V

When you see the unemployment figures quoted at two millions, it is fatally easy to take this as meaning that two million people are out of work and the rest of the population is comparatively comfortable. I admit that till recently I was in the habit of doing so myself. I used to calculate that if you put the registered unemployed at round about two millions and threw in the destitute and those who for one reason and another were not registered, you might take the number of underfed people in England (for everyone on the dole or thereabouts is underfed) as being, at the very most, five millions.

This is an enormous under-estimate, because, in the first place, the only people shown on unemployment figures are those actually drawing the dole—that is, in general, heads of families. An unemployed man's dependants do not figure on the list unless they too are drawing a separate allowance. A Labour Exchange officer told me that to get at the real number of people living on (not drawing) the dole, you have got to multiply the official figures by something over three. This alone brings the number of unemployed to round about six millions. But in addition there are great numbers of people who are in work but who, from a financial point of view, might equally well be unemployed, because they are not drawing anything that can be described as a living wage.[1] Allow for these and their dependants, throw in as before the old-age pensioners, the destitute and other nondescripts, and you get an underfed population of well over ten millions. Sir John Orr puts it at twenty millions.

Take the figures for Wigan, which is typical enough of the industrial and mining districts. The number of insured workers is round about 36,000 (26,000 men and 10,000 women). Of these, the number unemployed at the beginning of 1936 was about 10,000. But this was in winter when the mines are working full time; in summer it would probably be 12,000. Multiply by three, as above, and you get 30,000 or 36,000. The total population of Wigan is a little under 87,000; so that at any moment more than one person in three out of the whole population—not merely the registered workers—is either drawing or living on the dole. Those ten or twelve thousand unemployed contain a steady core of from four to five thousand miners who have been continuously unemployed for the past seven years. And Wigan is not especially badly off as industrial towns go. Even in Sheffield, which has been doing well for the last year or so because of wars and rumours of war, the proportion of unemployment is about the same—one in three of registered workers unemployed.

When a man is first unemployed, until his insurance stamps are exhausted, he draws 'full benefit', of which the rates are as follows:

per week Single man 17_s._ Wife 9_s._ Each child below 14 3_s._

Thus in a typical family of parents and three children of whom one wasover 14, the total income would be 32_s._ per week, plus anything thatmight be earned by the eldest child. When a man's stamps are exhausted,before being turned over to the PAC (Public Assistance Committee), hereceives twenty-six weeks' 'transitional benefit' from the UAB(Unemployment Assistance Board), the rates being as follows:

per week Single man 15_s._ Man and wife 24_s._ Children, 14-18 6_s._ Children, 11-14 4_s._ 6_d._ Children, 8-11 4_s._ Children, 5-8 3_s._ 6_d._ Children, 3-5 3_s._

Thus on the UAB the income of the typical family of five persons wouldbe 37_s._ 6_d._ a week if no child was in work. When a man is on the UABa quarter of his dole is regarded as rent, with a minimum of 7_s._ 6_d._a week. If the rent he is paying is more than a quarter of his dole hereceives an extra allowance, but if it is less than 7_s._ 6_d._, acorresponding amount is deducted. Payments on the PAC theoretically comeout of the local rates, but are backed by a central fund. The rates ofbenefit are:

per week Single man 12_s._ 6_d._ Man and wife 23_s._ Eldest child 4_s._ Any other child 3_s._

Being at the discretion of the local bodies these rates vary slightly,and a single man may or may not get an extra 2_s._ 6_d._ weekly,bringing his benefit up to 15_s._ As on the UAB, a quarter of a marriedman's dole is regarded as rent. Thus in the typical family consideredabove the total income would be 33_s._ a week, a quarter of this beingregarded as rent. In addition, in most districts a coal allowance of1_s._ 6_d._ a week (1_s._ 6_d._ is equivalent to about a hundredweightof coal) is granted for six weeks before and six weeks after Christmas.

It will be seen that the income of a family on the dole normally averages round about thirty shillings a week. One can write at least a quarter of this off as rent, which is to say that the average person, child or adult, has got to be fed, clothed, warmed, and otherwise cared-for for six or seven shillings a week. Enormous groups of people, probably at least a third of the whole population of the industrial areas, are living at this level. The Means Test is very strictly enforced, and you are liable to be refused relief at the slightest hint that you are getting money from another source. Dock-labourers, for instance, who are generally hired by the half day, have to sign on at a Labour Exchange twice daily; if they fail to do so it is assumed that they have been working and their dole is reduced correspondingly. I have seen cases of evasion of the Means Test, but I should say that in the industrial towns, where there is still a certain amount of communal life and everyone has neighbours who know him, it is much harder than it would be in London. The usual method is for a young man who is actually living with his parents to get an accommodation address, so that supposedly he has a separate establishment and draws a separate allowance. But there is much spying and tale-bearing. One man I knew, for instance, was seen feeding his neighbour's chickens while the neighbour was away. It was reported to the authorities that he 'had a job feeding chickens' and he had great difficulty in refuting this. The favourite joke in Wigan was about a man who was refused relief on the ground that he 'had a job carting firewood'. He had been seen, it was said, carting firewood at night. He had to explain that he was not carting firewood but doing a moonlight flit. The 'firewood' was his furniture.

The most cruel and evil effect of the Means Test is the way in which itbreaks up families. Old people, sometimes bedridden, are driven out oftheir homes by it. An old-age pensioner, for instance, if a widower,would normally live with one or other of his children; his weekly tenshillings goes towards the household expenses, and probably he is notbadly cared for. Under the Means Test, however, he counts as a 'lodger'and if he stays at home his children's dole will be docked. So, perhapsat seventy or seventy-five years of age, he has to turn out intolodgings, handing his pension over to the lodging-house keeper andexisting on the verge of starvation. I have seen several cases of thismyself. It is happening all over England at this moment, thanks to theMeans Test.

Nevertheless, in spite of the frightful extent of unemployment, it is a fact that poverty—extreme poverty—is less in evidence in the industrial North than it is in London. Everything is poorer and shabbier, there are fewer motor-cars and fewer well-dressed people; but also there are fewer people who are obviously destitute. Even in a town the size of Liverpool or Manchester you are struck by the fewness of the beggars. London is a sort of whirlpool which draws derelict people towards it, and it is so vast that life there is solitary and anonymous. Until you break the law nobody will take any notice of you, and you can go to pieces as you could not possibly do in a place where you had neighbours who knew you. But in the industrial towns the old communal way of life has not yet broken up, tradition is still strong and almost everyone has a family—potentially, therefore, a home. In a town of 50,000 or 100,000 inhabitants there is no casual and as it were unaccounted-for population; nobody sleeping in the streets, for instance. Moreover, there is just this to be said for the unemployment regulations, that they do not discourage people from marrying. A man and wife on twenty-three shillings a week are not far from the starvation line, but they can make a home of sorts; they are vastly better off than a single man on fifteen shillings. The life of a single unemployed man is dreadful. He lives sometimes in a common lodging-house, more often in a 'furnished' room for which he usually pays six shillings a week, finding himself as best he can on the other nine (say six shillings a week for food and three for clothes, tobacco and amusements). Of course he cannot feed or look after himself properly, and a man who pays six shillings a week for his room is not encouraged to be indoors more than is necessary. So he spends his days loafing in the public library or any other place where he can keep warm. That—keeping warm—is almost the sole preoccupation of a single unemployed man in winter. In Wigan a favourite refuge was the pictures, which are fantastically cheap there. You can always get a seat for fourpence, and at the matinée at some houses you can even get a seat for twopence. Even people on the verge of starvation will readily pay twopence to get out of the ghastly cold of a winter afternoon. In Sheffield I was taken to a public hall to listen to a lecture by a clergyman, and it was by a long way the silliest and worst-delivered lecture I have ever heard or ever expect to hear. I found it physically impossible to sit it out; indeed my feet carried me out, seemingly of their own accord, before it was half way through. Yet the hall was thronged with unemployed men; they would have sat through far worse drivel for the sake of a warm place to shelter in.

At times I have seen unmarried men on the dole living in the extreme ofmisery. In one town I remember a whole colony of them who weresquatting, more or less illicitly, in a derelict house which waspractically falling down. They had collected a few scraps of furniture,presumably off refuse-tips, and I remember that their sole table was anold marble-topped wash-hand-stand. But this kind of thing isexceptional. A working-class bachelor is a rarity, and so long as a manis married unemployment makes comparatively little alteration in his wayof life. His home is impoverished but it is still a home, and it isnoticeable everywhere that the anomalous position created byunemployment—the man being out of work while the woman's work continuesas before—has not altered the relative status of the sexes. In aworking-class home it is the man who is the master and not, as in amiddle-class home, the woman or the baby. Practically never, forinstance, in a working-class home, will you see the man doing a strokeof the housework. Unemployment has not changed this convention, which onthe face of it seems a little unfair. The man is idle from morning tonight but the woman is as busy as ever—more so, indeed, because she hasto manage with less money. Yet so far as my experience goes the women donot protest. I believe that they, as well as the men, feel that a manwould lose his manhood if, merely because he was out of work, hedeveloped into a 'Mary Ann'.

But there is no doubt about the deadening, debilitating effect ofunemployment upon everybody, married or single, and upon men more thanupon women. The best intellects will not stand up against it. Once ortwice it has happened to me to meet unemployed men of genuine literaryability; there are others whom I haven't met but whose work Ioccasionally see in the magazines. Now and again, at long intervals,these men will produce an article or a short story which is quiteobviously better than most of the stuff that gets whooped up by theblurb-reviewers. Why, then, do they make so little use of their talents?They have all the leisure in the world; why don't they sit down andwrite books? Because to write books you need not only comfort andsolitude—and solitude is never easy to attain in a working-classhome—you also need peace of mind. You can't settle to anything, youcan't command the spirit of hope in which anything has got to becreated, with that dull evil cloud of unemployment hanging over you.Still, an unemployed man who feels at home with books can at any rateoccupy himself by reading. But what about the man who cannot readwithout discomfort? Take a miner, for instance, who has worked in thepit since childhood and has been trained to be a miner and nothing else.How the devil is he to fill up the empty days? It is absurd to say thathe ought to be looking for work. There is no work to look for, andeverybody knows it. You can't go on looking for work every day for sevenyears. There are allotments, which occupy the time and help to feed afamily, but in a big town there are only allotments for a smallproportion of the people. Then there are the occupational centres whichwere started a few years ago to help the unemployed. On the whole thismovement has been a failure, but some of the centres are stillflourishing. I have visited one or two of them. There are shelters wherethe men can keep warm and there are periodical classes in carpentering,boot-making, leather-work, handloom-weaving, basket-work, sea-grasswork, etc. etc.; the idea being that the men can make furniture and soforth, not for sale but for their own homes, getting tools free andmaterials cheaply. Most of the Socialists I have talked to denounce thismovement as they denounce the project—it is always being talked aboutbut it never comes to anything—to give the unemployed small-holdings.They say that the occupational centres are simply a device to keep theunemployed quiet and give them the illusion that something is being donefor them. Undoubtedly that is the underlying motive. Keep a man busymending boots and he is less likely to read the Daily Worker. Alsothere is a nasty YMCA atmosphere about these places which you can feelas soon as you go in. The unemployed men who frequent them are mostly ofthe cap-touching type—the type who tells you oilily that he is'Temperance' and votes Conservative. Yet even here you feel yourselftorn both ways. For probably it is better that a man should waste histime even with such rubbish as sea-grass work than that for years uponend he should do absolutely nothing.

By far the best work for the unemployed is being done by theNUWM—National Unemployed Workers' Movement. This is a revolutionaryorganisation intended to hold the unemployed together, stop themblacklegging during strikes and give them legal advice against the MeansTest. It is a movement that has been built out of nothing by the penniesand efforts of the unemployed themselves. I have seen a good deal of theNUWM, and I greatly admire the men, ragged and underfed like the others,who keep the organisation going. Still more I admire the tact andpatience with which they do it; for it is not easy to coax even apenny-a-week subscription out of the pockets of people on the PAC. As Isaid earlier, the English working class do not show much capacity forleadership, but they have a wonderful talent for organisation. The wholetrade union movement testifies to this; so do the excellentworking-men's clubs—really a sort of glorified co-operative pub, andsplendidly organised—which are so common in Yorkshire. In many townsthe NUWM have shelters and arrange speeches by Communist speakers. Buteven at these shelters the men who go there do nothing but sit round thestove and occasionally play a game of dominoes. If this movement couldbe combined with something along the lines of the occupational centres,it would be nearer what is needed. It is a deadly thing to see a skilledman running to seed, year after year, in utter, hopeless idleness. Itought not to be impossible to give him the chance of using his hands andmaking furniture and so forth for his own home, without turning him intoa YMCA cocoa-drunkard. We may as well face the fact that several millionmen in England will—unless another war breaks out—never have a realjob this side the grave. One thing that probably could be done andcertainly ought to be done as a matter of course, is to give everyunemployed man a patch of ground and free tools if he chose to apply forthem. It is disgraceful that men who are expected to keep alive on thePAC should not even have the chance to grow vegetables for theirfamilies.

To study unemployment and its effects you have got to go to the industrial areas. In the South unemployment exists, but it is scattered and queerly unobtrusive. There are plenty of rural districts where a man out of work is almost unheard-of, and you don't anywhere see the spectacle of whole blocks of cities living on the dole and the PAC. It is only when you lodge in streets where nobody has a job, where getting a job seems about as probable as owning an aeroplane and much less probable than winning fifty pounds in the Football Pool, that you begin to grasp the changes that are being worked in our civilisation. For a change is taking place, there is no doubt about that. The attitude of the submerged working class is profoundly different from what it was seven or eight years ago.

I first became aware of the unemployment problem in 1928. At that time I had just come back from Burma, where unemployment was only a word, and I had gone to Burma when I was still a boy and the post-war boom was not quite over. When I first saw unemployed men at close quarters, the thing that horrified and amazed me was to find that many of them were ashamed of being unemployed. I was very ignorant, but not so ignorant as to imagine that when the loss of foreign markets pushes two million men out of work, those two million are any more to blame than the people who draw blanks in the Calcutta Sweep. But at that time nobody cared to admit that unemployment was inevitable, because this meant admitting that it would probably continue. The middle classes were still talking about 'lazy idle loafers on the dole' and saying that 'these men could all find work if they wanted to', and naturally these opinions percolated to the working class themselves. I remember the shock of astonishment it gave me, when I first mingled with tramps and beggars, to find that a fair proportion, perhaps a quarter, of these beings whom I had been taught to regard as cynical parasites, were decent young miners and cotton-workers gazing at their destiny with the same sort of dumb amazement as an animal in a trap. They simply could not understand what was happening to them. They had been brought up to work, and behold! it seemed as if they were never going to have the chance of working again. In their circumstances it was inevitable, at first, that they should be haunted by a feeling of personal degradation. That was the attitude towards unemployment in those days: it was a disaster which happened to you as an individual and for which you were to blame.

When a quarter of a million miners are unemployed, it is part of the order of things that Alf Smith, a miner living in the back-streets of Newcastle, should be out of work. Alf Smith is merely one of the quarter million, a statistical unit. But no human being finds it easy to regard himself as a statistical unit. So long as Bert Jones across the street is still at work, Alf Smith is bound to feel himself dishonoured and a failure. Hence that frightful feeling of impotence and despair which is almost the worst evil of unemployment—far worse than any hardship, worse than the demoralisation of enforced idleness, and only less bad than the physical degeneracy of Alf Smith's children, born on the PAC. Everyone who saw Greenwood's play Love on the Dole must remember that dreadful moment when the poor, good, stupid working man beats on the table and cries out, 'O God, send me some work!' This was not dramatic exaggeration, it was a touch from life. That cry must have been uttered, in almost those words, in tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of English homes, during the past fifteen years.

But, I think not again—or at least, not so often. That is the real point: people are ceasing to kick against the pricks. After all, even the middle classes—yes, even the bridge clubs in the country towns—are beginning to realise that there is such a thing as unemployment. The 'My dear, I don't believe in all this nonsense about unemployment. Why, only last week we wanted a man to weed the garden, and we simply couldn't get one. They don't want to work, that's all it is!' which you heard at every decent tea-table five years ago, is growing perceptibly less frequent. As for the working class themselves, they have gained immensely in economic knowledge. I believe that the _Daily Worker_ has accomplished a great deal here: its influence is out of all proportion to its circulation. But in any case they have had their lesson well rubbed into them, not only because unemployment is so widespread but because it has lasted so long. When people live on the dole for years at a time they grow used to it, and drawing the dole, though it remains unpleasant, ceases to be shameful. Thus the old, independent, workhouse-fearing tradition is undermined, just as the ancient fear of debt is undermined by the hire-purchase system. In the back-streets of Wigan and Barnsley I saw every kind of privation, but I probably saw much less conscious misery than I should have seen ten years ago. The people have at any rate grasped that unemployment is a thing they cannot help. It is not only Alf Smith who is out of work now; Bert Jones is out of work as well, and both of them have been 'out' for years. It makes a great deal of difference when things are the same for everybody.

So you have whole populations settling down, as it were, to a lifetime on the PAC. And what I think is admirable, perhaps even hopeful, is that they have managed to do it without going spiritually to pieces. A working man does not disintegrate under the strain of poverty as a middle-class person does. Take, for instance, the fact that the working class think nothing of getting married on the dole. It annoys the old ladies in Brighton, but it is a proof of their essential good sense; they realise that losing your job does not mean that you cease to be a human being. So that in one way things in the distressed areas are not so bad as they might be. Life is still fairly normal, more normal than one really has the right to expect. Families are impoverished, but the family-system has not broken up. The people are in effect living a reduced version of their former lives. Instead of raging against their destiny they have made things tolerable by lowering their standards.

But they don't necessarily lower their standards by cutting out luxuries and concentrating on necessities; more often it is the other way about—the more natural way, if you come to think of it. Hence the fact that in a decade of unparalleled depression, the consumption of all cheap luxuries has increased. The two things that have probably made the greatest difference of all are the movies and the mass-production of cheap smart clothes since the war. The youth who leaves school at fourteen and gets a blind-alley job is out of work at twenty, probably for life; but for two pounds ten on the hire-purchase system he can buy himself a suit which, for a little while and at a little distance, looks as though it had been tailored in Savile Row. The girl can look like a fashion plate at an even lower price. You may have three halfpence in your pocket and not a prospect in the world, and only the corner of a leaky bedroom to go home to; but in your new clothes you can stand on the street corner, indulging in a private daydream of yourself as Clark Gable or Greta Garbo, which compensates you for a great deal. And even at home there is generally a cup of tea going—a 'nice cup of tea'—and Father, who has been out of work since 1929, is temporarily happy because he has a sure tip for the Cesarewitch.

Trade since the war has had to adjust itself to meet the demands of underpaid, underfed people, with the result that a luxury is nowadays almost always cheaper than a necessity. One pair of plain solid shoes costs as much as two ultra-smart pairs. For the price of one square meal you can get two pounds of cheap sweets. You can't get much meat for threepence, but you can get a lot of fish and chips. Milk costs threepence a pint and even 'mild' beer costs fourpence, but aspirins are seven a penny and you can wring forty cups of tea out of a quarter-pound packet. And above all there is gambling, the cheapest of all luxuries. Even people on the verge of starvation can buy a few days' hope ('Something to live for', as they call it) by having a penny on a sweepstake. Organised gambling has now risen almost to the status of a major industry. Consider, for instance, a phenomenon like the Football Pools, with a turnover of about six million pounds a year, almost all of it from the pockets of working-class people. I happened to be in Yorkshire when Hitler re-occupied the Rhineland. Hitler, Locarno, Fascism and the threat of war aroused hardly a flicker of interest locally, but the decision of the Football Association to stop publishing their fixtures in advance (this was an attempt to quell the Football Pools) flung all Yorkshire into a storm of fury. And then there is the queer spectacle of modern electrical science showering miracles upon people with empty bellies. You may shiver all night for lack of bedclothes, but in the morning you can go to the public library and read the news that has been telegraphed for your benefit from San Francisco and Singapore. Twenty million people are underfed but literally everyone in England has access to a radio. What we have lost in food we have gained in electricity. Whole sections of the working class who have been plundered of all they really need are being compensated, in part, by cheap luxuries which mitigate the surface of life.

Do you consider all this desirable? No, I don't. But it may be that the psychological adjustment which the working class are visibly making is the best they could make in the circumstances. They have neither turned revolutionary nor lost their self-respect; merely they have kept their tempers and settled down to make the best of things on a fish-and-chip standard. The alternative would be God knows what continued agonies of despair; or it might be attempted insurrections which, in a strongly governed country like England, could only lead to futile massacres and a régime of savage repression.

Of course the post-war development of cheap luxuries has been a very fortunate thing for our rulers. It is quite likely that fish and chips, art-silk stockings, tinned salmon, cut-price chocolate (five two-ounce bars for sixpence), the movies, the radio, strong tea and the Football Pools have between them averted revolution. Therefore we are sometimes told that the whole thing is an astute manoeuvre by the governing class—a sort of 'bread and circuses' business—to hold the unemployed down. What I have seen of our governing class does not convince me that they have that much intelligence. The thing has happened, but by an unconscious process—the quite natural interaction between the manufacturer's need for a market and the need of half-starved people for cheap palliatives.

-----

[1] For instance, a recent census of the Lancashire cotton mills revealed the fact that over 40,000 full-time employees receive less than thirty shillings a week each. In Preston, to take only one town, the number receiving over thirty shillings a week was 640 and the number receiving under thirty shillings was 3,113.