Trevor Hui How far do you agree that it was the ‘Falklands factor’ that was the decisive factor in the Conservative victory in the election of June 1983? The Conservatives had a landslide victory in the 1983 election. They had a majority of 397 seats, 188 more than Labour’s 209 seats. There were various explanations for Thatcher’s overwhelming victory, mainly including her leadership during the Falklands crisis and the remarkably poor performance of the Labour opposition, which saw its total vote drop by three million and its share of the vote fall by nearly nine per cent. Source P pointed out that the Falklands war not only saved Thatcher from a potential defeat in the 1983 election; it also raised her ratings in the opinion polls from rock bottom in the late 1983, to an extremely high rate of 51 per cent in June 1982.
It is true that in 1964 400,000 people were unemployed and this rose to “just over 600,000 by 1970”, the end of Wilson’s time as Prime Minister. On the other hand, the Source does say that “perhaps from its last year in office”, Labour did make many successful policies, possibly referring to the Equal Pay Act of May 1970. It fails to acknowledge of the other grounding breaking social reforms that were introduced under Wilson’s rule, such as the Sexual Offences Act and Abortion Act of 1967, which has been done in Source B. Also, the Source says that Wilson’s Government made the “same mistakes as the Conservatives”, which suggests that six years in parliament is not enough to undo the mistakes previously made. One could infer from this that it was inevitable that Labour’s failures would outweigh their successes, as it would have happened to whatever party was voted into parliament in 1964.
There are a number of reasons as to why the Labour Party won the 1964 election, however the main reason was because the Conservative Party had been weakened significantly over the previous 13 years. One huge failing of the Conservatives was the scandals it faced, such as the affair between John Profumo (the Secretary of State for War) and a high class prostitute who was also conducting relations with a Russian spy. This affair may have possibly lead to a breach of national security and worried many government officials at the time. The revelations of it also shocked many ordinary British people and helped put the party name into disrepute. Another failing of the Conservative Party was the Suez crisis of 1956.
Assess the reasons for opposition to Thatcher’s social and economic policies The main reason why Thatcher faced opposition to her social and economic policies was due to the controversial nature of them (more notably so in her economic policies), which generated the perception that her prime ministerial power was largely used for private greed, at the public expense. Thatcher’s most controversial economic policy, which ultimately lead to increased opposition, was the privatisation of the public industries; such as the British Telecom in 1984. These de-nationalisations were highly controversial as they were seen to be ‘selling off the family silver’, thus stifled fear amongst the electorate that private ownership would be more concerned with profits than service. This consequently reflects the main reason for opposition to Thatcher’s economic policies, as people wanted to sustain the standard set by the national services. Furthermore, Thatcher’s monetarist policies to tackle inflation faced opposition due to their highly controversial nature.
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.
Labour are bound inescapably to a single powerful interest group by ties of history, political dogma and financial 10 dependence. Labour have demonstrated they cannot speak and dare not act for the nation as a whole. They have governed Britain badly. SOURCE 3 (From Jim Callaghan's memoirs, Time and Change, published 1988) f 15 Our vote in the election of 1979 was, in fact, higher than it had been nearly five years earlier. This demonstrated how much steady understanding and support existed for what we had tried to do.
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. Although it cannot be denied that Wilson’s relentless talk of ‘The white heat of technology’ suited the mood of the time. However despite Wilson’s promise of a more modern Britain the country failed to match the growth rates of the USA, Japan and Western European countries. One explanation for the poor state of the economy was that Britain at that time was going through a major shift in its economic and social structure; changing from an industrial
Wilson and not heath was responsible for a decade of decline and economic failure. (45 marks) Wilson and Heath’s time in office was to begin with optimism both hoping for promising change and attempting to modernise Britain and try and catch up with industrial rivals. Whether it was through a ‘white heat’ or ‘quiet’ revolution, both PM’s promises however never lived up to their expectation, the previous governments had badly hindered the economy for both Wilson and Heath and as a result during their 10 collective years in power resulted in economic decline, instead of promised transformation and advancement of Britain. It is arguable that much of the responsibility of the economic decline in this period could be seen to be Wilson. During
Although some things were carried out well under the Conservatives, there were many missed opportunities and mistakes under the 4 prime ministers. I think that some of the prime ministers contributed more to the ‘wasted years’ than others, notably Eden, who made mistakes with both the Suez Crisis and the EDC. I also think that Britain missing out on the EEC and Europe is one of the main reasons why these years were wasted. Once it became clear that Britain’s role in the world was declining, and her Empire was changing to a Commonwealth, I think that the Conservatives should have seen that as the reason to lean more towards Europe. Although our relations with America did improve, and have later proved to be very important, missing out on Europe was a major mistake.
He claimed it was time for the electorate to decide who runs the country, the democratically elected government or the trade unions? Unfortunately for Heath, Labour won the most seats with 301. This was not enough to give them an overall majority and so for the first time since 1929 there was a hung