There were also other key factors such as the ideas of new liberalism, national efficiency, political pragmatism and national security to be taken into consideration of why the government changed its policy. It can be argued that the investigations of Charles Booth and Seebohm Rowntree results into Britain’s poverty were a significant motivating factor behind social reform in the nineteenth century. It revealed the true and mainly unsuspected levels of poverty which the wealthier classes of Britain were unaware of and was difficult to ignore as it was based on hard scientific data that the Victorians admired greatly and not simply an opinion by leading the government by abandoning its policy and adapting a more interventionist approach. The first investigation was conducted by Charles Booth, originally a Liverpool ship owner but by 1889 a London businessman, who doubted the claims of socialists that a quarter of the population lived in extreme poverty. At first he believed that the level of poverty in Britain was limited and could be dealt with by charity.
How effective were the Liberal social reforms in the period 1906 to 1914? In the early Twentieth Century poverty in Britain was a very serious issue. There were groups of society who had no way of tackling or rising out of poverty. Poverty was more evident in the North of Britain and in big cities, although rural poverty was also a problem. Particularly vulnerable groups were the old, who had no means of acquiring money.
How far were the reports on poverty by Booth and Rowntree responsible for the Liberal Social Reforms 1906-1914?In the periods of 1906-1914 there was a series of reforms introduced by the liberal party. They were mainly introduced to tackle social issues in British society. What was responsible for the Liberal Social Reforms is often debated. Some claim that Booth and Rowntrees reports were the most influential factors in the introduction of Liberal Social Reforms as the reports were the first major indicators of poverty in Britain through the evaluation of poverty in York and London. However, other factors should not be discounted as many factors led to Liberal Social Reforms introduction.
“How far was concern over Booth and Rowntree’s findings the real reason for the Liberal reforms between 1906 and 1914?” By the early twentieth century the Liberal Government was concerned that Britain was losing her status as a major industrial and military power. The reports of Booth and Rowntree found that 1/3 of the British population lived in poverty. It suggested that this was a main factor effecting employment, education, disease, life expectancy and more. This could be argued to be the main reason that evoked a sense of urgency for change from the people and the liberal Government. However, other reasons also played a part.
In 1906 the Liberal government were being to realise the effect that poverty was having on the country as a whole including the Liberals ability to govern the country. Research carried out by reformers such as Charles Booth and Seebohm Rowntree influenced the Liberals and enlightened them to the state of poverty in our country. Looking at the research the Liberals saw that more than 30% of our population were living below the poverty line (that Booth had devised). From this they could clearly see that something needed to be done about this. The work of Booth and Rowntree had for the first time highlighted that fact that people were not in poverty just because they were lazy.
How did society's attitude change towards the poor from 1830-1914? How did the Government deal with poverty during this period? Before the 1830's people who were subject to poverty were looked upon as lazy and deserving of their situation. People of this time thought the main three causes of poverty was idealness, drunkenness and thriftiness. Factors that contributed to changes from this were help from social investigators like Booth and Rowntree, artistic contributions from Dickens and Dore and a realisation that the Boer's war impaired Britain’s national efficiency.
“Balfour’s leadership was responsible for the decline in the popularity of the conservative party in the years 1902 – 1906.” How far do you agree? In the year 1902 to 1906, the Conservative party began to lose popularity, causing the Liberal party to beat them in the next general election. There are many reasons as to why the Conservatives began to lose support. Some of the reasons are because of A. J. Balfour, whereas others were not his fault. Balfour’s position as Conservative prime minister after Salisbury’s death in 1902 did not help the Conservative cause.
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
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.
One aspect of the workers’ lives that needs to be considered in order to see whether the Communist leaders did less than the Tsars to improve them is their living standards. The quality of life generally declined for workers throughout the period, with the only period of significant change under Khrushchev, however even his reforms cannot out way the deterioration of standards earlier in the Communist period, whereby Lenin and Stalin seemed to show a complete disregard for the improvement of living standards; For instance, the amount of living space for a worker fell from 8.5m squared in 1905, to 5.8m squared by 1935. A significant motive for this seems to be due to ideology; Stalin in