Collective security had a better response towards aggression rather than appeasement. This is because a lot more European countries didn’t approve of the decision made during the Munich Conference. Winston Churchill was one person who strong didn’t approve with this decision. He was a British politician who thought, “keeping peace depends on holding back the aggressor” (Document 6). Churchill believed that in order to guarantee the security of Czechoslovakia, Europe should have held Germany back and Britain and France should have worked together as an alliance.
‘ After the Romans left Britain the progress they had made in public health did not continue’ Do you agree? Explain your answer. (16 marks) When the Romans left Britain it was difficult for their progress in public health to continue. This was because they took their knowledge and expertise with them. For example, there were no longer any engineers left who knew how to build or maintain aqueducts.
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.
He failed to foresee the anger that both the Chinese labour issue and his refusal to reverse Taff Vale would cause amongst British working men. Balfour misunderstood working men’s reaction to the tariff reform campaign and he allowed Joseph Chamberlain to make the reform a key Unionist policy from 1903 onwards. In 1902 Balfour created the Education Act. This act roused the fury of the nonconformists in Britain and led to many of them reverting to the Liberal Party. Schools were to be funded from local rates, including religious schools.
“Between 1933 and 1937, the British public’s hostility to the confrontation of foreign powers left the National Government with no alternative to a policy of appeasing Hitler and Mussolini.” – How far do you agree with this judgement? Due to the aftermath of the First World War and the oncoming threat of further war, the general public opinion was to avoid war at all costs during the time between 1933 and 1937. It was in British interests to maintain peace because of similar reasons, and because of the state of the British economy. The British public were therefore not hostile to confrontation of foreign powers, but wanted to avoid the conflict, meaning there was a strong influence on the National Government to please the general public, and appeasement was a better option than to use violence. The public opinion of wanting to be peaceful was the main reason why the National Government felt as if there was no alternative to appeasing Hitler and Mussolini.
Harold Wilson was a labour politician who held two terms in office as Prime Minister, between 1964-1970 succeeding Alec Douglas-Home and 1974-1976, succeeding Edward Heath. Wilson had varying levels of success whilst in office, ranging from the popular and successful decision to relax theatre censorship in 1968, to his disastrous relationship with the Unions which led to a series of strikes in 1966/67. The beginning of Wilson’s rule in 1964 came about following 13 years of Conservative leadership and it was his mastery of the media which allowed him to take advantage of the mood of the time that Britain needed to modernize and replace the old fashioned out-of-touch establishment represented by the Tories, vowing to forge a new modern Britain in ‘the white heat of technology’. Although Wilson’s youthful and more modern approach to politics may appear to have allowed him to gain the advantage over the conservatives that allowed the Labour party to finally enter office, there is still the argument that following 13 years of Tory rule the public may have voted for Labour simply because they desired change rather than their belief that Labour was the better government. The fact that the 1964 election was won by a mere 4 vote majority by Labour supports this opinion and gives rise to the suggestion that if it had been Butler, and not Douglas-Home leading the Conservatives then perhaps they would not have lost the election.
The government will make their own decision whether other opposition parties disagree with them; the government in power still make their own decision. Example of this is, when after Labour victory in 1997, the New Labour administration established an Independent Commission on Electoral Reform under Lord Jenkins. Lord Jenkins’ recommendation that AV should be introduced for UK general elections after a disappointed that many fellows of Liberal Democrats had. Liberal Democrats felt that STV might be more effective in addressing the flaws in the current FPTP system. Despite of this, Labour decided not to move ahead with the reforms.
Economist believes that this system will do nothing to control cost but the budget office believes the bill will reduce the cost over a ten-year period. The cost concerns affected Americans because it helped Republicans win control over the House of Representatives in the mid-term elections and they also threatened to remove government funding. This reform also affected Doctors in the United States. Lifesitenews.com states that Doctors believe this Health Care reform will not be fair to them because the nurse practitioners and physicians assistant will be caring for the Patients hands on rather than the doctors even though they have more medical experience. His next plan of action was by using budget deficits which stop
‘Thirteen Wasted Years’ To what extent can the period of Conservative dominance between 1951 and 1964 be viewed as ‘Thirteen Wasted Years’? (45 marks) After Labour lost the 1951 election and Clement Attlee had to step down as prime minister, Churchill returned to office, and 13 years of Conservative rule began – Churchill followed by Eden, Macmillan, and Douglas-Home. Many events and policies happened during these years, some of which have led them to be described as ‘wasted’, yet there are other events that seem to suggest otherwise. In my opinion, I think that these years can definitely be described as ‘wasted’. When the Second World War came to an end in 1945, a period of austerity began under Labour.
The two main parties in the UK have said to have dismissed their original values and have now become more centralised. A good example of this is the outsourcing of car manufacturing[2], mainly to the third world countries where cheap labour and resources are readily available. This however has/had an adverse effect on the UK unemployment, whereas before the labour party would have fought to find a way to keep these companies by introducing policies, schemes and incentives they simply do nothing about it now. The lack of action by the labour party signifies a momentous shift in ideology and therefore it can be said that globalisation in this case as well has diminished sovereignty of the UK