How successful was Gladstone’s first ministry? If ‘achieving what you set out to do’ defines successful, then Gladstone’s First Ministry was certainly a success. The Acts that were passed during his time as leader of the Liberal party had great impact on the population both then, and in some cases, still now. However not all his Acts were well received and this created some controversy. Gladstone’s main goal was to pacify Ireland and he was the first British politician to tackle the unfair way in which Ireland was run.
Source 4,5 and 6 all talk about weather how the leaders were different and how they had different ideas. Source 4 talks about how the personalities were a key feature in Labours victory. However, it goes on to say that ‘a lot of significant long-term factors were working in Labours favour’ some of these factors were: rising living standards and the welfare state that had created the conditions for a ‘social revolution’ source 4 partially agrees with source 5 as source 5 talks about how Wilson was so popular as he was from a better class. By this the source means Wilson came across as an ordinary man whereas the conservatives didn’t. Reasons that back up source 4 are that Labour promised to sort out Britain’s economic problems.
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.
The last years of Henrys reign was dominated by conservative and reformist factions . In this essay I will assess the extent of the threat created due to the rivalry of factions that had affected the stability of the government. The execution of Cromwell (1940) was a success for conservatives as was also Henrys marriage to Catharine Haword. The marriage was a gateway to influencing Henry by carving out a new royal policy via Catharine H. This increased tension between the Reformists and conservatives and so the reformists took action to destroy the reputations of Cahrine H , Duke of Norfolk and Gardiner. On the contrary this shows that the disputes between these factions may imply that the King was weak and not in control thus significantly threatening the stability of government .
Explain why the opponents of the Tsars from 1855 to 1917 were more successful than those who opposed the Communist regime from 1917 to 1964. The opponents of the Tsars were more successful – as they achieved vastly more change – than those of the Communists for a number of reasons, not least because of the legal status of opposition, the strength of the regime, the nature of the opposition, the repression imposed by the leader of the day, and the unity and organisation of the opposition. Indeed, this question is being asked simply because the Romanov dynasty was ousted in February 1917; the Communists, on the other hand, were not. However, this question is slightly misleading: not all of the opponents of the Tsars were in fact successful – the Poles, the Peoples Will and the Narodniks all failed when attempting to attain change in Russia; indeed, it can be seen that, in reality, the only regime in which opposition was truly successful was that of Nicholas II. One reason why the opponents of the Tsars were more successful than those of the Communists was the fact that, under the Tsars, opposition attained a legal status.
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.
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
labour 1945.doc (30.3 KB) What was the main reason why Labour won the General Election in 1945? Between 1940 and 1945, Winston Churchill was presumably the most popular British prime minister of all time. He led Britain to a substantial victory over the Nazis with his refusal to surrender to Nazi Germany inspiring the Brits. Nonetheless, the popularity of Churchill and the Conservative Party began to depreciate as in July 1945, the Labour Party won the general election shocking the nation, including Clement Attlee and the rest of the Labour Party themselves. Numerous reasons induced this popular change including being that the Conservatives had adopted some unpopular policies in the 1930s in addition to their weak election campaign.
He also showed courage by using his diplomatic skills to neutralize many foreign affairs and showing the United States of America in a positive light around the world. If using peaceful politics, advancing human rights, and skillful diplomacy are characteristics of courage in politics, then Jimmy Carter is a perfect example. Admittedly, the Carter administration was often criticized for the dismal shape of the economy during his reign. His daring choices often placed him at odds with Congress and popular public opinion. Despite high inflation rates, at the end of his term Carter could credit an 8 million job increase and a significant decrease in the budget deficit.
Stalin was successful as leader of the USSR between the years 1928 to 1953 to a large extent. On one hand his totalitarian regime enabled vast industrial growth; however his agricultural policies led to miserable conditions in rural areas. Overall one can state that Stalin’s economic system was well suited to the demands of total war. Stalin establishing a totalitarian government led to his success as leader of the USSR. He was supported by the public due to his ruthless and efficient regime during the 1930’s.