600, 000 jobs cut in the public sector = 700, 000 job cuts in the private sector

Generali

marklv wrote: »

Before WW1 Britain ...the poor were sent to slave in workhouses.

No they weren't. If you weren't able to provide for yourself you presented yourself at the workhouse and you would be classified in one of three ways: able to work and so assistance only to be given in the workhouse, unable to work and then subdivided into 2 groups which were either given cash and/or vouchers to use to support themselves outside the workhouse or were taken care of inside the workhouse if they were judged to be unable to look after themselves.

I have read plenty about the workhouse as I have a great interest not least because my Grandmother was born in one. It's ironic really as many socialists talk a load of s h i t about the workhouse as a rule yet most of the really engaging histories of workhouses were written by people that went on to be socialist politicians.

Nobody was forced into the workhouse that was able to look after themselves and nobody that could look after themselves was required to remain in one. They were run by the relatively small number of people that paid any sort of significant amount of tax so they had an interest to support as few as possible. Much of the work done in the workhouse was to keep the workhouse running (eg cooking, cleaning, sewing, mending).

The vast majority of people worked and paid their way and would never have gone near a workhouse except perhaps walking past it on the way to work.

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

The vast majority of people worked and paid their way and would never have gone near a workhouse except perhaps walking past it on the way to work.

but many of these fine 'workers' as you portray them lived in horrendous conditions. in order to reduce the numbers in the workhouse the government endeavoured to make conditions inside worse than any that could be experienced outside. they found this extremely difficult to achieve - giving people a diet that was worse than outside involved starvation to an unnacceptable level. so they introduced other things to make it less appealing - prison style clothing and segregation of sexes (so splitting up families). in no way was it a system we should admire.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

but many of these fine 'workers' as you portray them lived in horrendous conditions. in order to reduce the numbers in the workhouse the government endeavoured to make conditions inside worse than any that could be experienced outside. they found this extremely difficult to achieve - giving people a diet that was worse than outside involved starvation to an unnacceptable level. so they introduced other things to make it less appealing - prison style clothing and segregation of sexes (so splitting up families). in no way was it a system we should admire.

I don't portray them as anything, you are putting words in my mouth. I state a series of facts as far as history can be considered factual.

The Government had no control over conditions in the workhouse, they were controlled by the Poor Law Guardians.

Diets weren't great by any means in the workhouse but what do you think poor people lived off in the C19th? For example, the BMJ (link) has a very interesting article suggesting that workhouse menus would have been dull but nutritionally adequate and would have required skilled kitchen staff to maintain the menus that survive due to the requirements of accuracy for example.

There was a degree of segregation in many workhouses, most often carelessly done to reduce costs to make administration simpler rather than to degrade or neglect AIUI.

I don't admire the workhouse system but it was a genuine attempt to improve provision for the poor as the British economy became more urban and industrialised.

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

II don't admire the workhouse system but it was a genuine attempt to improve provision for the poor as the British economy became more urban and industrialised.

maybe if the poor hadn't been robbed of an ability to at least live at subsistence by the removal (theft) of common land they wouldn't have needed the work houses.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

I don't portray them as anything, you are putting words in my mouth. I state a series of facts as far as history can be considered factual.

The Government had no control over conditions in the workhouse, they were controlled by the Poor Law Guardians.

Diets weren't great by any means in the workhouse but what do you think poor people lived off in the C19th? For example, the BMJ (link) has a very interesting article suggesting that workhouse menus would have been dull but nutritionally adequate and would have required skilled kitchen staff to maintain the menus that survive due to the requirements of accuracy for example.

The bowls never wanted washing. The boys polished them with their spoons till they shone again; and when they had performed this operation (which never took very long, the spoons being nearly as large as the bowls), they would sit staring at the copper, with such eager eyes, as if they could have devoured the very bricks of which it was composed; employing themselves, meanwhile, in sucking their fingers most assiduously, with the view of catching up any stray splashes of gruel that might have been cast thereon. Boys have generally excellent appetites. Oliver Twist and his companions suffered the tortures of slow starvation for three months: at last they got so voracious and wild with hunger, that one boy, who was tall for his age, and hadn't been used to that sort of thing (for his father had kept a small cook-shop), hinted darkly to his companions, that unless he had another basin of gruel per diem, he was afraid he might some night happen to eat the boy who slept next him, who happened to be a weakly youth of tender age. He had a wild, hungry eye; and they implicitly believed him. A council was held; lots were cast who should walk up to the master after supper that evening, and ask for more; and it fell to Oliver Twist.
The evening arrived; the boys took their places. The master, in his cook's uniform, stationed himself at the copper; his pauper assistants ranged themselves behind him; the gruel was served out; and a long grace was said over the short commons. The gruel disappeared; the boys whispered each other, and winked at Oliver; while his next neighbours nudged him. Child as he was, he was desperate with hunger, and reckless with misery. He rose from the table; and advancing to the master, basin and spoon in hand, said: somewhat alarmed at his own temerity:
'Please, sir, I want some more.'
The master was a fat, healthy man but he turned very pale. He gazed in stupified astonishment on the small rebel for some seconds, and then clung for support to the copper. The assistants were paralysed with wonder; the boys with fear.

How things change, the doctor of the master would have probably recommended he go on the Oliver diet if he lived today


http://charlesdickenspage.com/twist_more.html

julieq

ninky wrote: »

maybe if the poor hadn't been robbed of an ability to at least live at subsistence by the removal (theft) of common land they wouldn't have needed the work houses.

The urban poor in the 19th Century wouldn't have known what to do with common land even if they'd had any. There really are limits to how far you can go back into history and draw useful conclusions, unless you want to live in socialist mythology land.

ninky_2

julieq wrote: »

The urban poor in the 19th Century wouldn't have known what to do with common land even if they'd had any. There really are limits to how far you can go back into history and draw useful conclusions, unless you want to live in socialist mythology land.

oh really - where would you draw the limits? of course the urban poor in the 19th century wouldn't have existed in such numbers in if it wasn't for enclosure that drove people to the factories in the first place.

julieq

It's happened. Done and dusted. Move on, and stop living in the 17th Century, where despite access to common land, things were a hell of a lot tougher for everyone. Subsistence farming on common land was not exactly a rural idyll.

Incidentally you could draw an analogy with modern Chinese industrialisation in which case you'd note that people are quite happy to drive themselves from the land to the factory. It depends on their view of the alternative.

bendix

Are we seriously discussing the rights and wrongs of the bloody Enclosure Acts?

Come on ninky . . . put away your copy of Paine's Common Sense, put aside for a moment your lute, and rejoin the real world. Julieq is quite right. Even a cursory understanding of history shows that it takes a curious worldview to look back a time in which Hobbes described life as nasty, brutish and short as some kind of rural wonderland full of buxom wenches drinking cream, and stout-hearted fellows playing cricket on the village green.

Good grief.

bendix

julieq wrote: »

Incidentally you could draw an analogy with modern Chinese industrialisation in which case you'd note that people are quite happy to drive themselves from the land to the factory. It depends on their view of the alternative.

Not only happy too, but desperate for the Chinese government to abandon the system of internal passports which limits the number of rural workers moving to the factories to escape poverty in the country.