Sample Answer for Sample Essay - What were the main aims of the JM and to what extent were they achieved?

The Jarrow March, also known as the Jarrow Crusade, was a protest march in 1936 by 200 unemployed men from the industrial town of Jarrow in northeast England to London. This march, covering approximately 300 miles, was an attempt to highlight the desperate economic conditions in Jarrow, where unemployment and poverty had become severe following the closure of Palmers Shipyard in 1934. Like other towns in the northeast, Jarrow had been hit hard by the Great Depression, but the town's economic situation was especially dire due to its reliance on heavy industry and shipbuilding. The marchers aimed to draw government attention to Jarrow's plight, appealing for new industry and employment opportunities in the town. While the Jarrow March achieved some of its aims by raising national awareness and public sympathy, one could argue that its immediate impact on government policy was limited, leaving many of its primary goals unmet.

The main aim of the Jarrow March was to address the severe economic hardship in the town, which stemmed from high unemployment and industrial decline. The closure of Palmers Shipyard, Jarrow's largest employer, had devastated the community, pushing unemployment rates above 70% and plunging many families into poverty. Without the shipyard, there were few job opportunities left, and the economic future of Jarrow looked bleak. Food scarcity, malnutrition, and poor housing were common, with many living in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions. As one of the marchers' organisers, Ellen Wilkinson, MP for Jarrow, stated, "The conditions here are worse than anything I've seen anywhere else." Therefore, the marchers' primary goal was to appeal directly to the government to provide financial assistance or incentives to attract new industries to the town, bringing back much-needed jobs and economic stability.

The political landscape in Britain in the 1930s was not favourable to direct government intervention in local economies, especially under Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin's Conservative government. The prevailing attitude was rooted in laissez-faire economics and the belief in self-help, where government responsibility for employment was minimal. Baldwin and his government were reluctant to intervene in what they saw as a regional economic issue despite the severe economic depression in areas like Jarrow. For the marchers, this indifference was deeply frustrating, as it meant that towns suffering from the collapse of heavy industry were left to struggle without support. By marching to London, they hoped to force the government to confront this indifference and see the suffering firsthand, which they believed might change attitudes toward state intervention in distressed areas. The marchers also hoped to demonstrate that Jarrow's situation was not an isolated issue but part of a larger problem of unemployment and poverty affecting many industrial communities in Britain.

Securing new industry for Jarrow was the marchers' central demand, as they believed that the town's long-term future was unsustainable without a reliable source of employment. The Jarrow marchers wanted to bring attention to the fact that Jarrow's location, resources, and workforce had the potential to support new industries, but without investment or government incentives, such opportunities were beyond their reach. Their petition to the government, which they carried on the march, clearly articulated their plea: "We only ask for the right to work." Wilkinson, a tireless advocate for the working class, understood that raising awareness was not enough; the town needed real, structural investment. However, convincing a government that viewed market forces as the primary driver of economic recovery proved difficult, and without an immediate response, Jarrow continued to face an uncertain future.

While the government response was muted, the march raised public awareness and attracted sympathy along the route. As the marchers progressed through England, they received support from churches, unions, and local communities, who provided them with food, shelter, and moral encouragement. Although mainstream newspapers offered limited coverage, often downplaying the march's significance due to political alignments, the working-class press highlighted the marchers' struggles, helping to generate public empathy. This level of support indicated a widespread public recognition of the suffering in industrial towns, showing that ordinary citizens understood the impact of economic decline. Public sympathy, however, was not enough to push the government into action, and while the march demonstrated solidarity among communities, it failed to achieve substantial political change.

Despite the marchers' determination, the government's response to the Jarrow March was minimal. Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin refused to meet with the marchers or discuss the petition, dismissing their efforts as unproductive. When the Jarrow Petition, signed by thousands, was presented in Parliament, it was largely ignored, and no immediate measures were taken to support Jarrow's economy. Baldwin's response reflected the government's broader policy, which viewed marches and protests as ineffective ways to address structural economic problems. As Baldwin remarked, "No good will come of these marches." This refusal to engage with the marchers' demands meant that Jarrow received no direct government support or investment in the short term, a reality that left the town's economic crisis unresolved.

Although the Jarrow March did not achieve its immediate aims, it had a lasting impact on discussions about government responsibility and regional economic inequality. While Jarrow itself continued to struggle through the 1930s, the march helped highlight the need for government intervention in struggling industrial areas, an idea that would later influence Keynesian economic policies after World War II. In the post-war years, regional economic planning and welfare policies aimed at reducing economic disparity became central to the government's approach to social justice. Some historians argue that the Jarrow March contributed to these discussions, serving as a reminder of the importance of economic stability and state responsibility. Historian A.J.P. Taylor remarked that "Jarrow's plight symbolised the struggle of many industrial towns," underscoring the broader significance of the march in shaping future policies.

The symbolic legacy of the Jarrow March should not be underestimated. Although it did not bring immediate relief to Jarrow's economic crisis, it demonstrated the power of collective action and highlighted the dignity and resilience of Britain's unemployed. The peaceful and dignified conduct of the marchers, combined with their resolve to achieve economic justice, left a lasting impression on British society. To that end, the Jarrow March had both significant aims and limited achievements. The primary goals of securing new industry and government support were ultimately unmet, as the government remained unresponsive to the town's plight. However, the march brought national attention to economic disparity in industrial towns and highlighted the need for governmental intervention in regional economies. Although the immediate impact was limited, the march's symbolic legacy continued to influence public attitudes and helped lay the groundwork for future welfare and regional planning policies. The Jarrow March stands as a testament to the courage of ordinary people and remains a powerful reminder of the importance of economic justice in British society.