Nasser standing up to Western imperialism is another factor of encouraging Arab unity such as the 1956 Suez crisis. An example is Nasser persuading British troops to leave the Suez Canal showing independence once again. Nasser, viewed as high prestige now, aimed to unite the Arab world. Although the operation was a military success it allowed Israel to occupy the Sinai. However, Nasser had forced the West into submission.
One major political and military issue that he handled well was the Treaty of Ghent. The British had originally proposed unfavorable terms to the Americans in order to end the War of 1812, when America was losing severely. When most men would have accepted to end the war, Madison held out and when the Americans began to win battles the British had to agree to a more favorable treaty. This had a positive impact on America as a nation as well as the way it was viewed by foreign nations. Macon’s bill #2 also had a positive affect on the United States in the short term, as it reopened trade with France and England, and for a short time just France, which had been America’s greatest commercial sources of trade.
Compassionate reasons where one of the underlying reasons many historians argue upon the realise of the report on poverty from booth and rowntree in their study of the English town York , a town not normally associated with extreme poverty they found 29% of the population were well below the poverty line. Another reason was the very real fear workers were discouraged by the poor conditions and governments and may later turn against the government and form mass strikes or in serious cases rebellion or join the communist groups within Britain. Political self interest was high on the liberal’s agenda many historians argue. The franchise was being extended to the average man slowly and the liberals realised the average man did not benefit much from the government’s approach to peoples life’s and with the rise of the labour party and other parties many historians argue that it was out of desire to be re-elected that the liberals slowly brought about this change in reform. They didn’t get a majority government in 1910 like they did in 1906 which led them to think that social reform was the way to gain votes.
How successful were the Liberal governments in bringing about political and constitutional reform in 1906-1914 (24 marks) It could be argued that the Liberal government were extremely successful in bringing about political and constitutional reform due to the passing of the Parliament Bill, which overall helped make the constitution more democratic. As well as the triumphant Payment of MPs act in 1911. Although there are areas in which the Liberal government were successful it could be argued that they were unsuccessful, by not extending the vote to women therefore not enhancing support, despite the activities of the suffragettes and the Womens’ Suffrage Union. Furthermore the unenhanced support of the Liberals meant that they were dependant on the support of the 84 Irish Nationalist MPs in the commons in order to stay in power. But was this really a success that the Liberals stayed in power?
How accurate is it to say that mercantilist policies were the driving force behind the expansion of the British Empire in the years 1680-1763? Britain was once a small and insignificant island in the North West part of Europe. Its population totalled just over five million and its economic state was poor. The reason that Britain became a large and powerful kingdom was because of the defeat of the Spanish Armada. The defeat of the Armada left Britain with a position of authority and more importantly, a wealthy income.
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. This point does support how Edward was a good king because all sources show that it was his idea, not his exchequer. Edwards new policy showed that he managed the royal finances well because it meant that more revenue was coming in therefore he could run the country, as well as start paying of Henry’s debts. Additionally it meant that he could live of his own because he did not have to ask parliament to raise a tax. I think that this was possibly the most important cause to
This is in contrast to the optimism that Macmillan had of the period stating that people had “never had it so good.” A generalised view is that the Conservative government had missed big opportunities to increase Britain’s status in the world, however not everything can be seen as a waste as the Conservatives had a clear manifesto, which was something that the Labour government did not appear to have, and they had economic and social success throughout Britain. The reasons for Labour’s victory included Wilson’s strengths as party leader and weaknesses of the Conservative party during these somewhat “wasted years.” UK economic growth proved to be slow in the 1950’s and 60’s, especially in relation to other European countries in the EEC, which supports the argument that these may have been thirteen wasted years. Furthermore, as Hennessey stated, “a third of Britain’s wealth had melted in the heart of the world war” and pressure from the USA after the Suez crisis resulted in a run on the pound, with a rapid fall in the value of the pound in international currency markets, especially in relation to the US dollar. Britain’s world exports had fallen from 20% to 15%, compared with Germany who showed a rise from 15% to 20%. In conjunction with this, under the Conservative government, Britain’s economy grew by 40%, however France’s grew by 50%, Germany’s grew by 250%
This was because the government had problems with their policies and mandates, also because voters believed that John Howard had been Prime Minister for too long. The Labour Party also used negative campaigning by labeling Howard as a ‘clever politician,’ implying that he cannot be trusted. Rudd also represented new leadership and a change for the voters, he was also very careful to avoid policy controversies. In the 2007 Federal election, the whole year became a ‘phoney campaign’ meaning that the Labour government maintained a strong polling lead over the incumbent government. When John Howard called the election on 24th November which was the almost last possible date, the incumbent government was trailing 6-8% in the polls, Howard set a longer than average campaign of 39 days in hope of making up lost ground in the campaign
This view is largely accredited because Pitt came into office in a difficult time but events around him seemed to benefit him rather well. Britain was entering the industrial revolution at the time, industry rose up and trade would boom due to expansion of the industries at home and abroad, the advancements of technology meant that Britain was going through a natural change that arguably Pitt was able to captain through leading to better fortunes. The natural opposition from the Whig party against the king led by Charles Fox meant that Pitt naturally had the Kings support against any opposition which could be thrown at him, the king would back him up. The American Revolution and his lack of connection to it meant that he was seen as a new politician not one of the previously failed governments who’s lack of control and rule in a situation. And lastly the regency crisis of 1788 meant that Pitt could use this to gain favour with the king and gather support from his own party and draw it away from the opposition.
Therefore this large influence was causing the SPD’s to grow considerably in the Reichstag, consuming the majority of seats in the parliament. Therefore the Reichstag was in left-wing position. This posed a threat to the right-wing position that the government was currently in. Therefore this implies political parties were becoming more influential in the parliament as the Kaiser could not overlook such a dominant party in the Reichstag. However it could be argued that Wilhelm II’s aims to crush socialism in response to Caprivi’s tolerance for Socialism in his years as chancellor disagree with this view as it suggests he is aiming for more of an autocratic state where he holds state control.