The foreign policy failures of the British governments 1951-64 were due to the lack of realism in the post war world? This essay will ascertain the truth behind the statement and ask the questions as to whether the respective prime ministers, could have done more to secure a better and more efficient foreign policy. The statement has some truth to it, as Britain was for the best part of the 13 years under the Tories accommodating the notion that they were a great superpower, this ultimately lay with the prime minister, this view was shared between two consecutive prime ministers, notable Anthony Eden who for the most part of his appointment spent the majority of the money on military and nuclear projects, this very idea of sitting at the big table was catastrophic for Britain and shown by the Suez Crisis. This showed Britain how much they needed American aid in boosting their economy, and that the lack of communication with the rest of Europe created a bubble around Britain. Also holding on to this great superpower status was largely to do with the fact that Britain still had an Empire, inevitably making them feel more superior to the other European countries, this was a lack of realism as after both Suez Crisis and the formation of the EEC Britain began to understand that they were missing out.
Moreover, Richard III was very good at politics, having a lavish court and is good at using propaganda, yet he is highly unpopular among both the people and the nobility; his reign only lasts two years before the throne is usurped by Henry Tudor. Therefore, while both the main Yorkist Kings during this period did go some way to restoring royal authority in England, their successes were limited. Edward IV was successful at restoring royal authority as he was able to control the different regions of the Kingdom, such as the North and Wales, through the use of magnates. During his reign, Edward makes Richard, his brother, the duke of Gloucester, and puts Rivers in charge of Wales and his son. This meant that these areas, which were traditionally either pro-Lancastrian or prone to rebellion, were more controlled during Edward IV’s reign, which helped to restore royal authority.
The main problem facing Henry was restoring faith and strength in the monarchy. He also had to deal with other claimants, with some of them having a far stronger claim than his own. To deal with this, Henry strengthened the government and his own power, at the expense of the nobles. Henry also had to deal with a treasury that was nearly bankrupt. The English monarchy had never been one of the wealthiest of Europe and even more so after the War of the Roses.
Despite the King’s help in enabling Pitt’s position in power, we must also analyse the other factors that contribute to Pitt’s success, for instance, the weakened status of the Whig’s leader, Charles Fox and the improvements that Pitt made to the financial and economical state of the nation. Firstly, the way that Pitt managed to become Prime Minister instantly made clear that George III was nearly entirely responsible for his entry into office. When the dispute arose over the coalition of the India Bill in 1782, George III immediately took the opportunity to get rid of the Whigs leaving a position open for Pitt. Therefore we can see that this opening ,created by the King, enabled Pitt to become Chancellor of the Exchequer and First Lord of the Treasury in 1783. The King used the India Bill as an excuse for a dramatic change in his government.
The main concept for the Article of Confederation came from the England because at that time British excessive pride was strong and powerful colonies and the same concept came for the central government system. Therefore their disappointment helps to implement a young government with strong centralized power. Congress believes this would make the new revolution among the Hobbesan government. Even though the fear of oppression was in their minds, most of the Congress members, inspired by the fact of the British inefficient and worthless government system. Congress men always think twice about the fact of losses of their States and their Civilians.
It is clear that Obama is a naturally talented orator, and that he has honed his skills through practice at Harvard, and throughout his political career. No matter what side of the political arena one may be on, seeing Obama speak live is a compelling experience, more so than past presidents. He is able to instantly connect with the audience with clarity and conviction. Obama is known by many as the people’s president, with his goal of strengthening the middle class, and opposing trickledown economics. He effectively communicates with the lower and middle class demographic because he radiates a feeling of humility and his diction is simple, clear, and effective.
As you can imagine, Roosevelt had a really tough job. He had to clean up the mess caused by the depression and he also had to pull a nation through an extremely devastating war, not to mention the era of Hitler who was a man bent on Nazi domination. How did he handle his position? How was he able to remain president for 12 years? He must have done a might good job if America allowed him to stick around that long.
It is an open book to an unfolding situation. This does not mean it is moderate, but that it is considerate of changing circumstances that may require reconsideration based on the intelligence available and reason itself”(US Centrist). What centrists aren’t. Centrists are not moderate. Moderation is more like a compromise than actually working towards the best option.
Abstract John F. Kennedy is one of the most famous, controversial and brightest figures among United State’s political leaders. Kennedy was only president for a short time. But through this short time, he inspired American patriotism and united a nation with the shared goal of peace (1). Kennedy is the youngest United States president elected to office and also the youngest one to die in office (1). Kennedy was an influential man and a great leader.
Wilson’s ‘comfy and complacent’ campaign did play in role in deciding the 1970 election in favour of the Conservatives but it was only a minor one. Much more important was the combination of mistrust by the public over Labour’s ability to control the economy and most importantly; Labour’s complete failure to control the Trade Unions and the fears that this brought with it. Even a Labour minister himself, Richard Crossman admits in Source C that a ‘final warning on the trade figures’ put voters off. Whilst Source A does attack Wilson for his ‘highly personalised campaign’ and his ‘presidential’ style leadership, it goes on to suggest that there is no clear reason for why people changed their minds and voted Tory at the last minute. Despite his ‘too relaxed and assured’ campaign Wilson was not to blame but instead it was a combination of ‘unfavourable trade figures’ and Enoch Powell that swung the vote.