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.
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.
How far do the sources suggest that the Addled Parliament was short-lived because of the action of the House of Commons? The sources suggest to a reasonable extent that the Addled Parliament was short-lived due to the House of Commons. However there is evidence to suggest that the Kings arrogance and strong belief in the hierarchical system that caused the dissolution of Parliament. Source 10 suggests the Commons wanted the King to make concessions, ensuring a stable relationship, showing that the Commons were disputing with the crowns policies, thus giving the impression that Parliament was short-lived due to the House of Commons’ actions. Source 10 says that the Commons were expecting the King to make concessions that should ‘be: relieving the resentment caused by purveyance, giving greater clarity to the law of treason and reforming troublesome laws” This source suggests that the Commons were undermining the King’s power and believing that their influence was greater than it was.
Study all the sources- use your own knowledge to assess how far the sources support the interpretation that Churchill’s domestic policies and attitudes in the 1920s were disastrous for his reputation It’s certainly the case, sources B, C and D support the assertion in the question which was that Churchill’s domestic policies and attitudes in the 1920s did in fact mean disastrous things for his reputation. This is because these sources all contain accusations that Churchill’s decisions have made a negative impact on Churchill’s political career/reputation. Unlike sources A and E which go against the assertion and claim his policies haven’t tarnished his reputation. Source A which is from David Low’s autobiography claims Churchill has “a talent for self-advertisement; and to cap it all, imagination and guts” Apart from the fact that he also “could never accept him as a democrat” this shows us it was interpreted in a good way and his policies didn’t affect his reputation. The source does express how Churchill disliked any political movements from the working class.
By doing so, people believed that he truly felt their pain during the recession. Clinton’s success in the 1992 election was largely due to the fact that Bush was not able to turn his success in foreign affairs into a reason for people to vote for him, whereas Clinton’s campaign revolved around his economic plan, and was seen as a charismatic
Despite of this, Labour decided not to move ahead with the reforms. This shows that first past the post benefits the government in power because the party has majority of the votes in parliament in which makes it difficult for the other party to be heard if they want changes. Furthermore, tactical voting on first past the post encourages voters to vote for a candidate who has a better chance of winning. It prevents the election of a candidate representing the most disliked party. Example for this is in 1997 many Lib Dem and Labour voter tactically voted to get sitting Conservative
Weakness, even perceived weakness, not strength, provokes aggression from the trade union. David Cameron is threatening to tear up strike laws to prevent militant trade unions holding Britain to ransom. Also, David Cameron is to go to war with the trade unions over new laws to make it easier for firms to sack workers while condemning next week's public sector strike over pensions. On the other hand, you could argue that David Cameron’s presentation of his ideologies and beliefs reflect a more moderate and caring conservatism. For example, when Margaret Thatcher was in power, the New Right Conservatives led to opposition of government intervention to the poor and that the reason why the
Name: University: Course: Tutor: Date: Obama bad for America Introduction It would be good to begin with stating that no president is perfect and therefore at any present time there will be critics of the present, after all, not all voted for the said president. However Obama is getting more than his share of blame as a president. It could be that the failure of Obama administration results from the fact that he took over an ailing state from the damages created by the Bush administration but also some of the policies and moves of the administration portrays Obama as one of the most naïve and ignorant American. In this essay, some of the things that make Obama a bad president are assessed and evaluated. Health
Clinton defined himself as a centrist Democrat in his 1992 campaign in part by promising to "end welfare as we know it." After the Republican takeover of Congress, he fended off certain GOP welfare provisions but ultimately signed a bill that liberal members of Congress considered much too cruel to the poor. In another notable reversal, it is generally liberals who champion social engineering – and conservatives who scoff at the idea that government should try to change individual behavior. Now it is conservatives who most strongly support certain welfare rules, including the family cap and a requirement that most teenage parents live with their own parents in
History: Welfare, Reform and World War 1 Did World War I kill the progressive movement? Or was the crusade to make the world safe for democracy absorb the reforming zeal of the progressive era? It was believed that reform was stopped in its tracks by the start of World War I. “It is now shown the relationship between social reform and World War I is more complex that what earlier historians thought.” (Page 516) How the war brought the progressive era to a slow declining halt. The author Allen F. Davis reinforced my perception of the topic of the progressive movement and how the entry into the war didn’t totally end the movement.