With over 60% out of work it was not, supriseing that the 1930’s were looked apon as being the hungry thirties. A bleak 1930’s with a common view of a poor hungry Britain. With many out of work and collecting on the doll and unemployment growing rapidly. Britain being heavily dependent on staple industries likes coal, shipbuilding, iron, steel, and textiles it was clear that as the need for these industries decreased this would have an effect on the working class in Britain. . J.B Presitly gave a particular gloomy view of the time in his job as a novelist and playwright. Also sharing his view later in the 1990’s was a labour historian called jack laybourn. Jack labourn did a lot of detailed research into the state of welfare, nutrition, health, and eccommic status.
An optimistic view of a perfect suburban England was one shared by a number of people from the 1970’s who saw the era as a step forward in the rich industrialised country with super highways and cinemas with crowd of awaiting civilians with happy contented lives. Wages started to increase compared to the wage rate of 1914, this brought with it higher living standards and better pay for working families. Living standard got cheaper and family size decreased giving more money for other activities. With this available money leisure, activities became rising in populatey and radios, and cars were not only for the rich. The cost of book making also decreased dramatically so more people could afford books, and these books then meant were put to a larger audience.
The views are very different each counter acting the other but why was there such a difference. It seems that the reason for this is a pessimistic view was taken about from the working community. The optimistic view was taken from those in higher societies that were not dependent on the staple industries. So the only in put that those people of a higher class saw was that more people were being involved in leisure activities. Most of the really poor were scarping by on disgusting wages or living of the doll, trying to find a job but not being able as there was not a need for the skilled in the staple industries. Those who were lucky enough to have jobs and be skilled at the oncoming industries such as motors cars or radio building obviously were not effected by the job losses in the 1930s, as with the need for new industries those working class were not in trouble. Those who had the money were able to escape daily work and wind down at the cinema. Most just walked the streets trying to find a job, which would bring in some sort of income for the family.
Another possible reason for the contrast in ideas is that the was a change throughout the country. In the north Britain was bombarded with old staple industries, the long-term unemployment was everywhere. Whereas in the south this was the main hot spot for the new developing, industries and living standards were on the increase with plenty of jobs available if you could open to the new branch of development opening.
There are many reasons to support each side of the historians views, with neither presenting a totally succure or uncure Britain. There is no doubt that people suffered hardship but there is also evidence that some areas were also booming with development for the new American influenced Britain.
Hollie Allen
