Unit 3 - The State and the People: Britain 1918-64 (HIS3J)
History and archaeology discussion, revision, exam and homework help.
-
- Reputation:
- Full Member
- Posts: 99
Re: Unit 3 - The State and the People: Britain 1918-64 (HIS3J)surely they can't relate a 45 marker to the abdication on its own? if anything baldwin dealt with the situation well(Original post by twinlensreflex)
I'm thinking fairly unlikely, they've already asked three questions explicitly about the Tories and another one where they feature a lot. I'd be surprised if they did anyway. In comparison there's one explicitly Liberal question and another two explicitly Labour. But there hasn't been a dominance question either...
I will cry if they ask about the abdication crisis
-
- Reputation:
- Full Member
- Posts: 77
Re: Unit 3 - The State and the People: Britain 1918-64 (HIS3J)im going to guess that there will be a question on the 30's, as it hasnt come up specifically before, and the 20's, either conservative dominance or why labour failed to retain government and a comparison between two conservative pm's (baldwin and Macmillan??)
does anyone know what to include on an essay on changes to social vaules after ww1? the only thing i can think of is women in work -
- Reputation:
- Full Member
- Location: Essex
- Posts: 141
Re: Unit 3 - The State and the People: Britain 1918-64 (HIS3J)My two teachers are convinced that something to do with the National Government will come up and/or something in-between 1940-1951 as there has not been a question specifically about either of those.
And the abdication crisis won't come up as a question on it's own, but funny enough I'll be able to write about that 'cos that's the bit I always remember xD
Does anyone think a question on consensus will appear in some shape or form? -
- Reputation:
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 346
Re: Unit 3 - The State and the People: Britain 1918-64 (HIS3J)My teacher has the same feeling, something on housing, economy, welfare state or nationalisation!(Original post by Katerzzz)
My two teachers are convinced that something to do with the National Government will come up and/or something in-between 1940-1951 as there has not been a question specifically about either of those.
And the abdication crisis won't come up as a question on it's own, but funny enough I'll be able to write about that 'cos that's the bit I always remember xD
Does anyone think a question on consensus will appear in some shape or form?
I seriously doubt it, they've already asked 'how successfully was the economy managed 1951-64' and also 'to what extent was there consensus between 51-64'
It could be on EEC (I seriously hope it is!) or perhaps something like "Baldwin was better than Macmillan" Assess.
Only time will tell
-
- Reputation:
- Full Member
- Location: Essex
- Posts: 141
Re: Unit 3 - The State and the People: Britain 1918-64 (HIS3J)Yep...sure will. I've been fretting over this exam for so long yet in 48 hours it will all be over. As my teacher says, you should know enough to get you through the questions and enough about it to elaborate it.(Original post by Super Mario 64)
My teacher has the same feeling, something on housing, economy, welfare state or nationalisation!
I seriously doubt it, they've already asked 'how successfully was the economy managed 1951-64' and also 'to what extent was there consensus between 51-64'
It could be on EEC (I seriously hope it is!) or perhaps something like "Baldwin was better than Macmillan" Assess.
Only time will tell
Have they really asked a Consensus question before? Woo! That's what I hate. And thank God they've asked something on the General Strike.
Fingers crossed for everyone!
-
- Reputation:
- Full Member
- Location: Essex
- Posts: 141
Well, I would personally structure it like this;(Original post by humera01)
How would you guys structure a 'baldwin was better than macmillain' question...i would have no idea about how to adress it : (
Baldwin successes
Macmillan successes
Baldwin failures
Macmillan failures
My teacher said try to go for an obvious structure, so for me that would be like the one above or in terms of a non-comparison question I'd try to go with social/political/ economic paragraphs. And in terms of 'Such and such was a huge success/massive failure of X government' I'd probably go for;
Yes it was a massive failure
But it was good because
Other massive failures
Hope this helps somewhat!
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App -
- Reputation:
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 346
Re: Unit 3 - The State and the People: Britain 1918-64 (HIS3J)1) Intro(Original post by humera01)
How would you guys structure a 'baldwin was better than macmillain' question...i would have no idea about how to adress it : (
2) Baldwin 1923 & 1924-1929 & 1929-35 successes
In 1923 he managed to renegotiate the debts to USA to be repaid at 3% interest over 62 years which gave Britain room for more expenditure. He handled the General Strike well because it only lasted for less than 2 weeks. Under his government he introduced the Unemployment Act 1927, and the Local Government Act 1929. Also the Trade Disputes Act 1927. The Widows Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act 1925 too.
He was increasingly dominant between 1929-35 even though it was MacDonald who was prime minister. He managed to control the Conservative party over at a time when state intervention was necessary e.g. Wheatley Housing Act 1924. Unemployment peaked at 3 million in 1932 but it gradually reduced to 2 million by 1935 which the 'thinly disguised Conservative government' had been associated with. They left the Gold Standard in 1931 which reduced the value of the £ by 25% which helped exports. He introduced the Cotton Industry Act 1935 and the British Shipping Act 1936. The Import Duties Act placed a 10% tariff on all imports to help the demand for exports to grow, and the British Iron and Steel federation had been set up to place tariff on these raw materials to reduce demand for foreign iron and steel.
3) Baldwin 1923 & 1924-29 & 1929-35 failures
He lost the election in 1923 as a result of introducing protectionist policies, so nothing much happened in 1923 at all.
There were a total of 162 million working days lost during the General Strike. Coal exports were still falling and the return to the Gold Standard in April 1925 increased the value of the £ by 10% which worsened the export position of Britain, further reducing coal demand. Coal exports halved between 1925-6. He was associated with mass unemployment and also blamed for the militant strategies against the General Strike. He claimed the General Strike to be an attack on the constitutional government when it clearly was not this. The Jarrow Crusade happened as a result of 80% unemployment in Jarrow, but nothing was done about this until philanthropist John Jarvis came along (But the government was not responsible for this).
The Special Areas Act 1934 only created 50,000 jobs total when £9 million had been spent in areas such as Cumberland, Scotland and Tyneside.
Labour were winning by-elections between 1931 and 1935 and in the 1935 election, Conservatives lost seats whilst Labour rose to 154, decreasing the Conservatives overall majority.
4)Macmillan successes
Churchill asked for 300,000 houses a year to improve the shortage that had come about from the war. Macmillan did even better than this in some cases, producing 327,000 houses in 1953 and 354,000 in 1954 and still maintained this average for a prolonged period. Between 51-63, wages rose by 72% but prices only rose by 45%, so there was prosperity and improvements in living standards. 6000 schools had been built, along with 11 universities, and current ones were encouraged to expand, as well as Colleges of Advanced Technology being established in order to promote the development of technology.
Unemployment had never returned to the 1930 levels. A 2 shilling prescription charge was introduced for NHS funding. labour's land development tax was abolished to encourage expansion of land and £100 million had been given to agricultural works between 1960-61 to improve machinery and subsidise farming. When he applied to the EEC in '61, he also set up the New Economics Development Council and the National Incomes Commission to discuss new ideas for economic growth and & central planning. He had a good handling of the Suez Crisis in 1956 and it had only turned out to be a short term problem as his smooth political skills had helped the public forget about it. His extensive de-colonisation was skilfully handled and helped Britain cut back on expenditure. He improved upon the Welfare State and also knew that Nationalisation was an important achievement not to be reversed. The reactionary 'stop go' policies were effective in balancing inflation, economic growth, unemployment and the balance of payments.
5) Macmillan failures
He arguably had more failures than he did successes. His failure to join the EEC in 1963 was a great setback to the economy. Between 1951-73, British production grew by 35%, whereas Germany's grew by 90% and French by 75%. Britain's economic growth was only 2.8% on average compared to Germany's 4.9%. The 'stop-go' policies were mainly short term solutions to a greater long term problem. EFTA was not as economically beneficial as the EEC could have been, as Britain was the most developed country among the Commonwealth countries. The Night of the Long Knives incident meant alterations to a third of all ministerial posts and it was hoped that this radical reshuffling would help inject fresh air into the government as new ideas would be implemented, but this was not the case. It damaged his reputation for his short noticed move, causing great offence and lowering party moral. I would mention the Profumo Affair here too. Although he built many houses, critics have argued that they were of a lower standard compared to the ones that Labour had built, even though Labour had built less. He was too concerned with the 'special relationship' that Britain supposedly had with the US, but this did not even exist, and if this attention had been diverted to the British economy then perhaps there would have been greater improvements. In 1951 there was a deficit of £748 and by the time he left office, this deficit still existed. The 'stops' discouraged long term investment by increasing interest rates and he was too focused on Grammar schools, preventing County Councils from building Comprehensive schools instead. In 1963 there was also a sharp rise in unemployment, reaching 900,000.
For the conclusion, you could argue it either way, but I'd definitely mention that failing to join the EEC was very important and Baldwin did not pay as much attention to the economy as Macmillan did. Just weigh everything up basically.
There's definitely much more to put in an essay like this and would definitely be classed as the 'breadth' question, but in the time given I don't think you'd be able to get all of this down.
If there's anything that anyone wants me to elaborate on please let me know, just trying to help as much as I can! -
- Reputation:
- Full Member
- Location: Essex
- Posts: 141
WHOA! Thought Wheatley was MacDonald?!?(Original post by Super Mario 64)
1) Intro
2) Baldwin 1923 & 1924-1929 & 1929-35 successes
In 1923 he managed to renegotiate the debts to USA to be repaid at 3% interest over 62 years which gave Britain room for more expenditure. He handled the General Strike well because it only lasted for less than 2 weeks. Under his government he introduced the Unemployment Act 1927, and the Local Government Act 1929. Also the Trade Disputes Act 1927. The Widows Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act 1925 too.
He was increasingly dominant between 1929-35 even though it was MacDonald who was prime minister. He managed to control the Conservative party over at a time when state intervention was necessary e.g. Wheatley Housing Act 1924. Unemployment peaked at 3 million in 1932 but it gradually reduced to 2 million by 1935 which the 'thinly disguised Conservative government' had been associated with. They left the Gold Standard in 1931 which reduced the value of the £ by 25% which helped exports. He introduced the Cotton Industry Act 1935 and the British Shipping Act 1936. The Import Duties Act placed a 10% tariff on all imports to help the demand for exports to grow, and the British Iron and Steel federation had been set up to place tariff on these raw materials to reduce demand for foreign iron and steel.
3) Baldwin 1923 & 1924-29 & 1929-35 failures
He lost the election in 1923 as a result of introducing protectionist policies, so nothing much happened in 1923 at all.
There were a total of 162 million working days lost during the General Strike. Coal exports were still falling and the return to the Gold Standard in April 1925 increased the value of the £ by 10% which worsened the export position of Britain, further reducing coal demand. Coal exports halved between 1925-6. He was associated with mass unemployment and also blamed for the militant strategies against the General Strike. He claimed the General Strike to be an attack on the constitutional government when it clearly was not this. The Jarrow Crusade happened as a result of 80% unemployment in Jarrow, but nothing was done about this until philanthropist John Jarvis came along (But the government was not responsible for this).
The Special Areas Act 1934 only created 50,000 jobs total when £9 million had been spent in areas such as Cumberland, Scotland and Tyneside.
Labour were winning by-elections between 1931 and 1935 and in the 1935 election, Conservatives lost seats whilst Labour rose to 154, decreasing the Conservatives overall majority.
4)Macmillan successes
Churchill asked for 300,000 houses a year to improve the shortage that had come about from the war. Macmillan did even better than this in some cases, producing 327,000 houses in 1953 and 354,000 in 1954 and still maintained this average for a prolonged period. Between 51-63, wages rose by 72% but prices only rose by 45%, so there was prosperity and improvements in living standards. 6000 schools had been built, along with 11 universities, and current ones were encouraged to expand, as well as Colleges of Advanced Technology being established in order to promote the development of technology.
Unemployment had never returned to the 1930 levels. A 2 shilling prescription charge was introduced for NHS funding. labour's land development tax was abolished to encourage expansion of land and £100 million had been given to agricultural works between 1960-61 to improve machinery and subsidise farming. When he applied to the EEC in '61, he also set up the New Economics Development Council and the National Incomes Commission to discuss new ideas for economic growth and & central planning. He had a good handling of the Suez Crisis in 1956 and it had only turned out to be a short term problem as his smooth political skills had helped the public forget about it. His extensive de-colonisation was skilfully handled and helped Britain cut back on expenditure. He improved upon the Welfare State and also knew that Nationalisation was an important achievement not to be reversed. The reactionary 'stop go' policies were effective in balancing inflation, economic growth, unemployment and the balance of payments.
5) Macmillan failures
He arguably had more failures than he did successes. His failure to join the EEC in 1963 was a great setback to the economy. Between 1951-73, British production grew by 35%, whereas Germany's grew by 90% and French by 75%. Britain's economic growth was only 2.8% on average compared to Germany's 4.9%. The 'stop-go' policies were mainly short term solutions to a greater long term problem. EFTA was not as economically beneficial as the EEC could have been, as Britain was the most developed country among the Commonwealth countries. The Night of the Long Knives incident meant alterations to a third of all ministerial posts and it was hoped that this radical reshuffling would help inject fresh air into the government as new ideas would be implemented, but this was not the case. It damaged his reputation for his short noticed move, causing great offence and lowering party moral. I would mention the Profumo Affair here too. Although he built many houses, critics have argued that they were of a lower standard compared to the ones that Labour had built, even though Labour had built less. He was too concerned with the 'special relationship' that Britain supposedly had with the US, but this did not even exist, and if this attention had been diverted to the British economy then perhaps there would have been greater improvements. In 1951 there was a deficit of £748 and by the time he left office, this deficit still existed. The 'stops' discouraged long term investment by increasing interest rates and he was too focused on Grammar schools, preventing County Councils from building Comprehensive schools instead. In 1963 there was also a sharp rise in unemployment, reaching 900,000.
For the conclusion, you could argue it either way, but I'd definitely mention that failing to join the EEC was very important and Baldwin did not pay as much attention to the economy as Macmillan did. Just weigh everything up basically.
There's definitely much more to put in an essay like this and would definitely be classed as the 'breadth' question, but in the time given I don't think you'd be able to get all of this down.
If there's anything that anyone wants me to elaborate on please let me know, just trying to help as much as I can!
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App -
- Reputation:
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 346
Re: Unit 3 - The State and the People: Britain 1918-64 (HIS3J)It was but it was direct government intervention to provide housing and conservative policy did go along the lines of state intervention but Baldwin had to persuade the conservatives that it was necessary(Original post by Katerzzz)
WHOA! Thought Wheatley was MacDonald?!?
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
-
- Reputation:
- Full Member
- Location: Essex
- Posts: 141
Re: Unit 3 - The State and the People: Britain 1918-64 (HIS3J)Ohhh...right...you had me worried there for a second xD(Original post by Super Mario 64)
It was but it was direct government intervention to provide housing and conservative policy did go along the lines of state intervention but Baldwin had to persuade the conservatives that it was necessary
-
- Reputation:
- Peer Of The TSR Realm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Posts: 1,423
Re: Unit 3 - The State and the People: Britain 1918-64 (HIS3J)I've found I got better marks in comparison essays if I covered both PMs in the same paragraph, so considering the economic record, social conditions and so on. I find it a lot easier than doing good things about one and then the other, I tend to forget one or I freak that I won't have enough time to cover it all. So if you're tight on time I'd definitely suggest structuring it like that.(Original post by humera01)
How would you guys structure a 'baldwin was better than macmillain' question...i would have no idea about how to adress it : (
-
- Reputation:
- Peer Of The TSR Realm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Posts: 1,423
Re: Unit 3 - The State and the People: Britain 1918-64 (HIS3J)9am(Original post by humera01)
by the way is this exam in the morning or afternoon....iv lost my exam timetable -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 318
Re: Unit 3 - The State and the People: Britain 1918-64 (HIS3J)im just going to go over evrythign one more time.... and then practice a few essays .....(Original post by beccaa:))
how are people revising today? feels like i've gone over everything a million times!
I litteraly cant wait for this exam now tumarow ...so that i can move on to something new -
- Reputation:
- Full Member
- Posts: 77
Re: Unit 3 - The State and the People: Britain 1918-64 (HIS3J)i think if i read over my notes one more time i will be sick...(Original post by humera01)
im just going to go over evrythign one more time.... and then practice a few essays .....
I litteraly cant wait for this exam now tumarow ...so that i can move on to something new
