Scott martin – extended essay - liberal reforms Question – how successfully did the Liberal government (1906-14). Tackle the problem of poverty? Many historians argue the liberals effectively tackled the problem of poverty once elected in 1906 in their landslide victory. Once the party was elected however it was still very much in favour of its laissez-faire policy and social reform was not high in its parties priorities, it took significant time and pressure also some very notable individuals such as Lloyd George or Winston Churchill to change the course of Britain’s welfare system and unwittingly perhaps set up the foundations of the welfare state in the future. This essay will show how the liberals aimed to tackle the problem of
Account for the growth of liberal government in Europe during the period 1815-1914 At the beginning of the nineteenth-century, a war was on-going between liberals and those in aristocratic/monarchical rule. Liberalist movements at their heart contained 3 main elements; the belief in a constitutional and parliamentary government, a desire for the protection of private property in a free market, and the want for the separation of religious authority from political authority (Gould, 1998). Yet at that time, Europe was the complete opposite of the way liberals felt that it should be, with monarchs, aristocrats and clergy men predominantly in power, the poorer and middle class had barely little access to their rights, freedoms and few or no privileges. The French Revolution of 1789 began to change all of that, followed closely by the Revolutions of 1830 and 1848. All three Revolutions played significant part in what came to be a significantly liberalist Europe, including Industrialisation.
The subsequent rise of nationalism in Prussian politics and deterioration of Austro-Prussian relations ensured that, by 1866, Prussia could defeat her nearest rivals in just six weeks. Upon initial examinations, the outcome of the events of 1848-49 seems to be a total failure of liberalism, with tradition feudal rulers resurfacing and democracy disposed of. Even as a vehement liberal supporter, JS Mill admitted that support for nationalism so far outweighed that for liberalism that the people were “willing to abet their rulers in crushing… liberty and independence.” The manifestation of liberalism through the Frankfurt Parliament was wholly unsuccessful, with only illusory powers to its name leading to a reliance on the traditional forces of the Austrian and Prussian armies. Frederick William IV’s labelling of the German crown as “a diadem moulded out of the dirt and dregs of revolution, disloyalty and treason” proved the Parliament’s lack of authority and the renewed power of the traditional ruling monarchy. Germany’s “first flirtation with… parliamentary democracy” ended in dissolution in 1849, seemingly demonstrating the political insignificance of the 1848 revolutions on Germany.
How far do you agree that the limited appeal of Mazzini’s ideas was the main reason for the slow progress of national unity in Italy in the years 1815 – 48? National unity is when a nation comes together through sharing the same physical and religious beliefs. During 1815 and 1848 man revolutions took place in Italy, specifically in The Papal states, Piedmont, Sicily, Modena and Parma. The revolutionaries varied from students to soldiers who were all fighting against the Monarchy. The monarchy treated its states people terribly and they were fed up, this is how the revolutionaries came to be, in general the revolutionaries were to an extent successful because they overthrew the monarchies however they were then beaten by the Austrian reinforcements that the monarchy asked help from.
However, it is usually debated how much Clement Attlee actually transformed Britain. Many people believed that Attlee's government failed to transform Britain by 1951. Firstly, some people believe that the Labour government failed to look ahead; they spent too much time trying to solve the social and economic problems of interwar Britain rather than planning for a post-war world. For example they didnt encourage investment into new machinery or methods, nor did they try and modernise the constitution. Many believe they should have devoted scarce resources on industrial recovery rather spending them on the National Health Service.
Warren G. Harding once declared, "America's present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums, but normalcy; not revolution, but restoration; not agitation, but adjustment…” A Democratic leader, William Gibbs McAdoo, called Harding's speeches "an army of pompous phrases moving across the landscape in search of an idea. "1 Their very murkiness was effective, since Harding's view on the League of Nations remained unclear. As it turned out he was against the League of Nations, but this was not found out until after he became the twenty-ninth president. As a result of rarely taking a stand on an issue, he had few enemies to make any. Who would have suspected that the man to succeed Woodrow Wilson, America's most visionary President, would be a man who some considered one of the worst?
Upon Parnell’s death, he would become leader of the Parnellite section of the group. This group distanced itself from the Liberals to become a more independent force within Westminster. The Parnellites were a very weak sect of Home Rule, losing the support of the Catholic Church, and in the 1892 general election; they only won nine seats. The Anti – Parnellites were much stronger, but eventually split into three different groups, achieving 72 seats in the election. Redmond was very non confrontational and hoped to achieve most of Home Rule’s goals by pleasing as many as he could.
I think that Presidential action was somewhat passive throughout the 1940s and 1950s. In particular Dwight Eisenhower failed to respond to the calls for greater equality as, although he was not actively racist, he was reluctant to lead the country into the next step of improving civil rights. I would say that the responsibility for improving civil rights should fall onto another individual which was Earl Warren. Despite the President calling him the ‘biggest damned-fool I’d ever made’, he was the one that destroyed the legal basis of segregation whilst in his role as Supreme Chief Justice. However, it would not be fair to say that Presidential action was non-existence.
As well, the only way that the Wilson plan would have survived the political intrigue of the Europeans was either through a league that had real teeth, or a super power willing to intervene as a worldwide police officer. Neither of which existed in 1918. Clemenceau’s views represented the average sentiment of the European Allies after the war. In the closing days of the war, a war weary European population must have tried to make sense of the carnage, of the loss. Clemenceau casts a pale light on the German population, blaming the war on the aims of “the intolerable German Aristocracy.” (Clemenceau, p. 73) The entire argument for the French and nay, European view, was the perceived threat that Europeans felt of German arrogance.
1949-1978 (Great Leap Forward/Big Push) The Great Leap Forward was Mao Ze Dong’s attempt to modernize the Chinese economy by developing the agriculture and industry. It wasn’t successful because of political reforms to overthrow the communist party. There was a lack of trade, the heavy industries were inefficient, there were shortages of resources, little to no worker motivation, and poor quality in goods and services. The positive aspects include no unemployment since workers were allocated jobs and there was no inflation since prices were fixed, but the reform was a failure since there were more negatives. 2.