Talk:Beveridge Report
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
This never clearly says exactly what the Beveridge Report was. The introduction should use very clear language instead of merely repeating the title. Many of these words have multiple meanings depending on the time period. What was this report? What was its significance? Was it just another piece of legislation that had no impact whatsoever? Because that's what this article conveys.
Proposed edits
[edit]I propose to add the following edits. I added similar ones, but these were removed by User:Andyjsmith as POV. I believe the following proposals are entirely factual and NPOV.
Beveridge was opposed to "means-tested" benefits. His proposal was for a flat rate contribution rate for everyone and a flat rate benefit for everyone. Means-testing was intended to play a tiny part, because it created high marginal tax rates for the poor (the "poverty trap").
While the Liberal Party and the Conservative party quickly adopted Beveridge's proposals, the Labour Party was slow to follow. Labour leaders opposed Beveridge's plans for a National Health Service[1], because they thought it would humanise capitalism and thus preserve it. Beveridge complained about the opposition of Labour leaders, including that of Ernest Bevin, leader of the Labour Party: "For Ernest Bevin, with his trade-union background of unskilled workers... social insurance was less important than bargaining about wages." Bevin derided the Beveridge Report at a "Social Ambulance Scheme" and was furious when Labour back-benchers ignored their leaders and voted for it in February 1943.
The Labour Party did eventually also adopt the Beveridge proposals, and after their victory...
cagliost (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree- The article is one-sided and its sources tend to the right wing spectrum without sufficient balance. Extended reading links only to such wings of politics, and considering it was the Labour Party who adopted the Beveridge Report this is truly bizarre! That is the substantive point: the rest of their (partial) quibbling is insignificant in the long run. Dom (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Dom Ramos.domramos 13:02 29/05/2013
The article states that the Family Allowances Act 1945 was passed under the Labour government. This is wrong. According to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/1945_in_the_United_Kingdom the Act was passed before the 1945 General Election.
References
- ^ Beveridge, Power and Influence.
Abz zeus (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC) I propose adding a to the conservative voting against the founding of the NHS, that the BMA (Bevan famously stuffed their mouths with gold) was a vocal opponent as was the London council, [1]