This was because there was a commonly held belief that the deprived were responsible for there poor living conditions, as they did not work hard enough – like the upper-class did, some would argue. Yet, the Liberals did pass reforms between 1906 and 1914 in order to tackle this problem. For example, the Old Age Pension Act of 1908 and Education (Provision of Meals) Act of 1906. Two social surveys were published during this time, that not only shocked the British public but changed popular opinion on the causes of poverty. They helped pave the way for a whole range of Government-led welfare reforms.
As seen in Document J this jobs did help to greatly lower the percentage of unemployed between 1935 and 1938. Although the work of the WPA did not completely solve the enormous problem it was certainly a move in the right direction, bringing the USA closer to the complete extermination of the unemployment problem, which was finally achieved after the second world war. This New Deal, fueled by organizations such as the WPA, completely revolutionized the role of the federal government. Coxey had advocated for actions similar to the new deal decades before but his ideas were shut down because the government had such close ties with big. However now, in such drastic times, the federal government realized that it needed to help the common people directly through providing more Jobs.
How significant was the work of reforming leaders in changing the nature of Russian government and society in the period from 1856-1964? Intentionalist historians such as Westwood, would say that the most significant factor for changing the nature of Russian government and society was the work of reforming leaders, such as Alexander II who carried out the Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861: “with the possible exception of Khrushchev, no other Russian ruler did so much to reduce the suffering of the Russian people”1. I agree with intentionalist’s views to an extent because reforming leaders did have a major impact in pushing reforms through however other factors of change must be considered. I also agree with a structuralist point of view, that the Russian people and key pressure groups like the Social Revolutionaries also played a significant part in changing the nature of Russian government and society. In addition, World War II introduced change through industrialisation, which was key to Russia’s success in the war.
Which softened the burdens of war reperations and stabilised the currency. All of this was proof of Stresemann's 'Political courage'. The foreign policy was Stresemann's greatest achievement. He helped to take Germany out of isolation and regained trust and respect from other countries by adhering to the treaty of Versailles. He also signed the treaty of Locarno in 1925 which was the non-aggression pact between Germany, Belgium,
The New Liberals desire for change was backed up by the social investigations of Booth and Rowntree. These men discovered that the main causes of poverty were outwith the control of the individual, such as old age; sickness; unemployment and low wages. However, did the burst of legislation carried out by the ‘Liberal government from 1906-1914 to help the young, the elderly, the sick, the unemployed and low earners successfully tackle the problem of poverty at the turn of the 20th
The implementation of the Poor Law Amendment Act was significant in reducing the countries costs, but not as successful at changing attitudes towards the poor in the short term. The Act was preceded by the well-publicised Royal Commission of Enquiry into the operation of the Poor Laws in 1832. Prior to the Royal Commission, there had only been cosmetic changes to the poverty relief system, since the establishment of the Elizabethan Poor Law in 1601. The Elizabethan Poor Law favoured assistance and correction as forms of repression and took a laissez-faire approach towards the poor.
The troops would have felt let down as well, so therefore wanted reform and supported Mussolinis violence tactic. This also links in with the north south divide as the troops would be in the south and it hadnt industrialised as much as the north causeing a huge divide socially and economically. This demobalisation of the troops would have threated the higer classes as the troops could easily over power them for the land. Obviously the 5 million troops would have supported Mussolini and therefore caused a growth in his support. Another reason for Mussolinis success was the weakness of the political system.
Nina Phan 01/17/13 Period 2 British imperialism in India had many positive and negative effects on the mother country, Britain, and the colony, India. Many people argued about which effects were more important while some agreed that they were both equal. According to O.P. Austin, the benefits of the British imperialism were building roads, canals, railways, and telegraphs. They would be able to establish schools and newspapers for the people of the colonies.
Providing the Confederacy with war supplies influenced Southern power, and their assertiveness towards the Union proved beneficial to international relations. The victory of the Union encouraged the forces in Britain that demanded more democracy and public contribution into the political system. Rather than an outbreak of war, relations between America and Britain were ultimately improved when the idea of widespread famine threatened England. The American Civil War proved difficult but eventually beneficial for Britain, giving them the opportunity to check their growth and rise to power. Keeping within British tradition and diplomacy, Britain never openly partnered with the South and their involvement in the war was to protect their own people, economy, actions and
Between 1906 and 1914, the liberal government took steps in the provisions of welfare policies in a bid to help the impoverished people of Britain. These steps indicated a move away from the non-intervention policy known as ‘laissez faire’ to a more ‘collectivist’ approach. The changes which took place signalled a huge change in attitude; the poor were no longer condemned, but were accepted as unfortunate but equal citizens, whose rights had to be acknowledged. The reforms aimed to help the young, old, unemployed and sick, as it was clear that these groups were more likely to endure poverty. Winston Churchill summed the nature of the liberal welfare reforms, ‘If we see a drowning man we do not drag him to the shore.