Britain ESSAY STYLE QUESTIONS Flashcards
‘How effective were National Government of 1931-1939 in dealing with the problem of unemployment?’
(QL link all over)
Intro - Somewhat effective, evidence to suggest otherwise, due to to other events and factors.
P1 - EFFECTIVE as new jobs created e.g. 1935 British Shipping (Assistance) Act 1935 scrapped old ships for building new ones, + 1937 Factory Act extended from 7-11m workers under Factory Code, incentivising work + Special Areas Act 1934 provided got. aid to the most depressed areas + 1938 Holidays with Pay Act gave workers the right to a week’s paid holiday, which would incentivise work. -> These points explain why it was somehwat effective (use QWs)
P2 - INEFFECTIVE as 1936 Cotton Industry (Reorganisation) Act closed down non-profitable mills, which would make workers redundant, increasing unemployment + unemployment benefits cut by 10%, aggravating those unemployed (sharp rise 1932-1933) and more… -> These points explain why it was somewhat ineffective (use QWs)
P3 -Ineffective with usage of unorthdox policies + e.g. cuts in govt. spending contributed to massive hike in unemployment (1932-1933) + ‘sterling area’ which risked workers of job losses if confidence of bankers’ and investors’ falling (may have caused high inflation) + 1932 Import Duties Act introduced tariffs for non-empire goods, which may have led to a trade gap. -> These points explain why it was somewhat ineffective (use QWs)
Conc - National Government’s effectiveness at dealing with unemployment, however, this would be overshadowed by some unintended condsequences, due to policies mentioned earlier. Overall economic performance may have made unemployment improvements lacklusture + Employment improvements may have seen compromises in other sectors of the country’s welfare.
(check google docs)
‘Both industry and agriculture suffered in the 1930s’
(QL link all over)
Intro - Both somewhat suffered, govt. shortlisted ‘industry’ for revival, and agriculture suffered (to a certain extent), and ‘industry’ suffered less.
P1 - Industry some what suffered, due to 1936 Cotton Industry Act… + help to revive industry hit by Wall St however, cuts in govt. public sector spending would reduce goods and services’ demand -> less tax receipts for govt. to reinvest.
P2 - Agriculture to a certain extent (more than industry). -> Despite govt. scheems e.g marketing boards, already low wheat price fell by 50% + Rural wages just 1/3 of a labourer’s pay.
P3 - Industry suffered less than agriculture due to some economic recovery -> ‘cheap money’ left more disposable income to spent on goods and services, despite less tax receipts for govt. from this -> More homes bought meant more consumer confidence, stimulating investment + neutralising ‘cheap money’ cons
Conc - Agriculture suffered less due to recovery that came from this + due to economic improvements in other areas
(Check google docs)
To what extent did the govt. pursue orthodox economic policies in handling depression effects?
(QL link all over)
Intro - Attempted to pursue and succeeded to an extent but with compromises e.g. aimed to balance budget but compromised gold standard… -> leading to drawbacks
P1 - Balance budget by limiting govt. spending -> may prevent trade gap and so on…
P2 - Govt. compromised gold standard… -> GBP used rather than gold -> govt. would need discipline for a fixed exchange rate-> may reduce investors’ confidence, causing inflation from less money flowing in the economy, causing GBP value to fall.
P3 - Free trade compromised -> (1932 Import Duties Act) imposing tariffs… -> Making Brits’ imports costly would reduce Brits’ international competitiveness -> Trade gap may occur -> causing inflation, unemployment etc…
Conc - Attempts to pursue, some successes but with compromises
(check google docs)
‘Ramsay Macdonald was a traitor’
Intro - May have betrayed his party and some of his organisations he set up and worked with to an extent, however bought about some benefits for nation
P1 - Aligned himself with Cons (with some of their beliefs) + perhaps resigned too late and not straight after Lab split, damaging Lab credibility | HOWEVER, Cons’ policies may have bought about some benefit for Brits
P2 - Did not rely on his Economic Advisory Committee + sceptical of new ideas (which he set up)
P3 - May have not consulted his Lab party effectively prior to National govt + 1931 election badly timed as this tarnished Labour’s rep (HE PROMISED NOT TO CALL AN ELECTION HERE) | However, National govt. has some benefits DESPITE close 11 to 9 votes in favour of this national govt
P4 - Successes of National Govt. policies
Conc - May have betrayed his party and some of his organisations he set up and worked with to an extent, however, some benefits
‘Women experienced the most change as a result of WW1’
Intro - I agree with this however, other factors such as Ireland, Home Rule, some change for men, housing, Ireland, trade unions, the economy,education and more experienced significant change too.
P1 - Women experienced the most change, and men had some change
- (By 1918) 150k women in auxiliary forces + 1918 Representation of the People meant all men who’d seen active war service had the vote for the next election (Reasons for Cons decline in early 1920s through elections)
- (1919) Women could no longer be barred from career in law or civil service based on their gender.
- Other acts e.g. Matrimonial Causes Act, Guardianship of Infants Act etc.
- More opportunities for women in other areas.
P2 - Housing and the economy had a big change, despite it being somewhat lacklustre
- (1919) Housing and Town Planning Act built 200k homes (by 1922) however, £910 charged rather than £385. + (1921) Geddes Axe cut education spending by £18.2m. + (1921) Recession occurred with 86m working days lost.
P3 - Ireland and Home Rule led to Anglo-Irish Treaty
- Sinn Fein, IRA, etc.
P4 - Trade unions, Labour and socialism saw change as they prevailed.
- 1918 Labour Party constitution saw trade union membership 2x from 4m-8m.
- Lab have govt. experience + empathy towards towards Henderson being rejected by LG to attend 1917 Feb Stockholm conference boosted Lab support. + Rise in trade union membership may have caused industrial unrest.
- More socialistic approach seems to prevail due to this war.
Conc - Women experienced the most change from this war as more opportunities across different areas, with voting in a political regard, more legislation favouring them etc.
‘How important were the Labour governments in dealing with social problems in the years 1945 to 1951?’
Intro - Successful, however, drawbacks (state factors)
P1 - Housing and education -> 1946 New Towns Act (Kirby, Stevenage, Merseyside etc) + Over 800k homes built + However, just 4% went to technical schools + School building rundown
P2 - Nationalisation + Lab reforms - (1946-1951) Significant rise in coal output + electrification expanded £2700 compensation for private mine owners + Many miners had the same bosses before nationalisation + (1945 Family Allowances Act) + (1948 National Assistance Act)
P3 - NHS - Free universal healthcare + (1946) Penicillin discovered in partnership with NHS + Cures founded for major diseases e.g. tuberculosis + However prescription charges during Korean War causing Bevan and Gaitskell to fallout + (1948) For 47m people, just 10k dentists + No unified NHS administration + Some hospital buildings rundown
Conc - Successful but drawbacks -> Lab lost 1951 election due to ‘first past the post’ where despite higher vote share than Cons, Cons had more seats
(Link these if another question asks about PERMS of this)
