AQA HIS3J The State and The People: Britain: 1918-1964

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/1517/exam1k.jpg
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/8383/exam2q.jpg
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/7616/exam3.jpg
http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/9408/exam4.jpg

I don't know how they'll turn out. My scanner was playing up but they should be readable...

You have literally saved my life, thank you!

I've been revising Labour constantly, I really think/hope it's going to come up. There's got to be some sort of Labour-related question though, surely?

To be honest, what I'm most worried about is time management, I'm really struggling getting two substantial 45 mark questions down in 90 minutes. There's just so much content, I'm almost certain my timing's going to let me down in the exam next week.

...I'm panicking.

I think in light of June 2010's questions - and as we have little else to go by- DLG might be unlikely as it was asked then, as was the Tory's 1918-1945 political record and their economic handling of 1951-1964. I don't think enough on the syllabus is focused on the Liberals, and therefore my guesses, would be on the Labour party - either of Macdonald's premierships or both- and on the '30's, perhaps about new industries.
Trying to reason is hard however, the examiners could double bluff and ask very similar questions again. I'm not sure if there was a January resit paper, might be handy if one of us could find out.
Thanks for the reply

Nice to see some other people doing my course!!!
well, aqa set similar questions (LG, conservative 1924-1964, and EEC and economic problems) in the specimen paper, as well as the june 2010 paper, whether that means anything i don't know!!

Was there one in january 2011?? xxx

It can only be done in June.

how random!!!! anyways, i just hope that they ask good questions, one perhaps similar to the two already set?? This is after all only a new syllabus and His1G i did last year would ask quite similar questions!!

I have completely switched off post 1951 too, it happens every year, the stuff towards the end of the syllabus is crammed into 2 lessons. When i done a paper on America we missed out Hiroshima as it was the last part of the syllabus- as if it was no big deal ha.

Labour synoptic questions,hmm. I think the most synoptic of all: How far can the rise of Labour in the period 1918-1964 be considered a result of (insert factor)?

Less synoptic could incorporate the first and second premierships of Macdonald. Part of me wonders; as it is the first time they are - assumably- asking about Labour, perhaps focus would be put on Attlee as 1945-1951 was the only time they actually implemented significant policies. Maybe not, but just a theory.

Also, assuming a question will be on the Tories, perhaps this will focus around Baldwin, given his importance and the fact that the Tory question in June was 1951-1964 and thus predominantly Churchill,Eden and Macmillan.

Just ideas

They all sound like sensible predictions to be honest. I imagine the National Government could also come up in some shape or form, or even the 30s was is the devil's decade (which would be an AMAZING question)

We looked at the 'devils decade' question in class. It is a nice question, but a bit ambigious. Out of interest -as it sounds like you are prepared for such a question ha-how would you go about answering it ? Just for basis of comparison.

Haha well we also did this question in class, I think it would be a nice question because it's nowhere near as complicated as some of the other stuff on the course.

This would be my plan:

Intro: Wall Street Crash, Devils Decade due to high unemployment, war stopped this with rearmament/production, is the phrase fair?

1) Yes. Unemployment in staples was high. Miners 35%, Ship Building 62%, Steel 48%.
Decline of staples had been happening for many years - structural unemployment. Problems with adaption to economy - transition from old to new industries. Pools of localised unemployment - North East, Scotland and South Wales.

2) No. Growth of new industries, although there was seasonal unemployment. Motoring, electricity etc. employment growing. Mass production methods and low costs help increase profits.
Incomes increased on average during this period - also increased consumer spending.
Also housing boom due to over production and lower interest rates (cheap money to encourage investment) - more people owned their own homes.
Towards end of period rearmament - got near full employment.

3) No. Positive political atmosphere. No political extremism/intense opposition like europe.
Communists/Fascists (Mosley) had very limited success - due to gov measures keeping prosperity?
3 million car owners, increased leisure opportunities, cinema etc.
AJP Taylor said people were enjoying a richer life than ever before - shorter hours, higher wages, more holidays. Holidays with Pay Act 1938.

4) Yes. Depression was more horrific because against a general backdrop of rising living standards.
Bad for those who were unemployed. Dole and means test were humiliating, long term unemployment persisted. If unemployed for over a month less likely to be employed again.
20 million underfed, many children living on the poverty line.
Psychological effects on the population.

Conclusion: Fair for certain areas but overall there was a growth in prosperity.

Not sure how good that is but it's quite simple.

Thinking of gambling on not revising 1951-1964. Worth the risk????

I was tempted to do that as well, but the decided to revise it anyway. To be honest, you would be unlucky to be unable to dodge it, as it came up last time. BUT, a) is it worth it, and b) you could get a really awkward question on a topic you thought was ok.

EDIT: Also, an interesting thing here. Was talking to a friend today, and he though a potential theme for a Labour synoptic question could be this:

To what extent did Labour put gaining political power/success before ideology? Either in the period 1924-64 or just 1924-51?

Just a thought