Compare, contrast and critically assess two differing attacks to the alleviation of poorness studied in Block 1 of the faculty.
In all societies that exist, and have existed, there are, and have been, people who are
deemed to be ‘poor’ . The definition of what constitutes poorness alterations over clip,
and so does the method of the relief of these groups from
poorness. The alleviation of poorness has ever been debatable for whatever opinion
elite discoveries itself in power at any given clip, and the agencies of relief are
associated with the current political orientation of the current period. In the last century two chief
instruments in the containment of poorness have been province intercession in the signifier of
William henry beveridges welfare province, and the ‘workfare’ attack of the new right of the 1980s,
and new Labour. In the latter half of the C20th. Particularly, authoritiess
rich person, through matter-of-fact considerations, and sometimes reluctantly, had to establish a
combination of these two ideological stances.
In this essay I will place the two chief viing political orientations, how they
relate to the hapless, given within the wider context of these political orientations and will compare
and contrast them. I will besides show a opinion on thesimilaritiesof the two
viing political orientations.
I will foremost briefly sketch the historical facet of the attack to hapless alleviation.
The thought of the ‘nation state’ came into being in the C16th. , and with it, under
Elizabeth I, the first existent acceptance of a policy designed to relieve poorness. Although
the first effort to cover with the job of poorness within society was non
established until toward the terminal of her reign in 1601.
Up until that clip, and throughout the Tudor period particularly, vagrancy had
go a job that the province, responding to the passage from a
preponderantly feudal society to a nascent capitalist society, could no longer disregard,
and repression of the hapless ( under Henry VIII able bodied drifters or ‘sturdy
beggars’ were tied bare to carts and crush with whips ‘till their organic structures were
bloody’ ) [ 1 ] was no longer a operable option, as was go forthing hapless alleviation to charities.
By the early 1800s, the governing elite needed to replace the Elizabethan hapless jurisprudence
with a new, modernised hapless jurisprudence. The province, faced with an increasing
figure of hapless which had grown out of the inflow of people seeking work in the new
mill towns tried to happen a new method of poorness
alleviation. ( Possibly because of memories of the Gallic revolution, which were at that
clip, good within populating memory, than entirely selfless grounds ) . But the hapless jurisprudence of
1834 simply modified the Elizabethan hapless jurisprudence to the
extent that those unable to work, or happen work, were faced with the workhouse, a topographic point
so designed as to offer even worse conditions than the world of poorness in
the outside universe, as a deterrence to the working population to seek hapless alleviation.
The Broad Government of 1908-1914 made farther grants such as
national insurance, but it was non until the center of World War II that any
echt idea was given to the predicament of the working categories, due to a cardinal
displacement in thought, whereby the industrial on the job category were no longer to be
idea of as a labour pool or cannon-fodder. The Beveridge study, compiled with a
position of how the hapless were to be dealt with after the terminal of the war, did hold
a significant component of selflessness within it, combined with pragmatism that
would hopefully ostracize everlastingly the apparition of the severely undersized and
malnourished recruits of the First World War.
The ‘Beveridge Report’ , so called after William Beveridge, the adult male behind it,
and responsible for the largest province intercession in labour direction of all time,
in which people paidnational insuranceto countervail periods of unemployment,
whereby a minimal criterion of life could be attained. A ‘safety net’ was
attained which gave far greater ‘social security’ , in the Fuller sense of the phrase, than a worker could hold hoped for in old old ages. Full moon
employment was to be seen as the norm, and arightof a working adult male or adult female.
The Beveridge study was an highly extremist act which saw province
intercession greatly enhanced, with the hoped for end consequence of full employment.
Unemployment was now to be seen as a impermanent status through which a period
of unemployment was offset by a province benefit which maintained a sensible
criterion of life.
The alleviation of poorness through unemployment benefits was attendant with
the wider deductions of a larger province, such as the puting up of the National Health
Service, province lodging and slum clearance, and the nationalization of premier industries
such as coal and steel. These nationalised industries would offer more employment
than in a market-led economic system, where, at times of less demand, workers were
‘laid off’ , until demand picked up once more. Nationalised industries would from now on
subsidise one another in times of reduced demand, therefore giving working people
better employment chances than of all time before.
This was a extremist going from the, up boulder clay so, haphazard grants
given to working people in an effort to maintain the work force healthy, and to battle
any radical excitement. These policies ensuing from the Beveridge study, were
upheld by consecutive conservative authoritiess, taking to Macmillan’s
‘we’ve ne’er had it so good’ phrase of the 1950s, which so contained a big
grade of truth.
The defects in this economic, mostly Keynesian system were shown up by big
consequence in the universe recession of the 1970s, where the political orientation of the public assistance province,
coupled with a really strong trades brotherhood motion, had its first existent trial. Up against
the universe ofpractical politics, it led to the ‘three twenty-four hours week’ , power cuts, and the autumn of the
This Government was replaced with the Callaghan Government which once more
buckled under the strength of the trades brotherhoods, which still stayed with the ideals of
the public assistance province in the face of a turning political and societal strife, and which led to
the ‘winter of discontent’ , where work stoppages by workers about brought the state to its
articulatio genuss and gave birth to the really different monetarist policies and political orientation of
Margaret Thatcher, who was elected to power in 1979, saw a province in crisis,
where a ‘culture of dependency’ [ 2 ] had developed through a province grown so big as to
be inefficient, bureaucratic, and inefficient. Thatchers vision was to alter this
‘culture of dependency’ as she saw it, to a ‘culture of enterprise’ [ 3 ] The New Right was
strongly influenced by Milton Friedman’s monetarist policies which were in consequence a
mirror image of Keynesian policies, and, harmonizing to New Right political orientation, offered
people a greater freedom of pick ; pick which was slightly limited under a excessively
Thatcher’s aim was to ‘roll back the state’ , and this proceeded to make so
with a retribution. The sale of state-owned ‘council’ houses and the denationalization
of industries met with great resistance, peculiarly the coalmining industry, and the
private, market led sector began to infringe on infinite antecedently occupied by the
province. ( The National Health Service was more debatable, as it remains so under the
present Blair Government, and ‘backdoor’ methods were necessitated because of the
public’s perceptual experience of an effort to tamper in what was a long fought for changeless
‘right’ ) .
A more individualist mentality decreed that the unemployed were, to a big
extent, responsible for their ain employment or otherwise ( possibly exemplified in
Norman Tebbit’s ‘get on your motorcycle [ to seek work ] phrase, and that the province should
intervene merely where necessary. These steps were, in portion, successful, but did
small to decrease the public assistance facets of the ‘nanny state’ , a dyslogistic term used by the
new right to depict the over-caring inclinations of the province, taking to persons to
become over reliant on the province when in troubles, peculiarly fiscal troubles.
The 1980s, as a consequence of the Thatcher Government policies, saw a spring in
unemployment unobserved since the depression of the 1930s. Everyone was persuaded to
go an ‘entrepreneur’ , and to trust on personal qualities instead than being in the
safety cyberspace of the province.
This saw a perceptible displacement in category mobility, as the working category, after
selling their council houses at a ample net income, set up concerns frequently under
subsidised new concern strategies instigated by the Thatcher Government. This was,
along with an economic upturn in the latter half of the 1980s, seen by many
protagonists of the new right as a exoneration of the new right’s policies.
By the 1980s nevertheless, a certain criterion of life had been attained by the
working categories employed or unemployed, which proved impossible to take down
any farther towards agencies of inciting individualistic endeavor, without put on the lining
big graduated table rebellion and of losing at the ballot box.
The Conservative Government survived the post-Thatcher old ages with John
Major ( all the controversial land work had been completed by the mid-80s
under Margaret Thatcher ) as leader until the election in 1997 of the ego styled ‘new
labour’ authorities led by Tony Blair.
The new Labour Government now faced the apparently unsurmountable
job which had bedevilled old authoritiess, peculiarly since the mid-70s,
of how to accommodate the attainment of full employment with low rising prices, peculiarly
as people expected to hold better employment chances, if merely because of the
fact that this was alaborauthorities which had ( by a ‘landslide’ ) been elected.
Tony Blair postulated a ‘third way’ , a cloudy term significance, to some extent,
dallying with semantics, as the unemployed became ‘jobseekers’ receiving
‘jobseekers allowance’ and strategies whereby ‘jobseekers’ had to go to ‘jobcentres’
for compulsory periods and use in composing for occupation vacancies. This, along with other
‘workfare’ strategies was seen by some as a cloaked inducement for an unemployed
individual to derive employment. ( If successful, this would call off out the demand to go to
these cranky ‘back to work’ strategies, seen by some to be as bad, or even worse,
than really working. )
A preponderantly bouyant economic system so far has non led the present Labour
Government into many of the quandaries of rising prices and big graduated table
unemployment jobs of its predecessors. It seems to many that the much vaunted
‘third way’ is simply a continuance of a moire down Thatcherite political orientation. The
present authorities is content, and feels it expedient, to bit off bit by bit at province
intercession, taking in instruction, wellness, employment, and the freedom that is and was
such a dogma of rightist political orientation.
The political orientations involved in the intervention of poorness had been, until the terminal of the
Second World War and the Beveridge study, individualistic. That is, it was
deemed that fiscal circumstance which could be deemed as poorness was entirely the
duty of the person concerned, and, if he/she was in a province of
poorness, it was the mistake of the person and the duty of the person to
ameliorate his/her province of poorness. To convey it into a larger context, this position of
poorness was enmeshed in the sensed right flying political orientation of a little, non-
interfering province, whether it be in health care or the economic system. The ultimate vision of a
province similar to this type would be Britain in the early 1800s, where really small revenue enhancements
and small or no province intercession were seen as to ease a floaty economic system. Laws
to relieve poorness were taken with more of a position as to stave off discontent, rioting,
and finally revolution. If a individual was hapless it was the person who was
at mistake, non the province, and it was up to the person to happen work without the assistance of
the province. What Torahs were introduced to relieve poorness were, in consequence, edge
by the provinces powerlessness from the defects of a little revenue enhancement gross with which to
supply some aid to the hapless.
The Beveridge study reversed this ‘small state’ stance with an political orientation that
set more duty on the province and less on the person. This meant more
revenue enhancements, but was accepted by the in-between categories, due in no little step to World War
II, and the promise of a ‘land tantrum for heroes’ . The study was, on the
whole, welcomed by most political parties and was mostly successful. But, partially due
to the turning strength of the trades brotherhood motions and a downswing in the
economic system in the 1970s, unfavorable judgment now grew that the province by now had become excessively
big, and amongst rightist political orientation, was non far from going a leftist
province on the Communist theoretical account, with the deficiency of freedom that it entailed. This political orientation
stifled individuality and endeavor in favor of an easy life.
Despite ( some would state because of ) the new right and new labor policies,
some see small difference in the province setup now, than in the post-war
Beveridge old ages, and Thatcherism non as an aberrance but as nexus to the prejudice in this
state toward go oning province intercession. The definition of poorness,
to boot, has changed over clip, in that person regarded as hapless presents,
would be deemed to be reasonably comfortable compared with people populating pre-war times.
The public assistance province, despite viing political orientations, seems here to remain, with some
people now resigned, and sometimes contentedly so, to ‘live off the state’
for possibly the remainder of their lives.
This province of dependence exists now every bit strongly as before the New Right and
New Labour’s attempts to invalidate this dependance on the province, and the alleviation of
poorness is still good within the kingdom of an of all time go oning big province.