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?
His problem is surely to find a Beveridge-type programme, by which individuals and companies capable of contributing more to the National Economy are encouraged to invest and produce more. The Liberal Democrats can advise well on this, with our demand for greater involvement with the EU through for example applying to join the Single Market. We will surely applaud the Government’s efforts to enhance the employment prospects of young people by paying firms to afford to take them on for trial periods, and contribute to this by demanding further insurance assistance for small businesses hit by the Government’s increases in their costs.
On housing, it has been good to hear of Andy Burnham’s contacts with Cornwall MPs, showing his commitment to developing all areas of England besides Manchester and London, and his interest in the work of Truro’s Lib Dem MP Andrew George, who is promoting a bill in the Commons about the availability of social and affordable homes and making better provision for the powers of local authorities and local planning authorities. With our prompting and persuasion, in pursuit of our own aims for much greater provision of social housing, there should be more help provided for young people unable to leave the parental home because of the unavailability of sufficient affordable housing.
‘Want’ persists, as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s annual reports show, and it will take more than the (late) cessation by the Government of the two-child benefit cap to end poverty in this country. We should continue to press the Government to adopt our policy of Guaranteed Basic Income to alleviate deepest poverty.
To conclude: at the time of the launch of a new film about William Beveridge, entitled ‘The Man with a Plan’, starring Simon Callow, this is surely the ideal moment to begin to compare the achievements of the former great Liberal thinker, as carried out by his Labour Government successors, with the achievements of our new Prime Minister in facing enormous pressures from huge problems today. That we will assist and encourage him is a given, since we are the heirs of the thinking of William Beveridge.
* Katharine Pindar is a long-standing member of the Cumberland Lib Dems
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
New crematorium evacuated just weeks after opening as firefighters rush to scene
Lib Dems just miss out on another council by-election gain.
Surgery tomorrow
The continuing cost of Brexit
Meral Hussein-Ece
Chris Caswill
sean worrell
Peter Davies
David Warren
41 Comments
Andrew George is MP for St Ives, not Truro
A very interesting article by Katharine and I very much look forward to seeing the film.
When Beveridge produced his plan in 1942, he was a civil servant and had never been a member of the Liberal Party. He first joined the party in October, 1944, after he was invited to fight the Berwick-upon-Tweed byelection caused when the young MP, George Grey, was killed in action in Normandy. He lost the seat nine months later in July 1945.
Back in 1942, his chief assistant doing much of the statistical research was the future Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. After 1945, the actual legislation owed much to the efforts of two Cabinet ministers Ernest Bevin and Aneurin Bevan – unfortunately some individual Liberal MPs actually opposed parts of the legislation.
“…..since we are the heirs of the thinking of William Beveridge”
I would dispute this. Beveridge was only in favour of contributory and non- means tested benefits. A GBI and UBI are both intrinsically means tested by the application of a steeper “taper”.
I asked Google’s AI, which is an impartial source if nothing else:
“…..was Beveridge in favour of non-contributory and means tested benefits”
You can see the answer yourself. The public mood is much more in line with Beveridge’s concept of how the benefits system should work rather than the way it does currently work.
According to the same source, some 35 – 40% of UC payments go to people in work. So the taxpayer is effectively subsidising the wages paid out by wealthy employers . At the same time it discourages workers from forming unions and demanding higher pay. What is the point of a pay rise if nearly all of it is lost in a combination of higher taxes and reduced benefits? Forcing employers to pay a living wage to all would be one way of reducing the benefits bill.
You can argue to the contrary and say that the taxpayers should be prepared to pay more but it won’t win you any extra votes. So the only way forward, and to genuinely reduce poverty levels in a democracy, is to suggest ways this can be done without extra taxes having to be used to provide the means.
Thanks, Mick. I should have remembered, having once joined a canvassing party for Andrew IN St Ives! I was delighted to read about his bill, “to make provision about the availability of social, affordable and intermediate market homes; to make provisions about the powers of local authorities and local planning authorities in relation to homes and planning; to make further provision in relation to homes and planning; and for connected purposes” and am glad Andy Burnham is consulting with him. Now I want Conference to pass something similar, particularly relating to the powers of local authorities: resources should not go simply to mayors to fulfil our social housing commitment. Having had a motion about this not accepted’ for debate at Conference, I am mentioning the same things in offering an amendment to F17, and will get in touch with Andrew this autumn. It was good that he spoke in the last PMQs and was well received by the Prime Minister.
Govt borrowing is £115 billion plus – just to service the debt. Gilts are over 5% , higher than Truss calamitous tenure. As each day passes it must surely be tempting for an early GE. With Reform falling in polls , & only 2+ years to turn things around . Labour might not get a better opportunity.
Thanks, David and Peter, for your comments. Interesting that Beveridge did not actually join the Liberal Party till 1944, but his ideas were to me, Liberal. I liked the U Tube clip of him talking about his new policy, and the definite idea he had that any working person who could not support themself must be supported. Yes, people should contribute where they can, but never be left destitute. So I do think, Peter, that he would welcome the present system, which I hope Andy Burnham will find means to keep in place. And isn’t it a trifle pejorative, to suggest that because people can get Universal Credit while in work (thank goodness, I would say!) ‘the taxpayer is effectively subsidising the wages paid out by wealthy employers’? Only asking about that word ‘wealthy’ appearing!
Chloe, thank you, but I hope Andy Burnham would respond to that suggestion by saying there is a lot of work to be done and he and his team intend to see that it is done.
The Man with a Plan is indeed worth watching, I was most impressed by Simon Callows reading of Beverages own words. Beveridge was a great deal more Radical than I had thought, He was vehemently against Means-Tested Benefits & our present system is a travesty of the one he imagined.
I think he would be particularly appalled by the current restrictions on Saving for The Poor, save too much and it will be taken away. If you aren’t careful you may be thrown in jail. Saving is to be encouraged for the well off but criminalised for the Poor.
Thanks for the kind words, Katharine.
Beveridge was a civil servant up until 1919 when (through the influence of Sidney and Beatrice Webb) he became Director of the LSE up to 1940 when he returned to the Civil Service. Although he did attend the Liberal Summer Schools between the Wars he was not formally attached to either Labour or the Liberals during that period.
What I find difficult is the fact that like Churchill (his former Minister at the Home Office before WW1) he was interested in eugenics which has a strong Malthusian ring to it.
Might we have a detailed definition of government borrowing?
For example, to whom is it owed, by when, and under wuch terms and conditions?
Peter Martin 4th Sep ’26 – 2:11pm:
I asked Google’s AI, which is an impartial source if nothing else:
I find Gemini’s strong left-liberal bias is often apparent (as with most media). I only quote it within comments on LDV as it doesn’t require a log-in, so interested readers can easily rerun my question.
‘Massive left-leaning bias found with AI models’ [July 2026]:
https://brusselssignal.eu/2026/07/massive-left-leaning-bias-found-with-ai-models/
@ Jeff,
If Google’s AI (Gemini) is genuinely intelligent, it is only to be expected that, like people, it would have leftish views.
https://www.dazeddigital.com/life-culture/article/62392/1/intelligent-people-are-more-likely-to-be-left-wing-iq-politics-says-science
Interesting, Jeff, and pleasant for a Left-leaning Liberal to read. But the question for us today, I think, is, whether when wars go on raging and the cost of living keeps on rising, can progressive thinking prevail in government? It did in the 1940s (though pity about the eugenics, David), it didn’t under the Tories, can’t under Reform or Renew, but hopefully can and will under the Burnham-led government. Are your Socialist instincts satisfied now, Peter? Or is it too early to tell?
Peter Martin,
‘A GBI and UBI are both intrinsically means tested by the application of a steeper “taper”.’
A Guaranteed Basic Income is means-tested, but a Universal Basic Income is not. Did you mean Universal Credit (which does have a taper)?
I am surprised that you think the public mood is that benefits should not be means-tested. According to Google AI “a strong cross-party consensus objects to cutting vital means-tested or disability safety nets when it risks exacerbating poverty or straining the NHS.” Also “the majority of voters support tightening eligibility conditions” i.e. means-testing.
To me it seems that the public understand that means-testing benefits reduce overall costs and try to target benefits at those most in need.
As you know the taper exists to remove the cliff-face of the old benefit system and make people better off in work than on benefits. The taper can’t be abolished, but there could be more than one taper, with it being higher on higher earnings. I believe that increasing the minimum wages and introducing rent controls would reduce the number of people in work who receive benefits.
“The taper can’t be abolished, but there could be more than one taper, with it being higher on higher earnings.” There is. Income tax and NI effectively increase the taper from 55% to 67.6% for those above the threshold.
I believe that increasing the minimum wages and introducing rent controls would reduce the number of people in work and housed.
““the majority of voters support tightening eligibility conditions” i.e. means-testing.” – Not necessarily. They may well support more stringent testing of conditions other than means such as willingness to work or level of disability.
In general, I think the public defines “benefits” as something that is means-tested. They don’t see free health care or education as benefits because everyone is eligible. Similarly, the personal allowance is not seen as a benefit as the majority of the adult population recieve it. A negative income tax giving everone a tax rebate on the unused portion of their personal allowance and reducing UC accordingly could be seen as taking a large number of people off benefits.
@jeff
I question your source, Brussels Signal.
Brussels Signal is owned by an American ‘consultant’ called Patrick Egan, whose activities have received funding from organisations around Victor Orban.
What else would you expect them to say?
Do you have a more neutral source?
Thanks
What can be seen as ‘progressive’ new taxation, for Andy Burnham and his Chancellor to try in order to raise further much-needed funds? Not surely by any means Reform proposes. Nor by cutting any of the provisions of the Pensions Triple Lock, which continue to ensure that all pensioners get a decent minimum to help them cope with the drastic rise in the cost of living. (‘Real disposable income per head … has fallen 1.61 per cent since 2121, according to the Office for National Statistics’, as reported in The Times on August 29.) But one proposal mooted in the same paper by Ben Wilkinson, their Head of Money, sounds possible, on the principle of the richest paying more.
Anyone over the state pension age of 66, receiving a state pension and a private pension but still earning, is apparently exempt from paying more than £3,200 in tax, even if earning £60,000 or more. The proposal is that pensioners should have to pay national insurance in future, like most of the working population. ‘Think tanks have estimated that requiring pensioners to pay national insurance could raise as much as £2 billion a year’, reports the paper. Our richer voters might grind their teeth at that, but would it be fair?
Paul Baker,
The £16,000 limit on total savings for those of working age on benefits hasn’t been changed since 2013. If someone has more savings than this they can’t receive any Universal Credit. Our policy as set out in Policy Paper 150 ‘Towards A Fairer Society’ is to increase this limit to £21,000 and then index it the annual rate of inflation. Savings above £6,000 effect the amount of benefit a person receives – for every £250 or part above this figure a claimant has their benefit reduced by £1 a week. I tried to get the working group to agree to increase this limit too, but failed.
Peter Davies,
‘I believe that increasing the minimum wages and introducing rent controls would reduce the number of people in work and housed.’
Many Conservatives would agree with you. Low Pay Commission research shows that the UK minimum wage has caused little to no overall job loss. ‘Broad studies show that moderate wage increases do not drive overall unemployment. Total employment numbers generally remain stable.’
Rent controls may well reduce the private supply of homes for rent, therefore it has to be linked to an increase in the supply of social housing for rent.
Your idea of a negative income tax would not reduce the amount the government would have to pay out but would reduce the amount spent under the heading of benefits, if the negative income tax was included in tax receipts.
@Katherine Pindar – it’s always struck me as fundamentally unfair that we tax income from work at a higher rate than income from investments and property due to employee National Insurance (for people below retirement age).
Why should workers be hit with higher tax rates than those fortunate enough to have accumulated or inherited sufficient wealth to generate most or all of their income via investment returns and property?
I’d like to see NI scrapped and rolled into the income tax system. Inevitably this will create winners and losers, with the losers almost certainly richer people, so such proposals will generate a lot of opposition from the right wing press….
“I’d like to see NI scrapped and rolled into the income tax system…”
The I in NI does stand for Insurance. The original Beveridge idea was that we become entitled to a payout in the event of unemployment. So, under the new system, if anyone becomes unemployed after official retirement age, and wants a job, will they be entitled to a payout? We can argue they should be if they have to pay more tax.
The insurance concept is still operational when it comes to calculating pension levels. There is a requirement to have paid a certain number of contributions. How will this work if NI is abolished?
Nick, thank you, I will comment later on your post. But this morning, hearing the news roundup on the Kuensburg show, it struck me that Andy Burnham, unlike Beveridge’s personal situation even in the midst of a World War, has a war of his own to fight. That is, against the alienation, the despair, hatred and fear that much of our population seems to feel, evinced lately by the killing and burning in Cleveland, and yesterday by the grim spectacle of black-clad hooded men marching in protest about immigration. For Andy Burnham to bring the kind of unity our country felt during the Covid epidemic, and to cause his hope and optimism to be shared by most people in our country, will be a real fight – which may demand stronger law enforcement in addition to his positive measures to enhance general wellbeing.
“Low Pay Commission research shows that the UK minimum wage has caused little to no overall job loss.” It is part of the Low Pay Commission remit to recommend a level on criteria including minimal impact on employment. It should be no surprise then that they think the level they have set meets that criterion. That is why the level is so low: less than 6% of people are on it. If you are talking about a sufficient rise to take a significant number off benefits, it probably would affect employment.
Most low paid employment is in sectors with no foreign competition like retail and hospitality. Labour intensive manufacturing has already been wiped out in the UK. This means that wage rises can largely be passed on in prices. In the long term, however, even at current levels, it may contribute to decline of those sectors (e.g. pubs) or technological replacement of employment (e.g. unstaffed checkouts).
Nick, that capital should be fairly taxed as well as working income is surely our policy. I like the idea of scrapping NI and rolling it into the income tax system, but will leave it to our economists to pursue this often-mentioned theme. I wish our party would set up a working group to consider all aspects of fairer taxation.
Peter (Davies) you make fair points. It’s difficult now to see how Keynesian full employment can be fulfilled these days, to generate production of goods and economic growth, while paying all workers a fair wage. I take it we need government investment in high-growth industries, along with appropriate apprenticeships and training linked to the areas where such industries can be fostered.
@ Michael BG,
“I am surprised that you think the public mood is that benefits should not be means-tested.”
I didn’t say this.
I did say “The public mood is much more in line with Beveridge’s concept of how the benefits system should work rather than the way it does currently work.”
Which is that it should be a insurance scheme like any other. In other words people pay in when they are in work and receive a payout if they are out of work. It’s never quite worked like that, though, even from the beginning.
Your own Mark Pack is worth a read on this topic.
https://www.markpack.org.uk/67644/william-beveridges-legacy/
Paul Barker,
Sorry I spelt your name incorrectly.
Peter Martin
The insurance concept is also kept for those receiving New Style Jobseekers Allowance (lasts six months) and Employment and Support Allowance (lasts for one year).
Sweetness and light must be over, it seems; Manchesterism won’t cut it. With the Far Right gathering its black-clad thugs to protest about the migrant boats at Portsmouth, after the demonstration at Dover, Burnham’s government must surely act tough now, or the extremists will enhance the anti-immigrant messages of Reform and help mend its
damaged image. Longer-term, though, as I wrote yesterday, the government needs to tackle the underlying causes, the alienation, fear and hatred felt by so much of the left-behind people of our country. What is our own party going to say about it all? With our Conference coming soon, and PMQs meantime this week.
The whole agenda of many disparate elements of the right (not necessarily working in coordination) is to machinate a small boats ‘crisis’ where actually numbers are falling for a variety of reasons.
The people benefitting from this range from those utterly beyond the pale of democracy, to the tabloids and their backers and immigration-sceptic and ant-immigration people and cliques from within the Tories rightward, who have benefitted year on year from panics about border crossings every summer allowing them to upend and control the news and political agenda and don’t want to lose that trump cards.
But these new freikorps-style thugs are pushing an abosolutist agenda whereby any boat crossing is portrayed as unaccepatable failure, which supports a further extremist hardline agenda whereby any immigration of those identified as aliens and strangers by whoever is shouting is seen as unacceptable.
This is built on fake news and information fraud and needs constant challenge.
Indeed you are right, Matt.about the need for constant challenge. But reasoned argument is often not listened to: as with the protester against the migrant crossings interviewed by the World at One on R4, who said how his family and everyone he knew thought as he did. The big boats landing more than a hundred migrants at once will surely count for more than the assurance that overall numbers have fallen, viewed by that chap and his associates. And their conviction is likely, sadly, to influence Reform. It’s a huge job for the government, to alter such perceptions.
Ref. Katherine Pinar’s post at 2:30 pm on 7/9/2026
I was looking at HM Government’s guidance on claiming asylum at
https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum and https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility .
“To stay in the UK as a refugee you must be unable to live safely in any part of your own country because you fear persecution there.
This persecution must be because of:
your race
your religion
your nationality
your political opinion
anything else that puts you at risk because of the social, cultural, religious or political situation in your country, for example, your gender, gender identity or sexual orientation
You must have failed to get protection from authorities in your own country.
When your claim might not be considered
Your claim might not be considered if you:
are from an EU country
travelled to the UK through a ‘safe third country’
have a connection to a safe third country where you could claim asylum
Generally, a safe third country is one that:
you’re not a citizen of
you would not be harmed in
would not send you on to another country where you would be harmed
”
There has been reference hereabouts about France being a ‘safe country’. But Note that condition ‘you would not be harmed in’
If someone originated from a former French colony from which they had to flee there might be other people currently residing in France, whose paths a would-be immigrant to the UK had crossed. Those people might pose a serious threat to the would-be immigrant to the UK.
Katharine Pindar, re your post of 5th Sept 6.37pm
The Institute for Public Policy Research in August, as one of three suggestions for tax changes, proposed that the 2% NI rate, currently paid by employees under 65 on earnings above the upper earnings limit (£50,270), be extended to pensioners (https://www.ippr.org/articles/taxing-times).
Re the IPPR report, that proposal would only affect earned income over £50,270. To pay an extra £1000 pounds tax, they would need to earn over £100K. If they are earning that and have reached pension age, they are probably also getting a substantial investment income. It’s a very small change. Incorporating employees’ NI into income tax would be a much better option.
by far the biggest proposals in the report are
“A progressive consumption tax, offset with a tax-free consumption allowance, negative income tax or universal basic income, in response to widening inequality.”
Oddly this doesn’t get a mention in the press release.
Peter Davies,
In the report the IPPR suggest that the 2% could start being paid by pensioners from the personal allowance (£12,570) level. From this income (12,570 to £50,270) £754 would need to be paid.
Indeed, they do in the report suggest a progressive consumption tax, with a universal basic income to act as a tax-free allowance for some time in the future. They seem to envision this as increasing VAT while keeping the zero-rated food, children’s clothes and public transport. In the report they suggest, “in order to ensure that poorer citizens don’t bear the burden of higher VAT, a progressive consumption tax would need to provide a consumption allowance, similar to the income tax’s personal allowance, that would be untaxed. … this might be best set up like a negative income tax or universal basic income. Accordingly, a progressive consumption tax looks much like combining lower income taxation, higher VAT rates and a universal basic income.”
Thinking of the very different wars that Andy Burnham’s government and William Beveridge’s government face or faced, one thing is clear – there is not an enemy which must be defeated today, as there was in 1942. Multiple are the war-like problems our new Prime Minister must face in leading the country: from dangerous effects of climate change to the new threat of Artificial Intelligence possible turning against humanity; from trying to get the USA to defend Europe again, beginning with Ukraine, to the alienation and frustrated anger of so much of our own population in striking out against supposed enemies.
After watching Prime Minister’s Questions at lunch-time, I feel reassured that Andy Burnham is facing all our futures with some grace. He is co-operative, not confrontational. listening to all the questioners – even Kemi Badenoch – with attention, replying with reason rather than point-scoring: as if we are all included in the great enterprises of our day. It feels that he will lead us to work together to try to solve all the problems and together confront the evil-doers. Maybe this is a time now as with Covid, when differences can be set aside and co-operation will prevail, both within Britain and in Europe and the Western world. Hope and prayer!
@ Katharine Pinder I have the same perception as you on how Mr Burnham appears to be handling matters so far, Katharine. He is certainly wrong footing Ms Badenoch at PMQs.
“… from trying to get the USA to defend Europe again” ???
Europe, (and I presume you mean the EU), has a population of 452 million. Its GDP is $23 trillion. Russia has a population of 145 million and a GDP of $2.75 trillion. So, it is easy to see why many in the US are wondering why they should or even why we think the EU needs protecting. Add in the UK , Norway and perhaps Switzerland and the figures are even more compelling.
In any case, why would we want them to?
@ Katharine,
” It’s difficult now to see how Keynesian full employment can be fulfilled these days, to generate production of goods and economic growth, while paying all workers a fair wage. ”
That’s quite an admission.
Are you saying you can’t think of a way to divide up all the tasks that the workforce of the country needs to perform to ensure the continuance of our society and at the same time ensure that everyone is entitled to a fair share of the benefits created?
Peter Martin: as to why we need the USA still to defend Europe, it is surely that we need President Trump to stand up to Putin for Ukraine and promote the end of the war, meantime supplying more of the defensive and offensive weapons that Ukraine desperately needs. Thanks I suppose to Keir Starmer, the ‘Alliance of the Willing’ is also acting to shore up Ukraine’s defences, as the country faces up to another freezing winter with energy supplies frequently interrupted, and citizens killed in the cities every day, but more military aid is surely urgently required.
No I can’t, Peter, but hopefully the government under Andy Burnham can! Are you not persuaded yourself that now your Socialist party can finally be the ‘real deal’ so to speak?
Certainly the Conservatives must be stopped from coming back: atrocious to hear Kemi Badenach demand that housing benefits be drastically cut (“people need to move to smaller houses if they can’t afford where they are now” !!) to pay for the necessary enhanced defence spending.
@ David Raw. Thanks for your comments in this thread, David. And yes, it’s good that we seem now to have a government which the Liberal Democrats can work with, and a leader who wants us all to work together.
I hope Andy will be the “real deal” but I expect he won’t. We’ll just have to see how it all plays out.
The centre left doesn’t really understand the working class any longer. This has allowed the right to pick up support and it’s not just on the question of immigration. Many of us will have spent time in shared housing in our younger days when we were students. We’ll have drawn up rotas, perhaps to ensure that everyone took a turn preparing an evening meal. If someone doesn’t do what they are expected to do then everyone else gets very cross! In my experience Lib Dems are likely to get just as cross and everyone else.
It’s much the same in society but on a larger scale. I’m not sure that modern day Lib Dems get that in the way that Beveridge certainly did..