As well as this, Gladstone also wanted to improve landlord and tenant relationships as the landlords could easily evict tenants randomly as it was a very unfair controlling system. The Irish Land Act meant there were limitations on the land lords’ eviction power and compensation was given for tenants who had been evicted. Numbers of lordships complained as many Protestants were absentee landowners so it was an incredible achievement to get the reforms through. Gladstone’s First Ministry could be considered successful in many ways. He improved efficiency and tackled the issue of
Explain why the opponents of the Tsars from 1855 to 1917 were more successful than those who opposed the Communist regime from 1917 to 1964. The opponents of the Tsars were more successful – as they achieved vastly more change – than those of the Communists for a number of reasons, not least because of the legal status of opposition, the strength of the regime, the nature of the opposition, the repression imposed by the leader of the day, and the unity and organisation of the opposition. Indeed, this question is being asked simply because the Romanov dynasty was ousted in February 1917; the Communists, on the other hand, were not. However, this question is slightly misleading: not all of the opponents of the Tsars were in fact successful – the Poles, the Peoples Will and the Narodniks all failed when attempting to attain change in Russia; indeed, it can be seen that, in reality, the only regime in which opposition was truly successful was that of Nicholas II. One reason why the opponents of the Tsars were more successful than those of the Communists was the fact that, under the Tsars, opposition attained a legal status.
b) Using your own knowledge as well as the extract, explain why recent reforms can be said to have made the House of Lords more legitimate. Recent reforms have made the House of Lords more legitimate, the 2001 reforms made by Blair’s government meant that that most hereditary peers were no longer part of the Lords – this meant that the people in the Lords were not their because of their blood but because of their expertise and interest in subjects relating to discussing inside the chamber. Blair, by removing hereditary peers made the Lords more accountable and more professional. The Lords become a real discussion based chamber with key figures from around the country invited to discuss and debate topics which meant something to them. However, the Lords have always had a strong hold on the Commons, overriding them more times than the government’s own backbenchers.
Kayvon Chase AP English Argument: Is Huxley’s vision more relevant than Orwell’s Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and 1984 by George Orwell are two books that imagined what the future would be like at the times when they were written. Both stories have dark visions of what the future would be like, but one seems to be more relevant in my mind. Contemepary social critic, Neil Postman thinks Brave New World is more relevant today and I agree with him. I agree with Postman’s assertion that Brave New World is more relevant today because the society I live in today resembles his prediction so closely. One thing Postman talked about in his assertion was technology.
Firstly, he was successful in managing the royal finances by innovatively using the Royal Chamber to efficiently manage the royal income. Unlike any of the previous monarchs, Ed began using the Royal Chamber increasing whereas before him all reliance had been upon the Exchequer. Now though, with this new scheme the revenue and expenditure was much more systematic and consequently the income rose significantly. Furthermore as he got older his experience increased, however even when he started he did a better job than his predecessor, Henry VII. Previous kings had only used the Chamber erratically in times of war however Edward decided to make it more systematic, which in turn siphoned in much more money.
Also new progressive members were put in place who were Liberal Tories, including Peel, Canning, Robinson, and Huskisson. Also Britain was undergoing an economic revival, and was a much stronger and bigger trading nation then before. Consequently they introduced Economic reforms. Furthermore crime rates had doubled since the wars with France, and this had an alarming effect on the Tories. Moreover it seemed that the “Penal Code” was not respected or enforced hardly enough, because it was too harsh, it carried too many death penalties, and some of the laws were very old and were usually overlapping each other.
If the movie had more detail it would be more interesting. The book gave me a better picture. When I saw the movie it confused me because it didn’t have all the parts. If I just saw the movie I wouldn’t understand why Greasers and Socs were separated and why they hated each other. I think Cherry did a really good job; she fit the description really well I think.
On this paper I will be comparing The movie The hobbit from 1977 with the remake from 2012.The remake is basically the same plot but given more time to develop in an epic fashion,where as the older version is condensed to fit into a 1 hour and 30 minute period. The first thing that we are able to notice in the remake is that the 2012 version was able to add new material that helped enhance the journey to the misty mountains. In my opinion the 2012 remake is the better movie,But the original 1977 version gives me a special feeling when I watch it. The basic idea of the film is that Bilbo baggins an unassuming hobbit who lived peacefully in the shire,But one day a Wizard known as Gandalf appears before Bilbo and persuades him to a join in an epic journey with thirteen dwarfs whom are attempting to retake their lost home of the misty mountains.The characters had a lot of reasons for what they did from reclaiming lost honor to serving their king. In the 1977 Rankin/Bass version of the hobbit It was slightly difficult to tell the dwarfs apart from each other.
As well, religious diversity in the colonies was greater than in Britain. The Native American culture also had more significant differences than when they first came across the colonists. However, they knew more about how to use their products. As well, there had been regional diversity where regions had different social and economics. Great Britain beat the Dutch in producing and trading low priced products and goods during the consumer revolution.
In fact, pre-plague England was more politically and socially stable than it had been for a considerable length of time. With this in mind, the content of source 4 appears to support the interpretation’s claims that the Black Death was responsible for the sudden change to radical behaviour. The chronicler of the source speaks of the ‘selfish and lofty wishes of the workers,’ also acknowledging that those wanting to hire the workers ‘[would have to] give them what they desired.’ Authored by an individual of an ecclesiastical body, it is clear that the disapproval with which the matter is reported is due to the recognition of significant and harmful change. In turn, this supports the idea that the Black Death was a catalyst for the worst fears of the nobility and church figureheads. However, the long term effects of these demands saw the peasantry facing strict legislation to ensure that they couldn’t take advantage of their position, seen in the Ordinance of Labourers extract in source 3.