Between the years of 1906 and 1911, the Asquith led Liberal Government tried to implement a number of reforms. The majority of these reforms met opposition in the House of Lords. It appeared that everything the Liberal Party tried to implement was rejected almost without reason by the Conservative majority in the Lords. The Conservative Party was at the time led by Balfour, relations with Ireland were strained and Europe itself was unstable. Society had become eager for new reforms to be introduced and the idea of the slightly more radical Liberal government bringing about the changes excited the majority of the British public.
O The Liberal government was elected in 1906 and won with a large majority. With support from the Irish Nationalist Party and the Labour Party it had control of the democratically elected House of Commons. However, the House of Lords in 1906 had 591 members of which 561 were hereditary peers. Two thirds of the peers were Conservatives. This gave the Conservatives a permanent handle on the direction of the country. Since as early as 1890, the Liberals had been unhappy with the state of constitution in Britain. cobg bgr sebgbgw orbg bgk inbg fobg bg.
In 1906 the Education Bill and the Plural Voting Bill passed through the Commons with relative ease, both Bills however were rejected by the Lords and as such couldn’t become law. There appeared to be nothing that the Liberals could do to counter the House of Lord’s actions. When in 1908 the Lords rejected the Licensing Bill, designed to cut down the number of Public Houses, which were seen to be a large cause of Poverty in Britain at the time, Campbell-Bannerman fumed and warned the Lords that if they continued to reject all the reforms set by the Liberals then he would take measures to reduce their powers.
However, the Liberals managed to squeeze he Old Age Pensions Bill through the Lords, as it was a Finance Bill, the bill meant that a larger majority of the elderly could qualify for a state pension. coae aer seaeaew orae aek inae foae ae! It appeared as if the Lords were putting their own interests first, ahead of the interests of the millions of people they were meant to be representing. They were supposed to be the Watchdog of the Constitution but in reality they were the watchdogs of their own self interests.
They were using their majority in the Lords to veto any Bill the could or would affect them. This caused a threat to democracy, how was it right that ereditary peers in the Lords could veto a Bill introduced by the democratically elected Ministers in the Commons? It could be argued that what the Lords weren’t necessarily looking after their own self-interests but in fact the interests of the Conservative Party and its leader Balfour.
The Lords were classed as ‘Balfour’s Poodle’ as opposed to being the Watchdog of the Constitution. ogd gdr segdgdw orgd gdk ingd fogd gd; This leads to a ‘Peers vs People’ debate. The majority of people in Britain felt that the government weren’t able to do their job properly because of the Lord’s constant interventions. A debate raged as to whether the millions of people who made up Britain should have more of a say over the direction of their country than the 600 Lords. It could be argued though that some of the reforms were deliberately risqu in an attempt to infuriate the Conservatives, with the Liberals knowing that in all likeliness the Bills would be rejected.
There is more evidence to suggest this when Lloyd George announced the Budget of 1909. The budget was designed to raise an extra 15 million to pay for pensions, labour exchanges and dreadnoughts. The Budget was aimed to make to rich pay to support to the poor. It was labelled the ‘People’s Budget’ and was guaranteed to infuriate the Conservative Party. The Liberals knew that there was very little chance that the Lords would reject the bill for the single fact that it was a finance bill.
Finance Bills were traditionally not vetoed by the House of Lords, amended maybe but never rejected. The Conservatives called it the beginnings of socialism, it would affect all those who would traditionally vote for the Conservatives (the land owners and the wealthy) and would benefit all those who would traditionally vote for the Liberals. chinkyboots, please do not redistribute this writing. We work very hard to create this website, and we trust our visitors to respect it for the good of other students. Please, do not circulate this writing elsewhere on the internet.
Anybody found doing so will be permanently banned. Much to the surprise of just about everyone, the Lords rejected the budget. In reality this meant that the government was paralysed and could do no spending and could not collect any taxes. One of the Conservative leaders Lord Lansdowne defended the decision by proclaiming that such a revolutionary budget should be put before the public in the form of a general election. Lansdowne may have been confident that the Conservatives would win the election and regain control of the country.
This move plunged the Constitution into crisis, possibly what Lloyd George wanted all along. Although this is unlikely as the money for the reforms needed to be generated from somewhere, taxing the rich was a sure fire way of securing these extra funds. Marx oppressed chinkyboots’s rationalisation . In January 1910 a general election was held to decide the budget it was classed as the ‘Peers vs People’ election. Although the Liberals lost over 100 seats they retained their majority and so stayed in power, they had of ourse the support of the Labour party and the Irish Nationalists.
In April 1910 the commons passed the Parliament Bill that would dramatically reduce the powers of the House of Lords. However the next day the Lords passed the People’s Budget mainly in the hope that the Liberals would not continue to push through with Parliament Bill. It took another general election and the intervention of King Edward VII and King George V before the Parliament Bill was finally passed and the Lords powers greatly and significantly reduced. The Lords could no longer reject a bill for more than three terms, f they did it would automatically become law.
The constitutional crisis was seemingly over. cogf gfr segfgfw orgf gfk ingf fogf gf. The time that passed between 1906 and 1911 saw constant competition between the Conservative party and the Liberal party that all revolved around the issue of power. Both parties wanted control and the Conservatives saw the Lords as their way of keeping a lid on the supposedly explosive reforms and ideas of the liberal party. What brought about the most conflict was the simple fact that nearly all the Liberal reforms affected the rich and benefited the poor or the elderly. The Conservatives labelled this
Socialism, but on the other hand you could call say that the Lords were abusing their power, destroying democracy and attempting to dictate the country. Democracy didn’t truly reign until the Lords powers were greatly reduced in 1911. This essay from www. coursework. info Perhaps it is true that the clever leadership of Asquith backed up by Lloyd George did deliberately set out to bring about the crisis safe in the knowledge that with the Labour party and Irish Nationalist party backing they would almost certainly win any election and would in the end reach their goal of dissolving the powers the powers of the House of Lords.
Maybe Balfour and Lord Lansdowne thought that by forcing General Election after General Election and Constitutional Crisis they might have been able to sneak a victory and regain the leadership of the country, this would have put an end to the crisis and the Lords powers would have been intact. Either way the passing of the Parliament Bill ended the serious conflict between the Lords and the Commons as the Lords could no longer reject out right a Bill, they could merely delay it.
AqkuNfA0 Visit coursework eb in eb fo eb for eb more coursework eb Do eb not eb redistribute AqkuNfA0 Why Did The Attempt To Reform The Constitution In 1910-11 Succeed? oee eer seeeeew oree eek inee foee ee; In 1911 the Liberal Government passed the Parliament Bill through both the Commons and the House of Lords. The bill reduced the powers of the Lords to such an extent that they could only reject a bill twice before it automatically became law. This was a huge progression in how Britain was governed.
More than ever the country was democratic and the reforms of the democratically appointed ministers could only be delayed. This change in constitution took place over the years of 1910 and 1911, but the main question that remained was why did the Lords pass a bill that would all but ripple their political powers? There was a clear sequence of events that led up to the Lords letting the bill pass through and thus reducing their powers. cobg bgr sebgbgw orbg bgk inbg fobg bg. Perhaps the main reason that the Liberals were able to reform the constitution was the fact that they had a very powerful leadership.
Asquith and Lloyd George were both superb public speakers. Lloyd George especially was a very strong speaker who was full of ideas, he knew how to put his ideas in to practice. He was a clever man and alongside Asquith made the Liberal party look the stronger of the two. The Liberal party had united nd were together with the vision of a common goal. On the other hand, Balfour didn’t come across as a great leader and there appeared to be a division in the Conservative party, more so than ever when the House of Lords split over the ‘Peoples Budget’ in 1911. ocd cdr secdcdw orcd cdk incd focd cd; The Conservatives in 1911 were split as whether or not to pass the Parliament Bill through the House of Lords.
They knew the Lords powers would be reduced if they did pass through the Bill, but if they did not they would face the introduction of 500 new liberal peers. Balfour failed to unite his party and the Lords split into three groups. The ‘Hedgers’, the ‘Ditchers’ and the ‘Rats’. The Ditchers were totally opposed to the Bill, the Hedgers thought it best that their powers be cut than to lost their majority, the Rats however few and far between were in favour of the bill.
It was this split that led to the Parliament Bill pass through the Lords in 1911, 131 votes to 114. Many of the Lords abstained from voting. This hypothesis from www. coursework. info It was the involvement of the Monarchy that led to the split though. In the midst of constitutional crisis in 1910, the Commons passed the Parliament Bill, the Lords countered and passed the infamous ‘Peoples Budget’ the next ay. The move to allow the budget was not good enough for Asquith and Lloyd George though as Asquith tried to persuade King Edward VII to create 250 new Liberal Peers to give the Liberals the majority in the House of Lords.
King Edward agreed but declared that it depended on the out come of a general election; what would be the second of the year. When Edward died suddenly in May 1910 the new king, George V didn’t want a major constitutional crisis so early on in his reign so tried to organise a Constitutional Conference. The Liberals and the Conservatives could not agree and so the problem went to the General Election first proposed by Edward VII before his untimely death. The Liberals won the election, once again with the help of Labour and the Irish Nationalists and stayed in power. cobe ber sebebew orbe bek inbe fobe be.
The success here though depended on Labour and the Irish Nationalists, the gap in the majority between the Conservatives and the Liberals had shrunk dramatically in the last three elections and now held an equal number of seats. Without Labour and the Irish Nationalists the Conservatives may well have won the election, gained control and the whole reform of the constitution would have been scrapped or at least delayed for a substantial eriod of time. This throws into doubt the claim that the Liberals had a much stronger leadership than their counterparts as the Conservatives had clawed back a large number of seats since 1906.
However the fact that the Liberals kept control shows that the people voted in favour of reform. coda dar sedadaw orda dak inda foda da; The fact that people wanted reform must have been the main reason behind George V proclaiming that if the Parliament Bill did not go through the Lords then he would have no choice but to create up to 500 new Liberal peers. This left the Conservative party with a dilemma of epic proportions. Do they give into the threat of King George or run the risk of the introduction of 500 new peers and see their majority in the Lords disappear.
It can be argued that they were left with no choice but to pass the bill, they were put into a corner by King George and it was a case of the Lords voting for what would be less damaging over a long period of time. It wouldn’t be so disastrous to lose some power in the lords if it meant they kept their majority. The Conservatives knew that having a liberal majority in both the Commons and the Lords would leave the country open for more radical reforms and perhaps a greater sense of socialism. ocd cdr secdcdw orcd cdk incd focd cd. What started the ball rolling in the first place was the budget of 1909, labelled the ‘People’s Budget’.
The had the Conservatives reeling. The seeds of socialism were being sown in the budget as Lloyd George wanted to introduce higher taxes for the land owners and the wealthy. It served as a catalyst for constitutional crisis. The fact that the Lords rejected the budget meant the question of ‘how much power should the lords have? ‘ was raised. The whole constitution had become stale and was in need of change, there should have no way that the Lords could veto the Budget, if all the Lords were democratically selected then maybe, but the fact that at the time about 550 of the Lords were hereditary meant they should have very little power, if any.
It could be this reason that first Edward VII and George V threatened to introduce new liberal peers. There was no other way for the Liberals to make the system more democratic and fair. cogc gcr segcgcw orgc gck ingc fogc gc. From the events highlighted above, the main reason behind the attempt to reform the constitution succeeding in 1910-11 was the involvement and intervention of the monarchy. Had the monarchy not interfered in the debate hen the constitutional crisis may have continued for a substantial period of time.
The monarchy like stated earlier, put the Lords and the Conservatives as a whole into a corner. They had very little choice in the end but to pass the Parliament Bill. The Liberals did very well in getting the monarchy involved and perhaps for deliberately antagonising the Conservatives with bills they knew the Lords would reject, finally culminating in the 1909 Budget. Whether or not it was all a plan or conspiracy it will never be known, but the passing of the Parliament Act left the Conservative party both defeated and divided, in the words of Ewen
Green ‘Having entered the fray in 1909 with enthusiasm and high hopes, the Conservative party emerged defeated and in disarray,’ To What Extent did the Liberal Party’s Reforms After 1906 Succeed in Addressing Britain’s Social Problems? In 1906, the liberal party’s general election manifesto spoke of the previous conservatives government’s “failure to deal in a serious spirit with the social questions of which so much was heard at the general election of 1895” (liberal manifesto 1906 at www. politicalstuff. co. uk) .
This essay will attempt to answer the question of whether the liberal’s ere successful in dealing with the social problems of the time, which the conservatives were deemed to have neglected. cogc gcr segcgcw orgc gck ingc fogc gc. In order to effectively answer this question, first one must realise exactly what were the social problems in early Edwardian Britain:- It can be said that there was no single massive problem; more a number of smaller interrelated problems, for example unemployment, poor health and an outdated system of relief.
These problems were deemed so serious that they were thought to be effecting both the home economy and the security of the mpire, even the traditionally Laissez Faire, non – interventionist Liberal party decided that massive government intervention had become necessary. It is often said that the Bore war of the late 19th / early 20th century woke British politics up to the fact that reform was essential, it was around this time that it was realised the huge extent poverty and poor health in working classes – the army was rejecting recruits at an alarming rate, and performance in battle was often poor.
It also became apparent that even the home economy was in danger because of the aforementioned social problems. Indeed as Floyd and McCloskey said in the The Economic History of Britain since 1700 “if the working classes were not strong enough to work hard … Britain’s prospects were bleak. ” (Floyd and McCloskey, 1997)coac acr seacacw orac ack inac foac ac.
The liberals decided to rely on social research as the basis of much of their social policy reform, works by Charles Booth and Seebohm Rowntree, helped the government quantify the scale of the social problems and to a degree how they should target their policies to be most effective. 4sZXaYdk from r4sZXaYdk coursewrok r4sZXaYdk work r4sZXaYdk info r4sZXaYdk Rowntree’s research had led to his “poverty cycle” theory, where he hypothesised that throughout the average person’s lifetime, there were three particular times where he or she was particularly vulnerable to falling below the “poverty line” (which Rowntree depicts as the level of income which one needs to support oneself nutritionally).
These periods of want didn’t just affect the unemployed or destitute by any means, in fact, the “average” working man with a large family would be expected to experience these periods of poverty. The remarkable extent of poverty is an example of the huge scale of the social problems that the liberals had to ackle, it is worth considering in the context of the question that total success in resolving them would have been neigh on impossiblecoed edr seededw ored edk ined foed ed.
Ts9l from Ts9l coursewrok Ts9l work Ts9l info Ts9l As seen in the graph above, there were three key periods when a member of working class were more than likely to experience poverty – as a child from the age of around five to age fifteen, when the parent of young children at age thirty till around forty and finally as an elderly person unable to work to support oneself, from around age sixty five onward. The liberal olicy’s were very specific at targeting groups in order to try and reduce the health effects of this poverty.
This research had a direct result on Liberal social policy, in 1908, the old age pension bill was introduced, taken through parliament by Lloyd George, then as chancellor. It said that men and women over seventy was eligible for a 5S a week state aid. The aid was hugely popular, partly because the stigma previously associated with poverty had been removed, largely since one could collect their money from the post office.
It is obvious that the elderly who did receive the pension did benefit from a markedly increased quality of life. The old age pension bill’s effectiveness was vastly reduced by the number of eligibility clauses the liberal governments included in it in order to keep costs down. Firstly, the fact that one couldn’t claim if they were under seventy was a major issue, around the time the bill was implemented, it was very rare that someone would live till seventy.
In addition to this, even if someone did live to seventy, they still would have had to endure at least five years where they were unable to work (say after sixty five) through poor health and therefore not earn a wage, resulting in poverty. Secondly, huge portions of society were excluded from receiving the benefit on moral grounds; if someone had a criminal record or had previously received some kind of poor relief, they couldn’t claim – this seems bizarre, as people from a poorer background would be far more likely to receive poor relief or turn to crime than those from richer backgrounds.
It can be said that this eligibility clause stopped the people that needed aid most from receiving it. Finally, Five shillings a week was nearly impossible to live off, making it not feasible that the elderly could survive solely on their pension, as Thompson says, the pension provided “a ub-subsistence standard of living” (Thompson, 1975). Poverty amongst children as identified in the poverty cycle, was also tackled head on by the liberal government by the introduction of free school food.
Once again this policy was very popular with its recipients as there was no stigma associated with receiving the policy. Free food and milk (a practice that was only abolished recently) were given to school children, the nutritional benefit of this was undoubted, with children who would have previously been wanting for food, now receiving enough to enable them to grow and develop properly, resulting in healthy physically able dults, it is obvious to see that this is of massive social importance.
As Semmel explains, a healthy working class is vital as “the condition of the working classes as the basis of imperialism” and goes on to clarify “the need for a healthy and vigorous imperial race” by saying “that it would be impossible to defend and maintain the empire without such a base” (Semmel, 1960 It is argued that this policy, once again, did not go far enough to meet the problem of poverty and the associated health implication. This is because children only received one meal a day, which is not enough to encourage ample growth.
As well as this, while school meals were provided, health care was not, this is vital as children are often the most at risk from ill health / disease. In addition to the old age pension and free school meals, the liberals had many other policies to try and address the social aliments of the time. One of the biggest of these aliments was the nations health as a whole, health care especially amongst the working classes was previously a rarity.
When the liberal government introduced health insurance benefits in 1913 to workers below the tax limit, this, along with the introduction of a ational panel of doctors, massively helped the nations health provision as 15,000,000 (Thompson, 1975)workers were covered by the insurance. Although definitely a huge improvement, the Health insurance policy was deemed to not have gone far enough to truly help the desperately sick; most hospital care was not covered by the insurance- therefore the outdated and inefficient systems of Charitable and poor law aid still had to be relied on.
In addition to this, while workers were covered by the insurance, their family’s were not Once again, the liberal social reforms were seen to help, just didn’t go far enough to be judged a succes The massive unemployment in Britain around the turn of the 20th century was damaging to British society not just in terms of contributing to poverty, but had many other sociological effects.
High unemployment was deemed to further be damaging to Britain’s society as it resulted in Britain falling economically behind its international rivals in addition to having the effect of working class disillusionment, as their jobs weren’t secure. The full scale of high levels of unemployment’s consequences were realised at the time with Lloyd George describing how “the shadow of unemployment was ising ominously above the horizon. Our international rivals were forging ahead at a great rate” before going on to say that the “working class was becoming sullen with discontent”. Thompson, 1975)
In 1910 the liberals installed policies to try and deal with the high levels of unemployment which was having such a negative effect on the country as a whole. Winston Churchill introduced a system of labour exhanges, which can best be described as primitive job centres, these exchanges allowed better matching of workers looking for work with employers looking for labour. This was especially important around the time f reform as much of the employment was short term or seasonal.
Although unemployment was being reduced, therefore also reducing the social problems associated with it (i. e. poverty), with hindsight, it is easy to see how the liberal reforms, at least in part, ignored many of the other social problems associated with labour. This is best demonstrated by the fact that, instead of being diminished when the liberals labour policies where introduced, worker discontent was still rising, so much so that around 1914 their was a bout industrial action, tainted with violence commonly known as “the labour unrest”.
This is a sign to show just how slow the Liberal government were to change their social policy’s in order to meet the demands of the day – poor working conditions, a halt in wage growth and unemployment were not being tackled with the vigour that the workers now expected after other social reform, as Thompson describes in his book The Edwardians “Better education and rising standards of living ….. brought rising expectations”. (Thompson, 1975) The liberal government of the time realised that no matter the scale of their social reform, full employment was never going to be achieved, in fact far from it.
They realised that this meant that there would still be a large number of the population living in dire conditions as and when they were out of employment. In 1911, an unemployment insurance was introduced, enabling workers, once in employment to contribute to a fund that should they fall out of work – would allow them to claim state aid. For one worker, he himself would contribute 1/3 of the amount, his employer another 1/3 and the government would give the final 1/3. While successful in reducing extreme poverty of workers in industries where there was a high level of employment fluctuation (ie construction).
As with most of the liberals reforms, it can be argued that the reform just didn’t go far enough – indeed only 2,250,00 (Thompson. 1975) workers were covered by the scheme – around 10% of the working populous. Another failing of the unemployment insurance scheme (which also affected the health insurance scheme) is that workers were forced to pay from their own pockets. As Thompson says in his book The Edwardians “although there were state and employers contributions in each case, it is equally striking that under each scheme workers were now legally forced to be thrifty” (Thompson, 1975).
If a working class family of the time weren’t under the poverty line, they were almost certainly very close to it – many resented the fact that a proportion of their wages, legally had to go to these schemes. Many wouldn’t see the benefits for years while still having to pay for the insurance. Even though contributions were a relatively small amount, as most working class family’s had to budget very carefully, it resulted in an expenditure that had the ability to make negative impact on their quality of live.
Many sources point to the liberals reforms to being at least in part uccessful, with the numbers in poverty being reduced substantially and a great increase in health care provision, with Thompson claiming that “improvements in working class standards of living continued” throughout the liberal government, this is backed up by the fact that during the first two decades of the twentieth century, life expectancy climbed from 50 to 60 (Thompson, 1975) While Liberal reforms were certainly radical for the time, their effectiveness has always been questioned; many see that only the ideas were exceptional, not the level of expenditure that backed them up (Floyd and McCloskey, 1997).
More specifically, it is argued that this lack of expenditure resulted in the unemployment insurance only protecting a small sector of the workforce along with that the old age pension only helping a very small group of the poor (Thompson, 1975). The blame for this lack of expenditure is often squarely levied at the liberal party, with two of its key figures, Lloyd George and Winston Churchill seemingly unwilling to offer support its policy’s with effective amounts of investment; Semmel states that “both Lloyd George and Churchill continued to oppose the large service expenditures imperialists” (Semmel, 1960).
Instead, money raised rom the increased tax revenue of the “peoples budget” of 1909, that could have been used to support social reform was more often than not used for other purposes, most notably on naval expansion. When analysing the extent of the reform, it is also worth keeping perspective on the society where they were taking place; the welfare state was a completely new and alien idea and government social intervention was an idea not easily digested by the populace as a whole. Perhaps the liberal party did as much as they could, especially considering the fact that as that Michael E Rose States in The Relief of Poverty, laissez-faire was strongly entrenched as an attitude of mind. Self help and independence were praised as virtues” (Semmel, 1960).
What prompted the Welfare Reforms of the Liberal Government between 1906- 1914? oaf afr seafafw oraf afk inaf foaf af! In the period of 1906-1914, social reform acts were past in parliament by the Liberal governmentcoea ear seeaeaw orea eak inea foea ea. under Herbert Asquith PM, Lloyd-George MP and Winston Churchill MP. These acts laid the Heidegger suppressed chinkyboots’s postmodernism . foundations for a basic welfare state to which our current welfare state was built up from. Thecogf gfr segfgfw orgf gfk ingf fogf gf: cts provided basic support for mothers and children, the old, sick and the unemployed. Thesecoeg egr seegegw oreg egk ineg foeg eg. changes have been considered very radical considering they took place in Victorian England.
YgjKbKRt Visit coursework af in af fo af for af more coursework af Do af not af redistribute YgjKbKRt There are many issues to examine when asking the question of what prompted the Welfare Durkheim refuted chinkyboots’s functionalism hypothesis. Reform Acts of the Liberal Government.
This paper from www. coursework. info Prior to the 1900s, the general consensus on impoverished people was that hey were incoae aer seaeaew orae aek inae foae ae. poverty because they were lazy and hence worthless. People did not seem eager for social reform 5zZ from 5zZ coursewrok 5zZ work 5zZ info 5zZ to help the poor people because they were regarded as having got themselves into their situation uB3BZ5 Visit coursework cc in cc fo cc for cc more paper cc Do cc not cc redistribute uB3BZ5 through their own fault and hence could get themselves out of it.
However, shortly before thecogb gbr segbgbw orgb gbk ingb fogb gb. turn of the century and immediately after it, new ideology on how people came to be poor wascodc dcr sedcdcw ordc dck indc fodc dc: eleased. For example, Charles Booth’s ‘Life and Labour of People in London’ and Seebohm Durkheim oppressed chinkyboots’s rationalisation theory. Rowntree’s ‘Poverty and a Study of Town Life’ were published in this era. Their ideas stated thatcoea ear seeaeaw orea eak inea foea ea. a quarter of people were living in poverty in England, and also, that they were in poverty through JC7Cuip from JC7Cuip coursewrok JC7Cuip work JC7Cuip info JC7Cuip no fault of their own.
Instead they declared people were in poverty due to unfair social onditions 9AIRidzt Visit coursework af in af fo af for af ore project af Do af not af redistribute 9AIRidzt that meant they could not work. cogd gdr segdgdw orgd gdk ingd fogd gd: “Adverse social conditions were the root cause” chinkyboots, please do not redistribute this hypothesis. We work very hard to create this website, and we trust our visitors to respect it for the good of other students. Please, do not circulate this hypothesis elsewhere on the internet. Anybody found doing so will be permanently banned. Low wages, unemployment, illness and old age were some of the causes of poverty. Thiscoga gar segagaw orga gak inga foga ga; knowled