Welfare and the state

Within this assignment I am going to set out two different approaches to the relief of poverty, explaning what each approach is and comparing the two in terms of their ideological underpinnings. I will finally assess both the strengths and the weaknesses.

The 18th and 19th century was very different than our times now with very little help from the government mother’s came solely responsible for children (Single Mums) and a man who married a single mum would have to agree to take on all her children. Poor people were not offered support. Because the drastic difference I have desided that my first approach to the relief of poverty that I am going to be discussing is the 1834 Victorian poor law. The poor law has been around before this period but was known as the 1601 Elizabethan poor law which was very religious based and set duties for which Christians partake in, such duties which were: Feed the hungry

Give drink to the thirsty

Bury the dead

Visit the sick

Visit the prisoner

Clothe the naked

There was a reformation of the Elizabethan poor law and with this very many moral expectations disappeared and it was then that it became necessary to regulate the relief of poverty by law, it had been said that ‘instead of discouraging pauperism the poor law encouraged it by offering such generous benefits. To Chadwick’s logical mind the solution was clear: simply reverse the syllogism.’ (D. Fraser, 1984, p44) thus accruing the need for change.

The 1834 Victorian poor law saw a change to which a vast majority of moral expectations disappear and the relief of poverty was regulated by law.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The 1834 Victorian poor law saw a change to which a vast majority of moral expectations disappear and the relief of poverty was regulated by law.

Earl Grey was the prime minister in1883 and it was in this period that he set up the poor law commission in order for him to carefully study the working of the poor law system in Britain. The report was than published in 1834 and recommendations were made to parliament resulting in the poor law amendment act being passed. This changed the way in which the country was ran and stated such laws as: Able bodied people were unable to receive any type of help from the poor law authorities except for in a workhouse and it was made so that no one wanted to enter the workhouse because of severe conditions in which you would be in, every parish would elect a board of guardians to supervise the workhouse following such duties as collecting the poor rate and sending reports to the central poor law commission.

The abolishment of outdoor relief (no help for the poor outside of the workhouse) did not accrue until the 1840s and in order to get out of the workhouse you had to have some family member who was not in the workhouse to find you work, if you had no family to get you work you would not be able to leave the workhouse. Within the workhouse men did hard labour and women did laundry etc.

The poor were put into three groups

Important poor: those who were too old/ill/young to work
Able bodied poor: those who would work but could not
Idle poor: those who could work but would not

Families were often separated when entering the workhouse and despite desperately trying to, the workhouse was unable to make life as bad as outside the workhouse as inmates would virtually have to be starved and this was unacceptable and from this other deterrents were put in place, such deterrents as prisoner type uniforms for all the inmates to be worn to segregation of inmates, men with men, women with women, girls with girls and so on. The poor were made to feel ashamed and with no way of bettering yourself it was a vicious cycle that they were living in and it can be said that they were inheriting there poorness. The new poor law thought deterrence was the key to relief of poverty and that laziness was the cause of it and many held the view that destitution was a character weakness. Chadwick had describe the new poor law as ‘a great engine of social improvement’ (D. Fraser, 1984, p44) stating that ‘if men knew that the poor relief which was open to them would provide standards lower than which their own labour could ensure, they would naturally prefer to work rather than become paupers.’ (D. Fraser, 1984, p44)

The other approach to the relief of poverty that I am now going to discuss is the workfare approach of new labour and new right. Just before labour came into government unemployment in the UK stood at 2 million and there was 1.6million people claiming job seekers allowance, this major lack of employment was causing poverty and was of great concern for labour so their strategy in which to tackle poverty would be through employment.

New labours aim was to get people of benefits and back into work. 1997 saw the labour government take over and with this they have put into place strategies such as tax and benefits policies that ensure work pays and clear minimum standards of employment. One of there bigiest strategies were new deal which has been said to help over 1 million people get into work. It was felt that if people had the skills and experience that employers were looking for they had a better chance of obtaining jobs that would not demoralise them thus new deal created these opportunities by offering work based interviews which became compulsory for all those on benefits. These interviews were aim at informing people on benefits of how much better off they would be if they went into work and made then aware of the schemes that they had in place, for example new deal allowed people to gain qualification up to nvq level2 and allowed people to work and learn at the same time, otherwise know as an aprentership.

New labour and the new poor law handled the issue of poverty in different ways as they held different views as to why poverty was so prominent within society. The new poor law held the notion that the poor were poor because of laziness and new labour felt that people were poor because they lacked opportunies and knowledge in order to better then selves. The poor law placed the resonsibilty on people to better them selves and played very little part in helping people better themselves thus the term Laissez – faire which means “let people do as they think is best” () and simply goes by the notion that individual’s actions should not have interference by the government this co insides with the policy in which the poor law implemented obolishing outdoor relief as it makes society reliant on them selves.

Pensions were introduced, after a long campaign, by the . This Act has been described, by Brian Watkin, as ‘the first step in replacing the "hated poor law", of 1834, by the welfare state’ (Watkin 1975 p.71, cited in http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/ssh5.htm). If you had been born before 1908, you would have spent your retirement years in a workhouse.

Many differences occure between the two approaches to poverty, instead of labour making benefits worse as the poor law did in order to deter people from wanting to stay at home they felt that they needed a much attractive insentive and they made wages better. One of new deal’s focuses point was on education enabling people to better then selves. This allows people to get of benefits which was not possible with the work house as it was made virtually impossible to get out of with the only means of excape through a family member outside the work house finding you work.