You're very welcome! There should be videos on all the topics you need for Components one and two on my channel (also lots on US politics if you are studying that next year)
The Falklands effect on the political fortunes of the T Lady is an aspect of British political history which seems to have been completely swept under the carpet. Prior to the conflict she was the most umpopulsr prime minister in history according to the polls. The Conservatives only had around 22 per cent of the polls trailing Labour and the SDP/Liberal alliance who were both in mid to high 30s with most political commentators suggesting the possibility of her removal before the next election and the high possibility of a centre left coalition on the condition that Labour dropped Michael Foot for Denis Healy. However all that conjecture was blown away within a week of the war when the con vote rose to 45 per cent and remained there as a result of the "feelgood factor" that ensued by winning the conflict with the opposition parties vote falling to the mid 20s resulting in a three figure majority. I wonder if the vaccine and "victory" over covid might work for Boris in the same way that the Falklands did for Maggie come the next election?
The Falklands certainly changed the election result in 1983. A divided opposition is certainly also a common thread between then and now. The vaccine role out certainly boosted the Conservative vote in the local election and Hartlepool by-election. However there is also the hangover from Brexit, heightened by recent disputes with the posturing with a gunboat in the channel over the Jersey issue and vaccine arguments. We are probably too far off the next general election for current events to have the same impact of the Falklands on the 1983 result.
We are probably too far off if the election were to take place in 2024 but Boris is a serial opportunist and may call a snap election next year if the polls are still in his favour also assuming he can manipulate the fixed parliament situation
I detest the have and have not, politics of the Conservative and Labour parties. Your background and upbringing in the U.K. shapes the type of party you support and vote for. Why can't there be a party that will represent every citizen in the U.K. Instead of one who grabs it all for the few, and takes it away from the poorest people, and another party who tries to support the poorest and the needy, but is unsupported by the big money investors.
Could be on the Conservatives themselves for example looking at their factions/ ideology or changing position/ continuity on key issues over time. Could be combined with other parties to look at the dominance of the major parties/ challenges of smaller parties. There is quite a range.
Socialism wasn't radical at the time, and isn't now. The ideas of Socialism and Liberalism grew together as political ideologies in recent history. Socialism as a theory may be older as it dates back to early Egypt or Greece but was re-examined by people such as Robert Owen (1771-1858) although the term socialism didn't become popular till around 1820's. Marxism, a branch of socialism, was very leftwing and demanded revolution of the workers as the only possible future for society. Marxism is radical/extreme but revisionist Marxism acknowledged this and produced social democracy as a means for society to protect the most vulnerable through the growth of democratically won political changes protecting the poorest in society. Leninist Marxism was the most radical and detestable socialist theory and is often used as a general example of socialism because it was the version the Soviet Union was built on. While Marx maintained that the workers would be forced into revaluation, because of poverty, Lenin claimed that the working class were not smart enough to realise. His version suggested that it would require the higher classes to force the revaluation and rule for them ("All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"). Leninist Marxism ruled that any opposing view should be banned and created the authoritarian component. The reaffirmation that Socialism is radical hides the truth and shows political bias. Democratic Socialism has only benefited society as a whole including minimum wages, sickness pay, the NHS etc. You also claim that the conservative party accepted the NHS but they did vote against it 21 times. And Churchill claimed it was the "first step to turn Britain into a National Socialist economy" as a way to compare it to the NAZI party. I'm sorry to pick holes and respect that you are taking time to produce educational material but as you can tell I feel there is too much bias against socialism or at least the benefits of social democracy.
Thanks for the info, as an American this helps me learn more about UK politics.
Glad the videos are proving useful
i wanted to ask about the lack of availibilty of past papers for the 2017 specimen. is there a way we can old pec papers to practice?
This was great please could you do a video on the party structures and functions
th-cam.com/video/s6Iq_erArew/w-d-xo.html I think this covers functions and party systems
Perfect for my end of year exams! Thank you
You're very welcome! There should be videos on all the topics you need for Components one and two on my channel (also lots on US politics if you are studying that next year)
Thanks Alan. Could we get an essay in the exam where we need to know about old history like Robert peel? Thanks you
History of the party is on the spec, but focus more likely to be on policy areas (could look at how this has changed over time)
@@AlanHistoryNerd thank you so much
Thanks, Alan! You have a great presenting style, very informative.
hi
I appreciate that! Thank you!
The Falklands effect on the political fortunes of the T Lady is an aspect of British political history which seems to have been completely swept under the carpet.
Prior to the conflict she was the most umpopulsr prime minister in history according to the polls. The Conservatives only had around 22 per cent of the polls trailing Labour and the SDP/Liberal alliance who were both in mid to high 30s with most political commentators suggesting the possibility of her removal before the next election and the high possibility of a centre left coalition on the condition that Labour dropped Michael Foot for Denis Healy.
However all that conjecture was blown away within a week of the war when the con vote rose to 45 per cent and remained there as a result of the "feelgood factor" that ensued by winning the conflict with the opposition parties vote falling to the mid 20s resulting in a three figure majority.
I wonder if the vaccine and "victory" over covid might work for Boris in the same way that the Falklands did for Maggie come the next election?
The Falklands certainly changed the election result in 1983. A divided opposition is certainly also a common thread between then and now. The vaccine role out certainly boosted the Conservative vote in the local election and Hartlepool by-election. However there is also the hangover from Brexit, heightened by recent disputes with the posturing with a gunboat in the channel over the Jersey issue and vaccine arguments. We are probably too far off the next general election for current events to have the same impact of the Falklands on the 1983 result.
We are probably too far off if the election were to take place in 2024 but Boris is a serial opportunist and may call a snap election next year if the polls are still in his favour also assuming he can manipulate the fixed parliament situation
thanks for the videos man really helpful gonna be starting a levels next year
Glad to hear they were helpful
Do you think the recent ‘1% NHS pay rise’ sheds any light on Borris’ ideological stand-point?
Absolutely
Would you say the 1% recommendation itself also arguably has elements of Thatcherism?
best online teacher !
Wow, thank you!
u saved my life
Thanks so much Alan!
My pleasure!
Thank you.
You're welcome!
in an essay would you need to compare policies of different governments?
It depends on the question, you may have to look at some change over time or the changing role of factions.
I really Hope the guy I'm seeing with Glasses on is you and not the other guy.
I detest the have and have not, politics of the Conservative and Labour parties. Your background and upbringing in the U.K. shapes the type of party you support and vote for. Why can't there be a party that will represent every citizen in the U.K. Instead of one who grabs it all for the few, and takes it away from the poorest people, and another party who tries to support the poorest and the needy, but is unsupported by the big money investors.
what kind of essay questions would you get on this topic?
Could be on the Conservatives themselves for example looking at their factions/ ideology or changing position/ continuity on key issues over time. Could be combined with other parties to look at the dominance of the major parties/ challenges of smaller parties. There is quite a range.
Socialism wasn't radical at the time, and isn't now. The ideas of Socialism and Liberalism grew together as political ideologies in recent history. Socialism as a theory may be older as it dates back to early Egypt or Greece but was re-examined by people such as Robert Owen (1771-1858) although the term socialism didn't become popular till around 1820's.
Marxism, a branch of socialism, was very leftwing and demanded revolution of the workers as the only possible future for society. Marxism is radical/extreme but revisionist Marxism acknowledged this and produced social democracy as a means for society to protect the most vulnerable through the growth of democratically won political changes protecting the poorest in society.
Leninist Marxism was the most radical and detestable socialist theory and is often used as a general example of socialism because it was the version the Soviet Union was built on.
While Marx maintained that the workers would be forced into revaluation, because of poverty, Lenin claimed that the working class were not smart enough to realise. His version suggested that it would require the higher classes to force the revaluation and rule for them ("All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others").
Leninist Marxism ruled that any opposing view should be banned and created the authoritarian component.
The reaffirmation that Socialism is radical hides the truth and shows political bias.
Democratic Socialism has only benefited society as a whole including minimum wages, sickness pay, the NHS etc. You also claim that the conservative party accepted the NHS but they did vote against it 21 times. And Churchill claimed it was the "first step to turn Britain into a National Socialist economy" as a way to compare it to the NAZI party.
I'm sorry to pick holes and respect that you are taking time to produce educational material but as you can tell I feel there is too much bias against socialism or at least the benefits of social democracy.