The New Image Of The Tories

Another contributing factor at this election may have been performance in office, which in the above statement is not seen as important as personality and image. However, performance in office may have been extremely detrimental for the conservatives in 1997 because of their crisis in 1992. This focuses on the retrospective model, as people saw the Conservatives as incompetent in handling the economy because of Black Wednesday in September 1992. The Conservatives and especially Noramnt Lamont, Chancellor of the Exchequer, were to blame for the crisis that saw the pound forced out of the ERM. This didn’t help at the 1997 general election where they did extremely badly in a huge Labour win.

To assess the Wilson Government which ran from the years 1964 to 1970 you have to look at what the Labour government promised to achieve if they won the election in 1964. You have to look at what the changes the Wilson government brought forward in their time in office and how the personalities of its politician’s effects decisions made.

Although the UK Prime Minister is elected separately through Parliamentary elections, unlike the USA President, there is a trend for Prime Ministers to claim popular authority on the basis of electoral victory. Prime Ministers have therefore become the ideological consciences of their

Secondly, as Wilson faced crises in the failure of Trade Union reform and a stagnant economy, the Tories moved steadily to the right, many seeing this as a successful move by Heath. The move to the right got a massive publicity boost in Selsdon Park Hotel at a shadow cabinet meeting (January 1970) in the run-up to the election. In the public eye, the term ‘Selsdon Man’ (a phrase readily clutched by the media) meant a return to free enterprise -which directly contrasted Wilson’s policies of interventionism - the return to the values of hard work, trade union reform and a more efficient and independent industry. These ideas, although not particularly revolutionary in terms of policy for Tories, in election year provided a real incentive to frustrated voters, who looked at the struggling Wilson government whose interventionist policies were having little upswing effect on the economy. Many see the conference as an end of consensus politics, and the start of a marathon political battle between the two leaders. The fact that the Tories gained such publicity at Selsdon, and managed to convince the electorate that contrasting policies to the labour government such as the move to a more free market economy was necessary, showed Heath to be a successful leader in the outset of his campaign.

The Labour government of 1974-1979 also won two elections, the 1974 February election and the 1974 October election, however both were won by a minority. The February election was won by 4 seats and the October election was won by 42 seats. The reason for the slim win is to do with inflation. The Labour governments of 1974-1979 were in office at a bad time because Britain had started to suffer from huge inflation because of the oil price rise in 1973, and so voters didn’t have a clear decision on which they were going to vote for. This shows that at the moment the 1964-1970 Labour Government was more successful by far because of their majority of 110 seats in the 1966 election.

Labour disunity was a huge contributing factor as to why the conservatives were able to dominate from 1951 to 1964. However, there are also other factors that assisted conservative dominance. Whether that be conservative strengths, good timing, the end of austerity or their handle on public opinion, all factors contributed to the dominant years. However, how long the conservatives actually dominated is also a question. Did they dominate for the whole period, or just part of it? The years 1962-1964 question conservative dominance and how labour reunited.

Firstly the House of Lords reform where the voting rights of most hereditary peers was abolished. This makes the UK less undemocratic rather then more democratic. This is due to the fact that the House of Lords as a whole is an unelected chamber and therefore undemocratic, however by removing the voting rights of some

Whether or not there truly was a ‘post war consensus’ in British politics from 1951 to 1964 is a highly debatable topic of which historians can often appear to be in two minds about; on one hand, Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson infamously described the period as ‘Thirteen years wasted’, whereas historian Robert Blake (a supporter of the Conservatives’, regards it as a ‘Golden age of growth’. The likes of Kevin Jeffrey’s even argue that consensus had even started before the war. Overall, the central issue was the idea of a mixed economy.

It has been argued that “the repeal was also seen as a victory for the modernising agenda of New Labour and Prime Minister Tony Blair.” , suggesting that New Labour had continued to act upon traditional Labour values of equality, and taken this into the twenty-first century. This amendment of legislation demonstrates that, in this respect, New Labour was not influenced by Thatcher, as they overturned Thatcher’s own legislation, marking a clear difference between their two views. However, a change can still be identified in New Labour’s rhetoric, shifting from a focus on equality of outcome, which had been a priority of Old Labour, to equality of opportunity. E“made it clear that redistribution is no longer about reducing the privileges of the rich in favour of the poor, through the taxation and benefit systems, but is instead about ’redistributing opportunity’ through education, training and paid employment.” .

• Labour had to decide whether to fight the election independently or continue under Lloyd George. (Mowat: 1966: 2-3, 6-7)

During her term of office she reshaped almost every aspect of British politics, reviving the economy, reforming outdated institutions, and reinvigorating the nation's foreign policy. She challenged and did much to overturn the psychology of decline, which had become rooted in Britain since the Second World War, pursuing national recovery with striking energy and determination. In the process, Margaret

The advantage that the all-party coalition gave was that it could pass measures that

The thing I’m most concerned about is how Labour can go forward with a coherent message that will win back its traditional strongholds in the north of England and Wales – places where the Leave vote often topped 60%. I don’t think it’s too much of an assumption to say that a large number of Leave voters backed Brexit because of disillusion with the political establishment (either the eggheads in Brussels or the parliamentarians who spoke at length about immigration but were short on action). People I normally read and admire (neoliberal Blairite types) have been very hard on Corbyn for not doing joint campaign events with Cameron or Blair but I just can’t see how that would do anything for the party but further alienate the traditional base of

The year was 1940; the world’s second great World War was in full swing, with Britain and Germany at the forefront. The fall of Britain’s closest ally, France, stunned the British Empire and threw it into disarray. Through the chaos, Winston Churchill emerged. Churchill would be an inspiring leader who was able to rally the entire nation in times of hardship. Through his leadership, the “British Bulldog” would face the Axis powers and come out victorious, as well as become a public hero for the British people. Yet, immediately after the war, Churchill did not return to the prime minister seat because of a shocking defeat in his re-election, despite his immense reputation he gained from the war. Though lauded by the British population for his prowess as a wartime leader, Churchill’s conservative politics were out of touch with a population ready for post-war relief and led to his defeat in the 1945 election.

In 1997 Labour pledged a referendum on PR, but it was postponed and it has been argued that two strong political parties, Labour and Torries, would have lost the most if there were any changes in voting systems. If the referendum took place in 1997 elections, Labour majority would have to share, approximately, from 46 seats to 166 MPs with Liberal Democrats. Liberal Democrats gained 16,8% of the total votes, but won less than 10% of the total seats.