Assess the Extent to Which the Wilson Government Achieved Its Objectives by 1970

Another contributing factor at this election may have been performance in office, which in the above statement is not seen as important as personality and image. However, performance in office may have been extremely detrimental for the conservatives in 1997 because of their crisis in 1992. This focuses on the retrospective model, as people saw the Conservatives as incompetent in handling the economy because of Black Wednesday in September 1992. The Conservatives and especially Noramnt Lamont, Chancellor of the Exchequer, were to blame for the crisis that saw the pound forced out of the ERM. This didn’t help at the 1997 general election where they did extremely badly in a huge Labour win.

Edward Heath led the conservative party through a difficult and revolutionary period in British politics from the years 1965 to 1974, punctuated by the joining of the ECC in 1973, prolonged damaging strikes, high levels of inflation, and many monumental U-turns through the period of his office. The concept of change is most notably seen right from the offset of his leadership as he was the first conservative leader to be elected democratically, by ballot, marking a turning away from the old boy network of Tory prime ministers preceding him. He himself went against tradition, coming from very humble backgrounds, having been through the grammar school

The Labour government of 1974-1979 also won two elections, the 1974 February election and the 1974 October election, however both were won by a minority. The February election was won by 4 seats and the October election was won by 42 seats. The reason for the slim win is to do with inflation. The Labour governments of 1974-1979 were in office at a bad time because Britain had started to suffer from huge inflation because of the oil price rise in 1973, and so voters didn’t have a clear decision on which they were going to vote for. This shows that at the moment the 1964-1970 Labour Government was more successful by far because of their majority of 110 seats in the 1966 election.

Labour disunity was a huge contributing factor as to why the conservatives were able to dominate from 1951 to 1964. However, there are also other factors that assisted conservative dominance. Whether that be conservative strengths, good timing, the end of austerity or their handle on public opinion, all factors contributed to the dominant years. However, how long the conservatives actually dominated is also a question. Did they dominate for the whole period, or just part of it? The years 1962-1964 question conservative dominance and how labour reunited.

Wilson's number one desire was to be loved by the people. He could not win as much respect as Roosevelt won, but did find some affection in politics. He had many limitations, but one of the most severe was his respect for tradition. Wilson, instead of trying to make the government better and newer, he wanted to imitate the government of Great Britain, with cabinet being more like parliament. One of his main criticisms was that the current government had no room for debate, or great minds like Calhoun, Webster, and Clay. Wilson was much more sincere then Roosevelt, and actually provided a display of the reforms he wanted to achieve. Prior to his career in politics, Wilson served as the president of Princeton University. He therefore had much sympathy to the way education was run throughout the country, and wanted reforms to occur. He felt students were not allowed to express their opinion freely enough, and called for a more democratic undergraduate life. Similarly to Roosevelt, Wilson was hostile to labor unions, suspicious of large trusts, and unaware of how to handle trusts. The "Triple Wall of Privileges" was Wilson's economic policy which required getting rid of the three obstacles he felt society was currently facing- the trusts, banks, and tariffs. And before Wilson left the White House, he made sure he handled every single part of the "Triple Wall of Privileges."

This would mean that wartime coalition ministers from all major parties were far more willing to cooperate with each other. Paul Addison (1975) argued that pre-war and wartime conditions led to a unique situation in post war Britain which led to a coming together of thinking in politics and society. This was strongly influenced by the Beveridge Report’s ‘Five Giants’. As mentioned before, this cooperation was also aided by the fact that fears of an extreme Labour government in 1945 had been disproved, meaning that key policy makers in the Conservative Government could be seen to be ‘One Nation Tories’; keen to build on national cooperation to maintain and essential post war consensus. Another fundamental aspect of post war consensus was the idea of the necessity of a ‘Big Government’; many Conservatives were now convinced of the government intervention in social and economic policies, resulting in them being far more in tune with public opinion and so accepted Labour's welfare policies such as Keynesian economics. With regard to Winston Churchill, his government were seen to indeed follow Keynesian economics, but

The New deal of 1933 is often regarded at the height of the government’s beneficial support for the rights of the worker. The overall aim of the legislation was to decrease unemployment left in the wake of the Great Depression, as well as improve the rights of those who had already found employment in the unskilled labour force. The National Industry Recovery Act marked a significant change in the attitude of the Governments that had gone before, in that Roosevelt’s economic plans tended to support the worker over the employer, seeking to guarantee minimum wages, as well as the rights of trade unions to exercise collective bargaining techniques. The real benefits of the act were limited in that it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, as it infringed on State’s rights. Despite this, the prospects for greater improvement in labour rights had never been better, as there was now a President who not only

Two American Presidents, both very influential in their time and both having had a great impact on history are Ronald Reagan and Woodrow Wilson. Both Presidents were advocates of peace even though they would not have hesitated to enter into a war if war was needed to insure the safety of the United States and Democracy as a whole. By use of small wars and political pressures both Reagan and Wilson, with the exception of Wilsons entering into WW-I, used diplomacy and these small conflicts to do what they thought was best and righteous to defend freedom and Democracy. But were they truly righteous individuals or did they just have their own ideas and agendas of what was best?

“The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy.” This quote by Woodrow Wilson fits perfectly with the topics that will be discussed. The major theme of this paper is bureaucracy. Bureaucracy refers to an administrative system in which agencies staffed largely by non elected officials perform specific tasks in accordance with standard procedures. The work of the bureaucracy involves implementing laws and procedures. Does this sound familiar? That is because most bureaucrats work for the executive branch of the government. The executive branch is the one that enforces the laws. Some of these law enforcing jobs include mail clerk, police officer, fireman, and first responder. These jobs are essential to our lives as Americans and are greatly appreciated. This paper will expound on the history, usage, and the Cabinet

“Many senior officials at the Treasury regarded the rising defence estimates and the Liberals’ social policies as dangerous because they required a constantly rising level of expenditure.” It soon became clear, however, that such approach was not appropriate. The outcome of the war became fully dependent on state action and not merely on the economy. It was of a crucial importance for the Cabinet to step in, allocate manpower, and organize the industry so as to avoid an inefficient use of resources (capital and people). Hence, Lloyd George stepped in and decided to initiate Reconstruction by restructuring the Cabinet and introducing various Committees, Ministries, and Commissions which were to assume extended powers and responsibilities within the private sphere of civil activities. It was, however, unclear whether this change in faith would pertain over the post-war period as well.

On July 26th 1945 for the first time in British history the Labour party won the general election by a landslide. They had a margin over conservatives with 180 seats, Labour ended up with 393 seats in the House of Commons and a total share of 47.8 per cent of the vote and the Conservatives obtained 213 seats, a result that few had expected. Winston Churchill had been a popular war time leader but after the war the people of Britain wanted change and this is what Labour’s programme of public ownership and social reform offered. The newly set up welfare state provided social protection that the pre-war period had lacked. The people were not concerned with other countries reparations; they were solely interested in their own futures. They wanted

Americans depend on government bureaucracies to accomplish most of what we expect from government, and we are oftentimes critical of a bureaucracy’s handling of its responsibilities. Bureaucracy is essential for carrying out the tasks of government. As government bureaucracies grew in the twentieth century, new management techniques sought to promote greater efficiency. The reorganization of the government to create the Department of Homeland Security and the Bush administration’s simultaneous push to contract out jobs to private employers raises the question as to whether the government or the private sector can best manage our national security. Ironically, the criticism of the bureaucracy may be a product

Wilson does an excellent job to dispel the public's perception of bureaucracy as a largely impersonal, poorly managed entity that employs unqualified staff who are buried in red tape. He explains, that to better understand why bureaucracies do what they do, you must recognize that public government agencies do not have the same goals as private independent businesses. The two operate with different sets of rules, goals, incentives, and constraints. In short, private companies are goal oriented, where bureaucracies are driven by constraints. Wilson demonstrates this by using Government

Advocates of the parliamentary form of government suggested a few competitive strengths of this system of government. Since it has gained a stable parliamentary majority, the government is able to smoothly process its legislative project. In addition, the government is adequately furnished that it could still choose to adopt measures designed to support the national interests while many strong sectional groups oppose such measures (Dyck, 2012). The prime minister is the leader of this type of government, who is obliged to be responsive to all its people’s demands. Also, the people have the right to vote and replace the prime minister due to any incompetency of governance that does not address and fulfill their desires. This is known as the non-confidence vote; the government may be removed when it has lost confidence in the parliament, and cause the head of state to resign a new government (Dyck, 2012). An example of such measure occurred in Britain on March 28th, 1979. When James Callaghan’s labour government was defeated in the House of Commons just by one vote, it was forced into an early election that was won by the opposition leader Margaret Thatcher (Dyck, 2012). In this case, it can avoid or at least reduce the period of legislative gridlock, because of its flexibility in elections and the power is centered in the country’s prime

It started off as a flat rate that quickly expanded to include additional rate schedules during the war. It expired in 1872 due to the end of the war, and a decrease in need for additional war funding. The wealthy argued that it was a “wartime measure”, and “not an experiment in public finance” (Thorndike and Ventry, p. 29).