Howard’s leadership was based on ‘strong leadership,’ strong leaders claim that they can create national unity amongst other things. This is how Howard won the 2001 and 2004 elections. In 2007, John Howard lost the election because the voters failed to see him as the best leader. By March 2007, Rudd had the best poll results ever for an Opposition leader. This was because the government had problems with their policies and mandates, also because voters believed that John Howard had been Prime Minister for too long.
Source 4,5 and 6 all talk about weather how the leaders were different and how they had different ideas. Source 4 talks about how the personalities were a key feature in Labours victory. However, it goes on to say that ‘a lot of significant long-term factors were working in Labours favour’ some of these factors were: rising living standards and the welfare state that had created the conditions for a ‘social revolution’ source 4 partially agrees with source 5 as source 5 talks about how Wilson was so popular as he was from a better class. By this the source means Wilson came across as an ordinary man whereas the conservatives didn’t. Reasons that back up source 4 are that Labour promised to sort out Britain’s economic problems.
This is in contrast to the optimism that Macmillan had of the period stating that people had “never had it so good.” A generalised view is that the Conservative government had missed big opportunities to increase Britain’s status in the world, however not everything can be seen as a waste as the Conservatives had a clear manifesto, which was something that the Labour government did not appear to have, and they had economic and social success throughout Britain. The reasons for Labour’s victory included Wilson’s strengths as party leader and weaknesses of the Conservative party during these somewhat “wasted years.” UK economic growth proved to be slow in the 1950’s and 60’s, especially in relation to other European countries in the EEC, which supports the argument that these may have been thirteen wasted years. Furthermore, as Hennessey stated, “a third of Britain’s wealth had melted in the heart of the world war” and pressure from the USA after the Suez crisis resulted in a run on the pound, with a rapid fall in the value of the pound in international currency markets, especially in relation to the US dollar. Britain’s world exports had fallen from 20% to 15%, compared with Germany who showed a rise from 15% to 20%. In conjunction with this, under the Conservative government, Britain’s economy grew by 40%, however France’s grew by 50%, Germany’s grew by 250%
One major political and military issue that he handled well was the Treaty of Ghent. The British had originally proposed unfavorable terms to the Americans in order to end the War of 1812, when America was losing severely. When most men would have accepted to end the war, Madison held out and when the Americans began to win battles the British had to agree to a more favorable treaty. This had a positive impact on America as a nation as well as the way it was viewed by foreign nations. Macon’s bill #2 also had a positive affect on the United States in the short term, as it reopened trade with France and England, and for a short time just France, which had been America’s greatest commercial sources of trade.
Scott martin – extended essay - liberal reforms Question – how successfully did the Liberal government (1906-14). Tackle the problem of poverty? Many historians argue the liberals effectively tackled the problem of poverty once elected in 1906 in their landslide victory. Once the party was elected however it was still very much in favour of its laissez-faire policy and social reform was not high in its parties priorities, it took significant time and pressure also some very notable individuals such as Lloyd George or Winston Churchill to change the course of Britain’s welfare system and unwittingly perhaps set up the foundations of the welfare state in the future. This essay will show how the liberals aimed to tackle the problem of
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.
How far do the sources suggest that James Callaghan was a good prime minister? As sources 1 and 2 would suggest James Callaghan was indeed a good prime minister. James Callaghan is a great prime minister who had the qualities that made him capable of running Britain but daunting economic circumstances led to his downfall. By the end of his government, Britain was deemed “The sick man of Europe”. Source 3 shows a clear disagreement though, as it states Callaghan “struggled to rule effectively until a vote of no-confidence” was called upon.
When President Obama first stepped into office it was like taking in a pure breath of fresh air. Most of us, assumed that he was the solution to all problems, such as, the economic break down lead by the Bush Administration, the issues on health insurance, education, the low rate of job, and etc. Obama’s Gallup approval rating stood at a 68 percent; unfortunately many of those people supporting the President have shifted perception. The reasons for Obama’s decrease in popularity are varied throughout the nation, but the most important are the messy promises he offered to the people. Some include the health care reform issues, his sense of an inhospitable business climate and the growth of government spending under Obama.
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.
Nicholas IIʼs regime survived the Revolution of 1905 but not that of 1917 because the oppo- sition faced in 1917 was much stronger and more organised and united than in 1905, be- cause World War One had destructive effects on Russia, evident particularly when con- trasted with the lesser negative effects of the Russo-Japanese War, and most importantly because by 1917 Nicholas IIʼs reputation had been severely damaged and he had lost the support of the army and could therefore not act against the opposition he faced. Nicholas IIʼs regime survived the revolution of 1905 but not that of 1917 most importantly because of the personal role of the Tsar and due to his loss of support of the army: In 1905 Tsarist authority was still highly respected by the Russian population, having the support of the Church, his ministers and the army. Excluding the naval mutiny that occurred in Potem- kin, where sailors mutinied after being served rotten meat and the captain ordered that the ringleaders be shot, but the firing-squad threw him overboard and sailed off to Romania, all signs showed that the Tsar had the full support of the loyal army, and this was particularly useful when suppressing the 1905 revolutionaries. On Bloody Sunday, the Cossacks and the army defended the Winter Palace against the revolutionaries. The support of the army was also evident during the Russo-Japanese War.