In the midst of the Second World War, the Liberal Civil Servant William Beveridge wrote of the terrible state he saw that Britain was in, and in his report, ‘Social Insurance and Allied Services’ published by the wartime Government in December 1942, he proposed remedies which gained immediate attention and after the war much Government-directed successful action.
Can Andy Burnham, despite the threat from hostile powers requiring now major escalation of British Defence forces, find remedies for the terrible mess which so many Britons believe defines the current state of our nation?
Are the perceived problems comparable?
Beveridge defined Five Great Evils in his report, naming them as Want, Disease, Squalor, Ignorance and Idleness. Modern interpretations describe his views as defining Want as poverty and inadequate personal income, Disease as lack of healthcare and widespread ill-health, Squalor as inadequate housing and unhygienic and overcrowded living conditions, and Idleness as reflecting high unemployment and lack of gainful work. Ignorance was seen as arising from inadequate national education. The parallels for the Labour Government today are clearly many, although the evil of ignorance can be perceived now in the spread of harm to young people through dangerous algorithms and the Social Media influencers, matters which the Burnham Government must tackle urgently.
Beveridge’s eventual great success was in matters relating to ‘Disease’, or healthcare and extended National Insurance. His conviction of the need for disease control and extended healthcare led to the creation of the Welfare State under the post-war Labour Government of Clement Attlee. Social insurance had begun under the Liberal Governments at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, and Beveridge advocated a flat-rate universal contribution from working people, in exchange for a flat rate universal benefit. National Insurance provisions were extended after the Second World War.
The challenge for Andy Burnham’s government in this area now, apart from the continuing great need to improve the effectiveness of the NHS, is how to continue to pay for adequate Universal Benefits for working people and Pensions for the retired. The Prime Minister is known to wish to improve the living standards of all, reduced by the austerity programme of the Tory hegemony and the rapid rise now, partly the result of the continuing war in the Middle East, of the cost of living. What would be the point therefore of cutting the Pension triple-lock payments, which give pensioners a modest minimum income, or reducing the rates of Universal Credit, Child Benefits and PIP, which also barely keep many households afloat?