Do you agree with the view that the Suez Crisis of 1956-57 did no damage to the fortunes of the Conservative Party? Explain your answer using Sources 4,5 and 6 and your own knowledge There are both arguments for and against the view on whether the Suez crisis did damage to the conservative party. Some people say that is didn’t do any damage, stating that Britain was already in a bad situation before the Suez crisis and that any damage done wasn’t to the conservative party. Others say that while there might not have been no damage at all, the damage done as a result was small and quickly sorted for example the economic harm due to Americas relations. On the other hand there are those he say that the Suez Crisis did have a large effect on the conservative party, shown in many different aspects.
After 3 months, Clinton finally sent in aid and troops, yet faced a mass amount of criticisms for their non-response to the genocide, as his actions were deemed ‘too little, too late’. These two international policy failures were important as it made Clinton appear to be indecisive in international issues, making him a dovish President and as a result of this, the president’s disapproval ratings raised to 49% from 38% at the beginning of the year, highlighting his inexperience and weakness as a President. On the other hand, Clinton did have some international policy successes, most notably through
There was some economic development and stabilisation that did occur throughout the period but this was minimal and there was stagnation across the sector. Finally there was some social progress and development but it was overshadowed and undermined by cultural polarisation. This shows that the overall statement of political calm, economic development and social progress in the mid 1920’s is not totally accurate as it doesn’t take into account the problems faced by the constitution but there is some truth in the statement. This is why I believe that Germany experienced a period of political calm, economic development and social progress in the mid 1920’s to a limited extent as while there were success there were key failures and limitations. There was some political calm during the period.
This can be seen when looking at the two most powerful Prime Ministers in the post war era; Thatcher and Blair were in differing ways removed from their parties. Both Prime Ministers won three general elections and aspired to stay in office longer than they were able to. Thatcher faced a leadership challenge from within her party and while Heseltine got less votes than her, her cabinet made it clear to her that she had lost authority and that she should resign. She went on to describe this as ‘treachery with a smile upon its face’. Slightly less dramatically, Tony Blair faced a large rebellion in September 2006 led by ministers such as Tom Watson that forced him to promise to step down after a year had passed.
A particularly good example of this was Germany when USA pumped a lot of resources into their area. The Berlin Blockade showed the contrast between East and West and it also exemplified the vast amount of money that was being put in by the West to build Germany back up. They had also been able to oversee the establishment of the new West Germany was a very politically stable state There was a lack of this in Asia, mainly because USA was not as committed to containing communism. They did send aid in the form of soldiers but there was no economical support in for example Korea. Although Asia was often an impoverished area and Americas belief that this was a common theme that allowed for the growth of communism there was a clear lack of economical support.
For this reason the Gestapo was not something that the British people were very sympathetic towards and Winston Churchill by using this in is his speech made a large amount of the British people reconsider their views on him and it was around this time that the British people started to see Atlee as a serious option to lead the country. Another reason in my eyes if that fact that the election was held so soon after the war ended, it was held only two months after the war ended and just over a month after the wartime coalition was abolished i feel that the British people showed a very mature and sensible attitude as many people would have voted for Winston Churchill just because of what he achieved in the war they recognized that wartime politics and peace time politics required two different kind of leaders.
All payments went towards the king, this would've also made the Earls not feel powerful enough, especially Harold Godwin who was seen as the most powerful man in England, but theoretically he wasn’t. However the Economy was well governed because the trade increased, which encouraged both the growth of towns and foreign contacts, this demonstrates that England were still involved in trade, which was good for the economy. However the economy was not very well developed especially compared to the Byzantine Empire and Muslim world. Those economies were massive, especially when compared to England’s. Overall I believe that the economy for pre-Conquest England as well- governed to an extent as the King did have large control, he did control this well, but he may have been seen as too powerful where the government is concerned.
Why is Labour Productivity in the UK so low? There are a huge variety of reasons why, in comparison to other countries, our labour productivity is so low: One incredible important reason is that the government drive for full employment has been taking hold. As we can see here; our employment is faring well in comparison with other countries. However, a real problem is the government implementing policy that favours short term social benefit (like for example, mass employment, creation of needless projects simply to provide jobs), rather than long term economic benefit. There is a failure to realise that long term better economic welfare also means general higher standards of living, as people have enough money to buy everything they need and some of what they want, competition is rife so drives quality up and prices down, and the government are able to take in more taxes from firms who are much healthier financially.
In his unexpected ascent to the top of British politics luck and circumstance were incredibly important in helping him achieve his ambitious plans to show the nature of his genius: Following the split in the Conservative Party over the Repeal of the Corn Laws, the Conservatives lost almost all of their politically talented MPs, thus leading for the party to be labelled the “Stupid Party” due to their minimal political interest and concern for the well-being of their land. Even in the 1850’s when Derby did manage to form the first Conservative Government for almost ten years, their lack of expertise and political ability was still a major hindrance to how they could perform in office in satisfying the needs of the electorate. Although this disastrous period of impotence was awful for the party, it did no harm to
Prohibitionists at the time presented it as a victory for public morals and health, but once the laws were passed they did little to help enforce them. The consumption of alcohol overall went down by half in the 1920s and it remained below pre-Prohibition levels until the 1940s. [2] Anti-prohibitionists ("wets") criticized the alcohol ban as an intrusion of mainly rural Protestant ideals on a central aspect of urban, immigrant and Catholic everyday life. Effective enforcement of the alcohol ban during the Prohibition Era proved to be very difficult and led to widespread flouting of the law. The lack of a solid popular consensus for the ban resulted in the growth of vast criminal organizations, including the modern American Mafia and various other criminal cliques.