Introduction The Labour Governments of 1946-1970 and 1974-1979 faced many problems when they came into power and during their reign; they both inherited a bad economy and came into power they won with a small majority of 3 and 4 seats respectively- both of these factors contributed to the hostility that they received from the general public, and led on to Labour finding it difficult to pass any legislation as well; with a large majority it is easier to pass legislation as there is fewer members of the opposition party to oppose the propositions. Although they faced many challenges, the economy did slowly begin to pick up and pressure began to ease off of the Labour Government, albeit not for long. Successes Labour during these time frames had a few accomplishments; must importantly the changes to society that they made. The Society of the Protection of the Unborn Child and the Abortion Law Reform Association, and the heavy influence that the Thalidomide Disaster gave them, managed to sway public opinion in favour of bringing about a Social Reform to Abortion; it should be made legal- The Abortion Act 1967 permitted legal termination of a pregnancy within 28 weeks, under medical supervision and with the written consent of at least two doctors. This social change helped fortify Labour power and influence upon British politics.
Discuss the view that the UK has a two party system (30) It has been argued strongly for quite some time that the UK has a two party system; this is predominantly illustrated through the successes of the Conservatives and Labour parties. However the 2010 election proved otherwise and suggests there is now a reason to class the UK as having a multi-party system- the success of the Liberal Democrats. Firstly there is some strong evidence that shows that the UK must have a two party system because the third most important party in politics, the Liberal Democrats, are unable to win on their own. Ever since they were founded in 1988 they have never managed to seize power by themselves. They are dependent on a coalition government because so far they have never had a majority in Parliament.
Chartism is a fairly dispersed movement, its large nature and appeal coupled with many different opposing viewpoints, make it really difficult to categorize, and equally difficult to find a defined origin. Chartism in its rawest definition was the world first working class movement, which by its definition would give it a huge backing politically. But why exactly did it come about in the around 1838? One of the main reasons would have to be the failure of the so-called “Great” reform act for most people. Effectively the act benefited the middle classes, who were now given an electoral voice in parliament, while the working classes were largely ignored, causing widespread anger and resentment for the act, and all those it benefited.
In the years 1930 – 1932 Bruning had lost popularity as he reduced unemployment benefit and increased taxes, all the time not having the majority backing of the reichstag (so he was dependant on Hindenburg's decree). Following the advice of Army officer Von Schleicer, Bruning was removed by Hindenburg, meaning a threat to Hitler's future power was eliminated. After this, Von Papen (a friend of Hindenburg) was appointed Chancellor. He was leader of the centre party but only had 68 supporters in the reichstag and like Schleicer, was dependant on the government by decree. In an attempt to gain more support, Von Papen held an election, only to be bested by the Nazis, who won by a landslide of 230 seats and as result, became the largest party of the Reichstag.
Furthermore, with the help of R.A Butler and Heath, Macmillan quickly took control of the party and began the recovery process for the problems caused by Suez. It could also be argued that the events of the Suez crisis cause more damage to the labour party, than the fortunes of the tories, as seen in source 5 “there was no internal split in the conservative party”. However source 6 suggests Labour suffered “widespread disgust” and became far more unpopular. This was due to Labour opposing the war which caused the party to be seen by many working-class
According the POWER inquiry, which took place in 2007; this was due to the fact that the general public thought that even if they did vote, choices will be made regardless of what they wanted. They also saw voting for a particular constituency was a vote wasted, many people said they ‘may well have voted’ if their party of choice had a chance of winning. Many members of the public said that they couldn’t decide who to vote for as they agreed with a few of a party’s policy and not others. The second way in which political participation had decreased is through party membership. In 1080 there was 4.12% of the total electorate who were members of a political party.
They realised that in order to gain voters support, they would have to leave the core socialistic values of 'old' Labour behind. This is because left-wing ideals at this time were hugely unpopular with the electorate. To achieve this electability, New Labour was less dogmatic than the old, socialist core of the Party. Many policies were toned down, especially economic ones. This general shift to the centre ground gained voters back, who had previously been Labour, but had voted Conservative recently.
After the First World War there was an attempt to try to return to this form of economy but it failed leaving Britain’s economy exposed to huge levels of deflation with no effective plan to counteract in place. This led to the suspension of the gold standard along with capital controls and a policy of permanently low domestic interest rates being introduced. In 1929 a new government came into power, although they were not expected to come to an agreement to make cuts to the dole system they did stick strictly to the ‘orthodox treasury view’ in its fiscal and monetary policies. This was all done for a good reason as the labour government were worried that an inflationary policy would reduce the real wage of labour. The unemployed population may have been able
This leads on to another cause that led to the Chartism movement, the disappointment of the 1832 Reform Act. Leading up to the act, working classes had given massive support to the middle class led campaign for the act, with the hope of legislation to help them. Although it was passed by the Whigs, the working class were dissatisfied because it did not enfranchise them and they were still left without the vote. Whigs regarded the act as the final change in the electoral system, but Chartists labelled it just the beginning. Although we’ve only listed two causes in detail there were many more that led to the Chartist
However, he was a weak ruler and failed to rule his people properly * he treated opposition with violence and the Okhrana (the secret police) * Political repression; compared with other countries democracies; Tsar was VERY WEAK and easily influenced. Long term –economic • Size of peasant landholdings fell- they were angry- little father isn’t helping them • 1892,1898,190- harvest failures= famine- still squeezing the peasants • Backwards agriculture compared to Europe • Rapid growth of population of towns & cities- crowded- would work for less because want work Russo Japanese War- Catalyst o R underestimated Japan-Jan 1905- forced to surrender-J- better tactics & more modern army • National humiliation- why would they be proud of a Tsar that conducted such an army?- it was his fault he had not modernised • J- knew position of R ships & when they would arrive • Unrest against the gov • Economic