1. Liberal Reforms: Assessment 2. Poverty caused by Unemployment

2. The Problem In 1908, 7.2% of workforce was unemployed = 800,000 people living in poverty. Many industries could not offer permanent work. How were they helped? Poor Law.

3. What did the Liberals do? Labour Exchanges (like job centres) Employers could advertise jobs Unemployed could go to one place to find work By 1914, 400 Labour exchanges set up. By 1914, over 4000 jobs found daily.  Many employers didn’t register. Skilled workers were favoured. 3/4 of those registered did not find employment.

4. What did the Liberals do? National Insurance (PART 2) 1911 Unemployment fund. Paid into by employee, employer & govt. Paid unemployed (from certain trades) 35p per week for 15 weeks. 35p agreed by Booth & Rowntree as enough to remain out of poverty. Covered 2 million workers for up to 15 weeks per year.  Only covered those who worked in 7 trades. Could only be claimed for up to 15 weeks – could quickly fall below poverty line.

5. Point to argument: The Liberal government’s attempt to deal with poverty caused by unemployment was largely unsuccessful, despite the help they provided for some unemployed workers. LABOUR EXCHANGES Evidence In an attempt to help those in poverty, the Liberals introduced the Labour Exchanges in 1909. By 1914, 400 Labour exchanges had been created across the country as a way to advertise jobs and encourage growth of employment. Argument This was initially successful as over 4000 jobs found a day (by 1914) showing that the Liberals were going some way in helping poverty caused by unemployment. Evidence  However, it was not wholly successful because many employers didn’t register and thus limited the number of jobs available for the unemployed. Argument  Perhaps the act would have been more successful had the government encouraged more employers to use Labour exchanges. Evidence  Perhaps the biggest failure of the Labour Exchanges Act was that ¾ of those workers who did register did not find employment. Argument  Thus showing that this government action was unsuccessful in providing support for all against poverty through unemployment. 1911 NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (PART 2) The second form of government action was the 1911 National Insurance Act (Part 2) which acted as an unemployment fund for which worker, employer and government contributed. Evidence Unlike other government action, this level of payment is regarded by many as a successful way of tackling unemployment because the payment of 35p per week. Argument This was successful because Booth & Rowntree said this was enough for people to survive on without falling below the poverty line. Evidence Also successful was the fund covered around 2 million workers for up to 15 weeks cover per annum. Argument This means that even though not all unemployed people were being helped, a substantial number received assistance. Evidence  This essay argues that government action had the potential to be far more successful in tackling poverty caused by unemployment had it been extended beyond 7 trades and could only be claimed for more than 15 weeks a year. Argument  This meant the act was unsuccessful because once that period had lapsed the unemployed would quickly sink below the poverty line again and in order to survive would be forced to rely on the Poor Law. Link to Question: The evidence, therefore, clearly shows that government action in the form of Labour Exchanges and the National Insurance Part II was not comprehensive enough to be fully successful in tackling poverty caused by unemployment.

6. Recap: How did the Libs deal with poverty caused by unemployment? 