(3 of 4)
The Opponents. Critics of the Beveridge Report appeared an unimportant minority weighted against the bulk of national sentiment, but their potential strength forecast some stormy sessions in the scheduled post-Christmas debates in Parliament. They centered in the Tory Right, or Tory age as opposed to Tory youth (the latter, with the Liberals and Independents, were quick to back the plan) and the great insurance companies, which would lose much business by Sir William's proposals. But other potential opponents were small employers, who may find it hard to make the grade after paying their share of the contributions; the Labor Party, which sees the biggest part of its thunder stolen; trade unions, which subconsciously resented Beveridge since overall insurance would reduce members' reliance on the trade unions' benefits. Opposition was also expected from some sections of the medical profession ("the tightest trades union in the world"), which would fight nationalization of their services.
But the critics were acutely aware of the common man's baleful eye. Typical expression of opinion by Sir Joseph Burns, General Manager of Prudential Assurance Co.: "For my part I propose to spend a very long time over the report."
The Drawbacks? If there was an argument to be made against Sir William's case, it had little to do with the screams of the special interests whose toes were stepped on and nothing at all to do with the better distribution of wealth, which ought to improve Britain's economic strength. The most fundamental opposition arguments:
Britain—as virtually all economists agree—has to maintain a thriving foreign trade. Ever since World War I, Britain with her high taxes has been moving in the direction of a high-cost economy, which makes it harder & harder for her to sell goods overseas. Before World War II Britain's exports (including her income from shipping) had already fallen behind her imports and her income from foreign investments. She was living on her capital (the sale of gold, and securities).
If the Beveridge plan carries Britain farther along the road to high-cost economy by adding a larger (30%) fixed charge on British taxpayers and British business, this straw might be heavy enough to break the camel's sagging back.
And if the Beveridge plan weighs Britain down so that she cannot maintain her trade, her people will face want, social security or no. They might avoid it if the U.S. continued Lend-Lease aid, thereby in effect assuming the cost of the plan. Or they might avoid it by export subsidies, barter agreements and other devices such as Germany used before the war—thereby colliding head on with U.S. policy, which has been steadily heading toward freer world markets.
In that event, Sir William's assumptions —that Britain's unemployment will never rise above 10% and that there will be the fullest international cooperation in post-war trade—may, one or both, prove to be entirely unfounded.