In agreement with these views, source 5 similarly points out that the crisis “did not destroy the political balance at home”. These idea can be backed up by the fact that the Conservatives won the following election in 1959, whilst being lead by Eden’s replacement, Harold Macmillan in 1957; during this time the conservatives were far more affluent and popular than the labour party. Moreover, evidence for lack of political effect grows, as source 5 argues that Eden stepped down as Prime minister “as a result of ill health” rather that being removed from power due to the outcome of Suez. Arguments for his ill health can be supported as Eden lived on a mixture of pills to control his pain as he had never properly recovered from an operation in 1953, and following doctor’s advice to rest, went on holiday in Jamaica. Furthermore, with the help of R.A Butler and Heath, Macmillan quickly took control of the party and began the recovery process for the problems caused by Suez.
How successful was Macmillan as leader of the Conservatives? The success of Macmillan's leadership of the Conservatives is defined by the electoral support the party had during his time of leadership, as his decisions in policy and his image affected the party's election victories altogether. Furthermore, another success factor may be his ability to stay as leader of the party itself, as an unsuccessful leader would be urged to step down. Most importantly, the initial success of Macmillan as leader of the Conservatives could be because of his ability to manipulate the media and create a positive personal image in his early years, leading to a successful election victory in 1959. Macmillan was able to bolster the image of the party by handling criticism and potentially turning it around.
Source A was written in 1902, at which point the Conservatives were in power, and had made many mistakes such as decisions about the Boer War, through Balfour. On top of this, the Liberals were getting stronger and more popular, and their ideas (such as free trade and Campbell-Bannerman’s broadchurch approach), were appealing more and more to the public. Source D, however, was written in 1911, when the Liberals had been in power since their ‘landslide victory’ in 1906, winning by a huge majority. Despite the decrease in support since then, the Liberals were still popular, as they had brought in some popular reforms such as the Trade Disputes Act in 1906, and the introduction of old age pensions in
America was in a convenient position as the World War One ended. The war had led to increased demand for American goods. This resulted in the rapid growth of industry. Industrial production virtually doubled in the 1920s, such as for every one fridge bought in 1921 there were 167 in 1929 or for everyone 9 million cars bought in 1919 there were 26 million in 1929. The most famous car was the T-ford motor car.
Why was the right to vote give to more and more people between 1867 and 1918? In 1867 Britain wasn't a very democratic country. There were many reasons for why Britain became more democratic during the 19th and early 20th centuries. With each reform the franchise was slightly increased. Looking back we can see that this was due to a lot of different pressures.
All payments went towards the king, this would've also made the Earls not feel powerful enough, especially Harold Godwin who was seen as the most powerful man in England, but theoretically he wasn’t. However the Economy was well governed because the trade increased, which encouraged both the growth of towns and foreign contacts, this demonstrates that England were still involved in trade, which was good for the economy. However the economy was not very well developed especially compared to the Byzantine Empire and Muslim world. Those economies were massive, especially when compared to England’s. Overall I believe that the economy for pre-Conquest England as well- governed to an extent as the King did have large control, he did control this well, but he may have been seen as too powerful where the government is concerned.
Do you agree with the view that the main reason for Labour’s victory over the Conservatives in the election of 1964 was the difference between the two party leaders? One of the main reasons for Labour's victory over the Conservatives in the election of 1964 was the difference between the two party leaders. This opinion is most strongly supported by Source 5 as it describes Harold Wilson as “popular” and “clever” suggesting that it was Wilson as a person rather than his policies or anything else that lead to the Labour win in 1964. Wilson is also described as “calm” which contrasts with how Douglas-Home presented himself as he seemed to be uncomfortable under the public eye. Moreover, Source 5 states that Wilson was seen to be a “breath of fresh air” and a “new man” which shows that not only were the people tired of the Conservatives who had been in charge for the past 13 years, but Wilson was seen as the man who could take them away from all the problems of the past, something that Home simply wouldn't have been able to do as he was associated with the party that had lead the country into economic difficulties and who had made a number of mistakes.
But on the other hand it put them under the poverty line and destroyed their economy. One of the main impacts that the British control brought that was positive was that it gave the Indians the greatest human blessing… peace. Also introduced them to western education, plus kept them in modern lifestyles. Many people see the positive impact as being more significant because Britain brought infrastructure and technology to the Indian people. Romest Dutt an Indian adapted an excerpt from, The Economic History of India Under Early British Rule stated: “They have built an administration that is strong and efficient… and
Economics ISU Baby Boomers: The Ageing Population Post World War II, during the time period of 1946 to 1964, the birth rate in the North American society increased dramatically. This generation was called the baby boomers. In the time of the baby boomers about 79.6 million babies were born just in Canada and the United States of America alone. (Haaga, Population Reference Bureau) Post World War II, the economy was a lot more stable and returning soldiers began to start families. The reason for the massive expansion in the birth rate was because of the new stable economy, and the jobs the returning men received.
It is believed that the Second World War was actually the cause of many social reforms that were later formed, and the constituting of a welfare state. It was also due to the war that Labour was voted into power with a landslide victory, as the population believed that ‘post-war had to be better than pre-war,’ which caused people to vote for Labour in hope that they would deliver the peaceful revolution that they envisioned. However, some historians believe that the reason that Labour was so successful during their time in power is due to the achievements of the Liberals from 1906-1914. After the El Alamein battle in 1942, many people believed that Britain had a chance at winning the war and the government started to plan for a post-war social reconstruction. The most important plan made was the Beveridge Report in 1942.