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 first two interpretations wouldn’t have directly effected Liverpool’s government; however, the final interpretation stating it may have had political as well as economic aims, leads people to think this may have been a serious radical challenge to Liverpool’s government. Liverpool’s Government certainly thought so and made machine-breaking a capital offence and posted over 12,000 troops to the Luddite areas. Following the end of Luddism, the period between 1812- 1815 witnessed relatively little in the way of popular protest, however, post 1815 saw the revival of radical activity and was described by historian E.P. Thompson as ‘the heroic age of popular radicalism’.
To what extent is it fair to say that Attlee's government had failed to transform Britain by 1951? By 1945, the Second World War was over and the Labour government was voted in to government. The Conservatives had dominated the wartime coalition government, causing a great shock when Labour won with a majority of 146 seats over all parties in the 1945 election. During Clement Attlee's role as Prime Minister between the years 1945-1951 he made some great changes to Britain, such as the welfare state and the NHS. However, it is usually debated how much Clement Attlee actually transformed Britain.
12 years later, he became a member of parliament for Cambridge. His ambition was to turn England into a republic. He did many good things but also some very bad things. Many people think he was a very bad person but some people believed strongly in what he did. Before the 1600s, when there was a war, people would have been picked off the street and been given weapons but not trained or qualified to fight.
Finally Thatcher’s socio-economic policies are portrayed by all four interpretations as to the reason behind the three electoral victories, although this view can be seen as controversial as her policies did not always have positive effects. So was it due to the weakness of the Labour Party as suggested by the interpretations or instead the other two factors; the Falkland’s war and Thatcher’s policies which led to Thatcher’s electoral success in 1979, 1983 and 1987? Considered in both interpretation A and C is the Labour Party’s weakness as to the reasoning behind Thatcher’s electoral success. Interpretation A prominently discusses the leadership of Michael Foot from 1980 to 1983 as to the reason behind Labour’s weakness as he moved Labour more left meanwhile the electorate was more to the right showing Labour and the electorate as a “poor fit”. With Foot as the leader it led to “spectacular disunity” as presented in both interpretations A and C leading to the formation of the Social Democrat Party in 1980.
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.
When America was going to war with Britain no one thought America would win. In Common Sense written by Thomas Paine America was being judged by its size. They did not think America could win because America is much smaller than Britain. America might have been small, but with the determination of freedom they shocked many people who did not believe in them. Way back then, people could not measure the possibility of colonies taking on the world’s largest empire.
Liberty died in America today I'm watching the results of the mid-term election as I write this and I am afraid that freedom died in America tonight. There have simply not been enough incumbents defeated to make an impression upon the entrenched elites who control the Big Government party which runs this nation. Yes, the House of Representatives has gone over to the Republicans, but those of us who were looking for the majority of that body to be composed of new people are disappointed. Yes, some of what the liberal mainstream media has taken to calling the “Tea Party” candidates have won their races. But their numbers are few, miniscule really in comparison to the total of 435 seats that were up for grabs.
The reform act on 1832 was an act passed by Parliament in order to change the way in which the electoral system in the country worked, as it had been virtually unchanged for around 200 years. The act was not new to parliament as the idea of the bill was in fact presented to the government by radical movements wanting change. The fact that the reform act had not been passed earlier even with the pressure of radical movements begs the question as to what changed for the act to be passed later in 1832? What new factors helped in gaining the reform? The problems with the way in which the electoral system worked, meant that the majority people wanted change and therefore pushed for electoral reform.
First, it is important to recognize that these polls suggest that Americans are displeased with the people in charge of our government, not the institution as a whole. As stated earlier, the confidence in the political institutions has never dwindled and in a survey conducted in the 1990’s, Americans were more likely to say they were “very patriotic” than the French or Germans. Because the confidence in our political system has not deteriorated, the only influence that truly effects our confidence in Washington is the events that are effecting Americans from around the world in each period in American history. For example, in the 1950’s, America had recently dug itself out of the Great Depression, had military dominance with the Atom bomb, had a booming economy and dominated world trade. As a result, a majority of Americans trusted the government most of the time in the 1950’s.