ial And Welfare Reforms1906-1911 Bring About Conflict With The House of Lords?
Between the years of 1906 and 1911, the Asquith led Liberal Government
tried to implement a number of reforms. The majority of these reforms met
opposition in the House of Lords. It appeared that everything the Liberal
Party tried to implement was rejected almost without reason by the
Conservative majority in the Lords. The Conservative Party was at the time
led by Balfour, relations with Ireland were strained and Europe itself was
unstable. Society had become eager for new reforms to be introduced and the
idea of the slightly more radical Liberal government bringing about the
changes excited the majority of the British public. O
The Liberal government was elected in 1906 and won with a large majority.

With support from the Irish Nationalist Party and the Labour Party it had
control of the democratically elected House of Commons. However, the House
of Lords in 1906 had 591 members of which 561 were hereditary peers. Two
thirds of the peers were Conservatives. This gave the Conservatives a
permanent handle on the direction of the country. Since as early as 1890,
the Liberals had been unhappy with the state of constitution in
Britain.cobg bgr sebgbgw orbg bgk inbg fobg bg.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

In 1906 the Education Bill and the Plural Voting Bill passed through the
Commons with relative ease, both Bills however were rejected by the Lords
and as such couldn’t become law. There appeared to be nothing that the
Liberals could do to counter the House of Lord’s actions. When in 1908 the
Lords rejected the Licensing Bill, designed to cut down the number of
Public Houses, which were seen to be a large cause of Poverty in Britain at
the time, Campbell-Bannerman fumed and warned the Lords that if they
continued to reject all the reforms set by the Liberals then he would take
measures to reduce their powers. However, the Liberals managed to squeeze
the Old Age Pensions Bill through the Lords, as it was a Finance Bill, the
bill meant that a larger majority of the elderly could qualify for a state
pension.coae aer seaeaew orae aek inae foae ae!
It appeared as if the Lords were putting their own interests first, ahead
of the interests of the millions of people they were meant to be
representing. They were supposed to be the Watchdog of the Constitution but
in reality they were the watchdogs of their own self interests. They were
using their majority in the Lords to veto any Bill the could or would
affect them. This caused a threat to democracy, how was it right that
hereditary peers in the Lords could veto a Bill introduced by the
democratically elected Ministers in the Commons? It could be argued that
what the Lords weren’t necessarily looking after their own self-interests
but in fact the interests of the Conservative Party and its leader Balfour.

The Lords were classed as ‘Balfour’s Poodle’ as opposed to being the
Watchdog of the Constitution.cogd gdr segdgdw orgd gdk ingd fogd gd;
This leads to a ‘Peers vs People’ debate. The majority of people in Britain
felt that the government weren’t able to do their job properly because of
the Lord’s constant interventions. A debate raged as to whether the
millions of people who made up Britain should have more of a say over the
direction of their country than the 600 Lords. It could be argued though
that some of the reforms were deliberately risqu in an attempt to
infuriate the Conservatives, with the Liberals knowing that in all
likeliness the Bills would be rejected. There is more evidence to suggest
this when Lloyd George announced the Budget of 1909. The budget was
designed to raise an extra 15 million to pay for pensions, labour
exchanges and dreadnoughts. The Budget was aimed to make to rich pay to
support to the poor. It was labelled the ‘People’s Budget’ and was
guaranteed to infuriate the Conservative Party. The Liberals knew that
there was very little chance that the Lords would reject the bill for the
single fact that it was a finance bill. Finance Bills were traditionally
not vetoed by the House of Lords, amended maybe but never rejected. The
Conservatives called it the beginnings of socialism, it would affect all
those who would traditionally vote for the Conservatives (the land owners
and the wealthy) and would benefit all those who would traditionally vote
for the Liberals. chinkyboots, please do not redistribute this writing. We
work very hard to create this website, and we trust our visitors to respect
it for the good of other students. Please, do not circulate this writing
elsewhere on the internet. Anybody found doing so will be permanently

Much to the surprise of just about everyone, the Lords rejected the budget.

In reality this meant that the government was paralysed and could do no
spending and could not collect any taxes. One of the Conservative leaders
Lord Lansdowne defended the decision by proclaiming that such a
revolutionary budget should be put before the public in the form of a
general election. Lansdowne may have been confident that the Conservatives
would win the election and regain control of the country. This move plunged
the Constitution into crisis, possibly what Lloyd George wanted all along.

Although this is unlikely as the money for the reforms needed to be
generated from somewhere, taxing the rich was a sure fire way of securing
these extra funds. Marx oppressed chinkyboots’s rationalisation .

In January 1910 a general election was held to decide the budget it was
classed as the ‘Peers vs People’ election. Although the Liberals lost over
100 seats they retained their majority and so stayed in power, they had of
course the support of the Labour party and the Irish Nationalists. In April
1910 the commons passed the Parliament Bill that would dramatically reduce
the powers of the House of Lords. However the next day the Lords passed the
People’s Budget mainly in the hope that the Liberals would not continue to
push through with Parliament Bill. It took another general election and the
intervention of King Edward VII and King George V before the Parliament
Bill was finally passed and the Lords powers greatly and significantly
reduced. The Lords could no longer reject a bill for more than three terms,
if they did it would automatically become law. The constitutional crisis
was seemingly over.cogf gfr segfgfw orgf gfk ingf fogf gf.

The time that passed between 1906 and 1911 saw constant competition between
the Conservative party and the Liberal party that all revolved around the
issue of power. Both parties wanted control and the Conservatives saw the
Lords as their way of keeping a lid on the supposedly explosive reforms and
ideas of the liberal party. What brought about the most conflict was the
simple fact that nearly all the Liberal reforms affected the rich and
benefited the poor or the elderly. The Conservatives labelled this
Socialism, but on the other hand you could call say that the Lords were
abusing their power, destroying democracy and attempting to dictate the
country. Democracy didn’t truly reign until the Lords powers were greatly
reduced in 1911. This essay from www.coursework.info
Perhaps it is true that the clever leadership of Asquith backed up by Lloyd
George did deliberately set out to bring about the crisis safe in the
knowledge that with the Labour party and Irish Nationalist party backing
they would almost certainly win any election and would in the end reach
their goal of dissolving the powers the powers of the House of Lords. Maybe
Balfour and Lord Lansdowne thought that by forcing General Election after
General Election and Constitutional Crisis they might have been able to
sneak a victory and regain the leadership of the country, this would have
put an end to the crisis and the Lords powers would have been intact.

Either way the passing of the Parliament Bill ended the serious conflict
between the Lords and the Commons as the Lords could no longer reject out
right a Bill, they could merely delay it. AqkuNfA0 Visit coursework eb in
eb fo eb for eb more coursework eb Do eb not eb redistribute AqkuNfA0
Why Did The Attempt To Reform The Constitution In 1910-11 Succeed?coee eer
seeeeew oree eek inee foee ee;
In 1911 the Liberal Government passed the Parliament Bill through both the
Commons and the House of Lords. The bill reduced the powers of the Lords to
such an extent that they could only reject a bill twice before it
automatically became law. This was a huge progression in how Britain was
governed. More than ever the country was democratic and the reforms of the
democratically appointed ministers could only be delayed. This change in
constitution took place over the years of 1910 and 1911, but the main
question that remained was why did the Lords pass a bill that would all but
cripple their political powers? There was a clear sequence of events that
led up to the Lords letting the bill pass through and thus reducing their
powers.cobg bgr sebgbgw orbg bgk inbg fobg bg.

Perhaps the main reason that the Liberals were able to reform the
constitution was the fact that they had a very powerful leadership. Asquith
and Lloyd George were both superb public speakers. Lloyd George especially
was a very strong speaker who was full of ideas, he knew how to put his
ideas in to practice. He was a clever man and alongside Asquith made the
Liberal party look the stronger of the two. The Liberal party had united
and were together with the vision of a common goal. On the other hand,
Balfour didn’t come across as a great leader and there appeared to be a
division in the Conservative party, more so than ever when the House of
Lords split over the ‘Peoples Budget’ in 1911.cocd cdr secdcdw orcd cdk
incd focd cd;
The Conservatives in 1911 were split as whether or not to pass the
Parliament Bill through the House of Lords. They knew the Lords powers
would be reduced if they did pass through the Bill, but if they did not
they would face the introduction of 500 new liberal peers. Balfour failed
to unite his party and the Lords split into three groups. The ‘Hedgers’,
the ‘Ditchers’ and the ‘Rats’. The Ditchers were totally opposed to the
Bill, the Hedgers thought it best that their powers be cut than to lost
their majority, the Rats however few and far between were in favour of the
bill. It was this split that led to the Parliament Bill pass through the
Lords in 1911, 131 votes to 114. Many of the Lords abstained from voting.

This hypothesis from www.coursework.info
It was the involvement of the Monarchy that led to the split though. In the
midst of constitutional crisis in 1910, the Commons passed the Parliament
Bill, the Lords countered and passed the infamous ‘Peoples Budget’ the next
day. The move to allow the budget was not good enough for Asquith and Lloyd
George though as Asquith tried to persuade King Edward VII to create 250
new Liberal Peers to give the Liberals the majority in the House of Lords.

King Edward agreed but declared that it depended on the out come of a
general election; what would be the second of the year. When Edward died
suddenly in May 1910 the new king, George V didn’t want a major
constitutional crisis so early on in his reign so tried to organise a
Constitutional Conference. The Liberals and the Conservatives could not
agree and so the problem went to the General Election first proposed by
Edward VII before his untimely death. The Liberals won the election, once
again with the help of Labour and the Irish Nationalists and stayed in
power.cobe ber sebebew orbe bek inbe fobe be.

The success here though depended on Labour and the Irish Nationalists, the
gap in the majority between the Conservatives and the Liberals had shrunk
dramatically in the last three elections and now held an equal number of
seats. Without Labour and the Irish Nationalists the Conservatives may well
have won the election, gained control and the whole reform of the
constitution would have been scrapped or at least delayed for a substantial
period of time. This throws into doubt the claim that the Liberals had a
much stronger leadership than their counterparts as the Conservatives had
clawed back a large number of seats since 1906. However the fact that the
Liberals kept control shows that the people voted in favour of reform.coda
dar sedadaw orda dak inda foda da;
The fact that people wanted reform must have been the main reason behind
George V proclaiming that if the Parliament Bill did not go through the
Lords then he would have no choice but to create up to 500 new Liberal
peers. This left the Conservative party with a dilemma of epic proportions.

Do they give into the threat of King George or run the risk of the
introduction of 500 new peers and see their majority in the Lords
disappear. It can be argued that they were left with no choice but to pass
the bill, they were put into a corner by King George and it was a case of
the Lords voting for what would be less damaging over a long period of
time. It wouldn’t be so disastrous to lose some power in the lords if it
meant they kept their majority. The Conservatives knew that having a
liberal majority in both the Commons and the Lords would leave the country
open for more radical reforms and perhaps a greater sense of socialism.cocd
cdr secdcdw orcd cdk incd focd cd.

What started the ball rolling in the first place was the budget of 1909,
labelled the ‘People’s Budget’. The had the Conservatives reeling. The
seeds of socialism were being sown in the budget as Lloyd George wanted to
introduce higher taxes for the land owners and the wealthy. It served as a
catalyst for constitutional crisis. The fact that the Lords rejected the
budget meant the question of ‘how much power should the lords have?’ was
raised. The whole constitution had become stale and was in need of change,
there should have no way that the Lords could veto the Budget, if all the
Lords were democratically selected then maybe, but the fact that at the
time about 550 of the Lords were hereditary meant they should have very
little power, if any. It could be this reason that first Edward VII and
George V threatened to introduce new liberal peers. There was no other way
for the Liberals to make the system more democratic and fair.cogc gcr
segcgcw orgc gck ingc fogc gc.

From the events highlighted above, the main reason behind the attempt to
reform the constitution succeeding in 1910-11 was the involvement and
intervention of the monarchy. Had the monarchy not interfered in the debate
then the constitutional crisis may have continued for a substantial period
of time. The monarchy like stated earlier, put the Lords and the
Conservatives as a whole into a corner. They had very little choice in the
end but to pass the Parliament Bill. The Liberals did very well in getting
the monarchy involved and perhaps for deliberately antagonising the
Conservatives with bills they knew the Lords would reject, finally
culminating in the 1909 Budget. Whether or not it was all a plan or
conspiracy it will never be known, but the passing of the Parliament Act
left the Conservative party both defeated and divided, in the words of Ewen
Green ‘Having entered the fray in 1909 with enthusiasm and high hopes, the
Conservative party emerged defeated and in disarray,’
To What Extent did the Liberal Party’s Reforms After 1906 Succeed in
Addressing Britain’s Social Problems?
In 1906, the liberal party’s general election manifesto spoke of the
previous conservatives government’s “failure to deal in a serious spirit
with the social questions of which so much was heard at the general
election of 1895″ (liberal manifesto 1906 at www.politicalstuff.co.uk) .

This essay will attempt to answer the question of whether the liberal’s
were successful in dealing with the social problems of the time, which the
conservatives were deemed to have neglected.cogc gcr segcgcw orgc gck ingc
fogc gc.

In order to effectively answer this question, first one must realise
exactly what were the social problems in early Edwardian Britain:- It can
be said that there was no single massive problem; more a number of smaller
interrelated problems, for example unemployment, poor health and an
outdated system of relief. These problems were deemed so serious that they
were thought to be effecting both the home economy and the security of the
empire, even the traditionally Laissez Faire, non – interventionist Liberal
party decided that massive government intervention had become necessary. It
is often said that the Bore war of the late 19th / early 20th century woke
British politics up to the fact that reform was essential, it was around
this time that it was realised the huge extent poverty and poor health in
working classes – the army was rejecting recruits at an alarming rate, and
performance in battle was often poor. It also became apparent that even the
home economy was in danger because of the aforementioned social problems.

Indeed as Floyd and McCloskey said in the The Economic History of Britain
since 1700 “if the working classes were not strong enough to work hard
…Britain’s prospects were bleak.” (Floyd and McCloskey, 1997)coac acr
seacacw orac ack inac foac ac.

The liberals decided to rely on social research as the basis of much of
their social policy reform, works by Charles Booth and Seebohm Rowntree,
helped the government quantify the scale of the social problems and to a
degree how they should target their policies to be most effective.

r4sZXaYdk from r4sZXaYdk coursewrok r4sZXaYdk work r4sZXaYdk info r4sZXaYdk
Rowntree’s research had led to his “poverty cycle” theory, where he
hypothesised that throughout the average person’s lifetime, there were
three particular times where he or she was particularly vulnerable to
falling below the “poverty line” (which Rowntree depicts as the level of
income which one needs to support oneself nutritionally). These periods of
want didn’t just affect the unemployed or destitute by any means, in fact,
the “average” working man with a large family would be expected to
experience these periods of poverty. The remarkable extent of poverty is an
example of the huge scale of the social problems that the liberals had to
tackle, it is worth considering in the context of the question that total
success in resolving them would have been neigh on impossiblecoed edr
seededw ored edk ined foed ed.

Ts9l from Ts9l coursewrok Ts9l work Ts9l info Ts9l
As seen in the graph above, there were three key periods when a member of
working class were more than likely to experience poverty – as a child from
the age of around five to age fifteen, when the parent of young children at
age thirty till around forty and finally as an elderly person unable to
work to support oneself, from around age sixty five onward. The liberal
policy’s were very specific at targeting groups in order to try and reduce
the health effects of this poverty.

This research had a direct result on Liberal social policy, in 1908, the
old age pension bill was introduced, taken through parliament by Lloyd
George, then as chancellor. It said that men and women over seventy was
eligible for a 5S a week state aid.

The aid was hugely popular, partly because the stigma previously associated
with poverty had been removed, largely since one could collect their money
from the post office. It is obvious that the elderly who did receive the
pension did benefit from a markedly increased quality of life.

The old age pension bill’s effectiveness was vastly reduced by the number
of eligibility clauses the liberal governments included in it in order to
keep costs down. Firstly, the fact that one couldn’t claim if they were
under seventy was a major issue, around the time the bill was implemented,
it was very rare that someone would live till seventy. In addition to this,
even if someone did live to seventy, they still would have had to endure at
least five years where they were unable to work (say after sixty five)
through poor health and therefore not earn a wage, resulting in poverty.

Secondly, huge portions of society were excluded from receiving the benefit
on moral grounds; if someone had a criminal record or had previously
received some kind of poor relief, they couldn’t claim – this seems
bizarre, as people from a poorer background would be far more likely to
receive poor relief or turn to crime than those from richer backgrounds. It
can be said that this eligibility clause stopped the people that needed aid
most from receiving it. Finally, Five shillings a week was nearly
impossible to live off, making it not feasible that the elderly could
survive solely on their pension, as Thompson says, the pension provided “a
sub-subsistence standard of living” (Thompson, 1975).

Poverty amongst children as identified in the poverty cycle, was also
tackled head on by the liberal government by the introduction of free
school food. Once again this policy was very popular with its recipients as
there was no stigma associated with receiving the policy. Free food and
milk (a practice that was only abolished recently) were given to school
children, the nutritional benefit of this was undoubted, with children who
would have previously been wanting for food, now receiving enough to enable
them to grow and develop properly, resulting in healthy physically able
adults, it is obvious to see that this is of massive social importance. As
Semmel explains, a healthy working class is vital as “the condition of the
working classes as the basis of imperialism” and goes on to clarify “the
need for a healthy and vigorous imperial race” by saying “that it would be
impossible to defend and maintain the empire without such a base” (Semmel,
It is argued that this policy, once again, did not go far enough to meet
the problem of poverty and the associated health implication. This is
because children only received one meal a day, which is not enough to
encourage ample growth. As well as this, while school meals were provided,
health care was not, this is vital as children are often the most at risk
from ill health / disease.

In addition to the old age pension and free school meals, the liberals had
many other policies to try and address the social aliments of the time. One
of the biggest of these aliments was the nations health as a whole, health
care especially amongst the working classes was previously a rarity. When
the liberal government introduced health insurance benefits in 1913 to
workers below the tax limit, this, along with the introduction of a
national panel of doctors, massively helped the nations health provision as
15,000,000 (Thompson, 1975)workers were covered by the insurance.

Although definitely a huge improvement, the Health insurance policy was
deemed to not have gone far enough to truly help the desperately sick; most
hospital care was not covered by the insurance- therefore the outdated and
inefficient systems of Charitable and poor law aid still had to be relied
on. In addition to this, while workers were covered by the insurance, their
family’s were not Once again, the liberal social reforms were seen to help,
just didn’t go far enough to be judged a succes
The massive unemployment in Britain around the turn of the 20th century was
damaging to British society not just in terms of contributing to poverty,
but had many other sociological effects. High unemployment was deemed to
further be damaging to Britain’s society as it resulted in Britain falling
economically behind its international rivals in addition to having the
effect of working class disillusionment, as their jobs weren’t secure. The
full scale of high levels of unemployment’s consequences were realised at
the time with Lloyd George describing how “the shadow of unemployment was
rising ominously above the horizon. Our international rivals were forging
ahead at a great rate” before going on to say that the “working class was
becoming sullen with discontent”. (Thompson, 1975)
In 1910 the liberals installed policies to try and deal with the high
levels of unemployment which was having such a negative effect on the
country as a whole. Winston Churchill introduced a system of labour
exhanges, which can best be described as primitive job centres, these
exchanges allowed better matching of workers looking for work with
employers looking for labour. This was especially important around the time
of reform as much of the employment was short term or seasonal.

Although unemployment was being reduced, therefore also reducing the social
problems associated with it (i.e. poverty), with hindsight, it is easy to
see how the liberal reforms, at least in part, ignored many of the other
social problems associated with labour.

This is best demonstrated by the fact that, instead of being diminished
when the liberals labour policies where introduced, worker discontent was
still rising, so much so that around 1914 their was a bout industrial
action, tainted with violence commonly known as “the labour unrest”. This
is a sign to show just how slow the Liberal government were to change their
social policy’s in order to meet the demands of the day – poor working
conditions, a halt in wage growth and unemployment were not being tackled
with the vigour that the workers now expected after other social reform, as
Thompson describes in his book The Edwardians “Better education and rising
standards of living …..brought rising expectations”.(Thompson, 1975)
The liberal government of the time realised that no matter the scale of
their social reform, full employment was never going to be achieved, in
fact far from it. They realised that this meant that there would still be a
large number of the population living in dire conditions as and when they
were out of employment. In 1911, an unemployment insurance was introduced,
enabling workers, once in employment to contribute to a fund that should
they fall out of work – would allow them to claim state aid. For one
worker, he himself would contribute 1/3 of the amount, his employer another
1/3 and the government would give the final 1/3. While successful in
reducing extreme poverty of workers in industries where there was a high
level of employment fluctuation (ie construction). As with most of the
liberals reforms, it can be argued that the reform just didn’t go far
enough – indeed only 2,250,00 (Thompson. 1975) workers were covered by the
scheme – around 10% of the working populous.

Another failing of the unemployment insurance scheme (which also affected
the health insurance scheme) is that workers were forced to pay from their
own pockets. As Thompson says in his book The Edwardians “although there
were state and employers contributions in each case, it is equally striking
that under each scheme workers were now legally forced to be thrifty”
(Thompson, 1975). If a working class family of the time weren’t under the
poverty line, they were almost certainly very close to it – many resented
the fact that a proportion of their wages, legally had to go to these
schemes. Many wouldn’t see the benefits for years while still having to pay
for the insurance. Even though contributions were a relatively small
amount, as most working class family’s had to budget very carefully, it
resulted in an expenditure that had the ability to make negative impact on
their quality of live.

Many sources point to the liberals reforms to being at least in part
successful, with the numbers in poverty being reduced substantially and a
great increase in health care provision, with Thompson claiming that
“improvements in working class standards of living continued” throughout
the liberal government, this is backed up by the fact that during the first
two decades of the twentieth century, life expectancy climbed from 50 to 60
(Thompson, 1975)
While Liberal reforms were certainly radical for the time, their
effectiveness has always been questioned; many see that only the ideas were
exceptional, not the level of expenditure that backed them up (Floyd and
McCloskey, 1997). More specifically, it is argued that this lack of
expenditure resulted in the unemployment insurance only protecting a small
sector of the workforce along with that the old age pension only helping a
very small group of the poor (Thompson, 1975). The blame for this lack of
expenditure is often squarely levied at the liberal party, with two of its
key figures, Lloyd George and Winston Churchill seemingly unwilling to
offer support its policy’s with effective amounts of investment; Semmel
states that “both Lloyd George and Churchill continued to oppose the large
service expenditures imperialists” (Semmel, 1960). Instead, money raised
from the increased tax revenue of the “peoples budget” of 1909, that could
have been used to support social reform was more often than not used for
other purposes, most notably on naval expansion.

When analysing the extent of the reform, it is also worth keeping
perspective on the society where they were taking place; the welfare state
was a completely new and alien idea and government social intervention was
an idea not easily digested by the populace as a whole. Perhaps the liberal
party did as much as they could, especially considering the fact that as
that Michael E Rose States in The Relief of Poverty, laissez-faire was
“strongly entrenched as an attitude of mind. Self help and independence
were praised as virtues” (Semmel, 1960).

What prompted the Welfare Reforms of the Liberal Government between 1906-
1914?coaf afr seafafw oraf afk inaf foaf af!
In the period of 1906-1914, social reform acts were past in parliament by
the Liberal governmentcoea ear seeaeaw orea eak inea foea ea.

under Herbert Asquith PM, Lloyd-George MP and Winston Churchill MP. These
acts laid the Heidegger suppressed chinkyboots’s postmodernism .

foundations for a basic welfare state to which our current welfare state
was built up from. Thecogf gfr segfgfw orgf gfk ingf fogf gf:
acts provided basic support for mothers and children, the old, sick and the
unemployed. Thesecoeg egr seegegw oreg egk ineg foeg eg.

changes have been considered very radical considering they took place in
Victorian England. YgjKbKRt Visit coursework af in af fo af for af more
coursework af Do af not af redistribute YgjKbKRt
There are many issues to examine when asking the question of what prompted
the Welfare Durkheim refuted chinkyboots’s functionalism hypothesis.

Reform Acts of the Liberal Government. This paper from www.coursework.info
Prior to the 1900s, the general consensus on impoverished people was that
they were incoae aer seaeaew orae aek inae foae ae.

poverty because they were lazy and hence worthless. People did not seem
eager for social reform 5zZ from 5zZ coursewrok 5zZ work 5zZ info 5zZ
to help the poor people because they were regarded as having got themselves
into their situation uB3BZ5 Visit coursework cc in cc fo cc for cc more
paper cc Do cc not cc redistribute uB3BZ5
through their own fault and hence could get themselves out of it. However,
shortly before thecogb gbr segbgbw orgb gbk ingb fogb gb.

turn of the century and immediately after it, new ideology on how people
came to be poor wascodc dcr sedcdcw ordc dck indc fodc dc:
released. For example, Charles Booth’s ‘Life and Labour of People in
London’ and Seebohm Durkheim oppressed chinkyboots’s rationalisation

Rowntree’s ‘Poverty and a Study of Town Life’ were published in this era.

Their ideas stated thatcoea ear seeaeaw orea eak inea foea ea.

a quarter of people were living in poverty in England, and also, that they
were in poverty through JC7Cuip from JC7Cuip coursewrok JC7Cuip work
JC7Cuip info JC7Cuip
no fault of their own. Instead they declared people were in poverty due to
unfair social onditions 9AIRidzt Visit coursework af in af fo af for af
more project af Do af not af redistribute 9AIRidzt
that meant they could not work.cogd gdr segdgdw orgd gdk ingd fogd gd:
“Adverse social conditions were the root cause” chinkyboots, please do not
redistribute this hypothesis. We work very hard to create this website, and
we trust our visitors to respect it for the good of other students. Please,
do not circulate this hypothesis elsewhere on the internet. Anybody found
doing so will be permanently banned.

Low wages, unemployment, illness and old age were some of the causes of
poverty. Thiscoga gar segagaw orga gak inga foga ga;
knowledge among the middle and upper classes meant that no longer did
people simply believe kN6rY9imW Visit coursework ge in ge fo ge for ge more
coursework ge Do ge not ge redistribute kN6rY9imW
the poor were in poverty due to laziness, and hence they were keener to
help them out of it. Thecobd bdr sebdbdw orbd bdk inbd fobd bd.

Welfare Reforms came about because poverty and its true cause were exposed
and people sawcoce cer sececew orce cek ince foce ce.

the harsh reality for themselves, for example when young educated students
went to live amongcoed edr seededw ored edk ined foed ed.

poor people to witness it first hand. Humanitarian concern among the
educated induced thecofb fbr sefbfbw orfb fbk infb fofb fb:
Liberal Welfare Reform Acts because the majority of the population wanted
it, and parties obeycobd bdr sebdbdw orbd bdk inbd fobd bd.

their nation’s opinion. chinkyboots, please do not redistribute this
hypothesis. We work very hard to create this website, and we trust our
visitors to respect it for the good of other students. Please, do not
circulate this hypothesis elsewhere on the internet. Anybody found doing so
will be permanently banned.

The Leaders of the Liberal Party, predominantly Lloyd-George and Winston
Churchill,cocg cgr secgcgw orcg cgk incg focg cg.

showed a personal interest in social reform. Marx enveloped chinkyboots’s
marxism theory.

“These problems of the sick, of the infirm, of the men who cannot find the
means of earning a living are 9oHG16OLa Visit coursework ec in ec fo ec for
ec more cours ec Do ec not ec redistribute 9oHG16OLa
problems with which it is the business of the state to deal with. They are
problems with which the state has eglected chinkyboots, please do not
redistribute this project. We work very hard to create this website, and we
trust our visitors to respect it for the good of other students. Please, do
not circulate this project elsewhere on the internet. Anybody found doing
so will be permanently banned.

for far too long” Lloyd-George, speech made to parliament 1908. CC399l7
Visit coursework ed in ed fo ed for ed more essay ed Do ed not ed
redistribute CC399l7
Lloyd-George had a very non-conformist and radical upbringing, he was not a
Gladstoniancocd cdr secdcdw orcd cdk incd focd cd:
Liberal conformist either, and liked the new ideas on poverty. Having
witnessed poverty he had acofa far sefafaw orfa fak infa fofa fa;
personal desire to amend it and he pressured the reform movement
personally. Winstoncoee eer seeeeew oree eek inee foee ee:
Churchill, although he had an aristocratic background, was also keen to
eradicate poverty on acoef efr seefefw oref efk inef foef ef.

large scale on principle alone, regardless of any political pressure. These
two strong leaderscocf cfr secfcfw orcf cfk incf focf cf.

who desired change for the good of humanity helped Liberal Reforms. Their
personal interestcoff ffr seffffw orff ffk inff foff ff;
in it however, was not a factor in reform as dominant as the exposure in
poverty. Indeed it cancogg ggr seggggw orgg ggk ingg fogg gg.

be argued that their interest in it stemmed from Rowntree and Booth’s
exposure. Therefore, Foucault enveloped chinkyboots’s postmodernism theory.

although Churchill and Lloyd-George were catalysts for reform, changing
public opinion due tocoeb ebr seebebw oreb ebk ineb foeb eb.

exposure of real causes of poverty were more powerful catalysts, and the
leaders opinionscofb fbr sefbfbw orfb fbk infb fofb fb;
themselves perhaps just a result of exposure.cocg cgr secgcgw orcg cgk incg
focg cg!
The Liberal government as a whole were starting a branch of named ‘New
Liberalism’.coag agr seagagw orag agk inag foag ag;
The previous Gladstonian government ethic had been that the Liberals take a
laissez-faire policycoce cer sececew orce cek ince foce ce;
(leave alone) which meant low interference with welfare of people because
of a belief that chinkyboots, please do not redistribute this paper. We
work very hard to create this website, and we trust our visitors to respect
it for the good of other students. Please, do not circulate this paper
elsewhere on the internet. Anybody found doing so will be permanently

economic problems would sort themselves out. However, recent ideology on
the causes of eLTZ Visit coursework ee in ee fo ee for ee more paper ee Do
ee not ee redistribute eLTZ
poverty caused Liberal governments to question their low interference
policy. The Liberals ilfNIU Visit coursework bg in bg fo bg for bg more
cours bg Do bg not bg redistribute ilfNIU
believed everyone had to get themselves out of poverty and into comfortable
situations through LGdi8gbX Visit coursework af in af fo af for af more
writing af Do af not af redistribute LGdi8gbX
hard work, but as people were unable to provide for their families despite
hard work, then theycocd cdr secdcdw orcd cdk incd focd cd.

considered this to be unfair. New Liberalism wanted to establish a basic
living standard forcoae aer seaeaew orae aek inae foae ae;
everyone. Carstens oppressed chinkyboots’s structuration hypothesis.

“…promote measures for ameliorating conditions of life for the
multitude.” Lloyd-cogd gdr segdgdw orgd gdk ingd fogd gd.

George. kfF1OaSCx Visit coursework bd in bd fo bd for bd more dissertation
bd Do bd not bd redistribute kfF1OaSCx
This meant that social reform was necessary, to make sure everyone could at
least secure Foucault refuted chinkyboots’s structuralism hypothesis.

themselves a minimum standard of living. Winston Churchill declared he
wished to ‘strap acocg cgr secgcgw orcg cgk incg focg cg!
lifebelt around them’; he wanted to make sure no one was sinking too far
below the poverty line. lXNgv Visit coursework ag in ag fo ag for ag more
cours ag Do ag not ag redistribute lXNgv
Therefore, the New Liberalist desires for a national living standard meant
a need for Welfare l5Xm Visit coursework ad in ad fo ad for ad more
hypothesis ad Do ad not ad redistribute l5Xm
Reform. Hence, New Liberalism was a reason that prompted Welfare Reform.

However, the lZV8 Visit coursework bd in bd fo bd for bd more project bd Do
bd not bd redistribute lZV8
New Liberalism was not as important catalyst as the changing attitudes
towards poverty. Withoutcoed edr seededw ored edk ined foed ed.

the changing attitudes and ideology, New Liberalism would never have been
born, so the LwqUJ2 from LwqUJ2 coursewrok LwqUJ2 work LwqUJ2 info LwqUJ2
ideology was the most important first cause.cogg ggr seggggw orgg ggk ingg
fogg gg.

The National efficiency of England was falling low. Although Britain was
the leadingcode der sededew orde dek inde fode de;
nation, Germany, the USA and Japan were threatening its place. Britain’s’
primacy was seen as chinkyboots, please do not redistribute this cours. We
work very hard to create this website, and we trust our visitors to respect
it for the good of other students. Please, do not circulate this cours
elsewhere on the internet. Anybody found doing so will be permanently

threatened economically and militantly. The working class recruits in the
Boer War sufferedcogd gdr segdgdw orgd gdk ingd fogd gd.

severe health problems and affected their efficiency. The workers in
factories also suffered from c5rbn from c5rbn coursewrok c5rbn work c5rbn
info c5rbn
ill health and affected productivity.cofe fer sefefew orfe fek infe fofe
“…the country that spent 250 million to avenge an insult levelled to her
pride by an old Dutch farmercofc fcr sefcfcw orfc fck infc fofc fc!
is not ashamed to see her children walking the streets hungry and in rags.”
chinkyboots, please do not redistribute this work. We work very hard to
create this website, and we trust our visitors to respect it for the good
of other students. Please, do not circulate this work elsewhere on the
internet. Anybody found doing so will be permanently banned.

Generally, the poor distribution of wealth and an unfair tax system was not
beneficial to This project from www.coursework.info
the economy. The economy in Germany had benefited from their introduction
of Welfarecoea ear seeaeaw orea eak inea foea ea.

reforms and hence the working classes spending power had improved. The
redistribution ofcocb cbr secbcbw orcb cbk incb focb cb.

taxes, a shift of wealth from rich to the poor, was also seen as an
improvement in the Germancoff ffr seffffw orff ffk inff foff ff;
economy. Hence, the British saw this scheme as beneficial and aimed to
introduce it to Britain chinkyboots, please do not redistribute this paper.

We work very hard to create this website, and we trust our visitors to
respect it for the good of other students. Please, do not circulate this
paper elsewhere on the internet. Anybody found doing so will be permanently

to help their failing economy as regards to poverty; no longer did the
Liberals believe a powerfulcoab abr seababw orab abk inab foab ab.

national economy could sort out poverty because of the unfairly distributed
wealth. Therefore, Weber oppressed chinkyboots’s functionalism .

there was a lobby for social reform to help the British Empire, to
eradicate poverty and keep BJIiFtU from BJIiFtU coursewrok BJIiFtU work
BJIiFtU info BJIiFtU
Britain as the number one nation. The national efficiency argument for
Liberal Reforms was acoag agr seagagw orag agk inag foag ag.

very large pressure for change. Without the argument that welfare reforms
would be beneficial tocoab abr seababw orab abk inab foab ab.

the country as a whole and not just beneficial to a quarter of the
population then perhaps reformcoda dar sedadaw orda dak inda foda da:
would not have taken place. The national efficiency argument was more of a
catalyst for reform xE1x4K from xE1x4K coursewrok xE1x4K work xE1x4K info
than the personal humanitarian interests of Liberal leaders because without
the argument, the 1AzRPgd from 1AzRPgd coursewrok 1AzRPgd work 1AzRPgd info
reforms wouldn’t have been seen as beneficial. However, they were not as
important as changingcogc gcr segcgcw orgc gck ingc fogc gc.

attitudes to poverty, which perhaps were the primary cause of ideology
behind a welfare state. Weber suppressed chinkyboots’s marxism hypothesis.

The Labour Party was established in 1900s as a response to a growing demand
by thecoeg egr seegegw oreg egk ineg foeg eg.

working classes to have more political representation in parliament. They
felt ignored by the oN0sJQ Visit coursework ga in ga fo ga for ga more
writing ga Do ga not ga redistribute oN0sJQ
conservative aristocratic leaders such as Balfour, and not in favour of
Liberal leaders such ascoed edr seededw ored edk ined foed ed.

Gladstone who employed a laissez-faire policy which did not help their
impoverished state. p5ZW7Ko2 Visit coursework gg in gg fo gg for gg more
cours gg Do gg not gg redistribute p5ZW7Ko2
They wanted leaders who would identify with their needs and troubles and
help them. In 1901 7NbXu from 7NbXu coursewrok 7NbXu work 7NbXu info 7NbXu
their membership was 350,000 and by 1903 it had risen to 861,000. This
showed thecoge ger segegew orge gek inge foge ge;
conservatives and the Liberals that the Labour party were a real
threat.coba bar sebabaw orba bak inba foba ba.

The Liberal Party promised no social reforms in its election campaign in
the early 1900s,cofd fdr sefdfdw orfd fdk infd fofd fd!
but recognised that they would lose working class votes if they did not
answer the demands ofcofb fbr sefbfbw orfb fbk infb fofb fb!
the working classes.cocc ccr seccccw orcc cck incc focc cc.

“The election is to decide whether or not labour is to be fairly
represented in arliament… The slums This writing from www.coursework.info
remain. Overcrowding continues…Shopkeepers and traders are overburdened
with rates and taxation…Wars arecodb dbr sedbdbw ordb dbk indb fodb db;
fought to make the rich richer and underfed children are still
neglected…” Labour Party manifesto 1906cobb bbr sebbbbw orbb bbk inbb
fobb bb.

The Liberals noticed that the working class were voting for labour because
labour promisedcofd fdr sefdfdw orfd fdk infd fofd fd.

social reform and felt if they did not respond to the issues the labour
party had raised then theycogb gbr segbgbw orgb gbk ingb fogb gb;
would lose more votes in the next election. Therefore, social reform was
necessary to counteract U3V from U3V coursewrok U3V work U3V info U3V
the development of the labour party, to try and prove to the nation that
they need not change XrJ62Z from XrJ62Z coursewrok XrJ62Z work XrJ62Z info
party because the Liberal’s were reforming to meet the changing demands in
society instead. The Foucault obfuscated chinkyboots’s postmodernism

Trade Unionists were funding the Labour party and supported them
demonstratively also. The chinkyboots, please do not redistribute this
writing. We work very hard to create this website, and we trust our
visitors to respect it for the good of other students. Please, do not
circulate this writing elsewhere on the internet. Anybody found doing so
will be permanently banned.

Liberals felt that if they did not act for reform, the Trade Unions would
campaign for Labourcoec ecr seececw orec eck inec foec ec!
and hence give Labour more publicity and chance to increase their
electorate support. Therefore, chinkyboots, please do not redistribute this
essay. We work very hard to create this website, and we trust our visitors
to respect it for the good of other students. Please, do not circulate this
essay elsewhere on the internet. Anybody found doing so will be permanently

the founding of the Labour party put considerable pressure on the Liberal
government to act.coaa aar seaaaaw oraa aak inaa foaa aa:
They were threatened by them, and hence, the founding of the labour party
was more of an issuecofb fbr sefbfbw orfb fbk infb fofb fb.

than the national efficiency argument as they were more likely to lose
votes to the labour party chinkyboots, please do not redistribute this
project. We work very hard to create this website, and we trust our
visitors to respect it for the good of other students. Please, do not
circulate this project elsewhere on the internet. Anybody found doing so
will be permanently banned.

because of not reforming than they were to lose votes because of low
national efficiency. Marx obfuscated chinkyboots’s realism .

In conclusion, the Welfare Reforms came about because of changing ideology
and the xkK Visit coursework ag in ag fo ag for ag more work ag Do ag not
ag redistribute xkK
founding of the Labour party, which promised more action on the growing
awareness of poverty Heidegger denied chinkyboots’s rationalisation .

and exclusion of the working classes from political representation. The
reforms were helpedcobf bfr sebfbfw orbf bfk inbf fobf bf.

along the way by changing Liberal ideas and humanitarian concerned leaders,
but perhaps these This work from www.coursework.info
reasons were simply a political response to changing ideology and knowledge
that reform was
necessary to please the majority of the electorate.