Observations on Changes for the Masses

“The outstanding event of this month has been, of course, the publication of the Beveridge Report.”

A little over seventy years ago a report was published in Britain which was to irrevocably change the common consensus on the basic responsibilities of government and thereby also transform British society. Mass unemployment, poverty, and disappointment at wasted wartime sacrifices had characterised the ‘Hungry Thirties’; a return to that status quo after yet another world war could not be contemplated. Therefore as early as 1941, during those darkest days when Britain stood alone and faced defeat on every front, thoughts among the press, public and government were already turning to the post-war world and the ‘plan’ that would deliver a better future for all after victory. The man Churchill’s government chose to devise this plan was William Beveridge, an economist with a long-standing interest in social reform. His Report on Social Insurance and Allied Services, delivered in December 1942, stands as one of the most influential reports ever presented before parliament.

In it, Beveridge identified the “five giant evils” of society as want, ignorance, disease, squalor and idleness, and argued that a comprehensive and universal ‘cradle-to-the-grave’ system of social security was the only solution for eradicating them. By outlining radical changes to Britain’s educational, healthcare, insurance, child benefits and pensions systems, Beveridge’s recommendations proved a key inspiration to the Labour Party’s 1945 election manifesto and laid the groundwork for their post-war reforms which established the National Health Service and created the Welfare State.

In hindsight, Beveridge’s report is a key turning point in British twentieth century history, but perhaps the greatest testament to its importance is the fact that it was recognised as such instantly upon publication. This is evidenced not only by the fact that 630,000 copies of the report were sold – in a wave of popular engagement with politics rarely seen today – but also by the archived reports of Mass Observation.

This month, the latest addition to Mass Observation Online, Adam Matthew’s digitization of the archive materials of the pioneering social research organisation Mass Observation, will be released. The new content provides online access for the first time to the post-war diaries and directives of MO respondents, providing direct insight into the lives and views of people living through years of austerity, reconstruction and unprecedented social reform.

The new content also includes wartime and post-war Topic Collections, data collected by paid observers on key topics such as health, the NHS, and the Beveridge Report. The momentousness of this publication was not lost on Mass Observation. Beveridge’s report was published on the 2nd December 1942. On the 3rd December, Observers were already on the streets of Bookham, Kilburn, Streatham and Bolton, asking members of the public for their opinions, preserving the raw and gut reactions of a people who, at the height of war, suddenly could speak of nothing but peace:

“It’s extraordinary the interest people are taking in it. When I went down to the Stationery Office to get it, there were queues of people buying it,” remarked one woman, while one man claimed, “Among my friends and colleagues the publication of the report caused more discussion and interest than any war news for a long time.”

These responses are compiled in one of the newly digitized Topic Collections (53: Beveridge Social Surveys 1942 & 1947), along with diary extracts, press cuttings and publications referring to the report. Beveridge’s report interested everybody, no matter their social or economic status, age or gender; indeed, according to Mass Observation’s report on their 3rd December questionnaires, it interested even those who do not normally take any interest in politics or the news.

The tone of the vast majority of people was favourable, ranging from expressions of mild support (“Something to look forward to. We might not all be so poor then”) to nigh-on jubilation (“This is the greatest measure of social reform of a century […] its passing will herald a new era for the masses”). There were naturally dissenters. While one person questioned “had read it and thought it the finest attempt to solve social problems ever”, another who’d read it “was very disappointed. It seems very dull. I can’t see that it amounts to much at all.” Others claimed “I can’t make head nor tail of it” and “I don’t think people will like so many changes”.

Beyond such sweeping dismissals, most criticisms concentrated on specific reform proposals. Observers noted that early reactions to the Beveridge Report as a whole were often decided on the strength of a single element thereof. For instance, the reform proposal most often mentioned by respondents was pensions; while there was general support for better and securer pensions, some older respondents were dissatisfied, considering the pensions too low (“on account of the cost of living”) or the age of retirement too high.

Some of the criticisms and fears expressed were remarkably similar to those one still hears repeated today whenever the social security system is called into question; “it will not do to turn child production into a profitable industry for feckless people” opined one diarist about the family allowance proposals, while several respondents worried comprehensive social security would discourage people from working.

On the whole though, the material collected by Mass Observation reveals that Beveridge’s proposals for social reform were broadly endorsed by the public – indeed, the pessimism that tinges many people’s remarks was not due to disagreement with the content of the Beveridge Report, but a lack of faith in the likelihood of the proposals ever passing into law.

“It’s a political stunt – like after the last war there was to be homes for heroes” was one verdict, while another man said “Oh talk, talk, talk – that’s all they ever do in Parliament. It’s no good they’ll never pass it in my day.” For many, the insurance companies and the conservative powers-that-be seemed forces too strong or disinterested to ever commit to actually implementing reform.

For once however, scepticism in politicians proved unjustified. The momentum behind the demand for change and the scale of public discussion of Britain’s post-war plan was simply too great to be ignored. As one far-sighted respondent predicted “Any government that did not support this Bill to the uttermost would be doomed. It would sweep the country as an election cry.”

In 1945 the Labour Party was swept into power with an overwhelming majority, partly on the back of their adoption of Beveridge’s proposals, and over the next five years set about transforming vision into reality, and once-revolutionary ideas into basic rights.