However, the new legislation was only a mediocre success in improving the quality of life for working class people. "New Liberalism", differing slightly to Gladstonian Liberalism, was essentially state intervention in order to reduce poverty and therefore improve living and working conditions for the working classes. Up until the turn of the century, it was believed that poverty was self-inflicted, and extremely easy to eradicate if the people concerned just tried a little harder. However by the 1906 election, studies on poverty had been completed by Booth and Rowntree, and ideas on the origins of poverty were beginning to change. These studies provided evidence to suggest that no matter how hard certain people tried, they could not lift themselves out of poverty, and needed assistance in the form of state benefits and legislations.
It is known that progressives believed that society was capable of improvement and that continued growth and advancement were in the nation’s best interests. Specifically progressives felt that direct, purposeful human intervention in social and economic affairs was essential to achieving that growth in which they thought the nation was capable of. Theses interventions were implemented by a number of reformers: dissatisfied Republican officeholders, Democrats, journalists, scholars, social workers, and other activists. Together they “formed new organizations and institutions with the common objective of strengthening the national government and making it more responsive to popular economic, social, and political demands”(561). Although not everything went according to plan all the time, the progressive movement, in my opinion, should still be considered a success because of the great leaps towards a better nation they were able to complete.
The Success of the Liberals from 1906-1914 in Dealing with Domestic Problems The liberals winning the 1906 landslide election certainly signified a dramatic change for the working class people of Britain, as compared with the traditional ‘lassiez Faire’ and ‘self help’ policies that Conservative leaders such as Gladstone advocated, the Liberals symbolised ‘freedom’ for the people. However, despite this image, in order to assess the success of the party’s dealing with their problems, the real impact on ordinary ‘domestic’ life needs to be taken into consideration. Indeed, the Liberal’s dealings had essentially unprecedented effects and made a dramatic difference to general political views and some citizens’ lives. Their revolutionary reforms and their handling of The House of Lords could be considered as their greatest successes as in the long-term, their actions helped improve welfare and gave working class interests more of an opportunity of passing through Parliament. However, the Liberals were very slow and inefficient in their dealings with the suffragettes and industrial militancy as these issues were simply not a priority for them.
But it wasn’t even established and child labor continued. Overall multiple acts were provided and enacted during this era, but despite their small, yet significant effects on the nation it wasn’t enough. Roosevelt didn’t completely get rid of trust and monopolies, women’s rights in the Nineteenth amendment wasn’t secure enough and workers would have been better off if they were provided with benefits and if child labor was demolished. The Progressive Era was just the start to something greater and a slow beginning to developing the great nation that we have today.
Since the Prime Minister is an integral part of a government, it will also be important to look at the competency of MacDonald himself. Labour came to power in 1923, even though they had not actually won the 1923 election, and were therefore not the single largest party. Therefore, Labour could not form a strong government, thus making it more difficult to pass legislation and to implement their policies. However, despite these difficulties, the first Labour Administration did have numerous successes both in social reform and foreign policy. For example, with regard to social reform achievements, Labour raised old age pensions as well as unemployment benefits, and revived state scholarships to universities.
It must be considered when viewing the achievements of Labour that in 1924, the Labour government was not in a position to push ahead with radical policies, as a minority in the house of commons a Conservative vote and abstinence of a liberal support would have brought the government down. A heavy reliance on the liberals existed in the first labour government which some argue restricted them heavily, policies such as nationalisation and disarmament had no chance of being implemented. Also due to its reliance on the Liberals its relationship with trade unions was damaged as they felt they were not being represented as well as promised. To labour this was a large problem as trade unions provided most of their funds, however to be too sympathetic to the unions would make it difficult to project an image of their party as genuinely national. Labour theorised that a gradual series of changes would be more beneficial to their aims, and using their rise to power in 24 as foundation stone to prove their capability in government, their socialist views were still present, however were a realistic take on Labours ability to bring change to Britain, which was at this point vastly limited.
But what it did bring to the table was an end to purely laissez-faire policies – the US was beginning to shed traditional values in favor of European economic aspects. Sure, conservatives whined that every baby step away from capitalism was a monstrous leap toward socialism and even communism. But a little government intervention, especially in a time of crisis, goes a long way. Socially, Roosevelt’s New Deal was ineffective for women, but moderately effective for the elderly and disabled. The status of women did not improve at all during this time.
The population had been rapidly increasing during Victorian times and a post-Victorian age was to bear the consequence. In order to look after the increasing numbers of the 'less well-off' people, attitudes were going to have to change. However the conservatives did little to provide social reformation and were weak in politically satisfying the demands of the masses. The masses, of which many were living in poverty didn't receive sympathy from the likes of James Balfour, an Etonian who probably had the faintest of ideas of w... ... middle of paper ... ...and there is hardly any evidence that the Conservatives had genuinely succeeded in widening their power base. The post-Victorian era and the turn of the century gave a new dimension to politics.
The first thing he had to deal with was the great war but at the time this was not considered that tough a task for him as he successfully managed to be munitions minister. The conservatives had a selection of followers from the British society but one thing they did not have was support from the working class and this is one reason why Lloyd George was selected to lead up the coalition because he had support from the working class. There were many factors that contributed to the fall of Lloyd George. Some of these were his fault and some of these were ongoing factors that he had to deal with. He was a man without a party, a ‘new liberal’ where many had followed the old leader and were Asquith supporters.
Overall, the New Deal was a mixture of both success and failure. While it provided relief to millions of people and increased government involvement in the economy, the New Deal was unable to redistribute the wealth among Americans, and poverty was still prevalent. During his time in office, FDR established a modern definition for the word freedom and introduced a new type of liberalism that encouraged the government to have a more prevalent role in the lives of Americans. Though not supported by all, the New Deal was FDR’s attempt in bettering the welfare of the nation.