930s, though he dubbed poverty “Want.” The 1930s were the days of mass unemployment, the Jarrow march, and the deeply loathed household means test that could see a family lose benefit if a child got a paper round. He proposed to solve that by building a new system of social insurance that would support a vastly improved benefit system.

But “Want,” he declared—and he was fond of both lists and giant capital letters—was but one of the “five giant evils on the road to reconstruction.” The others being “Disease, which often causes that Want… upon Ignorance which no democracy can afford among its citizens, upon Squalor… and upon Idleness which destroys wealth and corrupts men.”

And to make his new system of social security work, he wrote in “three assumptions”—things that had to happen, outside of his report, to allow it to happen. Specifically, there would be a national health service, available to all and without a charge of any kind. That there would be children’s allowances, which we would now recognise roughly as child benefit. These were to be funded from general taxation, not the national insurance contributions that underpinned the rest of his system. And there would be “full use of the powers of the state to maintain employment and reduce unemployment.”

So there it was. A comprehensively new social security system, involving everything from maternity to funeral grants. A free-at -the-point-of-use NHS. An attack upon Ignorance—better education. An assault upon Squalor—replacing slum housing. And a policy of full employment. A pretty much all-encompassing vision, which pretty well came to pass.

Outside the Treasury, where the chancellor Kingsley Wood did his damndest to kill it off, the reception was rapturous. Even Churchill in some moods favoured the vision, though at other times he fretted over the costs. As a result, some planning was done, but none of it was actually to happen—other than Butler’s great 1944 Education Act—until after the war was won. But the political power of the Beveridge promise was nonetheless extraordinary. In HMSO folklore, nothing outsold Beveridge’s 600,000 copies until the Denning report, on the more obviously sexy subject of the Profumo scandal 20 years later. The BBC broadcast details of “The Beveridge Plan” round the clock in 22 languages, and summaries were dropped into Nazi-occupied Europe. A commentary found in Hitler’s bunker after the war declared it to be “no botch-up… and superior to the current German social insurance in almost all points.”

In the words of José Harris, Beveridge’s brilliant biographer, the report’s spectacular impact was “a matter of both luck and calculation.” The luck included the fact that it landed just after El Alamein. The calculation was the way Beveridge and his allies had trailed it, long before the days of spin doctors, and, of course the Bunyan-esque prose with which he painted his vision—Beveridge was, after all, originally a journalist.

For all the daring, there was continuity as well as change in the report. The Beveridge system can be traced to the first Edwardian moves towards social insurance—in which Beveridge had had a hand—and to assorted municipal experiments, from the communal healthcare in Aneurin Bevan’s Wales to the bold council housing schemes of Herbert Morrison’s London County Council. But while all these models and many other ideas had been swirling around well before the war, it was Beveridge’s report, in the wonderful phrase of Paul Addison, that provided “the prince’s kiss.” The one that gave them life. He distilled the spirit of the lot.

Here is not the place to tell the tale of how Beveridge’s vision of a modern welfare state was constructed nor the struggles that have followed over the succeeding 75 years, in which it steadily expanded to take up a much larger slice of a far bigger economy (see chart opposite). All of that is covered in my newly-updated book, The Five Giants. What I want to do here instead is to ask what on earth the Beveridge of 1942 would have made of the welfare state as it stands, 75 years on.

It is not an easy question to answer with any precision, as so much has changed that he simply could not have foreseen. When he reported, the worry was not about an ageing population, but a declining one, and in his view it fell to “housewives as mothers” to put this right through their “vital work… in ensuring the adequate continuance of the British race.” Women may have been pouring into factories and flying unarmed Spitfires in the emergency of war, but expectations were still shaped by the pre-war world, where only one married woman in eight had worked. Thus, for married women, “provision should be made… with reference to the seven [the seven who did not work] rather than the one.” So married women gained less benefit in their own right than men.

Gender is only the start. In 1942 the school leaving age was 14, and a vanishingly small proportion, just 3 per cent, of 18 year olds went on to university. Income tax rates were high. But only the decidedly better off paid any income tax at all. Britain still had a global Empire, but it had neither a remotely global economy nor any significant Commonwealth immigration. The closest thing Britain had to a computer was being operated in secret by Alan Turing, the BBC’s fledgling television service had been suspended for the war, and relatively few homes had a telephone. We were much younger: with fewer than 200,000 people aged over 85, against 1.5m today. And we were much poorer, with average inflation-adjusted income per head around a quarter of today’s figure. And so on and so on.

But with all that said, Beveridge would recognise and be proud of the National Health Service, which, a few charges in England aside, fits his ideal, although he would be amazed at its size. He believed that the costs would fall once a mighty backlog of treatment had been dealt with. Instead, as in every other developed country, expenditure on endlessly-evolving modern medicine has risen faster than the economy. But healthcare, the overwhelming bulk of it still coming through the NHS, now consumes around one pound in 10 of our much enlarged national income. He would be much less happy about the condition of its Cinderella sister, social care. The 1945 Labour government claimed to have “abolished the Poor Law.” But its shadow lives on in the way social care remains first “needs tested”—a certain level of disability is needed to qualify—and then means-tested. If Beveridge was around today, cracking that and integrating this neglected service with health would be a target.

He would recognise and broadly approve of the basic state pension, although he would have been decidedly cross at the way its value was allowed to sink for 30 years after Thatcher broke the earnings link in 1980. He would, however, endorse the cross-party way in which over the last decade—via the Turner Commission, Labour legislation, coalition implementation, and, so far, Conservative preservation—it has been rebuilt as what he originally intended: a near-universal minimum platform on which private saving can be constructed. Auto-enrolment into pensions wasn’t even an idea back in 1942. But this form of personal provision on top of that from the state would decidedly appeal to this liberal statesman.

Beveridge would approve, at least in principle, of welfare-to-work programmes. His report recommended that men and women “unemployed for a certain period”—six months in periods of average unemployment, longer when it was higher—“should be required as a condition of continued benefit to attend a work or training centre… to prevent habituation to idleness and as a means of improving capacity for earning.” Those recommendations were not implemented in the days of full employment after the war. They seemed unnecessary. It was to take until the later 1990s, and in a much changed labour market, for welfare-to-work properly to take off.

He would, however, be mortified that, 75 years on, we still haven’t solved what he dubbed “the problem of rent.” He devoted nine pages to it while acknowledging that the solution he proposed was inadequate. He would be appalled at the way rising private sector rents have turned what is now housing benefit into the equivalent of running up a down escalator—the bill rises remorselessly even as the quality of accommodation covered descends—in a housing market that the Conservative communities secretary Sajid Javid has candidly described as “broken.” And he would, of course, have been horrified that seven years of austerity have seen the return of food banks, the modernised equivalent of the old soup kitchens—75 years after his plan to abolish Want.

Unemployed men queuing at a labour exchange, October 1931. Photo: Daily Herald Archive/SSPL/Getty Images

But when it comes to the way Want is remedied today, Beveridge would be bemused at how far means-testing—through tax credits, housing benefit, and now universal credit—now extend up the income scale. This has been one of the most enormous changes since his time, occurring over the 1990s and 2000s as the emphasis on the benefits system shifted from supporting people on condition they did not work, to supporting them to be in work, a response to the way globalisation was driving down wages at the lower end. With his knowledge of the 1930s, he hated means tests on similar grounds to Frank Field who has repeatedly argued that they “promote idleness, encourage dishonesty and penalise savings.”

But it is the flipside of all the means-testing that would have alarmed him the most—a spectacular erosion of the contributory principle, which had been the rock on which Beveridge built his plan. “Benefit in return for contributions, rather than free allowances from the State, is what the people of Britain desire,” Beveridge declared. Today, National Insurance is still collected on a vast scale—it is the government’s second largest source of revenue after income tax. But the basic state pension aside—and even there the link is diluted—the connection between contributions paid and benefits received has come close to disappearing. Since the 1990s, insurance-based unemployment benefits have only been paid for six months, after which the means-test bites more recently, other insurance-based benefits have been similarly curtailed. All of that would have met with Beveridge’s stern disapproval.

So there are as many negatives as positives on our brief and selective score card that we have presumptuously filled out on behalf of the Beveridge of 1942. But then the welfare state never was—or never should have been—something handed down on tablets of 1940s stone, never to be tampered with. It has, inevitably, had to adapt to the changing world. And there have been big advances as well as setbacks down the years.

There is, for example, now a huge range of benefits for disabled people never envisaged in the 1940s. There has been the massive expansion in schooling and—notwithstanding the tuition fees row—a mighty explosion in higher education. Having spent next to nothing on early years and childcare 20 years ago, the UK has today one of the highest levels of spend in Europe. In the 1940s, and for decades afterwards, the great worry was the elderly poor today, while there are still some poor pensioners, the elderly are the social group least likely to be at the bottom of the income distribution, a remarkable story of progress.

While the welfare state is under all sorts of financial stresses and strains, even after austerity it takes roughly two-thirds of government expenditure, and around a quarter of national income, just as it has since the 1980s. The composition of that spending has changed—parts have shrunk (free teeth and specs, for example) or even vanished. But new limbs have been added, and the beast is still alive. The prognosis for it in the coming 75 years, however, will depend on the argument for it continuing to adapt in changing times. The most pressing question for its survival is not what the 1942 Beveridge would think about this or that aspect of today’s welfare state, but how a modern-day Beveridge might set about restoring the system’s popular appeal.

In the era of ration-books and emergency wartime taxes, Britain became more equal, which made the “all in it together” spirit required to build the welfare state that bit easier to achieve. But over more recent decades inequality has widened hugely again. Inheritance has begun to bear more heavily upon an individual’s life chances, in ways that would have stunned and troubled Beveridge—he would, reasonably, have assumed it would continue to become less important, as it had already been doing for decades by 1942. Even in the egalitarian 1950s, the truly comprehensive social insurance system Beveridge desired was never quite achieved. It would be a much more difficult sell in a world where the poor struggle to pay the premiums, and the rich feel they don’t need the cover.

Would he even try? The one area in which he might is social care, where patchy and inadequate provision is fuelling the fear of financial ruin. Here a cry for the pooling of risk across society might, if put with flair, still be popular.

A modern-day Beveridge would be intrigued by the argument that because automation will soon destroy jobs on such a scale, it is time to set the welfare state on entirely new principles, by offering everyone a so-called universal “citizen’s “ or “basic” income. But with his “something-for-something” understanding of popular morality, he’d be unlikely to regard a free-for-all stipend as a way to entrench legitimacy. And he would be quick to spot that such a policy would be a decidedly costly stretch, requiring stiff levels of taxation—for which there is absolutely no evidence that the British electorate would vote.

As a wordsmith, Beveridge would be acutely sensitive to the role of language in charting a course through all the modern-day challenges. Although widely seen as the founder of the modern “welfare state,” he in fact refused to use the term, disliking its “Santa Claus” connotations. He would today be even more dismayed by some of the language around it, and the effect on policy. “Social security”—Beveridge’s great goal—has fallen out of the lexicon. Politicians of all parties now talk about “welfare,” and quite often deliberately conflate everything from the contribution-based pension (by far the largest single element of the £212bn bill), to child benefit, in-work benefits, and means-tested help for the workless, with the latter, at most, accounting a sixth of the bill. The meaning of the word “welfare” has been turned on its head. It has little to do with faring well. Rather, it has become a term of abuse. To be “on welfare” is to be on the wrong side of the tracks or on “benefit street.” One thing those politicians who truly believe that “we are all in this together” could do is reclaim the language of “social security” and the sense of collectiveness that goes with it.

One of the many modern problems which was not a challenge in the 1940s is inter-generational inequality. Even to the extent that it was, it was the old and not the young that were the worry. But in the gap that today yawns between the generations in the opposite direction, a modern-day Beveridge might spot an opportunity—to re-emphasise something the welfare state has always done, which is redistribute not just from rich to poor but across the individual, and family, lifecycle.

The welfare state continues to educate and support its children, as it always has. Having seen them through birth and the early health interventions that are crucial for their future, it seeks to pick up the minority in their middle years for whom life goes wrong in myriad ways. And when these people—and their more-fortunate peers—are older, it tries to ensure they have a basic state pension: having provided, on the way, incentives and assistance to help those who can build something better than that. And it assumes that those older people, and their children, and their grandchildren, will repeat the enterprise—because the older generations fret as much about the younger generations, as the younger generations do about their parents and grandparents. Whether the question is health or housing, education, employment or poverty relief, the welfare state does all this far from perfectly, and occasionally very badly. But most individuals and families would, surely, still prefer for their own lives to unfold in a world where the welfare state was there at moments of vulnerability, rather than live in the alternative—a world where everyone is for themselves, for good, or ill, or very ill.

A modern-day Beveridge would thus likely aim to foster understanding of the welfare state’s continuing role as an unwritten inter-generational contract. By doing that, he just might be able to encourage taxpayers’ willingness to stump up the funds that the system continues to need.

For the single thing that Beveridge would be crystal clear about is that if the British people, to use his repeated phrase, still want in very changed circumstances a decent system of social security and a wider set of “allied services”—the NHS, education, decent housing for all—then they have to be prepared to advocate, fight, vote and pay for it. My favourite single quote from Beveridge is this. “Freedom from Want cannot be forced on a democracy or given to a democracy. It must be won by them.” As true now as it was then—when people were queuing up for it.

Kami ingin mendengar pendapat anda mengenai artikel ini. Submit a letter to [email protected]

Nicholas Timmins is a senior fellow at the Institute for Government and the King’s Fund. “The Five Giants: A Biography of the Welfare State,” his final, fully-updated, and award-winning edition of the welfare state’s history, from Beveridge to the modern day, is published by William Collins


Tonton videonya: FULL INTEROGASI LYODRA GINTING, BELINDA, DAN RURI. LAPOR PAK! 180321