Booth’s findings were then supported by another social investigator called Seebohm Rowntree. He got the same conclusions as Booth but he also concluded that wages were so low that even men in full time employment were forced to live close to starvation level. He recommended wages 1.08 pounds a week was needed to keep a couple with three children in ‘Spartan physical efficiency.’ These social investigations that were performed by Booth and Seebohm were one of the most important factors in changing attitudes to poverty in Britain because they found that poverty was not the fault of the individual and that poverty was the result of a character defect. Their investigation was also important because it got people questioning what was being done to help people suffering from poverty. People also began to question the government because the reports provided politician s and citizens evidence they could not ignore. By 1906, the Liberals had a hard time trying to escape the weight of evidence about poverty in Britain as these reports were widely read.
The Boer War was the second most important reason for changing the attitudes to poverty (this followed closely after the social investigations) The Boer war took place in 1899 between the powerful empire and the Boer Republicans in South Africa. The war brought great humiliation to Britain because the British soldiers expected to go into South Africa and win the war because they had a massive empire and the Boers in South Africa were just farmers that were not even professional trained army men. The Boer War was a period of sustained violence. For nearly three years the British exercised a scorched-earth policy that left the country in ruins. The British burned farms and confiscated food to prevent them from falling into Boer hands. They packed Boer women and children to concentration camps where many of them died from disease. The British literally starved the commandos into submission. The war was a great shock to Britain’s confidence. The citizens of Britain searched for answers to why it took them three years to lose to Boer Farmers.
The quality of soldiers was blamed for the poor British performance in the war. It was found that 40% of the military forces were unfit and most were suffering from poverty – related illnesses such as rickets. This was because half of the men in the army were pulled from the poor areas of Britain. This showed that an imperial power like Britain was producing an unfit workforce and as well as an unfit army because of the poverty that was taking place. In the social investigation that were conducted by Booth and Seebohm they produced facts and statistics that there was poverty that was taking place in Britain, but the Boer war showed physical evidence; that was being seen all over the world and this even explained how countries like Germany were overtaking Britain in economic growth. The Boer war was also important because it gave evidence that Britain was not doing enough to help the poor in society. Some argued the deteriorating British economic performance and the Boer War were proof of British decline.
The Boer war lead to the National efficiency which was the third main reason that was important in the changing attitudes of poverty in Britain. The National efficiency was one of the responses to the problems the Boer war had presented. The National efficiency would resolve in a much healthier population which was supposed to provide a more efficient workforce and soldiers. The National efficiency had been a debate among socialists, Liberals and Conservatives in the early years of the 20th century. There were concerns Britain was going to fall behind as a world power. These fears had been heightened by the investigations that had been done by Rowntree and Booth, the revelations about the physical state of those volunteering to fight in the Boer war, the speed at which the Americans and Germans industry was overtaking British industry in production levels and also the growth of highly mobile European armies and the ship building programmes of France, Russia and Germany that emphasised the vulnerability of Britain. All these gave great rise to great deal of anxiety, debate and the publication of many papers and articles. The national efficiency wanted more experts and businessmen involved in government, a reduction of parliamentary interference, a rationalisation and streamlining of local government and military training for all men. This sort of programme attracted a wide range of support from Fabian socialists, progressive Liberals and Liberal-minded conservations. The national efficiency became the key issue.
The growth and spread of socialism was the fourth main reason why attitudes changed towards poverty in Britain. This occurred in the 1890s, the socialist spread had occurred cause of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. They argued the government should interfere more much more in the way the country was run. In other words they were suggesting moving away from laissez faire, free trade and capitalism towards a state interventionists system or collectivism in which the government would begin to help and take responsibility for those that could not help themselves. Many socialists were disgusted by the successive governments’ unwillingness to get to grips with the problem of poverty.
The fifth reason why the attitudes of poverty changed in Britain was the development of trade unionism, this took place in 1825. Trade union had been illegal and attempts to form one could lead to serious conciseness. Activities of unions remained curtailed and the size of unions stayed small. However, a series of laws in the 1870s gave more rights to unions and they began to grow in size and influence. First major strike was on the London dorks in 1889. Between 1892 and 1900 memberships grew rapidly and this resulted in small craft unions being replaced by large new unions that represented unskilled and semi-skilled workers. Employers responded in lock-outs, so the unions resulted to looking to the parliament for protection from employers and unemployment. Although a majority of the unions had voted to conservatives and Liberals, many thought that the government wasn’t doing a lot to help the working class, and this resulted in a lot of pressure on the conservatives and Liberals.
In conclusion by the 20th century, poverty in Britain had been highlighted by first the social investigation which were conducted by Charles Booth and Seebohm Rowntree (the scale of poverty that they identified was shocking to most citizens in Britain). Secondly the Boer war made everyone realise that a change need to be made to the society which resulted in the national efficiency which demanded a healthier population that would produce a good work force and soldiers. Political thinkers and new voters also demanded such changes. Together all the important factors that helped change the attitude towards poverty in Britain made the sate increase its role in organising society in order to improve it. The Liberal party would begin to tackle the huge poverty that existed in Britain.
