THE WELFARE STATE: A BRITISH GOVERNMENT PUBLIC INFORMATION FILM
Jul 29th, 2008 by Conor McCabe
This clip dates from 1948, and was made to explain the welfare state to “Charley”, who thinks it’s all a “bleedin´waste of money.” The title is: “Charley’s March of Time.”
Enjoy.
Conor, thanks very much for digging this up. This demonstrates again that the welfare state is one of the greatest social advances in modern times. Not only that, it shows that progressives need not be defensive. Instead, we must be innovative and even humourous in arguing for a welfare state relevant to our social situation.
Thinking about this piece some more, it is noteworthy that at the time the UK introduced comprehensive social insurance, the economy was still lumbered with the aftermath of war (rationing continued well into the 50s). But rather than seeing social insurance as a ‘drain’ or a ‘charge’, the Labour Party understood that future growth was predicated on the foundations of a welfare state. We need to get that message across today, now more than ever.
[…] Dublin Opinion are forever uncovering gems. Their latest little dig, courtesy of Conor, brings us ‘Charley’s March of Time’- an animated promotional film produced by the British Labour Government to explain the introduction […]
Cheers Mick. It-s true. A welfare state lowers social costs - in health, education, pensions - which in turn makes the economy more competitive. Given the fact that monetary policy is out of our hands, it-s one thing the government can do to improve the economy. It leads to a well-educated, healthy, workforce.
The arguments against a welfare state are quite simple: The rich fucking resent having to pay it. And it limits monetarist based speculation - the type that undermines economies - from which a tiny percentage of the population benefit. Quinn didn’t get into insurance for our benefit - although it’s fucking amazing that thats how it is portrayed.
Michael, I agree that it was an extraordinary and bold step in the mid 40s to attempt to build a comprehensive welfare state. I agree too that insurance and protections should not be seen as a drain. Indeed Conor makes the good point that health and education are vital to a competitive economy.
What I would say though is that the postwar situation, despite the economic difficulties, did have elements in the mix which arguably made the launch of the welfare state more possible then than at any time since. Key among these is how the trauma of war helped re-inforce a sense of collective destiny and community in a big way. It helped alter, perhaps bridge the class divide too. Not that this has gone away, but the structure of British society was warped almost beyond recognition by the war. In terms of the sense of community, you could also argue that as memory of war receded and as the baton was passed to the next generation, the bonds simply started to dissolve.
The other thing though is that although the economy was in rag shape from the ruin of war, it was actually embarking on an amazing period of sustained growth (as elsewhere in Europe). The literature on economic growth, especially in recent decades, is replete with studies about how capital - human and physical - was quickly (relatively speaking) reconfigured and redeployed, often more efficiently than before, and enabling new, and often American, technologies to be deployed more quickly than if they had to seep into the system in the normal way. Of course William Beveridge could not have know that the trente glorieuses lay ahead. Still, the sustained growth enabled the system to bed down and take root.
Regarding competitiveness. It is true that high quality education and good health are required inputs for modern economic prosperity. Yet, given all the complexity of modern economies and society, it is does not necessarily follow that these need to be provided by the public or private sector in order to render the economy ‘competitive’. Nor does it flow that these ‘goods’ need to be available to all, nor fairly, in order for the economy to be competitive. The US is the prime example. It hits the top of the Global Competitiveness report in 2008, yet we all know how unfair and unbalanced are its education and health systems. (I’m being devils advocate a bit here, but the point is that providing health and education as public goods is not a prerequisite for competitiveness).
It’s true that the other countries in the top competitiveness list do have excellent public systems - Denmark and Sweden are in the top 5 - but some countries that have good public health and education systems are lower down (Norway (16) and France(18) not being terribly ahead of Ireland at 22). This shows that perhaps education and health certainly aren’t sufficient for competitive economy.
In the end I think we need to acknowledge that in reality we are operating in the normative, as opposed to the descriptive, sphere. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact, personally, that’s where we should be.
Just a small point, the huge differences between the French economy, for example, and the Irish economy, make comparisons on health and education alone slightly distortionate. We need a well-educated workforce in order to attract the type of foreign investment that the Irish economy freelines. We need a decent health system in order to offset the demand for higher wages. We also need a decent social welfare system, as any attempts to provide an educated workforce without a parallel welfare system simply creates ghettos of education. In other words, you can’t invest in education without parallel social expenditure.
Furthermore, there is simply no comparison between European health care systems and the Irish model. France and Ireland may be only separated by three other countries in the league table, but the difference between the systems is vast.
Also, isn’t it a bit of a cop-out to provide a simplified explanation for Britain’s post-war economic growth and then at he same time undermine mentions of links between social policy and competitiveness as missing out on the “complexities” of the issue?
An excellent government information film. What a pity that in 1951 the Minister for Health, Dr. Noel Browne, didn’t commission a film like this to explain his Mother and Child bill to the broader Irish public.