One of the possible factors was the genuine concern that they felt towards the poor. However, this argument cannot be ignored but it would prove too simplistic and explanation on why the Liberals introduced the social reforms. There are a number of other factors which led too the introduction of the Reforms one being the social reports of Booth and Rowntree that confirmed poverty was a big issue. Also the fact that Britain feared her place being a top industrial power was threatened by a lack of good workers, britains Empire was still extremely important to her and they had discovered when recruiting for the Boer war that many men were unable to fight due to poor health. Some even argue that the Reforms were introduced for politically selfish reasons as they believed that the Liberals felt threatened by the Labour party.
Do you agree with the view that the Boer war advanced the cause of social reform in Britain? The important factor of this argument is the impact that the Boer war has on social reform. Therefore there is the Boer war, social reform and how they link together. Within source 6, it shows that the “Recruitment for the Second Boer war drew attention to the problem of poverty” as even though the army was most likely desperate for volunteers “almost half the men who volunteered for the army were physically unfit for military service” this links the Boer war and social reform as the physically unfit soldiers drew the governments attention “to help the poor” which was social reform in itself, otherwise “Britain might be unable to defend her Empire adequately in the event of a major war.”. this statement, albeit made almost a century after the events actually happened – but would’ve most likely done research with hindsight added to it- does coincide with source 5, which was fresh information of the time, namely when the reforms were in action.
Why Was There A Revolution In 1905 The Revolution in 1905 happened for many reasons, some reasons are long term and some short term. A long-term cause of the 1905 Revolution was the continuing dissatisfaction of both peasants and landowners to the Emancipation Edict of 1861. Although this piece of legislation had brought an end to serfdom, peasants still remained tied to the village commune called the mir and were angry at the redemption payments they were expected to pay in return for the land they had received. They believed more, and better quality, land should have been given to them at no cost. Their anger was made evident during the peasant disturbances of 1902.
This suggests that there was a considerably large amount of British citizens with racist opinions on immigrants and that even government officials were supportive of this racist attitude. Furthermore Immigrants were discriminated through various forms which included cases such as employment and accommodation. In the 1950s it was common for boarding houses to put up
The Russo-Japanese was an important factor which lead up to the outbreak of the 1905 revolution as it was a catalyst which highlighted the fundamental weaknesses in the leadership of the Tsar. Though it was an was important factor, ultimately the outbreak of the 1905 revolution was due to a number of factors such as the long term issues such as the lack of modernisation; socially, economically and politically. The most significant cause of the 1905 revolution was the lack of modernisation. Due to the failure of modernisation in the countryside led to increase in social tension. Agriculture in Russia was far behind other great powers and peasants were suffering greatly through the repeated famines in 1902 and 1905.
The Tsar’s ability to make false promises to the people was a reason for him being able to survive the revolution of 1905 but not of 1907 as people knew by then that he was untrustworthy. Secondly, the 1905 revolution happened before the outbreak of WW1 which meant although there was a lot of discontent in Russia in 1905 there was a lot less that the people could blame the Tsar for. In 1917 the Tsar had the power to pull out of the war which was a main reason for the suffering in Russia at the time. This was because millions of men went to fight in WW1 and this meant that back at home there was little food being produced
Effectively the act benefited the middle classes, who were now given an electoral voice in parliament, while the working classes were largely ignored, causing widespread anger and resentment for the act, and all those it benefited. The huge number of working classes wanted to be represented, and the act was yet more salt in the wound. If you were to gather up dates for the most widespread Chartist appreciation in Britain and put this on a graph alongside the economies peaks and troughs, the results would no doubt roughly mirror each other. For Chartism excelled during times of economic disturbance, particularly the late 30’s. This ran alongside the blossoming industrialisation of Britain, areas such as Stockport and Cheshire undergoing radical change were often the strongest supports of Chartism.
Before the Liberal Reforms of 1905, poverty was an ever present endemic within the working-class of Britain. The general attitude towards those who suffered from poverty, as defined by ideas of Victorian Liberalism, gave the government little imperative to take any real action against poverty. However, after two major studies on the conditions of England had been conducted by Seebohm Rowntree and Charles Booth, the Liberal government introduced a series reforms aimed at improving the lives of the poor. Naturally there is a degree of importance to these two studies concerning how they led to government awareness of poverty; however a series of events around this era also served as possible catalysts for the introduction of social reforms, for example, the Boer War displayed the impact of poverty on war, which compromised the British concept of imperialism at the time. The main question is to what extent were the social reforms of the Liberal Government between 1905 and 1914 a response to more in depth knowledge about the extent and impact of poverty in British affairs.
Poverty in the 19th Century We know more about poverty in the 19th century than in previous ages because, for the first time, people did accurate surveys and they made detailed descriptions of the lives of the poor. We also have photographs and they tell a harrowing story. The worst thing about poverty in the 19th century was the callous attitude of many Victorians. Many of them believed in 'self-help'. That is they thought everyone should be self-reliant and not look to other people for help.
This enabled Americans to realize poverty was a very real problem for a good portion of the population of the US. It stands to reason, if poverty was a huge issue at the time of the passing of “The New Deal,” which was to help defeat poverty at the time of passing in the 1930’s, why was it so prevalent in 2005 when Katrina hit New Orleans. The author even