‘Thirteen Wasted Years’ To what extent can the period of Conservative dominance between 1951 and 1964 be viewed as ‘Thirteen Wasted Years’? (45 marks) After Labour lost the 1951 election and Clement Attlee had to step down as prime minister, Churchill returned to office, and 13 years of Conservative rule began – Churchill followed by Eden, Macmillan, and Douglas-Home. Many events and policies happened during these years, some of which have led them to be described as ‘wasted’, yet there are other events that seem to suggest otherwise. In my opinion, I think that these years can definitely be described as ‘wasted’. When the Second World War came to an end in 1945, a period of austerity began under Labour.
But was this really a success that the Liberals stayed in power? After the Liberal landslide in 1906 the Conservatives were weak and powerless in the House of Commons, with little than a quarter seats. Therefore Balfour and Lord Lansdowne decided to use their permanent Conservative majority in the House of Lords to block new policies of the Liberal Government. The Lords vetoed their first budget in November 1909 on Lloyd George’s Peoples Budget. The Liberals needed to find £15million of extra revenue to provide for the new social services and for the construction of naval warships.
Harold Wilson was a labour politician who held two terms in office as Prime Minister, between 1964-1970 succeeding Alec Douglas-Home and 1974-1976, succeeding Edward Heath. Wilson had varying levels of success whilst in office, ranging from the popular and successful decision to relax theatre censorship in 1968, to his disastrous relationship with the Unions which led to a series of strikes in 1966/67. The beginning of Wilson’s rule in 1964 came about following 13 years of Conservative leadership and it was his mastery of the media which allowed him to take advantage of the mood of the time that Britain needed to modernize and replace the old fashioned out-of-touch establishment represented by the Tories, vowing to forge a new modern Britain in ‘the white heat of technology’. Although Wilson’s youthful and more modern approach to politics may appear to have allowed him to gain the advantage over the conservatives that allowed the Labour party to finally enter office, there is still the argument that following 13 years of Tory rule the public may have voted for Labour simply because they desired change rather than their belief that Labour was the better government. The fact that the 1964 election was won by a mere 4 vote majority by Labour supports this opinion and gives rise to the suggestion that if it had been Butler, and not Douglas-Home leading the Conservatives then perhaps they would not have lost the election.
Trevor Hui How far do you agree that it was the ‘Falklands factor’ that was the decisive factor in the Conservative victory in the election of June 1983? The Conservatives had a landslide victory in the 1983 election. They had a majority of 397 seats, 188 more than Labour’s 209 seats. There were various explanations for Thatcher’s overwhelming victory, mainly including her leadership during the Falklands crisis and the remarkably poor performance of the Labour opposition, which saw its total vote drop by three million and its share of the vote fall by nearly nine per cent. Source P pointed out that the Falklands war not only saved Thatcher from a potential defeat in the 1983 election; it also raised her ratings in the opinion polls from rock bottom in the late 1983, to an extremely high rate of 51 per cent in June 1982.
Wilson and not heath was responsible for a decade of decline and economic failure. (45 marks) Wilson and Heath’s time in office was to begin with optimism both hoping for promising change and attempting to modernise Britain and try and catch up with industrial rivals. Whether it was through a ‘white heat’ or ‘quiet’ revolution, both PM’s promises however never lived up to their expectation, the previous governments had badly hindered the economy for both Wilson and Heath and as a result during their 10 collective years in power resulted in economic decline, instead of promised transformation and advancement of Britain. It is arguable that much of the responsibility of the economic decline in this period could be seen to be Wilson. During
However in the 1951 elections Labour had polled 231,067 more votes from the general public than the Conservative party, however the Conservative party gained 26 more seats and squeezed into power. This was because the Liberals only put up 109 candidates, which in turn allowed ex-liberal voters to instead vote Conservative. CHARLIE One of the main reasons why the Conservative party lost was because of their past record. Certain events in their
There was a 27 day crisis when the Whitlam government couldn’t get its Supply bills passed and it was during this period that there was an escalation in un-employment and interest rates and this was all because of the governments’ big spending developments. With an escalation in un-employment it meant that the generation of jobs for everybody was finished. It was during this economic recession that profits collapsed and industrial disagreements intensified. House prices were similarly been raised and inflations were getting out of control as the government was on its second year of developments and new spending on health, urban development, education and the environment. As the government backed up big wage rises consumer prices rose and because since there was a global food shortage it pushed up food prices.
Later on President Hoover passed the Hawley-Smoot Tariff of 1930 which raised duty on non-free goods to nearly 60%. This angered foreigners, reversing a promising worldwide trend toward reasonable tariffs and widening the trade gaps. It was designed to assist the farmers, but instead plunged both America and other nations deeper into the depression that already began with the Stock Market Crash of 1929. It increased international financial chaos and forced the United States into economic
Republican gains during redistricting were largely because vulnerable Republican incumbents received safer districts. Redistricting safeguarded at least eight Republican incumbents who would have otherwise lost re-election in 2012. “Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn.” The report credits gerrymandered maps in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin with allowing Republicans to overcome a 1.1 million popular-vote deficit. . In Ohio, for instance, Republicans won 12 out of 16 House races “despite voters casting only 52 percent of their vote for Republican congressional candidates.
Sumani Yarlagadda 9:05-9:55 October 4th, 2013 Essay 2 Prompt Clashing Opinions About Roosevelt and the New Deal The Great Depression was a time of despair for the vast majority of Americans, whether they were a prince or a pauper. They were frazzled with this new situation, which was a steep contrast to the leisure and relaxed feel of the Roaring Twenties. The demise of the nation can be pinpointed to one simple date: October 29th, 1929. Commonly known, as “Black Tuesday”, the day that marked the stock market plummeting. It took the nation by surprise; before, the economy was booming, and the majority of the population had become accustomed to the their carefree lives.