The Making of Modern Britain 1951-2007 Essay WHAT GRADE IS THIS? Thoughts?

Watch
MGK
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Hello - I have written an essay for the Making of Modern Britain during the 1950's under timed conditions by hand today, and rewrote it onto the computer to ask you guys what you think? You are more than free to use this to revise if you think it'll help you - but if possible I was wandering if any of you would suggest what you think of it / what band / what needs improving as a means of improving both of our revision! I don't go to a sixth form for history, I am educating myself. Moreover, if anyone would want to make a WhatsApp / etc group chat on History for the making of modern britain or Tsarist Russia / communist - I'd be very happy to! Best of luck to everyone on exams!



‘The Conservative ‘stop-go’ economic policies in the years 1955 to 1964 fundamentally weakened the British economy.’

In an attempt to curb inflation due to wage increases outstripping the rate of production, the policies of ‘stop-go’ under the conservatives between 1955-1964 aimed to keep British economy afloat through maintenance of growth and employment. Nonetheless, such measures led to the balance of payments crisis in 1956-1960, and further drove the economy into a process of stagflation – that by 1961, the government were forced to introduce a ‘pay pause’ and request an emergency loan from the IMF. However, the stop-go economic policies wasn’t the reason for such weakness in economy but a measure introduced to prevent further weaknesses due to other reasons, such as the failure to acknowledge the benefits of the EEC in 1957, and pressures from the United States following the Suez Crisis in 1958 which caused the ‘run on the pound’.


The stop-go economic policies between 1955-1964 prevented progression of the British economy between 1955-64, as the government’s controls in attempts to curb an increase in inflation through high interest rates and age freezes as an attempt to reduce demand deflated the economy, and prevented the expansion of productivity for businessmen looking for loans for investment. Nonetheless, such policies were required in order to help the balance of payments crisis caused by a major trade deficit following wage increases. Between 1956-1960, the overall trade balance was +132, and Macmillan’s belief of ‘common sense’ needed in order to prevent the overheating of economy through cyclic stop-go measures were needed to maintain the economy. Subsequently, one must understand that the stop-go policy wasn’t a measure which weakened the British economy, but was a policy to curb any further crisis or trade deficits from occurring.


The ‘stop-go’ policies can also be regarded as beneficial to the economy. During the period of 1955-1964, Britain experienced such economic growth that Conservative posters described the situation, as ‘Britain never had it so good’. Moreover, an increase in affluence and consumerism in individuals, such as the 25% increase in car ownership between 1957-59 and the fact that by 1959, over 50% of the country had owned luxury items such as a TV – showed that the Conservative policies such as ‘stop-go’ was creating opportunities that were never experienced before. Although such occurrence could be regarded as the conservatives ‘coasting’ through the years of post-war developments and the technological revolution, the fact that such developments occurred simultaneously of ‘stop-go’ prevents any criticism being fairly attributed to such policy for the weakness of the British economy, as many, including Labour ministers, would suggest that the period 1955-1964 was of economic expansion and of not economic weakness, and the policy of ‘stop-go’ was one which was carried throughout the period.


The decision to invade Suez in 1958 under Eden placed significant strain on the British economy from the United States. Having failed to inform the U.S following the reveal of Suez, the U.S threatened to withdraw funding and use of GBP in international currency markets, resulting in the ‘run on the pound’. Such pressures placed by the U.S on Britain revealed the economic weakness and dependence on the United States backing. Thorneycroft’s reactionary policies of monetarism in 1959 further highlighted the weakness of the British economy, as the money supply had to be cut and limitations of wage increases had to be introduced in order to maintain the £ value in foreign markets. The US hadn’t caused such disaster in the British economy, but exposed the underlying weakness that had been present since 1951, which had been masked through the technological revolution occurring worldwide. Therefore, the ‘stop-go’ policy wasn’t the reason for economic weakness, as situations such as Suez had revealed underlying problems, which had persisted throughout the period.

Moreover, Britain’s inability to recognise the benefits of the EEC in 1958 further resulted into the economic weakness of the country in international comparison, as countries such as West Germany and France experienced rapid economic progression up to 1964. By 1959, West Germany had double industrial production than the United Kingdom, and by 1962, West Germany had 20% of world shares whereas Britain only had 15%. Having believed the ‘special relationship’ with the United States would be significantly damaged if Britain had entered the EEC, and the belief that free market principles suggesting the ‘Durham miners won’t wear it, I’m afraid’ clearly suggested that Britain believed it was far too superior to be in such trade group. Although economic output hadn’t decreased and Britain’s economy hadn’t entirely weakened as a result, such economic growth by EEC members, as well as Macmillan’s attempts to join in 1961 indicated the desperation of the United Kingdom, and the understanding of the potential of such market. Developments made in foreign economies had resulted in the appearance of the weakness of the British economy, but such weakness was in relation and fundamental weakness had not occurred, especially due to the fact of ‘stop-go’.

The ‘stop-go’ policies certainly didn’t bring about economic developments, as they eventually led to the balance of payments deficit. However, one must understand such measure was merely to prevent further failures in the economy, and was a measure in hopes of reversing economic weaknesses, which persisted throughout 1955-1964. Furthermore, events in foreign countries had presented the concurrent failures in the British economy, and put further pressure on it. In addition, the growth of countries in 1955-1964 elsewhere in the world in economy had given the appearance that the British economy was weakened, when progression was still occurring – just not as fast. Subsequently, ‘stop-go’ policies hadn’t weakened the economy, as the economy wasn’t weakened during this period. The weakness in economy had persisted since 1945, and growth rates of the United Kingdom had only dropped during this period.
0
reply
londinondi
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
(Original post by MGK)
Hello - I have written an essay for the Making of Modern Britain during the 1950's under timed conditions by hand today, and rewrote it onto the computer to ask you guys what you think? You are more than free to use this to revise if you think it'll help you - but if possible I was wandering if any of you would suggest what you think of it / what band / what needs improving as a means of improving both of our revision! I don't go to a sixth form for history, I am educating myself. Moreover, if anyone would want to make a WhatsApp / etc group chat on History for the making of modern britain or Tsarist Russia / communist - I'd be very happy to! Best of luck to everyone on exams!



‘The Conservative ‘stop-go’ economic policies in the years 1955 to 1964 fundamentally weakened the British economy.’

In an attempt to curb inflation due to wage increases outstripping the rate of production, the policies of ‘stop-go’ under the conservatives between 1955-1964 aimed to keep British economy afloat through maintenance of growth and employment. Nonetheless, such measures led to the balance of payments crisis in 1956-1960, and further drove the economy into a process of stagflation – that by 1961, the government were forced to introduce a ‘pay pause’ and request an emergency loan from the IMF. However, the stop-go economic policies wasn’t the reason for such weakness in economy but a measure introduced to prevent further weaknesses due to other reasons, such as the failure to acknowledge the benefits of the EEC in 1957, and pressures from the United States following the Suez Crisis in 1958 which caused the ‘run on the pound’.


The stop-go economic policies between 1955-1964 prevented progression of the British economy between 1955-64, as the government’s controls in attempts to curb an increase in inflation through high interest rates and age freezes as an attempt to reduce demand deflated the economy, and prevented the expansion of productivity for businessmen looking for loans for investment. Nonetheless, such policies were required in order to help the balance of payments crisis caused by a major trade deficit following wage increases. Between 1956-1960, the overall trade balance was +132, and Macmillan’s belief of ‘common sense’ needed in order to prevent the overheating of economy through cyclic stop-go measures were needed to maintain the economy. Subsequently, one must understand that the stop-go policy wasn’t a measure which weakened the British economy, but was a policy to curb any further crisis or trade deficits from occurring.


The ‘stop-go’ policies can also be regarded as beneficial to the economy. During the period of 1955-1964, Britain experienced such economic growth that Conservative posters described the situation, as ‘Britain never had it so good’. Moreover, an increase in affluence and consumerism in individuals, such as the 25% increase in car ownership between 1957-59 and the fact that by 1959, over 50% of the country had owned luxury items such as a TV – showed that the Conservative policies such as ‘stop-go’ was creating opportunities that were never experienced before. Although such occurrence could be regarded as the conservatives ‘coasting’ through the years of post-war developments and the technological revolution, the fact that such developments occurred simultaneously of ‘stop-go’ prevents any criticism being fairly attributed to such policy for the weakness of the British economy, as many, including Labour ministers, would suggest that the period 1955-1964 was of economic expansion and of not economic weakness, and the policy of ‘stop-go’ was one which was carried throughout the period.


The decision to invade Suez in 1958 under Eden placed significant strain on the British economy from the United States. Having failed to inform the U.S following the reveal of Suez, the U.S threatened to withdraw funding and use of GBP in international currency markets, resulting in the ‘run on the pound’. Such pressures placed by the U.S on Britain revealed the economic weakness and dependence on the United States backing. Thorneycroft’s reactionary policies of monetarism in 1959 further highlighted the weakness of the British economy, as the money supply had to be cut and limitations of wage increases had to be introduced in order to maintain the £ value in foreign markets. The US hadn’t caused such disaster in the British economy, but exposed the underlying weakness that had been present since 1951, which had been masked through the technological revolution occurring worldwide. Therefore, the ‘stop-go’ policy wasn’t the reason for economic weakness, as situations such as Suez had revealed underlying problems, which had persisted throughout the period.

Moreover, Britain’s inability to recognise the benefits of the EEC in 1958 further resulted into the economic weakness of the country in international comparison, as countries such as West Germany and France experienced rapid economic progression up to 1964. By 1959, West Germany had double industrial production than the United Kingdom, and by 1962, West Germany had 20% of world shares whereas Britain only had 15%. Having believed the ‘special relationship’ with the United States would be significantly damaged if Britain had entered the EEC, and the belief that free market principles suggesting the ‘Durham miners won’t wear it, I’m afraid’ clearly suggested that Britain believed it was far too superior to be in such trade group. Although economic output hadn’t decreased and Britain’s economy hadn’t entirely weakened as a result, such economic growth by EEC members, as well as Macmillan’s attempts to join in 1961 indicated the desperation of the United Kingdom, and the understanding of the potential of such market. Developments made in foreign economies had resulted in the appearance of the weakness of the British economy, but such weakness was in relation and fundamental weakness had not occurred, especially due to the fact of ‘stop-go’.

The ‘stop-go’ policies certainly didn’t bring about economic developments, as they eventually led to the balance of payments deficit. However, one must understand such measure was merely to prevent further failures in the economy, and was a measure in hopes of reversing economic weaknesses, which persisted throughout 1955-1964. Furthermore, events in foreign countries had presented the concurrent failures in the British economy, and put further pressure on it. In addition, the growth of countries in 1955-1964 elsewhere in the world in economy had given the appearance that the British economy was weakened, when progression was still occurring – just not as fast. Subsequently, ‘stop-go’ policies hadn’t weakened the economy, as the economy wasn’t weakened during this period. The weakness in economy had persisted since 1945, and growth rates of the United Kingdom had only dropped during this period.
that is really good , possibly 18+ out of 25 are you in yr 12
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Following the government's announcement, do you think you will be awarded a fair grade this year?

Yes (641)
48.56%
No (679)
51.44%

Watched Threads

View All