Go to first unread
Back
to top
History OCR F961 Essay help
Watch
How far did heath change the conservative party?
So im doing this essay, and i know that i have to do
we are told to lay it out
Poltical
econonmic
Social
how should i write this essay :s what points should i include and bc theres only three parts there how do i write it large enough?
thanks
signed, a panicking student
*EDIT
Signed- student who got an A in the end
So im doing this essay, and i know that i have to do
we are told to lay it out
Poltical
econonmic
Social
how should i write this essay :s what points should i include and bc theres only three parts there how do i write it large enough?
thanks
signed, a panicking student
*EDIT
Signed- student who got an A in the end
0
reply
Report
#2
Broadly, you have to discuss the pro and contra of all three areas. This essay title is rather different from the others, in that there is an element of synopticity in it (that is to say, comparison between past, and even future leaders).
Introduction :- Heath's aims. He explicitly said that he wanted a 'quiet revolution' in British politics. Be sure to reference the Selsdon Park Conference, wherein he outlined his new (economic) policies, and how they proved to be a break from the 'Middle Way' of Macmillan, but also how they broadly failed in practice, partly due to the lay of the British political landscape, but also because of Heath's own failings, in terms of his commitment. Thatcher took Heath's policies further (e.g. crushing the miners in '84/'85) and therefore can be seen as rather more pragmatic and successful. Heath was bitter that Thatcher capitalised on his ideology, and was rather more successful with it than he ever was (although you could argue that she had it easier in light of Callaghan).
I agree with the structure that you have been taught for most essays, especially those which emphasise success/failure. However, in this case, I would recommend discussing different events/issues in isolation, so as to allow for a synoptic comparison with other leaders. What I would say is that in other essays, always start with the paragraph on the economy, because this is generally what wins/loses elections.
- Heath joins the EEC in 1971 (formalised 1973). This is a success in theory because it should help to modernise the British economy, which has been struggling on its own (throughout the 1960s, Japan had 10 times the economic growth of Britain, and the public/politicians alike were acutely aware of this). However, it is hardly a change in that the Conservative Party had been the pro-Europe party throughout the previous decade (Macmillan tried to join in '61). Thatcher arguably did more to change Britain's relationship with Europe, as she secured a £1.5bn rebate in 1980, argued with many leaders, like Germany's Kohl and Jacques Delors, and warned against federalism in 1988. Her reluctance to join the ERM would lead to the resignation of her Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, in 1989. However, Heath does pose a change in that he was willing to accept any terms, whereas Macmillan was adamant that Britain should retain trading links with her Commonwealth, as France did. Arguably, Heath cannot be credited with too much success either. Firstly, he had joined rather too late, so the economic benefit was lessened, and secondly, he managed to join whereas Macmillan/Wilson had not because of the new Anglophilic French President Pompidou, who was rather less prone to vetoes than his predecessor, de Gaulle.
- End of post-war consensus? This is debatable. Some would argue that the consensus ended ideologically with Heath, but either in practice with Callaghan or Thatcher. However, he was the first Prime Minister to openly move away from 'full employment' being prioritised over inflation, instead moving towards Monetarism. Heath was also committed to allowing 'lame ducks' (uncompetitive businesses) to go under, thus taking a laissez-faire approach to the economy. Macmillan had suppressed any talk of monetarism in his government, which had led to the resignation of three Treasury Ministers in '58, including his Chancellor, Thorneycroft. However, in practice, as we know, Heath's policy was undermined. Firstly, he bailed out Rolls Royce in '81 and nationalised it, and secondly he gave a £34m subsidy to Upper Clyde shipbuilders to stop them from collapsing and even undergoing Communist subversion under Jimmy Reid. However, Thatcher, although pragmatic in that she was able to privatise a lot of British industry (e.g. BT 1984, which generated £5bn) she was also not prepared to take a completely laissez-faire approach, as she saved British Leyland in '84. Arguably then, Heath did break the consensus (although you could argue it differently).
- Heath vs the Miners - Macmillan had done very little in terms of the miners. The belief was that if anyone was to reform the Trade Unions, it should be Labour. However, 'In Place of Strife' went to the dogs in '69. So Heath made a marked change with the past in that he introduced legislation to directly address the issue, which Churchill/Eden/Mac/Home had largely ignored. The Industrial Relations Act of 1971 was supposed to curb trade union power by making industrial disputes subject to Industrial Relations Courts. The problem was that unions had to sign up to these courts to be subject to them, and thus none did. Heath was also perceived as lashing out at TUs in order to satisfy the anti-TU Zeitgeist, rather than offering a practical solution to poor British competitiveness. Thatcher however was perceived as better in the light of Callaghan's ****-ups, and her Employment Act of '82 restricted workplace pickets, 'closed shop' unions and made TUs more accountable, so no wildcat strikes.
The miners demanded a 45% pay rise in 1972, Heath originally offered them 7%. Then Heath introduced the Three Day Week in 1973, wherein speed limits were also set at 50mph max, TVs off by 10:30 etc due to acute power shortages. There was so little coal that many power stations could not even run at maintenance level, and had to be shut down. Heath eventually is forced to capitulate, offering them a 21% pay rise, especially given the exacerbation of the problem caused by a falling-out with the OPEC Middle East given the '73 Yom Kippur War. Vernon Bognador of KCL says "Think nationally was met with derision in a society where solidarity had been undermined by affluence." Thatcher however cleverly stockpiled coal in '81 and then attacked the miners '84/'85 and won a convincing victory. Therefore, Heath changed in ideology, Thatcher in practice.
-Northern Ireland - The 1973 Sunningdale Agreement, designed to tackle Irish issues, marks a change given the inaction of Macmillan, yet in practice it only creates the Council of Ireland, which becomes a medium wherein the Protestants still maintain control, despite it being a trilateral agreement. It also is ended prematurely following Heath's downfall '74. Thatcher however has little success with her 1985 Anglo-Irish agreement, due to both an unwillingness to disarm and strong Unionist opposition.
Conclusion - Heath a trendsetter, Thatcher a doer
Introduction :- Heath's aims. He explicitly said that he wanted a 'quiet revolution' in British politics. Be sure to reference the Selsdon Park Conference, wherein he outlined his new (economic) policies, and how they proved to be a break from the 'Middle Way' of Macmillan, but also how they broadly failed in practice, partly due to the lay of the British political landscape, but also because of Heath's own failings, in terms of his commitment. Thatcher took Heath's policies further (e.g. crushing the miners in '84/'85) and therefore can be seen as rather more pragmatic and successful. Heath was bitter that Thatcher capitalised on his ideology, and was rather more successful with it than he ever was (although you could argue that she had it easier in light of Callaghan).
I agree with the structure that you have been taught for most essays, especially those which emphasise success/failure. However, in this case, I would recommend discussing different events/issues in isolation, so as to allow for a synoptic comparison with other leaders. What I would say is that in other essays, always start with the paragraph on the economy, because this is generally what wins/loses elections.
- Heath joins the EEC in 1971 (formalised 1973). This is a success in theory because it should help to modernise the British economy, which has been struggling on its own (throughout the 1960s, Japan had 10 times the economic growth of Britain, and the public/politicians alike were acutely aware of this). However, it is hardly a change in that the Conservative Party had been the pro-Europe party throughout the previous decade (Macmillan tried to join in '61). Thatcher arguably did more to change Britain's relationship with Europe, as she secured a £1.5bn rebate in 1980, argued with many leaders, like Germany's Kohl and Jacques Delors, and warned against federalism in 1988. Her reluctance to join the ERM would lead to the resignation of her Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, in 1989. However, Heath does pose a change in that he was willing to accept any terms, whereas Macmillan was adamant that Britain should retain trading links with her Commonwealth, as France did. Arguably, Heath cannot be credited with too much success either. Firstly, he had joined rather too late, so the economic benefit was lessened, and secondly, he managed to join whereas Macmillan/Wilson had not because of the new Anglophilic French President Pompidou, who was rather less prone to vetoes than his predecessor, de Gaulle.
- End of post-war consensus? This is debatable. Some would argue that the consensus ended ideologically with Heath, but either in practice with Callaghan or Thatcher. However, he was the first Prime Minister to openly move away from 'full employment' being prioritised over inflation, instead moving towards Monetarism. Heath was also committed to allowing 'lame ducks' (uncompetitive businesses) to go under, thus taking a laissez-faire approach to the economy. Macmillan had suppressed any talk of monetarism in his government, which had led to the resignation of three Treasury Ministers in '58, including his Chancellor, Thorneycroft. However, in practice, as we know, Heath's policy was undermined. Firstly, he bailed out Rolls Royce in '81 and nationalised it, and secondly he gave a £34m subsidy to Upper Clyde shipbuilders to stop them from collapsing and even undergoing Communist subversion under Jimmy Reid. However, Thatcher, although pragmatic in that she was able to privatise a lot of British industry (e.g. BT 1984, which generated £5bn) she was also not prepared to take a completely laissez-faire approach, as she saved British Leyland in '84. Arguably then, Heath did break the consensus (although you could argue it differently).
- Heath vs the Miners - Macmillan had done very little in terms of the miners. The belief was that if anyone was to reform the Trade Unions, it should be Labour. However, 'In Place of Strife' went to the dogs in '69. So Heath made a marked change with the past in that he introduced legislation to directly address the issue, which Churchill/Eden/Mac/Home had largely ignored. The Industrial Relations Act of 1971 was supposed to curb trade union power by making industrial disputes subject to Industrial Relations Courts. The problem was that unions had to sign up to these courts to be subject to them, and thus none did. Heath was also perceived as lashing out at TUs in order to satisfy the anti-TU Zeitgeist, rather than offering a practical solution to poor British competitiveness. Thatcher however was perceived as better in the light of Callaghan's ****-ups, and her Employment Act of '82 restricted workplace pickets, 'closed shop' unions and made TUs more accountable, so no wildcat strikes.
The miners demanded a 45% pay rise in 1972, Heath originally offered them 7%. Then Heath introduced the Three Day Week in 1973, wherein speed limits were also set at 50mph max, TVs off by 10:30 etc due to acute power shortages. There was so little coal that many power stations could not even run at maintenance level, and had to be shut down. Heath eventually is forced to capitulate, offering them a 21% pay rise, especially given the exacerbation of the problem caused by a falling-out with the OPEC Middle East given the '73 Yom Kippur War. Vernon Bognador of KCL says "Think nationally was met with derision in a society where solidarity had been undermined by affluence." Thatcher however cleverly stockpiled coal in '81 and then attacked the miners '84/'85 and won a convincing victory. Therefore, Heath changed in ideology, Thatcher in practice.
-Northern Ireland - The 1973 Sunningdale Agreement, designed to tackle Irish issues, marks a change given the inaction of Macmillan, yet in practice it only creates the Council of Ireland, which becomes a medium wherein the Protestants still maintain control, despite it being a trilateral agreement. It also is ended prematurely following Heath's downfall '74. Thatcher however has little success with her 1985 Anglo-Irish agreement, due to both an unwillingness to disarm and strong Unionist opposition.
Conclusion - Heath a trendsetter, Thatcher a doer
1
reply
(Original post by pantone288u)
Broadly, you have to discuss the pro and contra of all three areas. This essay title is rather different from the others, in that there is an element of synopticity in it (that is to say, comparison between past, and even future leaders).
Introduction :- Heath's aims. He explicitly said that he wanted a 'quiet revolution' in British politics. Be sure to reference the Selsdon Park Conference, wherein he outlined his new (economic) policies, and how they proved to be a break from the 'Middle Way' of Macmillan, but also how they broadly failed in practice, partly due to the lay of the British political landscape, but also because of Heath's own failings, in terms of his commitment. Thatcher took Heath's policies further (e.g. crushing the miners in '84/'85) and therefore can be seen as rather more pragmatic and successful. Heath was bitter that Thatcher capitalised on his ideology, and was rather more successful with it than he ever was (although you could argue that she had it easier in light of Callaghan).
I agree with the structure that you have been taught for most essays, especially those which emphasise success/failure. However, in this case, I would recommend discussing different events/issues in isolation, so as to allow for a synoptic comparison with other leaders. What I would say is that in other essays, always start with the paragraph on the economy, because this is generally what wins/loses elections.
- Heath joins the EEC in 1971 (formalised 1973). This is a success in theory because it should help to modernise the British economy, which has been struggling on its own (throughout the 1960s, Japan had 10 times the economic growth of Britain, and the public/politicians alike were acutely aware of this). However, it is hardly a change in that the Conservative Party had been the pro-Europe party throughout the previous decade (Macmillan tried to join in '61). Thatcher arguably did more to change Britain's relationship with Europe, as she secured a £1.5bn rebate in 1980, argued with many leaders, like Germany's Kohl and Jacques Delors, and warned against federalism in 1988. Her reluctance to join the ERM would lead to the resignation of her Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, in 1989. However, Heath does pose a change in that he was willing to accept any terms, whereas Macmillan was adamant that Britain should retain trading links with her Commonwealth, as France did. Arguably, Heath cannot be credited with too much success either. Firstly, he had joined rather too late, so the economic benefit was lessened, and secondly, he managed to join whereas Macmillan/Wilson had not because of the new Anglophilic French President Pompidou, who was rather less prone to vetoes than his predecessor, de Gaulle.
- End of post-war consensus? This is debatable. Some would argue that the consensus ended ideologically with Heath, but either in practice with Callaghan or Thatcher. However, he was the first Prime Minister to openly move away from 'full employment' being prioritised over inflation, instead moving towards Monetarism. Heath was also committed to allowing 'lame ducks' (uncompetitive businesses) to go under, thus taking a laissez-faire approach to the economy. Macmillan had suppressed any talk of monetarism in his government, which had led to the resignation of three Treasury Ministers in '58, including his Chancellor, Thorneycroft. However, in practice, as we know, Heath's policy was undermined. Firstly, he bailed out Rolls Royce in '81 and nationalised it, and secondly he gave a £34m subsidy to Upper Clyde shipbuilders to stop them from collapsing and even undergoing Communist subversion under Jimmy Reid. However, Thatcher, although pragmatic in that she was able to privatise a lot of British industry (e.g. BT 1984, which generated £5bn) she was also not prepared to take a completely laissez-faire approach, as she saved British Leyland in '84. Arguably then, Heath did break the consensus (although you could argue it differently).
- Heath vs the Miners - Macmillan had done very little in terms of the miners. The belief was that if anyone was to reform the Trade Unions, it should be Labour. However, 'In Place of Strife' went to the dogs in '69. So Heath made a marked change with the past in that he introduced legislation to directly address the issue, which Churchill/Eden/Mac/Home had largely ignored. The Industrial Relations Act of 1971 was supposed to curb trade union power by making industrial disputes subject to Industrial Relations Courts. The problem was that unions had to sign up to these courts to be subject to them, and thus none did. Heath was also perceived as lashing out at TUs in order to satisfy the anti-TU Zeitgeist, rather than offering a practical solution to poor British competitiveness. Thatcher however was perceived as better in the light of Callaghan's ****-ups, and her Employment Act of '82 restricted workplace pickets, 'closed shop' unions and made TUs more accountable, so no wildcat strikes.
The miners demanded a 45% pay rise in 1972, Heath originally offered them 7%. Then Heath introduced the Three Day Week in 1973, wherein speed limits were also set at 50mph max, TVs off by 10:30 etc due to acute power shortages. There was so little coal that many power stations could not even run at maintenance level, and had to be shut down. Heath eventually is forced to capitulate, offering them a 21% pay rise, especially given the exacerbation of the problem caused by a falling-out with the OPEC Middle East given the '73 Yom Kippur War. Vernon Bognador of KCL says "Think nationally was met with derision in a society where solidarity had been undermined by affluence." Thatcher however cleverly stockpiled coal in '81 and then attacked the miners '84/'85 and won a convincing victory. Therefore, Heath changed in ideology, Thatcher in practice.
-Northern Ireland - The 1973 Sunningdale Agreement, designed to tackle Irish issues, marks a change given the inaction of Macmillan, yet in practice it only creates the Council of Ireland, which becomes a medium wherein the Protestants still maintain control, despite it being a trilateral agreement. It also is ended prematurely following Heath's downfall '74. Thatcher however has little success with her 1985 Anglo-Irish agreement, due to both an unwillingness to disarm and strong Unionist opposition.
Conclusion - Heath a trendsetter, Thatcher a doer
Broadly, you have to discuss the pro and contra of all three areas. This essay title is rather different from the others, in that there is an element of synopticity in it (that is to say, comparison between past, and even future leaders).
Introduction :- Heath's aims. He explicitly said that he wanted a 'quiet revolution' in British politics. Be sure to reference the Selsdon Park Conference, wherein he outlined his new (economic) policies, and how they proved to be a break from the 'Middle Way' of Macmillan, but also how they broadly failed in practice, partly due to the lay of the British political landscape, but also because of Heath's own failings, in terms of his commitment. Thatcher took Heath's policies further (e.g. crushing the miners in '84/'85) and therefore can be seen as rather more pragmatic and successful. Heath was bitter that Thatcher capitalised on his ideology, and was rather more successful with it than he ever was (although you could argue that she had it easier in light of Callaghan).
I agree with the structure that you have been taught for most essays, especially those which emphasise success/failure. However, in this case, I would recommend discussing different events/issues in isolation, so as to allow for a synoptic comparison with other leaders. What I would say is that in other essays, always start with the paragraph on the economy, because this is generally what wins/loses elections.
- Heath joins the EEC in 1971 (formalised 1973). This is a success in theory because it should help to modernise the British economy, which has been struggling on its own (throughout the 1960s, Japan had 10 times the economic growth of Britain, and the public/politicians alike were acutely aware of this). However, it is hardly a change in that the Conservative Party had been the pro-Europe party throughout the previous decade (Macmillan tried to join in '61). Thatcher arguably did more to change Britain's relationship with Europe, as she secured a £1.5bn rebate in 1980, argued with many leaders, like Germany's Kohl and Jacques Delors, and warned against federalism in 1988. Her reluctance to join the ERM would lead to the resignation of her Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, in 1989. However, Heath does pose a change in that he was willing to accept any terms, whereas Macmillan was adamant that Britain should retain trading links with her Commonwealth, as France did. Arguably, Heath cannot be credited with too much success either. Firstly, he had joined rather too late, so the economic benefit was lessened, and secondly, he managed to join whereas Macmillan/Wilson had not because of the new Anglophilic French President Pompidou, who was rather less prone to vetoes than his predecessor, de Gaulle.
- End of post-war consensus? This is debatable. Some would argue that the consensus ended ideologically with Heath, but either in practice with Callaghan or Thatcher. However, he was the first Prime Minister to openly move away from 'full employment' being prioritised over inflation, instead moving towards Monetarism. Heath was also committed to allowing 'lame ducks' (uncompetitive businesses) to go under, thus taking a laissez-faire approach to the economy. Macmillan had suppressed any talk of monetarism in his government, which had led to the resignation of three Treasury Ministers in '58, including his Chancellor, Thorneycroft. However, in practice, as we know, Heath's policy was undermined. Firstly, he bailed out Rolls Royce in '81 and nationalised it, and secondly he gave a £34m subsidy to Upper Clyde shipbuilders to stop them from collapsing and even undergoing Communist subversion under Jimmy Reid. However, Thatcher, although pragmatic in that she was able to privatise a lot of British industry (e.g. BT 1984, which generated £5bn) she was also not prepared to take a completely laissez-faire approach, as she saved British Leyland in '84. Arguably then, Heath did break the consensus (although you could argue it differently).
- Heath vs the Miners - Macmillan had done very little in terms of the miners. The belief was that if anyone was to reform the Trade Unions, it should be Labour. However, 'In Place of Strife' went to the dogs in '69. So Heath made a marked change with the past in that he introduced legislation to directly address the issue, which Churchill/Eden/Mac/Home had largely ignored. The Industrial Relations Act of 1971 was supposed to curb trade union power by making industrial disputes subject to Industrial Relations Courts. The problem was that unions had to sign up to these courts to be subject to them, and thus none did. Heath was also perceived as lashing out at TUs in order to satisfy the anti-TU Zeitgeist, rather than offering a practical solution to poor British competitiveness. Thatcher however was perceived as better in the light of Callaghan's ****-ups, and her Employment Act of '82 restricted workplace pickets, 'closed shop' unions and made TUs more accountable, so no wildcat strikes.
The miners demanded a 45% pay rise in 1972, Heath originally offered them 7%. Then Heath introduced the Three Day Week in 1973, wherein speed limits were also set at 50mph max, TVs off by 10:30 etc due to acute power shortages. There was so little coal that many power stations could not even run at maintenance level, and had to be shut down. Heath eventually is forced to capitulate, offering them a 21% pay rise, especially given the exacerbation of the problem caused by a falling-out with the OPEC Middle East given the '73 Yom Kippur War. Vernon Bognador of KCL says "Think nationally was met with derision in a society where solidarity had been undermined by affluence." Thatcher however cleverly stockpiled coal in '81 and then attacked the miners '84/'85 and won a convincing victory. Therefore, Heath changed in ideology, Thatcher in practice.
-Northern Ireland - The 1973 Sunningdale Agreement, designed to tackle Irish issues, marks a change given the inaction of Macmillan, yet in practice it only creates the Council of Ireland, which becomes a medium wherein the Protestants still maintain control, despite it being a trilateral agreement. It also is ended prematurely following Heath's downfall '74. Thatcher however has little success with her 1985 Anglo-Irish agreement, due to both an unwillingness to disarm and strong Unionist opposition.
Conclusion - Heath a trendsetter, Thatcher a doer
0
reply
Report
#4
No problem. Sorry I didn't reply earlier, given that you posted this two weeks ago and there are only 2 days until the exam!
0
reply
(Original post by pantone288u)
No problem. Sorry I didn't reply earlier, given that you posted this two weeks ago and there are only 2 days until the exam!
No problem. Sorry I didn't reply earlier, given that you posted this two weeks ago and there are only 2 days until the exam!
Its fine
thank you!Im of two minds whether to be worried or not, i havent gotten higher than a D in any of my essays but i handed in a typed up version (as i use a laptop) of some girl who got 46/50 and i only got a low c... i also handed in what my politics teacher said was an A grade and had come back from the exam board and got a D, so who knows
0
reply
Report
#6
I'm retaking from last year, when I had an absolute nightmare where I answered two questions from the foreign policy section and ended up with a C! The key is to follow that set essay structure - Economic, Political, Societal (except for particularly synoptic essays). Also be sure to assess the importance of each factor at the end of the paragraph in most essays, obviously in this Heath one you get marks for evaluating as to how far he changed the party compared to other leaders.
Also statistics are gold. Historians' quotes (which can be as general as "A leftist view would be...") are also great, and could probably be" blagged" somewhat (e.g. Historians of the Left/The Labour Left felt that Wilson did not do enough to make British society more socialist, following his '66 election majority of 94, up from 4 in' 64).
Personally, I'm fairly sure that there will be an Irish question this time round. I could talk you through tomorrow if that would help?
It's really irritating how there isn't much F961 discussion on here. I'm personally sort of worried about the exam, as I have real difficulty memorising the British stuff, whereas the Russian A2 I'm doing this year just really sticks with minimal revision (obviously, I'm going to step it up soon)! That said, virtually all of the stuff in that essay plan was off the top of my head. It's just Macmillan and Wilson who I find difficult. I know all the obvious stuff for them, but the obscure stuff doesn't come so easily.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Also statistics are gold. Historians' quotes (which can be as general as "A leftist view would be...") are also great, and could probably be" blagged" somewhat (e.g. Historians of the Left/The Labour Left felt that Wilson did not do enough to make British society more socialist, following his '66 election majority of 94, up from 4 in' 64).
Personally, I'm fairly sure that there will be an Irish question this time round. I could talk you through tomorrow if that would help?
It's really irritating how there isn't much F961 discussion on here. I'm personally sort of worried about the exam, as I have real difficulty memorising the British stuff, whereas the Russian A2 I'm doing this year just really sticks with minimal revision (obviously, I'm going to step it up soon)! That said, virtually all of the stuff in that essay plan was off the top of my head. It's just Macmillan and Wilson who I find difficult. I know all the obvious stuff for them, but the obscure stuff doesn't come so easily.
Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
(Original post by pantone288u)
I'm retaking from last year, when I had an absolute nightmare where I answered two questions from the foreign policy section and ended up with a C! The key is to follow that set essay structure - Economic, Political, Societal (except for particularly synoptic essays). Also be sure to assess the importance of each factor at the end of the paragraph in most essays, obviously in this Heath one you get marks for evaluating as to how far he changed the party compared to other leaders.
Also statistics are gold. Historians' quotes (which can be as general as "A leftist view would be..."
are also great, and could probably be" blagged" somewhat (e.g. Historians of the Left/The Labour Left felt that Wilson did not do enough to make British society more socialist, following his '66 election majority of 94, up from 4 in' 64).
Personally, I'm fairly sure that there will be an Irish question this time round. I could talk you through tomorrow if that would help?
It's really irritating how there isn't much F961 discussion on here. I'm personally sort of worried about the exam, as I have real difficulty memorising the British stuff, whereas the Russian A2 I'm doing this year just really sticks with minimal revision (obviously, I'm going to step it up soon)! That said, virtually all of the stuff in that essay plan was off the top of my head. It's just Macmillan and Wilson who I find difficult. I know all the obvious stuff for them, but the obscure stuff doesn't come so easily.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm retaking from last year, when I had an absolute nightmare where I answered two questions from the foreign policy section and ended up with a C! The key is to follow that set essay structure - Economic, Political, Societal (except for particularly synoptic essays). Also be sure to assess the importance of each factor at the end of the paragraph in most essays, obviously in this Heath one you get marks for evaluating as to how far he changed the party compared to other leaders.
Also statistics are gold. Historians' quotes (which can be as general as "A leftist view would be..."
are also great, and could probably be" blagged" somewhat (e.g. Historians of the Left/The Labour Left felt that Wilson did not do enough to make British society more socialist, following his '66 election majority of 94, up from 4 in' 64).Personally, I'm fairly sure that there will be an Irish question this time round. I could talk you through tomorrow if that would help?
It's really irritating how there isn't much F961 discussion on here. I'm personally sort of worried about the exam, as I have real difficulty memorising the British stuff, whereas the Russian A2 I'm doing this year just really sticks with minimal revision (obviously, I'm going to step it up soon)! That said, virtually all of the stuff in that essay plan was off the top of my head. It's just Macmillan and Wilson who I find difficult. I know all the obvious stuff for them, but the obscure stuff doesn't come so easily.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Im not to good on ireland, dont have any notes on it because i was ill
I dont have any difficulty remembering anything, just getting grades in essays
0
reply
These are 3 essays i did recently, two today in fact
all 3 are Ds
What do you think?
all 3 are Ds
What do you think?
0
reply
Report
#9
(Original post by Jory)
These are 3 essays i did recently, two today in fact
all 3 are Ds
What do you think?
These are 3 essays i did recently, two today in fact
all 3 are Ds
What do you think?
0
reply
Report
#10
Sorry to totally intervene but I'm also taking OCR History (A different topid but... meh) and my teacher has given me virtually no usable feedback since the start of the year. I score C (around 31/32 out of 50) on each essay question but I desperately want to get my analysis up to scratch. Do you guys suggest anything in particular?
Thanks.
Thanks.
0
reply
Report
#11
Difficult to say seeing as you're doing Tudors. But in the B side we do analysis mostly centred around public opinion and electoral success/failure, as well as comparison with other leaders. So maybe you could translate that across to your side?
0
reply
Report
#12
For this exam paper, does anyone know what might come up in tomorrow's exam? Like what do you guys think?
0
reply
Report
#13
(Original post by Jory)
Yeah i agree with that, my politics teacher called what was on the American civil war exam and she thinks it will be wilson and callaghan, 1951 - 64 Tories, and Ireland.
Yeah i agree with that, my politics teacher called what was on the American civil war exam and she thinks it will be wilson and callaghan, 1951 - 64 Tories, and Ireland.
1
reply
Report
#14
So, how did everyone find the exam?
I answered questions 17 and 18, but I thought they all looked fairly good
I answered questions 17 and 18, but I thought they all looked fairly good
0
reply
(Original post by pantone288u)
So, how did everyone find the exam?
I answered questions 17 and 18, but I thought they all looked fairly good
So, how did everyone find the exam?
I answered questions 17 and 18, but I thought they all looked fairly good
Heath
Intro
social - Miners, NUM, Scargill, strikes & unemployment (FAILED)
political - ireland, - in particular internment wihtout trial which lead to the events of bloody sunday (FAILED)
Economic - (couldent remember :s) so said we got into the EEC so he solved that problem, but he Uturned on his promise to stop stop-go ecomomics and the debt was high and stuff haha
first question
when analyising it i said the soical factor of rising living standards was more important than the political and economic factors because politicallly and economically the government was not as strong (profumo affair and suez) (and 750£M balance of payments deficit) would that be okay?
talked about labour in opposition
wages increase
housing as the most significant factor
Overall, happy with the exam
my conclusion with heath was as big as my actual paragraphs while the 1951 - 64 was only a few lines bc i did more paragraphs
0
reply
Report
#16
(Original post by Jory)
16 and 17
Heath
Intro
social - Miners, NUM, Scargill, strikes & unemployment (FAILED)
political - ireland, - in particular internment wihtout trial which lead to the events of bloody sunday (FAILED)
Economic - (couldent remember :s) so said we got into the EEC so he solved that problem, but he Uturned on his promise to stop stop-go ecomomics and the debt was high and stuff haha
first question
when analyising it i said the soical factor of rising living standards was more important than the political and economic factors because politicallly and economically the government was not as strong (profumo affair and suez) (and 750£M balance of payments deficit) would that be okay?
talked about labour in opposition
wages increase
housing as the most significant factor
Overall, happy with the exam
my conclusion with heath was as big as my actual paragraphs while the 1951 - 64 was only a few lines bc i did more paragraphs
16 and 17
Heath
Intro
social - Miners, NUM, Scargill, strikes & unemployment (FAILED)
political - ireland, - in particular internment wihtout trial which lead to the events of bloody sunday (FAILED)
Economic - (couldent remember :s) so said we got into the EEC so he solved that problem, but he Uturned on his promise to stop stop-go ecomomics and the debt was high and stuff haha
first question
when analyising it i said the soical factor of rising living standards was more important than the political and economic factors because politicallly and economically the government was not as strong (profumo affair and suez) (and 750£M balance of payments deficit) would that be okay?
talked about labour in opposition
wages increase
housing as the most significant factor
Overall, happy with the exam
my conclusion with heath was as big as my actual paragraphs while the 1951 - 64 was only a few lines bc i did more paragraphs
0
reply
(Original post by pantone288u)
What you wrote does sound good, well done! However, I think failing to mention the economic stuff about Heath could cost you :/ ...
What you wrote does sound good, well done! However, I think failing to mention the economic stuff about Heath could cost you :/ ...
it was a large paragaph
0
reply
(Original post by pantone288u)
What you wrote does sound good, well done! However, I think failing to mention the economic stuff about Heath could cost you :/ ...
What you wrote does sound good, well done! However, I think failing to mention the economic stuff about Heath could cost you :/ ...
0
reply
Report
#19
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
