Homework for Friday 5th October

[mslewis]

Hi folks

This week's homework is for FRIDAY not Monday. Learn the literary terms from "narrator" to "pun" (15 altogether) so you can do the test on Friday morning.

Writing folio pieces will be given back later this week for completion by Friday 12th October.

Cheers

Ms L

[Robbie Young]

Chapter one -

When I first met Vanessa, or as she would be later called Mrs. Kingsly thirty years ago. I was instantaneously mesmerized by her uppermost self obsession. I was a New York virgin. I had left my tight diminutive, reticent town of Haysville, Kansas only a few weeks earlier. With it's morals and aphorisms I quite simply had had enough. The concrete jungle of New York with it's superficial exteriors were daunting at first glance but it's astonishing how such an overpopulated maze can become home in such a short time. It was the mid-early eighties and with Alexis and Krystal in Dynasty constantly cat fighting the era of the super bitch in oversized shoulder pads was more than apparent.


My justification for moving to New York was ultimately still unclear to me but I knew I wanted to better myself, that was clear. I first met Vanessa in Macy's shortly after arriving. I wasn't there to buy anything, oh no I merely wanted to feel like those women you see who can. I had my church-party-wedding-clothes on, the best clothes I owned. I wanted people to look at me and be impressed. Between the rails of Prada mini skirts, Versace blouses, Jimmy Choo's and the incessant
"can I help you?"
reminded me how much I really did not fit in here whatsoever. Then, out of the corner of my eye I hastily saw her. I looked back and forth at least three times. The first thing I observed was the sumptuous red dress that seemed to fill every line and curve of her body creating a perfect silhouette of what a woman could only aspire to be like. She seemed to be everything I wanted to be. Perfection. Only after I had taken in the vibrancy of her dress, I focused my attention on her face. A round, pulchritudinous, china doll pale, face with blue eyes that shone like sapphires. Inviting eyes. Those kind of eyes you could stare and get lost in.
Skyscraper Gucci platforms highlighted her long, elongated legs. Peroxide pin curls, ruby red lips and smokey eye shadow framed the painting which was her face. To me, it seemed unfair that such beauty inhabited one body. While girls like me had to make the effort to merely look acceptable, she seemed so effortlessly beauteous.

The sea of assistants who surrounded her obeying her every need quite obviously were doing well to pamper her credit card.
"Do you like my dress?" she exclaimed. This abrupt outburst really took me by surprise. At first I didn't think she was talking to me. She most definitely seen me looking. She noticed me.
"I love it" I said hesitantly.
"I shall take it, please." Vanessa said to the assistant. She seemed to be lacking in confidence despite her angelic looks. Seeking constant gratification for who and what she was. She was one of these women who could afford these clothes, money had no correlation to the item. If she wanted it, she could have it. We immediately struck up a conversation and although we were polar opposites with my humble beginnings and her extrovert lifestyle. we got on and behind the facade of what she was, there was a real person behind those eyes. I realized that she was attracted to me because of my simplicity of life. I did not surcome to fashion trends or what Zarin told people what to wear, I was still wearing my pre-Raphaelite, Bohemianism embroidered tunics that I had been wearing ten years earlier.
"Champagne darling, do you like it?" Vanessa said.
"Never tried it before." I said solemnly.
"Then we must go to the Bubble Lounge! This evening! Darling we must!"

That evening we met outside The Bubble lounge, I in the same clothes I had worn all day. Vanessa in a long black cocktail dress which still had the label on. Eventhough she was late, I was still excited to see her. Although it was nearly ten in the evening, it was still light, the sun had only just set and the stars were beginning to light up the sky. New York seemed to never go dark. It was blaze of neon lights constantly.
I learned a lot that night about Vanessa. She was born in a townhouse on the upper east side to a wealthy banker and his doting wife. She was single herself, just like me. I was happy single but she was miserable being alone and I could sense that. Any attention she could get made her feel better. Listing the things wrong in her entity like a miser looking through IOUs, determined to extract payment.
Vanessa was wealthy in her own right as well. An assistant editor to the biggest magazine in the country, Zarin. But none of this made her happy.
"A career is wonderful, but you can't curl up with it on a cold night." she said.
I was amazed by her willingness to open up to nearly a complete stranger. She seemed so vulnerable and yet her image didn't reflect that. I felt that I could help her. With my hippy physiology. Diminishing resources, human greed and rampant consumerism all played a part in my ideology behind her unhappiness.

"Lets go dancing!" she said, changing the subject immediately.
She did this a lot. She seemed to lack the ability to keep on the same thought line for more than a few minutes and to be honest it was refreshing to be with someone who always wanted to do things and had the ability to do so. We went dancing that night, I don't know what time I got home at but it was well past dawn.
"I really must retire to my Boudoir. I have work in three hours"
"me too" I lied.
I didn't have work, I didn't even have a job at this point. I was living of the money my late mother left to me in her will but this was running sparse.
"See you soon darling." was what she parted with.
I didn't realize how soon, soon actually was.

[robbieyoung961234]

How successfully did the Labour Government of 1945-51 deal with the social problems identified in the Beverage report of 1942?

During World War Two and subsequently after wards many social problems first noticed by the Liberal government of 1906-1912 has arisen again. The impact of the Beverage report revolutionized the social systems, the welfare state was born. During the war such things as rationing and bombing had directly effected the people of Britain but also highlighted the genuine issues of poverty that had previously not been sufficiently dealt with. A vision of the government on the back of Beverage, aimed to provide "cradle to grave" care and help whenever it was needed. The report focused public attention on how to tackle poverty. Five giants were identified as the main problems of poverty : want, ignorance, squalor, disease
and idleness. Labour realized that tackling only one giant was no good. If the British peoples welfare were to improve then the government would have to try and solve all problems in its way. All working people would pay the same into the same scheme and most importantly, people got the same benefits out. The purpose of this essay will be to access how effective the Labour government of 1945-51 dealt with the problems raised by the Beverage report of 1942.

A classless attitude that 'post war had to be better than pre-war' was commonly recognized by everyone in Britain, including the government. As the general election of 1945 came closer, Labour issued their manifesto - there vision of what post-war Britain should be like. Titled 'let us face the future' they had
a clear vision of what they wanted to do during their term in office. Some historians, however, can successfully argue that their achievement were evolutionary rather than revolutionary, on the back of other governments such as the Liberals of 1906-14 and the coalition during the war.

Want :
Poverty was seen as the key social problem which affected all others such as bad health and lack of employment. In 1946 the National Insurance Act was passed
which extended the Liberal Act of 1911 to include all adults who worked but also contributed to the shceme. This provided comprehensive insurance against most
eventualities. The act provided sickness and unemployment benefit, retirement pension - the age which men were aloud to claim
the pension was reduced to sixty five, woman sixty - and widow and maternity benefit. The act was designed to help the people of Britain from their needs at the time of birth to their death. Contributions took five percent of earnings, much less than previous insurance acts. The system was to 'the real advantage , especially of many women and also those of the lower middle class who had previously been excluded from most social insurance benefits'
However, the scheme was criticized for the large number of officials needed to operate it and others argued that the Act put simply not go far enough as the benefit was restricted to those citizens who had made 156 weekly contributions over a ten year period. Pension levels were still below basic sustenance of inflation.
The National Assistance act of 1948 aimed to help those people who did not qualify for full benefits or those who were not in work because of old age or those who had not paid enough contributions into the new National Insurance Scheme. The assistance was means tested. This meant the assistance received depended on the amount of money
or valuable belongings a family or individual possessed. The aim of the scheme was to provide a 'safety net' to ensure that nobody fell into poverty. National Assistance Boards were set up to help citizens whose resources were insufficient to meet their needs and offered weekly payments or one lump sum for a particular thing ie bedding or food. However, benefits were set too low which resulted in many citizens remaining below the subsistence level which defied the point in the act altogether. The Family allowance act included money paid to those with two or more offspring to help with paying for daily amenities. The benefits were paid directly to the mother of the household as fathers were deemed irresponsible to spend it wisely on what the household needed for ample life. As passed, the Act payed an allowance of five shillings per week for each child in a family other than the eldest; later Acts increased this sum. It was payable whilst the child was of school age, up to the age of eighteen, if apprenticed or in full-time school education. The Industrial insurance act of 1946 included compensation paid by the Government to a worker who was injured whilst in work. Previously, compensation had been paid by the employer which had been terribly expensive. It covered every worker in an industrial format. Under the terms of the act, industrial injury benefits were to be paid at a higher rate than for ordinary sickness benefits which helped the worker deal with the fiscal constraints of not being able to work during the time that they were injured. Overall, the acts introduced by the Liberals
to eradicate Britain of the biggest giant want, were marginally successful as they genuinely helped those in need which was demonstrated by Rowntree's findings in York in 1950 which he found that poverty had gone down to 2% compared to 36% in 1936. On the other hand it can be argued that these acts simply did not go far enough as some receiving the benefits were still under the Rowntree's poverty line, reducing the effectness of these reforms.

Disease :
In 1946 the National Health Service act was passed which had plans over a two year period to preprare, to go give every single person in Britain, without means testing, non dependent on class, health care, dental and optical services free of charge. Treatment by GPs and in hospitals was free also. These benefits were free at point of use, no patient being asked to pay for any treatment. This revolutionary act is seen, even today as a fundamental symbol of the Welfare State as it existed then and now. The NHS, introduced on July 5th 1948 was immediately popular because of a backlog of untreated problems, with doctors, dentists and opticians being inundated with patients queuing up for treatment that they had previously been unable to afford. Free prescriptions increased from 7 million per month before the NHS to 13.5 million per month in September 1948.
In October 1949, the health minister Bevan declared than since the formation of the NHS 167 million prescriptions, 5.25 million pairs of glasses and 6.5 million dental patients had all been issued, for free. The provisions of hearing aids, false teeth, and efficient glasses, improved the quality of life for a major part of the population, especially the elderly who
had previously no chance of obtaining these sorts of things due to lack of funds. General practitioners were concerned as they believed they would be treated as mere civil servants. But, Bevan fixed this by increasing their pay. Ninety percent threatened action before the act, ninety percent took up the offer of more money after wards. However, despite it's success, the NHS costs came as a huge shock. By 1950, the service was costing £358 per year which way over what the government had budgeted for. Britain had only just come out of a fiscally crippling war and it
was fiscally impossible to deal with the vast amounts of money warranted to all the services being offered. The Labour government was forced to rethink it's fundamental principles of a free service by introducing charges for such things as spectacles and dental treatments which were seen as less important as more life threating medical services in hospitals and GP's surgery's. Plans for new and improved hospitals had to be scrapped. In breaking their main principle of the act, Bevan and others who had introduced the NHs, resigned as a consequence. New demands put pressure on the NHS for example, more mothers were wishing to give birth in hospitals, new medical techniques such as cardiac and hip surgery's were also created which led to a increase in demand.
The debilitating cost of the NHS was it's single most downfall. The government realized it was the government was constrained in what it could realistically afford by the economy's performance
the cost of rebuilding the country after the war. Right wing conservatives argue that "the NHS was too generous in allowing everyone to get free dentures, spectacles and prescriptions. This was wasteful;
of scarce resources. People were getting thing they did not need." Which, in part, is true. Critics claim that Labour should have concentrated at first on investing in Britain's shattered industires rather than trying to tackle social welfare. Those middle classes who before the NHS, could afford private health care benefited quite considerably as they no longer had to pay doctors' fees as they got the services of better GP's in the more affluent areas in which they inhabited. Overall, the NHs, at this time failed to improve general medical service available to most people as the lower classes continued to experience a
humiliating stand of care in comparison to a much higher level of taxes to help pay for it.

Squalor :
In 1945 most of Britain still had slum areas and overcrowding was a serious problem made worse by bomb damage during the war.
For example, the Clyde bank blitz which seven out of twelve thousand houses remained after two days of bombing. As peace broke out, the Labour government realized that a huge rebuilding scheme was needed. The Labour manifesto of 1945 "Labour's pledge is firm and direct - it will proceed with a housing programme with the maximum practical speed with every family in this island has a good standard of accommodation." The newly elected government, aimed to build 200,000 new homes a year many of these were prefabricated houses which were assembled quickly on site. Economic conditions post war were less than helpful in the construction of these houses. Although a mere 55400 new homes were built in 1946, by 1948 280,000 were built which was way above the proposed targets. Bevan's policy was to help those most in need ie. the working classes. Scarce building materials were allocated to local authorities, for them to build houses, mainly for rent. The houses built were to be a high standard with multiple sanitation physilties with separates kitchen and bathrooms, gas and electric, hot and cold women, indoor toilets and multiple gardens. By 1951, the government achieved an average of 196300 houses built per year. Although the record was not over whelming but it can be argued that Labour came close to it's target set in 1945 of building quality and affordable homes. Cities became encircled with housing estates built for people moving into the inner cities. New quality homes were much better than the tenements. The policy showed real concern for the future. Bevan insisted on a high standard. The 1946 new towns act created a vision of new Britain which gave the government power to decided where new towns to be built and allowed them to set up cooperation's to to carry out the building projects. The 1947 Town and County Planning act gave power to local authorities to plan communities by buying up properties in areas for redevelopment. Alex Kerr, a resident of own of these new towns said - "we were isolated at first, we were away from things, there were new shops or ememties at first but we soon made friends". This summed up the time. Council estates were hailed a saviour for ex tenement livers. Council landlords were more reliable and less harsh than private landlords. Also, more importantly, rent was one third of that in the private sector. The new towns aimed to create healthy and pleasent towns which accommodated the needs of the towns people, unlike the random, uncontrolled industrial cities. Livingston, a symbol of the new towns act reflected the successes of the act. In total, fourteen new towns were built by the end of the Labour government in 1951. Many have critised squalor and it's acts, as the single most failing of the Labour Government. Seen as a burden on Bevan's ministry of health, who already had a lot to do ie the NHS and fiscal struggles after the war. Bevan insisted that houses were to be built to a high standard. One thousand square foot was the minimum which was higher than the eight hundred square foot in the 1930's. Perhaps, he should have put more emphasis on quantity rather than quality given the scale of the problem. Many lower classes middle family's who could afford a home could not get one because of the lack of housing which were available to the market. Demand was not met. By 1951, the census found that their were 750,000 fewer houses than households, roughly the same level of homelessness as in 1931. "Traditionally, housing has been branded the welfare state failure of Bevan and the 1945 government" - Timmons. Overall, because of the increase in birth and marriage rates, fiscal difficulties, other priorities, the Labour government was under a severe struggle to obtain the results it needed to achieve therefore reducing the effect of the reforms introduced to help with it.

Ignorance :

In 1944 the war time Coalition government passed the Butler Education act. The act was actually proposed by the Conservatives, but after the 1945 general election, it was the Labour government that implemented its measures. Before 1944, if you scratched the surface of the education system in Britain is was easy to see that there was many faults. One being, many working class children did not proceed into carrying on their education after primary school. The quality of secondary education was quite questionable, which with the expensive fees, and the pressure to leave school, gain employment and start contributing to the family expenses made it very unlikely that many lower classes fur filled their possibilities. Alex Kerr, a person who experienced this at the time, said that "people with talent were held back by parents with their attitudes that they expected the children to contribute". Many surcomed to this. Education reform were needed because education would give opportunities to the poorer people of the county which ultimately would release them from the poverty cycle and result in a better well being. The Labour government cannot take credit for the act as it was inforced before they were elected into government. The main ideas of the act included : equality not dependent on class so the away doing with fees, it would cost the government less in the long run as it would improve skills and intelligence therefore making more contribution to the country but also it must be remembered that because of Britain just coming out of a world war, and the scale of the postwar economic problems the act would take at least ten years to implement. R. A Butler said that technical education should be a priority as he believed Britain's wealth an strength would come from scientific and technical training. Pupils were allocated secondary schools on the back of the 11+ (iQ test) which categorized pupils into three levels of educational systems; technical schools, grammar schools, and secondary moderns. The original idea was for schools to have an equal status. This was the first time secondary education for all became a right. The government were forced to replace schools which were bombed during the war and to accommodate the extra children due to the baby boom of 1942-47. by 1950, 1176 new high schools were built. During Labour's term in office, 35000 teachers were trained under the one-year emergency training scheme which was good in theory but didn't really equip teacher properly with what skills they actually needed due to the time constraints. The school leaving age was raised to fifteen to help keep children in schools for longer so they could learn and develop. The real plus was that grammar school fees were abolished which led to a small increase in working classes getting into them, which prepared them for further education for example university. The act was excellent for intelligent people as if they passed their eleven plus could gain good opportunities and gain good jobs in later life. But it's worth noting that those who were not immediately academic at eleven, were not given the best of opportunities and it can be argued that there was many flaws in the hailed act. The exams were at an incredibley young age which determined the future and categorized the children. Many opposed this. As in health, the middle classes seemed to gain more out the education reforms than the working classes which not help support for the Labour party, which foundings were set on helping the lower classes. In practice it was a scramble by the middle classes for the limited and free number of prestige places at the grammar schools. Middle class definitely gained more than working class children. Grammar schools were schools of high status, largely for middle class children. With their excellent resources and well-trained teachers resulted in better exam results. The pupils, mainly working classes who went to secondary modern schools had little or no chance of obtaining higher education which was in contrast to grammar schools who prepare pupils for university. The Labour government were expected to provide better resources for the poorer sections of society but this certainly did not happen in education during there term in office.
Overall, the education reforms compare poorly with the equality of opportunity and provision being carried out in the other areas of social security and health.

Idleness :
In 1944, the coalition agreed to an aim of 'full employment' which was also included in the Labour 1945 manifesto. This raised doubts of commitment of other political parties to achieving this goal. The wartime slogan 'Britain can take it' had to changed to 'Britain can make it' which really reflected the employment after the war. The Labour party policy was of Nationalism after world war one ment that the government would take over major industries and them for the benefit of the country rather than private owners reaping the rewards. Profits would be used by the government for the benefit of the country. This way, Labour believed that they could control and manage efficiently and maintain full employment. However some historians dispute this as it was not an act of social reform, rather than government policy. There was no return after the war to high unemployment in depressed regions of northern England. Places which had been running at 38% unemployment in 1938, were, in 1951, running at 1.5 percent unemployment which was a huge improvement. Success in the so-called distressed areas was partly due to the application of the 1945 Distribution of Industry Act. This was made more impressive by the fiscal climate crisis and diminished resources. During the Labour parties time in office, unemployment, nationally. averaged at 310,000 per year, compared to 1,716,00 for the period 1935-39 leading up to the second world war. Labour's achievement of full employment by 1950 led to a belief that further, more radical social reforms were not neeed and that 'a growing economy would take care of remaining social problems.' Infact, the average real wage in 1949 was 20% than in 1938, people were absolutely more better off and had a better quality of life. There is very little to sufficiently criticize about the unemployment record during the period 0f 1945-51. The raising of the school age from 14 to 15 in 1947 helped to keep the unemployment figures down. Some historians take a different view. They argue that Labour can take little credit for full employment. Most of the factors affecting employment were outwith government control. For example, a massive boom in private investment and building after 1945 was seen as the main reason. The need to recover and build after the war soaked up workers and the Labour government took all the credit. Simpson argues that a lot of factors had a role 'The government owed its success both to the good sence of its policies and to favorable redins in the world economy'. Overall, the accumulation of factors were influential in the massive decrease in unemployment and Labour simply cannot take all credit for the improvements.

On final analysis, the Labour government of 1945-51 did, in the most part, successfully dealt with the problems identified in the Beverage report of 1942 although many were not fur filled to their full potential due to a combination of economic and post war issues which damped the effectiveness of the reforms introduced during this period. It cannot be ignored that the reforms introduced during their term in office were helpful in alleviating poverty in Britain although some were more benefitifcal than others. Despite their limitations, the National insurance act of 1946 - an extention on the 1911 Liberal reform - and the 1946 National Health service act were among the most successful as they covered a large proportion of the working and older populations, which were among the most needy. Due to the fiscal difficulties inflicting the country many of the acts subsequently changed, such as ; the National Health Service act which had to cut some of the free services they provided which angered some of the ministers who created it, including Bevan, as it broke the main principle of the act which was that everything would be free at the point of use. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no doubt that the Butler Education act was among the least successful as the hypocrisy of the act were extremely clear. The act which was implemented to help the working classes, quite literally only helped a very small proportion of the people it was designed for as the middle classes scrambled for the limited places at grammar schools. The 11+ exam was seen to determine the future of children at 11/12 and then allocated them to schools. At eleven, this was seen as too young as the children were educationally immature. Through analyzing the issues it has becomes clear that the reforms clearly did not eradicate poverty as post war as there was still no comprehensive fair education systems. Also, the benefits implemented to provide a 'safety net' to those where injured or could not work, was simply still not enough. One historian has calculated that the welfare benefits in 1948 were only 19% of the average industrial wage and there well below subsistence level. Because of this, many more than expected, particularly the elderly, were forced into applying for National Assistance to provide a residual back-up role but was fast becoming the main assistance as National Insurance was not enough. Therefore, all those there was still a long way to go before the problems of poverty and deprivation were to be adequately addressed, the Liberal government made a monumental difference in shaking up the social welfare system and, so, praise is set high on them by following what the Beverage report suggested and therefore creating the Welfare State.

[robbieyoung98765432]

Robbie Young - Silver Threads and Golden Needles (Janis Joplin song)

.
When I first met Vanessa, or as she would be later known Mrs. Kingsly thirty years ago, I was instantaneously mesmerised by her self obsession. I was a New York virgin. Retreating from my tight diminutive, reticent town of Haysville, Kansas only a few weeks prior. With its morals and expectations of what I should be, quite simply I had had enough. The sheer valleys carved out of concrete with its superficial exteriors that made up New York were daunting at first glance to a country gal like me but it's astonishing how such an overpopulated maze can become home in a remarkably short time. For an island of eight million people, Manhattan is full of people with duplictious views, pretending to be something that they are not. It was the mid-early eighties and with Alex and Krystal in Dynasty constantly cat fighting the era of the super bitch in oversized shoulder pads was more than apparent.

My justification for moving to New York was an accumulation of complex reasons which hazed my thinking. Although unclear, I knew I wanted to better myself. I did not miss home, parse, but the loneliness of being alone in such uncaring enviroment such as the island, took some time to get used too. That all changed when I first met Vanessa in Macy's. I wasn't there to buy anything, oh no I merely wanted look threw the glass display cabinets, and into the world that these mising women who could buy these clothes were so unwilling to philanthrapate. That morning I had left my one room "apartment" in Chelsea[1], with my church-party-wedding outfit on, the best clothes I owned. I wanted people to look at me with my well rounded face, sunken breasts and irregular make-up, and hopefully be marginally impressed with the effort that I had made previously. Between the rails of Prada mini skirts, Versace blouses, Jimmy choo's and of course the constant monosyllabic "can I help you?" from the shop assistants really made it clear to me that someone like me, someone with my background, did not fit in here. Then, out of the corner of my eye I catched a glimpse of her. I looked back and forth at least three, maybe even four times. The innocent glimpse had now turned into an almost menacing stare full of jealously. The first thing I observed was the sumptuous red dress which seemed to fill every line and curve of her body, creating a perfect silhouette of what a women could only aspire to be like. She was everything I wanted to be. Fabricated perfection. Only after I had taken in the vibrancy of her velvet dress, I focused my attention on her face. A oval shaped, pulchritudinous, china doll like, face with blistering blue eyes which shone like sapphires. Inviting eyes. Those kind of eyes you could stare into and they could tell a story you could get lost in. Skyscraper Gucci platforms highlighted her elongated legs. Peroxide pin curls, ruby red lips and smokey eye shadow framed the French impressionistic painting which was her face. To me at the time, it seemed totally unacceptable and unfair that such beauty inhabited one soul. While girls like me had to make the effort to merely look acceptable, she seemed so effortlessly beauteous.

The sea of assistants who surrounded her obeying her every need quite obviously were doing well to receive their commission from her purchases. Each one running out with a garment they were desperate for her to try. To be the one who claimed the sale.
"Do you like my dress?" she exclaimed with some great vigour. The abrupt out bust really took me and the assistants by surprise, causing a complete cease of noise in the store.At first, I refused to believe that she was talking to someone like me. She definitely seen me looking. She noticed me. "I... lo..ve it" I said hesitantly."
Then, with another sudden outcry Vanessa turned to one of her servants and said :
"I shall take it, please, darling"
In my opinion she seemed to be lacking confidence, despite her angelic looks.
(I had seen this sort of fake happiness and uncertainty before, back home with my mother. My father, a devote catholic pig with an ironic crippling addiction to red wine would verbally and physically abuse my mother for all of their marriage. This had instilled me with the knowledge. The signs. The bruises. Both inside and out. The control that my father had over my mother, imprisoned her until the day of his death. Before, she could not leave this brutal dictator due to his finical control. Where would she go? She had no choice. I made it my mission in life that no one, especially myself, would be in that position of forced hymeneals.)
Vanessa was one of these who could afford these clothes, money had no correlation to the item in question. If she wanted it, she could have it. Well, if her husband had given her enough, then yes she could. We immediately struck up a conversation and although we were polar opposites with my humble beginnings and her extrovert lifestyle. We got on and behind the facade of what she was, there was a real person behind those amazing eyes. I realised soon after that she was attracted to me because of my simplicity of life. I did not follow the fashion trends nor did I wear what Zarin told me to wear. The best clothes I had, were on my back. A slightly stained, pastel pink, vintage Chanel suit,two sizes too big, which previously had been owned by my mother and prior to that the thrift store. I hoped for much more than the distressed suit that I had worn more times than I could count.
"Champagne darling, do you like it?" Vanessa said.
"We don't get cocktails where I'm from" I said sarcastically.
Vanessa screeched with laughter then returned to her question.
"You can't be serious darling? Really?"
I raised my shoulders, shook my head, and made it clear to Vanessa I had never tried the stuff.
(I had never drank before.,Mainly because of my mothers bloodbath every time my father drank. Never would want to touch it. Horrible stuff. Nasty stuff. It meant a lot to me to be able to say that I merely shared a name with my father. Nothing else.)
"Then we go to the Bubble Lounge! This evening! Darling we must!"

That evening, after a short siesta on my hire purchase sofa, I hailed a cab -for the first time- to the Bubble lounge. I in the same clothes I had worn earlier. Vanessa in a short black cocktail dress which funnily enough still had the label attached. Even though she was thirty minutes late, I was still extremely excited to see the woman I had become very fond of.
Although it was nearly ten in the evening. the sun was only just setting. The stars were beginning to light up the sky. New York seemed never to dark or fade. A stream of constant neon lights were obviously a part of the reason why it was christened The City That Never Sleeps.
I learned a lot about Vanessa that night. Her upper class upbringing, her loveless marriage to John Kingsley, the editor of Zarin (the biggest fashion magazine in the "entire universe.)
"A career is wonderful, but you can't curl up to it on a cold night" - was her excuse for not working. Although, I knew she didn't mean what she was saying.
"Don't compromise yourself. You are all you've got, Vanessa"
That night, we left together, and in comparison to the previous night, I have never felt so loved.





[1] Chelsea is the most prodominatley gay areas in NYC

[robbieyoung98765432]

word count : 1292

[mslewis]

Thanks for this Robbie! I'm not going to mark your History essay too, as interesting as it looks! Ms L

[robbieyoung987654321]

Robbie Young - "Changing attitudes in British society towards women was the major reason why some women received the vote in 1918" - how accurate is this view?




Before 1918, no women in Britain received the vote. Voices had been raised in the campaign for women's rights in earlier years, campaigning on a larger scale can be said to have began with a petition from 1499 women demanding that a proposal for votes for woman to be included in the 1867 reform bill. From then on the movement for woman's suffrage was a clear attempt to influence the development of democracy in Britain though pressure from groups outside parliament. The failure of the English and Scottish reform acts of 1867 and 1868 to include women led to the formation of women's suffrage societies in London, Manchester and Edinburgh. The campaigns for women's rights, and in particular women's suffrage must be seen within the context of a changing society and the huge social and political changes happening in Britain in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. A starting point to understand both the campaigns of women and the position of men is to look at the attitudes and the sexes and how these changed over the almost 80 years between the 1850s and 1928 when women won the right to vote on the same basis as men. Another issue this issue shall include will be the suffrage and suffragette campaigns but also, the changing roles during World War One and what this meant for British women. The purpose of this essay is discuss and prioritize the reasons for women getting the vote, 60 years after first campaigning for it which in historical terms is not that much of a long time. One of the most prominent, changing attitudes will be discussed firstly, then the such campaigns of the Suffragists, and the suffragettes but also the importance of the great war, which by some, is seen as a significant factor into why women eventually won the vote.

.
There was a significant shift in attitudes in between the first campaigns for the vote and the eventual allowance for some women to vote in 1918. Before 1918 some men in power primarily politicians had proposed such reasons why women should not attain it, which categorized them as inferior beings in comparison to men. One being that women were seen as 'second class citizens, operating in their own 'spheres' which meant that their role in society was clearly placed and different to that of a mans and they were seen to be both mentally and morally inferior to their male counterparts which could not cope with the complexities of politics so should not be given the vote. In society men were seen as the 'breadwinners' of the family, providing and making decisions for the family which was in stark contrast to the view of what females should be like, with their primal focus on the rearing of children, and 'good deeds' which included charitable, religious and educational work. Even the Queen at the time Victoria, did not wish women to gain the vote in her country. In the mid 19th century if a women was married, she would be 'given away' from one male to another - her father to her husband - and any possessions she owned including clothes, and money would become her husbands. They had no legal rights over any children they had. Men even by law, had the right to imprison their wives and, most outrageously, beat them with a stick. Upper and middle class women saw the vote as a forced for greater change, as a means of oppurtunies where they may not "make a good marriage", since in 1901 their was surplus of young, unmarried women. These single women therefore saw the vote as a means for creating great change, perhaps opening up professions and other 'suitable' employment'. This was in comparison the the working class women who wanted to gain the vote. They hoped the vote would bring a voice of which was to be heard in a world which exploited them ruthlessly. Without it women had no hope of challenging conditions of work in factories and other industrial professions which were unhealthy and dangerous. Their wages were very low, and hardship, poverty, bad health made early death inevitable.

Towards the end of the nineteen century these attitudes where certainly on the decline as Millicent Fawcett puts it
"arguments against giving women the vote are both out of date and and out of place. They may have been correct and proper two or three centuries ago.. but not in the upcoming 20th century, when women have for years, by common constant, taken an active part in public affairs." Women were now becoming members of town councils, boards of guardians and prominent members of political associations and as the historian Martin Pugh puts the issue
"Their participation in local government made women's exclusion from national elections increasingly untenable" - this decrease in negative attitudes towards women during this time made clear to the women fighting for equal rights that their cause, the vote for women, was certainly attainable. A number of educational improvements started to open up the young generation of women in Britain including the increase in females being university educated, both in medical, and law professions which changed the dynamic of working women's role in society. Thus began to gain more office jobs and such professions which had previously been exempt to women, now starting to employ the newly educated female workforce. The numbers of women during 'traditional' jobs decreased in such professions as nursing and teaching. Although the marriage bar still applied which meant that once a women was married, she would probably have to cease working in order to look after her husband and start a family. This destroyed the aspirations of newly more educated women in Britain put perfectly by Sarah Sewell - "the profoundly educated women rarely make good wives or mothers" - although new oppuritines had arisen for women to better themselves, the cycles of marriage still applied as a hindrance to the their progress in life. A number of legal developments including The Infant Custody Act - increased rights for women over their children, even giving women custody of the children after a male conviction of adultery, The Married Women's act of 1883 - which gave women legal control of property they had owned at marriage by own earning or inherited wealth, and the Local Government Act of 1884 - which gave women ratepayers and property owners the right to vote in local elections and, most crucially the right to stand for local election, proved to public that such Victorian men with their sexist inferior attitudes to women were becoming increasingly old fashioned and ignored by the increasingly all encompassing government and public. To summarize, the main progress before 1900 was that of door being opened educationally to women, the stereotypes men had enforced on women on being second class citizens were seen as outdated and was proved wrong by the female work competence they had proved their the increased oppurtunities in education. Local politics and in voluntary work demonstrated that there was little truth in the fear that women's political intrests would detract from their roles and wives and mothers.

The NUWSS created by Millicent Fawcett in 1897 employed peaceful, moderate tactics of mainly middle class property owning women to persuade the government into granting them the vote. She felt that any violence or trouble would persuade men that women could not be trusted to have the right to vote. Her game plan was patience and logical arguments. Fawcett argued that women could hold responsible posts in society such as sitting on school boards - but could not be trusted to vote; she argued that if parliament made laws and if women had to obey those laws, then women should be part of the process of making those laws; she argued that as women had to pay taxes as men, they should have the same rights as men. Their campaign of peaceful persuasion led to a common misconception that they were ineffective and ignored by the government and therefore could be dismissed as a significant campaigning group. However, this simply, is not true. Membership of the NUWSS remained relatively low at round about 6000 until 1909 but grow significantly by 1914 as women who angered by the militant nature of the Suffragettes and the tactics they employed. Membership in 1914 was at a respectable 53,000. The NUWSS even offered women temporary housing during their 'wild period'. The women who were discouraged by the outlandish tactics of the WSPU now had a new home. New recruits wanted to be apart of the movement but not with the violence and destruction liked to the Pankhurts. The NUWSS gained support from some trade unions, and also came to a mutual agreement with new Labour. The Liberls -who were in power at the time - were threatened by Labour's cooperation with the movement, and subsequently realized if they made no change to the voting system, Labour would pose as a serious threat. Martin Pugh stated that "probably the one positive contribution to Pankhurts and their followers" - meaning that, the NWUSS was the only good and constructive movement to come out of the Pankhurt's initial campaign for the female vote. To summarize, the NUWSS although initially seen as 'ineffective' proved that peaceful persuasion and the contrast of violent criminal activities gained support for the cause instead of angering people. Therefore, the campaign is one of many important reasons why women won the vote, possibly even the most influential due to their gaining in support of important people in Britain at the time.

The WSPU or the Suffragette campaign, was formed by Emmelie Pankhurt and her formidable daughters Christabel and Sylvia in 1903. They wanted women to have the right to vote and they were not prepared to wait. The Union became better known as the Suffragettes. Members of the Suffragettes were prepared to use violence to get what they wanted. They were frustrated by the lack of progress of the NUWSS. The early 1900's news had lost intrest in the issue. With their motto 'deeds not words' they hoped to breathe new life into the issue of women's suffrage. In fact, the Suffragettes remained relatively peaceful until 1905. Christabel Pankhurst and Annie Kenney interrupted a political meeting in Manchester to ask two Liberal politicians (Winston Churchill and Sir Edward Grey) if they believed women should have the right to vote. Neither man replied. As a result, the two women got out a banner which had on it "Votes for Women" and shouted at the two politicians to answer their questions. Such actions were all but unheard of then when public speakers were usually heard in silence and listened to courteously even if you did not agree with them. Pankhurst and Kenney were thrown out of the meeting and arrested for causing an obstruction and a technical assault on a police officer as they had kicked and spat and the policeman. Both women refused to pay a fine preferring to go to prison to highlight the injustice of the system as it was then. The nation was shocked by the violence. The news took immediate notice. The Suffragettes had achieved their first objective - publicity. In 1906, the Liberals gained power and things seemed bright for the campaign as the new prime minister Campbell-Bannerman was personally in favor of the female vote. However, this deteriorated fast. Bannerman suddenly died in 1908, Asquith assumed office. A man very against women gaining the vote, he outraged the Suffragettes, so much so that they declared war on the government. Suffragettes were quite happy to go to prison. One such women in July 1909, Marion Dunlop used hunger strikes to embarrass the government while in prison. Here they refused to eat and went on a hunger strike. The government was very concerned that they might die in prison thus giving the movement martyrs. Women prisionsers used starvation as a weapon.Prison governors were ordered to force feed Suffragettes but this caused a public outcry as forced feeding was traditionally used to feed lunatics as opposed to what were mostly educated women. In response to the bad publicity, the government passed Prisionsers Temporary Discharge For Ill Health act which meant that strikers were left alone until they became ill, then released. Once well again, the women were rearrested and forced to serve the remainder of their sentence. It seemed in theory to be a good way of dealing with the striking women but released females did not want to return so hid and as a result police became bogged down searching for them. Both sides playing with each other hence the nick name for the act, the Cat and Mouse Act. Other tactics used by the WSPU included pouring acid into pillar boxes, ruining cricket pavilions, racing stands and golf club houses were set on fire. This escalated in 1913 when they tried to burn down the houses of members who apposed the female vote. Even churches such as Whitekirk were targeted because they were situated in constituencies of leading politicians. All of this violent criminal activity created a string of bad publicity for the cause which was summed up by Lord Cecil in 1912 - "way in which certain types of women, easily recognized, have acted in the last year or two has brought so much disgrace and discredit up their sex". Thus creating concerns within the WSPU over Mrs Pankhurt's leadership. So much so that in 1907 seventy women left and formed the Women's Freedom League which was prepared to break the law, refusing to pay taxes and did not support the WSPU's violent campaign of attacks on properties as they deemed it not suffice. Even more women left the suffragettes and left a small number of women in 1914 commited to Mrs Pankhurst still remaining. By the summer of 1914, all leaders of the WSPU were either in prision or hiding. Greater than one thousand women were in prision for destroying public property, which made the public opinion turned again the Suffragettes so much that by 1913 it was dangerous for any to speak out at public meetings. Anit-suffragist postcards, and songs mocked the suffrage movement. By the eve of world war one very few were still campaigning. Actions of the WSPU mobilized opposing opinions and provided a good excuse for anti-suffrage campaigns to avoid the issue of fairness. By focusing on militant strategies provided an excellent example of why women could not be trusted with the vote. Many tactical errors of Pankhurst include failing to ally with the Labour movement to increase democracy in Britain. They also ignored the thousands of working class men who still had no voice, Pankhurst was even willing to settle for granting the vote to some wealthy women rather than all adults. Enfranchisement was being discussed during the war and as the Pankhurts had long since abandoned the campaign had no influence over the discussion. Mrs Pankhurts and the suffragettes show that it's useful to remember that those who pioneer a cause are not always responsible for it's successes. However it is not true that Suffragette campaign ruined support for woman's suffrage. Although support decreased dramatically, it can be argued that without the campaign they would not have been any hope of women gaining the vote. In fact, the Liberal government would not even discuss woman's suffrage before World War one.

The pressure of other countries giving women also contributed to women gaining the vote with international pressure. By the time America joined the war, some of the United States had given women the vote. Other countries, such as New Zealand -as early as 1893 - , Australia, Finland and Denmark, along with most of Canada, had enfranchised women. The result was that it was increasingly difficult for Britain not to follow suit. Britain would be embarrassed politically if the 'mother of democracy' was seen to be lagging behind other countries.In addition, Britain's war propaganda stressed the fact that the Allies were fighting for democracy and this implied universal suffrage. This had not caused the disasters to the moral fabric of the societies of these countries as Britain had predicted. In fact, most countries who gave women the vote before Britain, claimed it had actually helped them a great deal.

Along with changing attitudes, the importance of the great war is seen by some as another significant reason why some women gained the vote in 1918. although this has been further scrutinized as too simplistic by some historians. To encourage the suffragettes to end their ruthless campaign, the government released all prisioners of the WSPU and in response they agreed to cease campaigning within two days of the war breaking out. With a grant of two thousand pounds from the government a WSPU pro-war propaganda campaign encouraged men to enlist and women to demand 'right to serve'. With slogs such as 'For Men Must Fight and Women Must Work' they made the desired in pact. They even changed the name of their newspaper from Suffragette to Britannia. Creating a more relaxed, union with the government. This led to accusations of betrayal from the pacifist Women's Freedom League and militant suffragettes. As conscriptions were introduced on the 27th of January 1916 to fill casualty gaps on the war front, women were needed to fill gaps on the home front. Women's war work was vital to Britains eventual victory. Women did such jobs as conductors, typists and secretaries. Nearly 200,000 women worked for the government during the war. However, the biggest increase was in the male dominated industries such as munitions as 700,000 plus joined, facing danger from explosions and chemicals. Further more, one explanation for granting the vote for some women in 1918, has been women's valuable work for the war effort which radically changed the male ideas about females places and roles in society, they felt obliged to give the vote as a 'thank you'. This however, seems to simplistic as it overlooks pre 1914 changes in attitudes. For example, women were ejected from 'mens work' jobs they had performed during the war. Both government policy, and commerical advertising the idea of women's place in the home, rather than working was stronger than ever. Women, mostly young, single, twenty year olds had risked their lives working long hours in munitions factories putting their own health at risk for the benefit of the country, received nothing as a thank you for their efforts as they were not thirty nor did they own their own houses by 1918 which made them exempt for the right to vote. Women given the vote were over 30, who were 'respectable ladies', property owners or owners of property threw marriage which was not the people doing the hard work in munitions factories.Another argument is that during the war, French women worked just as hard as the British ladies, doing the same sorts of jobs but received no 'thank you' post war. Fears began to grow in government, that the women who had made valuable contributions during the war were now facing redundancies or being pressured into returning to 'women's work'. The government were not sure if these women would return to a life of Suffragette 'terrorism'. The Representation of People act 1918, hoped to keep the rebelling Suffragettes happy by offering them a slice of the political pie. Another reason was that politicans were already anxious to enfranchise more men, many of whom had lost their residency qualification for the right to vote as a result of moving homes for war service. Before 1918, voters had to have a permanent address for more than one year. It was seen as politically unacceptable to tell ex-soldiers they have lost their right to vote after four years of grueling war service. So the rules had to change. Led to a review in 1917 which aimed to fix this and included women as an extra. All men who had been in the army, were aloud to vote at 19, instead of 21 because of their service. The creation of the war time coalition opened the door for change as Asquith -an opponent of the female vote - was replaced with the more pragmatic David Lloyd George which meant that his support for the vote made it much easier to accomplish. The sight of women doing their bit gained themselves respect and balanced the negative publicity the Pankhurts and their followers had created. Even true that this converted earlier opponent including Asquith. The electorate increased to twenty one million of which forty percent were women! Although some women saw the act as unfair as they were not polically equal because men could vote on an age qualification alone and also nine years before women could. Even twenty percent of women at the age of thirty could not vote because they were property owners. The impact of the first world war on the female vote was that of quite dramatic consequences but it cannot be forgotten that to say the vote was just a 'thank you' for their efforts is incorrect as women were merely an extra to the act which allowed most men to vote.

On final analysis, it's clear that attitudes towards women dramatically changed between the sixty years in which it took for women to gain the essential vote, thus making Britain a more democratic, fairer country. The attitudes which claimed women were not mentally compable for the vote or that women simply did not want the vote were completely abolished by 1918. The efforts of the NUWSS proved marginally successful to gain support the more peaceful way but were seen as too laid back and did not live up their full potential as they did not try to cooperate with the Labour party which could have speeded up the cause. The failures of Mrs Pankhurts and her campaign are plain to see through analysis as their tough, violent approach did achieve the publicity they wanted, but not the kind of publicity which would have been beneficial to the cause as it displayed them in a very bad light to the nation and acted as an excuse why women shouldn't gain the vote. At one point, Churchill proclaimed that "their cause has marched backwards". This further more haulted the eventual winning of the vote which the WSPU ironically had not say in. The most successful by far was the work of women during the first world war. This counteracted the bad publicity created by The Pankhurts campaigns and their eventual efforts can be said to have been the catalyst which gained women the vote.
Although women were included as an extra and not as a 'thank you' as it has been commonly suggested, into the Representation of People Act 1918, it can be argued that without the benefitcal and war winning work on the home front these women did during the war, they would not have been included into the act whatsoever. The very fact that the act had to be extended in 1928 to include all women on the same basis clearly under minds the act its self as it was not seen to go far enough in creating a democratic society of which male and female would have the same rights. Full adult suffrage was not achieved until Stanley Baldwin's Conservative government passed the Equal Franchise Bill in 1928. From that date, all adults regardless of gender were entitled to the vote once they reached 21 years of age. Although Representation of the People act 1918 allowed women to vote, it did not allow all woman to vote at the same age as men. One criteria for a democratic country is one where all men and women over a set age can vote so clearly Britain cannot be called democratic in 1918 because there was an age difference for men and women.To conclude, "changing attitudes in British society towards women was the major reason why some women received the vote in 1918" is in some ways, is an accurate view but it cannot be forgotten that many other factors accumulated into the leading up for the female vote although changing attitudes is one of the most important.

[robbieyoung987654321]

The Great Gatsby by Robbie Young

In the novel, 'The Great Gatsby' by F Scott Fitzgerald, a profound theme is carried though out which determines the fate of the main character. Jay Gatsby, a working class man dies a destitute death caused by his upper class counterparts, having failed to accomplish his dream. This effectively conveys the novels theme : the failure of the American dream. Fitzgerald uses symbolism, pathetic fallacy, characterization, setting and a turning point to convey this to us.

The setting of the novel is very important in conveying its theme. The social class divide is represented by a stretch of water which stretches between East and West Egg. The 'new money' characters who inhabit West Egg are self made citizens who have earned their own wealth. Nick, the narrator states - "I lived in West Egg, the - well less fashionable of the two" - this is conveyed threw Mr Gatsby's house and how it's an immitation of the high class 'palaces' of East Egg. This is in contrast to the old money East Egg houses and more specifically the Buchanan's home. Gatsby had bought his marble mansion in an attempt to become a prominent member of the aristocracy and in turn win Daisy's affections. Even at the start the failure of the American Dream and personal fulfillment seems unattainable for Gatsby as he is not of the old money class so he will never be accepted by them no matter how much he aspires to improve himself and deemed to be fit by them. In Gatsby's head if he attaines the upper class status he will attain Daisy's love and therefore achieve his dream.

The Valley of Ashes is another area in the novel which successfully conveys the theme of the failure of the American Dream. This area is an unprosporous, desolate, and industrial area where the lower class characters in the novel originate. It symbolizes the broken dreams of settlers who envisaged the American Dream but did not achieve it. An ultimate contrast is made between the Valley of Ashes and the opulent surrounds of East Egg. An advertising billboard of Doctor T.J Eckleberg - which is in the Valley - is a symbol which shows the change in industry and the introduction of brand names in America at the time. It appears, to Nick, a failed business as the billboard is in a tired, poor condition. "Retinas one yard high, persistent stare" - standing there emphasing to the people of the Valley, the billboard symbolizes that a large proportion of society will not achieve their dreams and therefore better themselves, no matter how intensely they try. George Wilson, an inhabitant of the Valley of Ashes, is an example of the broken dream as he cannot ameliorate his life. The garage, he is the proprietor of shows this very clearly. It is an uninviting, unprosperous business which George cannot improve. The central old money character, Tom - Daisy's spouse - man handles George when we first see them together, disrespecting him and becoming impatient towards him. This emphasises the upper classes preceding higher up on the social scale compared to George and the working classes. Tom enjoys the control he enforces over George. This becomes a more important aspect of Tom's personality later on in the novel.

Gatsby's car is another significant symbol in the novel. The car with its "monstrous length" and it's "gorgeous" exterior reflects Gatsby's ambition to move up the social spectrum and obtain aristocratic status. Notably the car is an off white, cream colour which emphasises that Gatsby is not old money and never will be. White is a colour which would have been hard to obtain and is used by Fitzgerald to represent aristocracy as it would be incredibley expensive to keep something pure white. The interior of the car, a green leather colour reinforces Gatsby's envy towards to Tom as he wishes to attain Daisy's affections but can not. This refers back to chapter one when Nick sees Gatsby reaching over the social class divided bay to the Buchanan's house and more specifically the green warning light at the end of their dock. Overall, the car is a key idea of Gatsby's flamboyance but that he isn't of that social standard and never will be as he wasn't born into money so is looked down on by the upper classes. It also shows that social mobility, which Henry Ford promised with his automobile, does not exist.

Gatsby arranges a meeting between him and his love, Daisy in chapter five emphasizing his obsessive love for her but also for shadowing the failure of his dream. Fitzgerald emphasises the clock that is in Nick's home. It is an important symbol in the novel as the time piece is broken it reflects that the past -relationship with Daisy- will stay there and ultimately he will not achieve winning Daisy back which is his dream. "Daisy tumbled short of his dreams" - his dreams of being with her, could be not realized not through his own fault but merely by the social class divide and her marriage to Tom.

The climax of the novel in chapter seven depicts Gatsby;s dream and the inevitable failure of that dream. Pathetic fallacy is used - "broiling certainly the warmest of summer" - to effectively indicate that something dramatic is about to occur. The time of year, the last day of summer, symbolizes the end of happiness and time with Daisy as their affair spanned the summer. The characters : Tom, Daisy, Nick and Gatsby congregate at the Buchanan's house for lunch. While they're eating, Daisy says to Gatsby "you always look so cool". Tom, instantaneously suspects the affair. To avoid a full confrontation, Daisy suggests a trip to New York to diffuse the situation. Before they leave, Tom insists on switching cars which shows that the upper classes try and control the social mobility of the lower classes. Daisy and Gatsby in tom's car, Tom Jordan and Nick in Gatsby's. En route Tom and the others pass through Wilson's garage in the Valley of Ashes. George explains how him and his wife - Tom's mistress - Myrtle are moving west because of his poor business performance. This for shadows her upcoming manslaughter but also the likely failure of Gatsby's dream as like Myrtle, he is of a lower class background. Tom's controlling nature once again becomes apparent when Wilson says they're actually leaving - "I'll let you have that car". Tom is trying to stop Myrtle leaving by offering George a car to invigorate his business therefore keeping the Wilson's where they are. After this when they arrive in the city, the group decide to hire a room at the Grand Plaza hotel. This leads to disastrous consequences as Tom and Gatsby begin to altercate over Daisy's affections. Gatsby imprudently shouts to Tom that Daisy never loved him and that she wants to be his his spouse. The writer makes it clear to the reader that this is unattainable for Gatsby. Tom reciprocates by saying to Gatsby that she will not. Tom becomes rude and aggressive towards Gatsby - "she's not leaving me". Tom realizes that his wife will not leave him no matter what he does because of his status. Gatsby now turns his attention to Daisy - "you never loved him". He is unrealistic and disillusional about what he desires. Daisy quite obviously loves Tom despite his fling with Myrtle. She has a child with tom, he has the money and status she has become accustom towards. Daisy's reaction is somewhat baffling to Gatsby. "And as though she had never, all along, intended doing anything at all". The writer is trying to convey that Daisy just saw the affair as a way of getting self gratification not a serious courtship. The affair which they had was condemned from the very beginning. Tom reveals how Gatsby has gained his enormous wealth, criminality. This seals the fate of Gatsby's dream. She is evermore discouraged to leave Tom, for him. She realizes his status in society is almost bought by his criminal activities and wrong doings. After this, they disperse from the hotel returning into their own cars. Tom insists that Gatsby must go in the car home with Daisy in a attempt to humiliate him. The idea of the glass ceiling is more than apparent here, seeing what you want but not being able to attain it. On the journey homer Gatsby's car hits Myrtle and kills her at this point we do not know that is was Daisy driving but this becomes apparent later. A local Greek businessman describes the car as green when it is actually cream. This reflects that the relationship has changed but also that his dream is over and his envy has returned. Tom drives past and discovers Myrtle's death. This is ironic as cars typically represent social mobility but the car kills her, stopping her from achieving social mobility. Fitzgerald critises society for crushing peoples dreams showing that the American Dream won't be achieved when the Tom Buchanan's of this world reinforce the glass ceiling, Tom, reveals his coldness as a human being by clearing his name to George Wilson, showing no empathy for what has just happend. He shows no emotion to the women who was his mistress.; Gatsby reveals to nick he will take the blame for Daisy's crime. "But of course I say I did". Gatsby is still fixed on his dream, gaining Daisy's affections.Near the end of chapter seven, Gatsby is found by Nick staring into the windows of the Buchanan's house. This is an important symbol in the novel as Gatsby, the outsider, is looking into the life he can only dream off. The Buchanan's behavior indicates Daisy and Tom are going to stay together. "Anybody could say they were conspiring together" - this indicates Tom and Daisy will move away. Tom finds his wife's infidelity intolerable, however, he does not hesitate to lie to her about his own affair. They will blame Gatsby for Myrtle's death. Despite Daisy's infidelities, Tom is willing to conspire with her, look over what happened and move on. The Buchanan's behavior shows they see the lower classes as a homogeneous mass without distinction. The chapter represents the turning point in Gatsby's fortunes. He was an elaborate character throwing parties but now he will probably go to prison. Ultimately, his dream is over. Thing shall never be the same.

One symbol, the swimming pool is used twice in the final chapters. Firstly, when a member of Gatsby's staffing asks if he would like to drain the pool as he "never used that pool all summer". He categorically does not want the pool to be drained. He is clinging to the lost hopes of his already deceased dream. The associates the pool with summer, the summer he spent with Daisy. Nick on page 98 shouts over to Gatsby and says "You're worth the whole damn bunch of them put together". Nick believes this because underneath all the criminality Gatsby is a good person and despite his wrong doings he cares about others, he is not selfish and he persues what he believes in till the bitter, dramatic end.

Chapter eight also sees the mental demise of George Wilson, Full of grief and subsequent anger, George goes on the search of his dearly beloveds executioner. He refers to the advertising billboard of Dr T J Eckleberg as "God". Mr Wilson has found out just how materialistic and money hungry people in America are at this time with misers like Buchanan's mistreating the lower classes. "Perhaps he had an easier way of finding out what he wanted to know" - this implies George Wilson was told by Tom that it was Gatsby who killed Myrtle even though the reader knows it was not. George Wilson, with gun in hand, shoots Gatsby and then commits suicide. It's symbolic that Gatsby is killed by a gun because it suggests a criminal past. Where Gatsby is killed is also very significant, the swimming pool. Fitzgerald chooses this as it symbolizes summer with Daisy. This dream is over, his dream kills him. "The holocaust was complete" - Fitzgerald is saying to us, all of the lower classes, including Gatsby have all been killed on the back of what the upper classes have done and said. This places great emphasis on the theme, the failure of the must debated, American Dream. The line "he must have felt he had paid a high price for living too long with a single dream" - indicates what the fate of the theme on the Gatsby, The dream causes his death. Chapter nine in the novel explores life after Gatsby for all the characters remaining. On the way to Gatsby's funeral, his father reveals to Tom a list of self improvement steps which shows he from an early age wanted to better himself this connects to the theme as he failed to achieve it. Despite all the fakery, all the trying, Gatsby did not achieve it, it was unattainable to him as it is to the rest of Americans. "Fresh green breast of the world" - just like the Dutch sailors who came to America in search of a better, new life, Gatsby wanted this also but more specifically Daisy. The green light of Daisy's dock is yet again referenced here. The final line of the book is very significant to the theme. "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past" - Gatsby being the boat and the aristocracy being the current. Water imagery used previously by Fitzgerald to show the social divide . He can never get away from the fact he will never be accepted into their society merely because he was not born into money so they don't respect him as a person.

On final analysis, the theme of the failure of the American Dream is very conveyed by the author. As in the car, a symbol of great social mobility kills every lower class character is evident that the dream has failed. There can be no doubt the novel successfully carries the profound theme throughout. most certainly Fitzgerald is trying to show the reader that life its self does not always go the way you wish it would but also that you should not aspire to be something you categorically are not. Gatsby is great because of his dreams and his inability to give up. If we do not have dreams and try to better ourselves we become shallow, unhappy people like the Buchanan's.

[mslewis]

Thanks for this Robbie.

Maybe you should suggest to History that they get a message board too!

Ms L

PS No prob with posting stuff here for History if it helps you. Looks like detailed essays that you've got here. Takes me back! History was my second favourite subject at school!

[robbieyoung987654321]

"The Great Gatsby" by F Scott Fitzgerald is a short novel which focuses, among other things, a confrontational relationship which acts as the trigger to the death of the main character, Jay Gatsby. Between Gatsby, and Tom Buchanan the relationship develops and becomes more heated during the course of the novel because of Gatsby's underlying love for Tom's spouse, Daisy after a short lived fling a few years prior. The relationship between Tom - an upper class aristocrat - and Gatsby - a lower class man of farming background who recently achieved his wealth threw illegal means - is effective in conveying the novels' theme of, the failure of the American Dream of which Gatsby has actually encountered because of the conflict for Daisy's affections and because of the social class divide which existed in America during the time the novel was set.

The novel is set in 1922 in the state New York, at the height of the Jazz Age. The narrator, Nick Carraway, introduces us to Jay Gatsby, a mysterious and very wealthy man famed for his lavish parties. The theme of the novel is the failure of the American Dream. Gatsby, a self made man who dreams of joining the aristocracy and winning the heart of Daisy Buchanan, represents the original American Dream of wealth, happiness, and freedom achieved through hard work regardless of the social class you were born into. Gatsby's dreams are destroyed by the behavior of the aristocracy who have corrupted the American Dream. Their obsession with money leads them to cruelly exclude all outsiders from their world.

Fitzgerald prepares us for the confrontation between Gatsby and Tom from the beginning of the novel through his setting and characterisation. The social class divide is represented by a stretch of water which stretches between East and West Egg. The 'new money' characters who inhabit West Egg are self made citizens who have earned their own wealth. Nick, the narrator states - "I lived in West Egg, the - well less fashionable of the two" - this is conveyed threw Mr Gatsby's house and how it's an imitation of the high class 'palaces' of East Egg. This is in contrast to the old money East Egg houses and more specifically the Buchanan's home. Gatsby had bought his marble mansion in an attempt to become a prominent member of the aristocracy and in turn win Daisy's affections. Even at the start, the failure of the American Dream and personal fulfillment seems unattainable for Gatsby as he is not of the old money class so he will never be accepted by them no matter how much he aspires to improve himself and deemed to be fit by them. In Gatsby's head if he attains the upper class status he will attain Daisy's love and therefore achieve his dream. The Valley of Ashes is another area in the novel which successfully conveys the theme of the failure of the American Dream and prepares us for the conflict between Tom and Gatsby. This area is an unprosporous, desolate, and industrial area where the lower class characters in the novel originate. It symbolizes the broken dreams of settlers who envisaged the American Dream but did not achieve it. An ultimate contrast is made between the Valley of Ashes and the opulent surrounds of East Egg. An advertising billboard of Doctor T.J Eckleberg - which is in the Valley - is a symbol which shows the change in industry and the introduction of brand names in America at the time. It appears, to Nick, a failed business as the billboard is in a tired, poor condition. "Retinas one yard high, persistent stare" - standing there emphasing to the people of the Valley, the billboard symbolizes that a large proportion of society will not achieve their dreams and therefore better themselves, no matter how intensely they try. George Wilson, an inhabitant of the Valley of Ashes, is an example of the broken dream as he cannot ameliorate his life. The garage, he is the proprietor of shows this very clearly. It is an uninviting, unprosperous business which George cannot improve. The central old money character, Tom - Daisy's spouse - man handles George when we first see them together, disrespecting him and becoming impatient towards him. This emphasises the upper classes preceding higher up on the social scale compared to George and the working classes. Tom enjoys the control he enforces over George. This becomes a more important aspect of Tom's personality later on in the novel with Tom's arrogance and social dominance is even more prominent than it is here. Gatsby's car is another significant symbol in the novel. The car with its "monstrous length" and it's "gorgeous" exterior reflects Gatsby's ambition to move up the social spectrum and obtain aristocratic status. Notably the car is an off white, cream colour which emphasises that Gatsby is not old money and never will be. White is a colour which would have been hard to obtain and is used by Fitzgerald to represent aristocracy as it would be incredibly expensive to keep something pure white. The interior of the car, a green leather colour reinforces Gatsby's envy towards to Tom as he wishes to attain Daisy's affections but can not. This refers back to chapter one when Nick sees Gatsby reaching over the social class divided bay to the Buchanan's house and more specifically the green warning light at the end of their dock. Overall, the car is a key idea of Gatsby's flamboyance but that he isn't of that social standard and never will be as he wasn't born into money so is looked down on by the upper classes. It also shows that social mobility, which Henry Ford promised with his automobile, does not exist. Gatsby and Tom's first proper meeting occurs in chapter six at one of Gatsby's illustrious parties. Tom, uniterested by the party decides only to keep a close on eye on his wife as he does not like nor trust Gatsby's intentions. Tom is rude and ignorant towards Gatsby at the party and opts to leave the party early after claiming that Gatsby gained his wealth threw the illegal selling and distribution of alcohol - outlawed at this time - which makes his wife angrily reply that Gatsby’s wealth comes from a chain of drugstores that he operates which we as the reader, know is false. With his wife in hand, Tom leaves. Gatsby is upset by the fact Daisy had such an unpleasant time and how Tom was peering over every little thing she did. Nick realizes that Gatsby wants Daisy to tell Tom that she has never loved him. Nick tells Gatsby that he cannot ask too so of Daisy, and says, "You can't repeat the past." Gatsby fastly replies: "Of course you can!". This prepares us for the upcoming heated turning point in the next chapter as Gatsby, upset by what has happened wishes to unravel the affair to Tom as an act of revenge.

The confrontation between Gatsby and Tom in chapter seven is the turning point and dramatic climax of the novel as the reader is left in no doubt that Gatsby's dream will never be realised. The climax of the novel in chapter seven depicts Gatsby;s dream and the inevitable failure of that dream. Pathetic fallacy is used - "broiling certainly the warmest of summer" - to effectively indicate that something dramatic is about to occur. The time of year, the last day of summer, symbolizes the end of happiness and time with Daisy as their affair spanned the summer. The characters : Tom, Daisy, Nick and Gatsby congregate at the Buchanan's house for lunch. While they're eating, Daisy says to Gatsby "you always look so cool". Tom, instantaneously suspects the affair. To avoid a full confrontation, Daisy suggests a trip to New York to diffuse the situation. Before they leave, Tom insists on switching cars which shows that the upper classes try and control the social mobility of the lower classes. Daisy and Gatsby in tom's car, Tom Jordan and Nick in Gatsby's. En route Tom and the others pass through Wilson's garage in the Valley of Ashes. George explains how him and his wife - Tom's mistress - Myrtle are moving west because of his poor business performance. This for shadows her upcoming manslaughter but also the likely failure of Gatsby's dream as like Myrtle, he is of a lower class background. Tom's controlling nature once again becomes apparent when Wilson says they're actually leaving - "I'll let you have that car". Tom is trying to stop Myrtle leaving by offering George a car to invigorate his business therefore keeping the Wilson's where they are. After this when they arrive in the city, the group decide to hire a room at the Grand Plaza hotel. This leads to disastrous consequences as Tom and Gatsby begin to altercate over Daisy's affections. Gatsby imprudently shouts to Tom that Daisy never loved him and that she wants to be his his spouse. The writer makes it clear to the reader that this is unattainable for Gatsby. Tom reciprocates by saying to Gatsby that she will not. Tom becomes rude and aggressive towards Gatsby - "she's not leaving me". Tom realizes that his wife will not leave him no matter what he does because of his status. Gatsby now turns his attention to Daisy - "you never loved him". He is unrealistic and disillusioned about what he desires. Daisy quite obviously loves Tom despite his fling with Myrtle. She has a child with tom, he has the money and status she has become accustom towards. Daisy's reaction is somewhat baffling to Gatsby. "And as though she had never, all along, intended doing anything at all". The writer is trying to convey that Daisy just saw the affair as a way of getting self gratification not a serious courtship. The affair which they had was condemned from the very beginning. Tom reveals how Gatsby has gained his enormous wealth, criminality. This seals the fate of Gatsby's dream. She is evermore discouraged to leave Tom, for him. She realizes his status in society is almost bought by his criminal activities and wrong doings. After this, they disperse from the hotel returning into their own cars. Tom insists that Gatsby must go in the car home with Daisy in a attempt to humiliate him. The idea of the glass ceiling is more than apparent here, seeing what you want but not being able to attain it. On the journey homer Gatsby's car hits Myrtle and kills her at this point we do not know that is was Daisy driving but this becomes apparent later. A local Greek businessman describes the car as green when it is actually cream. This reflects that the relationship has changed but also that his dream is over and his envy has returned. Tom drives past and discovers Myrtle's death. This is ironic as cars typically represent social mobility but the car kills her, stopping her from achieving social mobility. Fitzgerald critises society for crushing peoples dreams showing that the American Dream won't be achieved when the Tom Buchanan's of this world reinforce the glass ceiling, Tom, reveals his coldness as a human being by clearing his name to George Wilson, showing no empathy for what has just happened. He shows no emotion to the women who was his mistress.; Gatsby reveals to nick he will take the blame for Daisy's crime. "But of course I say I did". Gatsby is still fixed on his dream, gaining Daisy's affections.Near the end of chapter seven, Gatsby is found by Nick staring into the windows of the Buchanan's house. This is an important symbol in the novel as Gatsby, the outsider, is looking into the life he can only dream off. The Buchanan's behavior indicates Daisy and Tom are going to stay together. "Anybody could say they were conspiring together" - this indicates Tom and Daisy will move away. Tom finds his wife's infidelity intolerable, however, he does not hesitate to lie to her about his own affair. They will blame Gatsby for Myrtle's death. Despite Daisy's infidelities, Tom is willing to conspire with her, look over what happened and move on. This shows his callous personality. The Buchanan's behavior shows they see the lower classes as a homogeneous mass without distinction. The chapter represents the turning point in Gatsby's fortunes. He was an elaborate character throwing parties but now he will probably go to prison. Ultimately, his dream is over. Thing shall never be the same.

The confrontation in chapter seven leads directly to Gatsby's death, in the novels denouement. Tom, causes Gatsby's demise by wrongfully informing George Wilson that is was, in fact, Gatsby driving the car which hit his dearly beloved, Myrtle. He refers to the advertising billboard of Dr T J Eckleberg as "God". Mr Wilson has found out just how materialistic and money hungry people in America are at this time with misers like Buchanan's mistreating the lower classes. "Perhaps he had an easier way of finding out what he wanted to know" - this implies George Wilson was told by Tom that it was Gatsby who killed Myrtle even though the reader knows it was not. George Wilson, with gun in hand, shoots Gatsby and then commits suicide. It's symbolic that Gatsby is killed by a gun because it suggests a criminal past. Where Gatsby is killed is also very significant, the swimming pool. Fitzgerald chooses this as it symbolizes summer with Daisy. This dream is over, his dream kills him. It's also very relevant to think that all of the lower class characters have been killed directly, or indirectly by the car, which Henry Ford claimed would be the new commodity, giving anyone despite their social background the right to better themselves. This refers back to the theme of the novel but also to the intolerance of the upper classes - Tom Buchanan in particular - towards the rising lower classes who can only dream of bettering themselves. The idea of the glass ceiling in reinforced here. Where you can see what you want, but something - the upper classes - are in the way of any means of getting what you uppermost desire. Nick on page 98 shouts over to Gatsby and says "You're worth the whole damn bunch of them put together". Nick believes this because underneath all the criminality Gatsby is a good person and despite his wrong doings he cares about others, he is not selfish and he persues what he believes in till the bitter, dramatic end. Thus creating a sympathetic image of Gatsby as Nick has sided with the books hero, Gatsby, because he sees just how terribly the upper classes treat the lower classes and enforce the glass ceiling more than ever. The line "he must have felt he had paid a high price for living too long with a single dream" - indicates what the fate of the theme on the Gatsby, The dream causes his death. Chapter nine in the novel explores life after Gatsby for all the characters remaining. On the way to Gatsby's funeral, his father reveals to Nick a list of self improvement steps which shows he from an early age wanted to better himself this connects to the theme as he failed to achieve it no matter how much he tried. Despite all the fakery, all the trying, Gatsby did not achieve it, it was unattainable to him as it is to the rest of Americans because of the demoralizing attitude of the aristocracy. "Fresh green breast of the world" - just like the Dutch sailors who came to America in search of a better, new life, Gatsby wanted this also but more specifically Daisy. The green light of Daisy's dock is yet again referenced here. The final line of the book is very significant to the theme. "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past" - Gatsby being the boat and the aristocracy being the current. Water imagery used previously by Fitzgerald to show the social divide . He can never get away from the fact he will never be accepted into their society merely because he was not born into money so they don't respect him as a person which recreates the animosity felt by Tom towards Gatsby. All in all, the reader is made to feel sympathetic towards Gatsby because of his determination to better himself. The reader wishes he had achieved his dream.

On final analysis there can be no doubt that The Great Gatsby features a detrimental relationship between two people, which is confrontational and, ultimately, ends in the death of the novels hero, Gatsby. The confrontation relates to the novels theme, the failure of the American Dream, as it is Tom - an upper class character - who causes the death of Gatsby, who wanted to move up the social scale and become a member of the aristocracy but is stopped because of what social class he was born into which refers back to the American Dream, which original meaning was not just consisting of money, but of personal fulfillment in every sector of ones life. Gatsby did not achieve this because of the attitudes of the aristocracy who wanted to keep a firm grip on the place they had inherited into society and not let people of new money, of illegitimate money, like Gatsby, become on equal terms as they see themselves which creates the tension in the novel between Gatsby and Tom. I feel Fitzgerald is extremely effective in conveying the confrontation relationship between Gatsby and Buchanan because of the clear divides in every aspect of their lives including the geographical differences - the bay - but also the continuing use of colour contrast in such things as Gatsby car which is not pure white, unlike the things Tom owns. Fitzgerald is trying to show the reader that life its self does not always go the way you wish it would but also that you should not aspire to be something you categorically are not. Gatsby is great because of his dreams and his inability to give up. If we do not have dreams and try to better ourselves we become shallow, unhappy people like the Buchanan's.

[mslewis]

Thanks - got this!

[robbieyoung987654321]

If you are a Labour supporter please do not read my conclusive paragraph as you shall be deeply offended. Auch well. Truth hurts.

Robbie Young
"The Labour government of 1945-51 met the needs of the people 'from cradle to grave'". How valid is this view.

During World War Two and subsequently after wards many social problems first noticed by the Liberal government of 1906-1914 had arisen again. The impact of the Beverage report revolutionized the social systems, the welfare state was born. Beveridge claimed "this is time for revolution not for patching". This proposed a universal welfare plan that should cover the whole population of the country which included benefits to be paid out on the basis of right, not charity or based on the increasingly outdated and Victorian esq means teast. During the war such things as rationing and bombing had directly effected the people of Britain but also highlighted the genuine issues of poverty that had previously not been sufficiently dealt with. The wartime coaltion organised clothing, fuel and gave extra milk abnd meals to expectant mothers with children. To pay for these services wartime public got used to very high taxation levels, with half of every wage packet vanishing as tax to pay for the increased spending. Almost forshadowing the later situasion. A vision of the Labour government 1945-51 - often credited with the establishing of a more democratic, w0.elfare state - on the back of what Beverage suggested, aimed to provide "cradle to grave" care and help whenever it was needed, which went against the main values of the dimishing Liberal party who had tried, but failed to achieve this thirty years prior. The Beveridge report identified five giants as the main causes for the cycle of poverty : Want, Ignorance, Squalor, Disease and Idleness. Labour realised that tackling only one giant was no good. If the British peoples welfare were to improve then the government would have to try and solve all problems in its way. All working people would pay the same into the same scheme and most importantly, people got the same benefits out. The purpose of this essay will be to access how effective the Labour government of 1945-51 dealt with the problems raised by the Beverage report of 1942.

A classless attitude that 'post war had to be better than pre-war' was commonly recognized by everyone in Britain, including the government. There is a good arguement that the hostile experiences of WW2 paved the way for later social reforms as the middle classes become more aware of the huge problem of poverty through the wartime coalitions scheme of evacuation which put lower class inner city children into the houses of middle class land owners homes. This alerted the middle class Britain to the real poverty that still existed in the industrial slums as many were lice ridden, poorly educated and undernourished. As the general election of 1945 came closer, Labour issued their manifesto - there vision of what post-war Britain should be like. Promising of 'social reconstruction' and claiming "Victory in War must be followed by a Prosperous Peace" inspired the British public to put the uppermost trust in a Labour party which had been steadily growing ever since the 1920's. Titled 'Let Us Face The Future' us being the operative word. They had a clear vision of what they wanted to do during their term in office. Some historians, however, can successfully argue that their achievement were evolutionary rather than revolutionary, on the back of other governments such as the Liberals of 1906-14 and the coalition during the war.

Poverty was seen as the key social problem which affected all others such as bad health and lack of employment. In 1946 the National Insurance Act was passed which extended the Liberal Act of 1911 to include all adults who worked but also contributed to the shceme. This provided comprehensive insurance against most eventualities. The act provided sickness and unemployment benefit, retirement pension - the age which men were aloud to claim
the pension was reduced to sixty five, woman sixty - widow and maternity benefit and death grants. The act was designed to help the people of Britain from their needs at the time of birth to their death. Contributions took five percent of earnings, much less than previous insurance acts. The system was to 'the real advantage , especially of many women and also those of the lower middle class who had previously been excluded from most social insurance benefits'. However, the scheme was criticized for the large number of officials needed to operate it and others argued that the Act put simply, did not go far enough as the benefit was restricted to those citizens who had made 156 weekly contributions over a ten year period. Pension levels were still below basic sustenance of inflation, which as they were for the most vunerable in society, changed very little. The government raised old age pensions to a new level at once, instead of phasing in tghe increase over twenty years as Beveridge had recommended, by the time the new rates were introduced in 1948 their value had been reduced by inflation. The National Assistance act of 1948 aimed to help those people who did not qualify for full benefits or those who were not in work because of old age or those who had not paid enough contributions into the new National Insurance Scheme. The assistance was means tested. This meant the assistance received depended on the amount of money
or valuable belongings a family or individual possessed. A very unfair, old fashioned way. The aim of the scheme was to provide a 'safety net' to anyone who so happend to fall into poverty as some point in their life. National Assistance Boards were set up to help citizens whose resources were insufficient to meet their needs and offered weekly payments or one lump sum for a particular thing ie bedding or food. However, benefits were set too low which resulted in many citizens remaining below the subsistence level which defied the point in the act altogether. The Family Allowance Act - passed to iradicate household poverty although started by the wartime coaltion - included money paid to those with two or more offspring to help with paying for daily amenities. The benefits were paid directly to the mother of the household as fathers were deemed irresponsible to spend it wisely on what the household needed for ample life. As passed, the Act payed an allowance of five shillings per week for each child in a family other than the eldest; later Acts increased this sum. It was payable whilst the child was of school age, up to the age of eighteen, if apprenticed or in full-time school education. This relived some parental stress for the child to be pushed out into the world of war as soon as possible. The Industrial Insurance Act of 1946 included compensation paid by the Government to a worker who was injured whilst in work. Previously, compensation had been paid by the employer which had been terribly expensive to the buisness and was not comprehensive or regulated. The new scheme covered every worker in an industrial format. Under the terms of the act, industrial injury benefits were to be paid at a higher rate than for ordinary sickness benefits which helped the worker deal with the fiscal constraints of not being able to work during the time that they were injured. Overall, the acts introduced by the Labour government 1945-51 to eradicate Britain of the biggest giant want, were marginally successful as they genuinely helped those in need which was demonstrated by Rowntree's findings in York in 1950 which he found that poverty had gone down to 2% compared to 36% in 1936. Almost 50 years prior, Seebohm Rowntree had identifed old age, sickness, injury at work and unemployment as the main causes of poverty. Labour directly attacked these issues and provided help and assurance to many and in so doing removed the fear of fallinh into serious long-term poverty. On the other hand it can be argued that these acts simply did not go far enough as some receiving the benefits were still under the Rowntree's poverty line, reducing the effectness of these reforms but due to the post war finical constraints it's reasnoable this would the case. Compared to the social security of the past, the system put in place by 1948 was a marked improvement, but looking back from the present, it is clear to many that there was still a long way to go before the problems of poverty and deprivation were to be adequatley addressed.


Possibly because it still exists to this day and affects the lives of everyone, most people consider the greatest achievement of the post-war Labour government to be the creation of a National Health Service. In 1946 the National Health Service act was passed which had plans over a two year period to preprare, to go give every single person in Britain, without means testing, non dependent on class, health care, dental and optical services free of charge. Treatment by GPs and in hospitals was free also. These benefits were free at point of use, no patient being asked to pay for any treatment. In reality, of course, the service was and is paid for by the taxation and National Insurance payments made by every worker. This revolutionary act is seen, even today as a fundamental symbol of the Welfare State as it existed then and now. The NHS, introduced on July 5th 1948 was immediately popular because of a backlog of untreated problems, with doctors, dentists and opticians being inundated with patients queuing up for treatment that they had previously been unable to afford. Free prescriptions increased from 7 million per month before the NHS to 13.5 million per month in September 1948. In October 1949, the health minister Bevan declared than since the formation of the NHS 167 million prescriptions, 5.25 million pairs of glasses and 6.5 million dental patients had all been issued, for free. The provisions of hearing aids, false teeth, and efficient glasses, improved the quality of life for a major part of the population, especially the elderly who
had previously no chance of obtaining these sorts of things due to lack of funds or had to rely for support from friends, family or local charities. General practitioners were concerned as they believed they would be treated as mere civil servants. But, Bevan fixed this by buying them off, starting at the top with consultants. Much to the dismay of the Labour backbenchers in the Commons, Bevan announced in Feb 1948 that consultants would be allowed to continue their private practices on a part time basis as well as having their own lucrative pay-beds for private patiens in NHS hospitals. Ninety percent of the British Medical Association threatened action and to boycot the new act before with 40814 doctors voting against the NHS act and only 4734 voted for it. Clearly without their cooperation, the NHS would not work. Ninety percent took up the offer of more money after wards. However, despite it's monumental success, the NHS costs came as its biggest downfall, as it still is today. The budget rose from a conservitive £134m predicted in 1948 to £228m in 1949. By 1950, the service was costing £356 million per year which way over what the government had budgeted for. Britain had only just come out of a fiscally crippling war and it was fiscally impossible to deal with the vast amounts of money warranted to all the services being offered. The Labour government was forced to rethink it's fundamental principles of a free service by introducing charges for such things as spectacles and dental treatments which were seen as less important as more life threating medical services in hospitals and GP's surgery's. Running expenses of the NHS were reduced slightly but only at the cost of abandonibng a key principle of the NHS. Plans for new and improved hospitals had to be scrapped. In breaking their main principle of the act, Bevan and others who had introduced the NHs, resigned as a consequence in 1951 declaring their disgust. New demands put pressure on the NHS for example, more mothers were wishing to give birth -not helped by the baby boom of 1942-9- in hospitals, new medical techniques such as cardiac and hip surgery's were also created which led to a increase in demand. The debilitating cost of the NHS was it's single most downfall. The government realized it was the government was constrained in what it could realistically afford by the economy's performance the cost of rebuilding the country after the war. Right wing conservatives argue that "the NHS was too generous in allowing everyone to get free dentures, spectacles and prescriptions. This was wasteful; of scarce resources. People were getting thing they did not need." Which, in part, is true. Critics claim that Labour should have concentrated at first on investing in Britain's shattered industires rather than trying to tackle social welfare. Those middle classes who before the NHS, could afford private health care benefited quite considerably as they no longer had to pay doctors' fees as they got the services of better GP's in the more affluent areas in which they inhabited. Overall, the NHS, at this time failed to improve general medical service available to most people as the lower classes continued to experience a
humiliating stand of care in comparison to a much higher level of taxes to help pay for it. Sked and Cook historians in the 1970's claimed the NHS was "almost revolutionary social innovation since it improved the quality of life of most of the British people;... it was soon to become the social insitution of which the British would feel most proud".On the other hand, according to Charles Webster, the offical historian of the NHS writing in the late 80's, "The NHS failed to improve tge general medical service available to the bluk of the population. the middle classes benefited to some extent but the lower classes, especially after the introduction of the prescription charge in 1952, contiuned to received an inferior service, but for a higher level of payment through taxes and direct charges." Regardless of what these historians have to say, the debate over the NHS, it remains an important symbol of the brave new world of welfare reforms launched by Labour after 1945.

Squalor :
In 1945 most of Britain still had slum areas and overcrowding was a serious problem made worse by Mr Hitler's bombardment of every important city in the country.
For example, the Clyde bank blitz which seven out of twelve thousand houses remained after two days of bombing. As peace broke out, the Labour government realized that a huge rebuilding scheme was needed. The Labour manifesto of 1945 "Labour's pledge is firm and direct - it will proceed with a housing programme with the maximum practical speed with every family in this island has a good standard of accommodation." The newly elected government, aimed to build 200,000 new homes a year - raw materials were in short supply and expensive as many were imported from America and Sweden - many of these were prefabricated houses which were assembled quickly on site. Economic conditions post war were less than helpful in the construction of these houses. Although a mere 55400 new homes were built in 1946, by 1948 280,000 were built which was way above the proposed targets. Bevan's policy was to help those most in need ie. the working classes. Scarce building materials were allocated to local authorities, for them to build houses, mainly for rent. The houses built were to be a high standard with multiple sanitation physilties with separates kitchen and bathrooms, gas and electric, hot and cold women, indoor toilets and multiple gardens. By 1951, the government achieved an average of 196300 houses built per year. Although the record was not over whelming but it can be argued that Labour came close to it's target set in 1945 of building quality and affordable homes. Cities became encircled with housing estates built for people moving into the inner cities. New quality homes were much better than the overcrowded tenements left behind. The policy showed real concern for the future. Bevan insisted on a high standard. The 1946 new towns act created a vision of new Britain which gave the government power to decided where new towns to be built and allowed them to set up cooperation's to to carry out the building projects. The 1947 Town and County Planning act gave power to local authorities to plan communities by buying up properties in areas for redevelopment. Alex Kerr, a resident of own of these new towns said - "we were isolated at first, we were away from things, there were new shops or ememties at first but we soon made friends". This summed up the time. Council estates were hailed a saviour for ex tenement livers. Council landlords were more reliable and less harsh than private landlords. Also, more importantly, rent was one third of that in the private sector. The new towns aimed to create healthy and pleasent towns which accommodated the needs of the towns people, unlike the random, uncontrolled industrial cities. Livingston, a symbol of the new towns act reflected the successes of the act. In total, fourteen new towns were built by the end of the Labour government in 1951. Many have critised squalor and it's acts, as the single most failing of the Labour Government. Seen as a burden on Bevan's ministry of health, who already had a lot to do ie the NHS and fiscal struggles after the war. Bevan insisted that houses were to be built to a high standard. One thousand square foot was the minimum which was higher than the eight hundred square foot in the 1930's. Perhaps, he should have put more emphasis on quantity rather than quality given the scale of the problem. Many lower classes middle family's who could afford a home could not get one because of the lack of housing which were available to the market. Demand was not met. By 1951, the census found that their were 750,000 fewer houses than households, roughly the same level of homelessness as in 1931. "Traditionally, housing has been branded the welfare state failure of Bevan and the 1945 government" - Timmons. The new council estates were seen as a saviour for people living in cvorwded tenements in the centeres of Scotland's cities. Not least among the advantages was the council's role as major landlord which protected people from unfair exploitation by private landlords. Unfortunatley, nobody had forseen the huge demand for housing after the war. The increase in marriages, the rapid increase in the birth-rate abd the reluctance of familes to continue in cramped conditions all combined to swallow up houses before they were even built. Newspapers reported families 'squatting' in disued army camps while they waited for housing, as at Duddingston in Edinburgh, which added to the impression that Labour had failed in their promise. The government wisely decided not to proscecute them and in fact, realising that this would help to reduce waiting lists, instructed the local authorties to provide basic services and amenties for these people. In spite of Labour's undoubted achievment, given the difficult economic situasion, there was still a serious housing shortage in 1951 and long waiting lists for council housing. Overall, because of the increase in birth and marriage rates, fiscal difficulties, other priorities, the Labour government was under a severe struggle to obtain the results it needed to achieve therefore reducing the effect of the reforms introduced to help with it. Most historians have tended to judge Labour less harshly than the voters did in 1951.



In 1944 the war time Coalition government passed the Butler Education act. The act was actually proposed by the Conservatives, but after the 1945 general election, it was the Labour government that implemented its measures. Before 1944, if you scratched the surface of the education system in Britain is was easy to see that there was many faults. One being, many working class children did not proceed into carrying on their education after primary school. The quality of secondary education was quite questionable, which with the expensive fees, and the pressure to leave school, gain employment and start contributing to the family expenses made it very unlikely that many lower classes fur filled their possibilities. Alex Kerr, a person who experienced this at the time, said that "people with talent were held back by parents with their attitudes that they expected the children to contribute". Many surcomed to this. Education reform were needed because education would give opportunities to the poorer people of the county which ultimately would release them from the poverty cycle and result in a better well being. The Labour government cannot take credit for the act as it was inforced before they were elected into government. The main ideas of the act included : equality not dependent on class so the away doing with fees, it would cost the government less in the long run as it would improve skills and intelligence therefore making more contribution to the country but also it must be remembered that because of Britain just coming out of a world war, and the scale of the postwar economic problems the act would take at least ten years to implement. R. A Butler said that technical education should be a priority as he believed Britain's wealth an strength would come from scientific and technical training. The leaving age for students was raised to fifteen which enusred a more in depth education and also controlled the pressure of children leaving for work to contriubte to the home. Pupils were allocated secondary schools on the back of the 11+ (iQ test) which categorized pupils into three levels of educational systems; technical schools, grammar schools, and secondary moderns. The children who failed the exam went to a jumior secondary and were expected to leave school at fifteen and go into unskilled jobs. By failed the 11 plus, thousands of children were trapped in a world of low expections and inferior education. The original idea was for schools to have an equal status. This was the first time secondary education for all became a right. The government were forced to replace schools which were bombed during the war and to accommodate the extra children due to the baby boom of 1942-47. by 1950, 1176 new high schools were built. During Labour's term in office, 35000 teachers were trained under the one-year emergency training scheme which was good in theory but didn't really equip teacher properly with what skills they actually needed due to the time constraints. The school leaving age was raised to fifteen to help keep children in schools for longer so they could learn and develop. The real plus was that grammar school fees were abolished which led to a small increase in working classes getting into them, which prepared them for further education for example university. The act was excellent for intelligent people as if they passed their eleven plus could gain good opportunities and gain good jobs in later life. But it's worth noting that those who were not immediately academic at eleven, were not given the best of opportunities and it can be argued that there was many flaws in the hailed act. The exams were at an incredibley young age which determined the future and categorized the children. Many opposed this. As in health, the middle classes seemed to gain more out the education reforms than the working classes which not help support for the Labour party, which foundings were set on helping the lower classes. In practice it was a scramble by the middle classes for the limited and free number of prestige places at the grammar schools. Middle class definitely gained more than working class children. Grammar schools were schools of high status, largely for middle class children. With their excellent resources and well-trained teachers resulted in better exam results. These schools were soon inendated with middle class students. The pupils, mainly working classes who went to secondary modern schools had little or no chance of obtaining higher education which was in contrast to grammar schools who prepare pupils for university. The Labour government were expected to provide better resources for the poorer sections of society but this certainly did not happen in education during there term in office.
Overall, the education reforms compare poorly with the equality of opportunity and provision being carried out in the other areas of social security and health. It was 1964 before the idea of comprehensive schools for all abilities and social backgrounds became Labour Party policy.


In 1944, the coalition agreed to an aim of 'full employment' which was adopted by all parties which meant any person who wanted a job, could get one. Included in the Labour 1945 manifesto - claiming there would be "jobs for all." This raised doubts of commitment of other political parties to achieving this goal. The wartime slogan 'Britain can take it' had to changed to 'Britain can make it' which really reflected the employment after the war. The Labour party policy was of Nationalism after world war one ment that the government would take over major industries and them for the benefit of the country rather than private owners reaping the rewards. Profits would be used by the government for the benefit of the country. This way, Labour believed that they could control and manage efficiently and maintain full employment. However some historians dispute this as it was not an act of social reform, rather than government policy. There was no return after the war to high unemployment in depressed regions of northern England. Places which had been running at 38% unemployment in 1938, were, in 1951, running at 1.5 percent unemployment which was a huge improvement. Success in the so-called distressed areas was partly due to the application of the 1945 Distribution of Industry Act. This was made more impressive by the fiscal climate crisis and diminished resources. During the Labour parties time in office, unemployment, nationally. averaged at 310,000 per year, compared to 1,716,00 for the period 1935-39 leading up to the second world war. Labour's achievement of full employment by 1950 led to a belief that further, more radical social reforms were not neeed and that 'a growing economy would take care of remaining social problems.' Infact, the average real wage in 1949 was 20% than in 1938, people were absolutely more better off and had a better quality of life. There is very little to sufficiently criticize about the unemployment record during the period 0f 1945-51. The raising of the school age from 14 to 15 in 1947 helped to keep the unemployment figures down. Some historians take a different view. They argue that Labour can take little credit for full employment. Most of the factors affecting employment were outwith government control. For example, a massive boom in private investment and building after 1945 was seen as the main reason. The need to recover and build after the war soaked up workers and the Labour government took all the credit. Simpson argues that a lot of factors had a role 'The government owed its success both to the good sence of its policies and to favorable redins in the world economy'. Overall, the accumulation of factors were influential in the massive decrease in unemployment and Labour simply cannot take all credit for the improvements. Revisionist historians now take a different view of Labour's policy and wonder just how responsible the goverment was for maintaing the goal of 'jobs for all'. When the Labour government begain in 1945 there was pirvate expection that unemployment levels would level out about 8%. That was still a high number of people out of work but to the governments surprise unemployment levels tumbled to 'full employment' levels. However, quite simply the boom in private investment and building after 1945 was a main reason. The need to recover and rebuild after the war soaked up workers and Labour took the credit.

On final analysis, the Labour government of 1945-51 did, in the most part, successfully dealt with the problems and needs of the people from 'cradle to grave' although many acts were not fur filled to their full potential due to a combination of economic and post war issues which damped the effectiveness of the reforms introduced during this period. It cannot be ignored that the reforms introduced during their term in office were helpful in alleviating poverty in Britain although some were more benefitifcal than others. Despite their limitations, the National insurance act of 1946 - an extention on the 1911 Liberal reform - and the 1946 National Health service act were among the most successful as they covered a large proportion of the working and older populations, which were among the most needy. Due to the fiscal difficulties inflicting the country many of the acts subsequently changed, such as ; the National Health Service act which had to cut some of the free services they provided which angered some of the ministers who created it, including Bevan, as it broke the main principle of the act which was that everything would be free at the point of use. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no doubt that the Butler Education act was among the least successful as the hypocrisy of the act were extremely clear. The act which was implemented to help the working classes, quite literally only helped a very small proportion of the people it was designed for as the middle classes scrambled for the limited places at grammar schools. The 11+ exam was seen to determine the future of children at 11/12 and then allocated them to schools. At eleven, this was seen as too young as the children were educationally immature. Through analyzing the issues it has becomes clear that the reforms clearly did not eradicate poverty as post war as there was still no comprehensive fair education systems. Also, the benefits implemented to provide a 'safety net' to those where injured or could not work, was simply still not enough. One historian has calculated that the welfare benefits in 1948 were only 19% of the average industrial wage and there well below subsistence level. Because of this, many more than expected, particularly the elderly, were forced into applying for National Assistance to provide a residual back-up role but was fast becoming the main assistance as National Insurance was not enough. Labour did try to deliver its manifesto promises despite serious problems right from the beginning. Victory in the Second World War bankrupted Britain and critics have pointed out that Britain was therfore in no position to launch a welfare programme. They argue that the government should have directed resoucres towards industrical reconstrcution first to strengthen Britain's economy. Correlli Barnett, in the Audit of War (86) argued that Labour's first priorty should have been the reequipping of industry and the development of technical education. Even Labour's own 1945 manifesto recognised the problem. Instead the Labour government focused on their attempts to build a fair society in Britain where help was available to all - often referred to as the 'New Jerusalem' of the Welfare State. Barnett remined readers that a central point of earlier reforms had been to increase national effiecency - the Liberal Reforms- yet Labour seemed to forget or ignore this point.While most western Europe countries increased their soical spending after 1945, these targeted their social spending on the labour force. In Britain spending was more generous towards the old, the sick and the poor, which had no direct economic benefits. Some critics have argued that the government was either doing too much for the people - leading towardsthe modern cliché of 'a nanny state". Historically, Labour governments have a reputation of spending outrageous sums on social and welfare reforms which people do not need, but become acustom too and refuse to give up, then get unelected, leaving the successive government in crippling amounts of debts. The Labour government of 1945-51 was no different. Therefore, all those there was still a long way to go before the problems of poverty and deprivation were to be adequately addressed, the Liberal government made a monumental difference in shaking up the social welfare system and, so, praise is set high on them by following what the Beverage report suggested and therefore creating the Welfare State.

[robbieyoung987654321]

Robbie Young Rise of nationalism in Germany essay one

How important were cultral factors in the growth of nationalist feeling in Germany 1815-1850?

Nationalism, the devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation and the belief that states will benefit from acting collectivly rather than independanty, while emphasizing national rather than international goals was imprinted in Germany through a number of differing factors after the collapse of Napoleon in 1815. Before the C19th, Germany as a nation had never existed. Prussia and Austria were the largest of two hundred states which formed the Holy Roman Empire (973-1806). With boundaries often changing, cutting accross rase, culture and language, it had been in decline for some time. There were 39 German states, each ruled by its own prince. They joined in the German Confederation (Bund) which aimed to protect its members and give Germany a stronger voice in Europe. It had a parliament or Diet but it did not achieve much because decisions had to be unanimous and political divisions meant this was hard to achieve. Throughout the nineteenth century, the populations of these separate states began to develop a sense they were not just citizens of their own individual states but part of a German volk (people). They realised they had much in common. The congress of Vienna's main objectives were to settle the many issues arising from the French Revolutionary Wars, the Napoleonic Wars, and the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire. The congress made a series of territorial acquisitions, gaining the Rhineland, Pomerania among others. This brought an increase in skilled labour and accessibilty to raw materials for the growing industires, increasing the Prussian population to ten million. An acumaltation of factors made the 1848 year of revolution envitable, notably the cultral, economic, political and miltary factors were among the most prominent. The intention of this essay will be access these and asses how important these were, firstly the culture factors.

The thirty-nine states of the Bund, a population of over twenty five million, all speaking the same language, early German, it is clear to see that these states would be unified through their language. Sharing similar customs, a common cultre and same taste in literature and music these early 'Germans' believed there were a part of something bigger than the thirty-nine single states they inhabited. Nationalist feelings were first expressed to the growing educated middle classes in the universities, and amongst the highly acclaimed writers and poets of the time. Enthusiasm of Nationalism tended to be of the romantic kind. Although passionate there was not yet clear ideas on how these aims may be achieved. It can be argued that they were following the C18th writers. Writers such as Wilhelm and Huntbolt already were in favour of the nationalist cause with demands of restrictions of power for the monachy. Poets such as Goathe and Heine celebrated the idea of a 'nation-state'. The folk tales of Grimm celebrated Germany's past and looked forward to the day when it would at last be united in a independant nation. With language coming from a common source, these writers felt that Germany should now be united politically conveying feeling for their country encouraging feeling of a German consciousness of pride and achiement. Univerisites witnessed the emergence of many nationalist student societies called Burcherschaftten which organised student demonstrations of nationalist feeling but had no big effect as they were seen to be preaching the nationalist cause to a crowd that did not want to hear it and were terribly organised. However, the authorites kept a close eye on developments with the Burcherschaften's and their suspicions were soon justified. The Karslbad decrees were put in place to restrict freedom in speech, putting in restrictions in the states of the German Confederation by resolution of the Bundesversammlung on 20 September 1819 after a conference held in the town of Karlsbad, Bohemia. They banned nationalist fraternities (Burschenschaften), removed liberal university professors, and expanded the censorship of the press. Prince Metternich feared liberal and national tendencies at German universities which might conduct revolutionary activities threatening the monarchistic order. Much of the debate societies did was theoretical in nature and probably above the understanding of most Germans. Another wave of student activity in the wake of the 1830 revolution in Paris. The Hamach festival claimed to be a peaceful festival but really it was a cover up for the red, gold and black colour of a Liberal Germany. These activies and demonstrations did little to advance the cause of German unifaction. However, national sentiment was never far away. At this timethe two outrages cited were a welcome pretext to take action. Histortians call this the Vormain (pre march) since they regard these restrictions as the background causes of the Year of Revolutions, 1948. As the educated, university educated, people such as the writers and the students they were influental and therefore it was easy for them to start influencing peoples opinions and the good aspects of being a nationalist state. However, Cultural factors were not the most important in the the rise of nationalism in Germany.

After Napoleon had conquered the German states after 1805, the 39 states realised that being small and politically divided meant to be vulnerable to strong aggressors. The states realised they needed each other for common defence. France was trying to win approval of the European powers to allow it to take over Egypt. If not allowed, France threatened that it would extend its frontier with the confederation of the natural boundary of the Rhine. Germany, feeling threatened for the first time since the Liberation from Napoleon, ordinary Germans roused to the defence of the 'Fatherland'. The events of 1840 showed that nationlaist feelings had spread to a large nunber of ordinary Germans. The impact of the Napolionic wars meant that many Germans saw that Napoleon of France had been able to conquer the seprate and autonomous states pre 1815 made these normal Germans realise that a bigger, stronger army, a nationalist army, would be the best thing to protect these people with the common intrests, culture and language the most effectivley. repsentives of Austria, Prussia, and Russia met in Troppau in 1820 and they agreed to act together, to supress Nationalist or Liberal uprisings that would threaten the absolute power of Europe's monachs. This came a bitter blow to Nationalists within the German states and led Britain to distance itself form its former Napolionic wartime allies. However, noeffort was made by the powers to give immediate effect to the principles enunciated in the discussions. The Burchenschaften were dedicated to driving out French from German soil. Lessonslearned by defeat to Napoleon, and the strong nationalism that was stirred up to finally drive him out, helped strengthen the sense of a common German identity with common goals. The German princes stirred up nationalistic feelings in the German population to help raise armies to drive Napoleon's forces out of German territory. Therefore, it is clear that the milatry factors were important in the rise of nationalism as for the first time many ordianry Germans were commited to strengthing one army with one clear motive of protecting the who,e thirty-nine states.


The population of Europe grew rapidly during this period. As in Britain, thise increase in numbers led to industrialisation and the drift of country folk to the towns looking for new employment and hopefully better working and living conditions. The twin forces of urbanisation and industrialistion were important factors. As the population grew from 25m in 1816 to more than 34m in 1845, such changes were unevitable.Idustrialisation was gaining pace in Germany. Businessmen wanted to increase the markets available for their goods to maximise profits. Most existing trade was between the 39 states but developing this was hampered by high taxes.A single Germany without so many taxes and tariffs would help trade and increase prosperity. Population growth led to urbanisation and industrialisation leading to the middles classes calling for an united market to compete with other european countries such as Britain. It can be suggested that politcal changes of the C19th can only be explained by an understanding of the social and economic developments of the time. David Thompson commenting in 1965 explains - "no social or politcal order could have remained unaffected by so immense an increase in humanity. And the events of the C19th remain unintelligle unless the greatest revolution of the all is kept constantly in mind." Eventhough, the production of such industries of coal and pig iron were increasing year on year, the German states were still lagging behind the industrial power house of Britain. It can be argued that forces unleashed by industrialisation helped Germany towards the eventual unifaction. The politcal fragmentation of German states was the biggest obstacle for German econimic development. The existance of many currencies, taxes and legal systems held back any attempt of modernation. Prussia's acquisiton of the River Rhine in 1815, its terroriitry now spead accross many German states, many miles away from its main terrority. This was a good reason to try and reach an agreement with its neighbours to ensure free travel of goods and people between lands. Businessmen in Prussian Rhineland complained about the tax burden they had to bear when moving goods accross the German states to reach Prussia in the east. Holding back futher developments. Ironically, Prussia made good use of the excellent road networks that had been set up by the French. In 1818 Prussia abolitated all internal taxes and custom duties in its lands creating a large free trade area. Taxes and tariffs were put on good entering Prussian soil and the benefits of this system were that money raised for the Prussian government meant improved communications and helped meet the needs of buisnessmen. One writer at the time commented that: "little by little, under the direction of Prussia and because of common intrests, the state which makes up this union will compose a more or less compact body, acting in common." Prussia knew it had to encourage most of the German states to sign up to there scheme for a more efficent trade network with the prosects of expanding and expoliting the free tax on trading. In the following year, Purssia established the Zollverin (customs union) approximately 425,000 square kilometres of a free tade area including twenty-five out of the thirty-nine states. The Zollverin offered an economic alliance with trade concessions to other German states which made the envitable economic advantages but also for the first time, was an example of economic co-operation which proved and encourgaed those who were seeking politcal German unity between the states. By 1836, 25 other German states had joined this economic alliance. Prussia developed its road and rail networks to maximise trade opportunities. This economic co-operation was so successful it made people think of political union, ending isolation from another and enabling the transport and exploitation of Germany's natural resources. Austria was exclued from the Zollverin, as Prussia and Austria were fiece rivals and such an advantage would punish the Austrians.
By 1850, over 3000 miles of railway had been laid, as in everwhere, railways had a spin-of benefits for the rest of the country and economy. It created jobs in construction and men were needed to run it. All round, a good investment. The demand for coal, iron and steel increased and lowering transport costs provided a boost to other industries including cotton and wool. All of this economic growth and unity accumulated to the Germany, which now spoke the same language, in a litery sence and now in the buisness sence also. Many could now see the dramatic benefits of having a one state Germany as the success of the Zollverin showed how well Germans could work together. Nationalism may have only just layed it foundations, but the increasing economy certainlty helped persuade Germans, especially buisnessmen, a united Germany would be better.

The 1848 "Year of Revolution" started in the Bund in February 1848. When revolution in Paris overthrew the French monachy, the same in German seemed a possibilty. The year saw a combination of differing demands from working classes and the middle classes but above all they all wanted change. Prussia, ruled by the Hohenzollen family had a repuation pf neomg ultra-conservitive and cautious about change. Prefering not to be reactionary. Nationalists and Liberals took to Berlin, the capital, for some signs of leadership in Germany unity. Despite discussion in the 1820's and 1830's, a united Germany seemed only a dream. Austrian domination of the German Confederation meant no progress could be made on this issue and the Bund remained nothing but a talking shop. In the south west states support for Liberals increased. State of Baden electected members, which a halve had converted to Liberal ideas. Contrast in Prrussia, as King Fredrick William the third continued to rule as an autocratic state where power was in the hands of the king and no one else. In 1840, the king died. His son, Fredrick, an unstable man who swung between politcal extremes from being an autocrat and other times leading to Liberal ideas. Politcal prisionsers were released, censorship was relaxed and liberal leaders were appointed in goverment roles. Encouraged by his Liberal tendencies, demands grew for more progress. However, censorship was restored in 1843. By 1847, the king had to apply for a loan for a new railway liking East Prussia and Berlin. He contacted many Euro banks for loans but he found it difficult to win approval. He found no choice but to call union diet of Prussian estates. King expected the assembly would accept his demands however they demanded a constriction on his autocratic, absololute rule, in return for the loan. He rejected which did little for his popularitly.
The Frankfurt Parliament of 1848 established afterwidespread revolts, not only across the 39 states but also across many other European nations such as France, a Parliament was called to discuss reforms and attempt to draft a constitution for a unified Germany. This was seen as being the best way of stopping the political unrest. An invitation to all states at Vorparliment to meet at the end of March, 1848, was welcomed with a great response. 574 delgates met, and after a long debate they agreed on an mechanism for election national cosituent assembly. The parliement was tasked with drawing up the rules of an government - constution- for an united Germany. Membership was baded on one member for every fifty thousand inhabitant to be elected by appropriate means in each state. The vote was restricted to owners of property. With no consideration for female suffrage or the poor or those recieving relifed from the state, which were excluded from voting. However, this was not uncommon in Europe at this time. A prime example being Britain. Old autocratic rulers agreed to the idea of elected parliemtn but had little sympthat for the Germany parliement. Being afraid of loosing their thrones, they waited and watched until they could restablish there tradtional control. Hopes of the consistunent assembly were so dashed. From the start, it had been dominated by middle class and the well educated. Eighty percent of delegates were educated to a university level. And were more intrested more in a united Germany rather than social reform. The Frankfurt parliament and the attempt to unify Germany through political reform failed. it relied too much on the support of King Frederick, who decided he changed his mind and decided that he no longer wanted to help unite Germany through revolutionary activity. The Frankfurt Parliament had to accept Prussia's decision.
Parliament would consist of two houses. The lower to be elected by secret ballot and all men over twenty-five could vote. The upper containing representitives of the rules of the German states. Ranging over finance and defence. By the time the constituion was agreed, the moment had passed and the days of the Frankfurt Parliament were limited. One major problem being after
the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament, Prussia put forward a plan to unify the German states under Prussian control. The question was whether a united Germany should contain Austria (Grossdeutschland) or leave it out (Kleindeutschland).The Prussians, as rivals of Austria, argued for Austria's exclusion. The Austrians refused to agree with the Prussian plan since it would eliminate their influence in German affairs. The Austrians persuaded the Bund's Federal Diet to threaten sanctions against Prussia. In 1850, with Russians supporting Austria, the Prussians backed down. Another attempt at a unified Germany had failed. The Crown was offered to Prussia's Frederick William IV. He refused to accept the crown because it had not been offered by the other German Princes, stating that he would not "accept a crown from the gutter". He had nothing but contempt for the crown he was offered. "Every German nobleman is a hundred time too good to accept such a crown mouled of of the dirt and dregs of revolution, disloyality, and treason." He would have only accepted the crown if it had been offered by his fellow rulers, which it wasn't. The assembly disintergrated. Without clear aims, decisive leaderships, and an armed force to enfroce it decisions, the Frankfurt Parliament had been unable to fulfill its revolutionary aims. To many, it seemed that a great oppurtunity to create a liberal, united Germany had been missed. Many including, the Austrians were now able to regain the terroities they had lost.

On final analysis the increased nationalist feeling in Germany 1815-50 can be explained through a number of complex cumunlative factors. One of them being Cultral, emerging from the highly esteemed universities, may have not had the biggest impact in comparision to the politcal or economical factors, but despite this, the culutral shift to a nationalist did gain some momentum in its early establishment however it was hindered by the lack of organisation, only appealing to this middle classes and the increased censorship from the government which suppressed such nationalist thought to be published and broadcast to the nation on a national scale, throughout the states. It can be succesfully argued that politcal and economic changes gave the nationalist thought more momentum. The economic benefits of the Zollverin inparticular gave buisnessmen a sence that a united Germany would be better, more efficent country. However, the ordianry German also gained benefits from the economic changes as an increase in jobs and lesser taxes meant an improved working and living standards. All as a result of the unity with the twenty-five key states that made up the Zollverin. The politcal factors were also reaching out the normal German with the hope of the Frankfurt Parlament however this parliament eventually failed, the nationalist feeling of a united Germany, had now been imprinted into every German's conciousness in every state. The revolutions raised great conciousness of unity. However, it failed as a result of the split between Klein versus gross-Deutchland or whether Germany should be a monarchy or a republic. Rulers kept their authority and used it to regain power when the tide of revolution turned. More importantly they retained control of their armies. To conclude, the cultral factors were only marginally important in the rise of nationalist thought 1815-1850 as many other reasons pushed and succeded the nationalist conciousness.

[robbieyoung987654321]

Robbie Young "Between 1815-48 nothing of real significance happend to encourage the growth of German nationalism" - How far is this true?

Political nationalism had been steadily increasing with support for the nationalistic cause but this was cut short by the Kalsbad Decrees which banned the infamous Buchershaften and the increased censorship of the newspapers, introduced in 1819. However many other factors can be argued to support the idea that nationalism did infact grow during this period. Including, the economic growth with the creation of the Zollverin - which brought twenty six out of 39 states together through the transportation of good and the creation of a large free trade area - and the increased cultrual untiy through the influential middle classes. The spreading of transport links pre 1848 proved that some things were indeed happening and it was clear that a united Germany could infact work econmically. The purpose of this essay is too assess how far natioanlism grew between 1815-48 and the significance of such things as the Karlsbad decrees and the proposed Erfurt union.

With the prince of Austria, Metternich's furiosity at the burning of a life size model of himself at a Wartnug festival, the Karlsbad decrees were introduced in 1819, which banned the Burchershaften and along with the increased censorship of the press, sought to dissolve nationalist and Liberal thinking in the 39 German states. Political nationalism was virtually 'dead' between 1820 and 1848, supressed by the decrees as Metternich had wanted. The fundemental problem was that none of the states could agree politically, especially the biggest, Prussia and Austria. Austria later went on to dominate the Diet of the German confederation. On the other hand, it can be argued many other types of nationalism wee infact steadily growing during this period.

One being cultral unity. The thirty-nine states of the Bund, a population of over twenty five million, all speaking the same language, early German, it is clear to see that these states would be unified through their language. Sharing similar customs, a common culture and same taste in literature and music these early 'Germans' believed there were a part of something bigger than the thirty-nine single states they inhabited. Nationalist feelings were first expressed to the growing educated middle classes in the universities, and amongst the highly acclaimed writers and poets of the time. Fichte's "address to the German Nation" intended to spead the Liberal ideals of the time but created nationalistic views by inaductence. Enthusiasm of Nationalism tended to be of the romantic kind. Although passionate there was not yet clear ideas on how these aims may be achieved. It can be argued that they were following the C18th writers. Writers such as Wilhelm and Huntbolt already were in favour of the nationalist cause with demands of restrictions of power for the monachy. The folk tales of Grimm celebrated Germany's past and looked forward to the day when it would at last be united in a independant nation. With language coming from a common source, these writers were conveying feelings for their country as one of pride and achiement. However some doubt how influential this was as very few 'Germans' could read let alone afford to go to the music concerts of pro nationalism musicans such a Beethoven. Many Gernans 'seldom looked up from the plough' choosing to focus on day to day things rather than the politics of the time. Univerisites witnessed the emergence of many nationalist student societies called Burcherschaftten which organised student demonstrations of nationalist feeling but had no big effect as they were seen to be preaching the nationalist cause to a crowd that did not want to hear it and were terribly organised. However, the authorites kept a close eye on developments with the Burcherschaften's and their suspicions were soon justified. The Karslbad decrees were put in place to restrict freedom in speech, putting in restrictions in the states of the German Confederation by resolution of the Bundesversammlung on 20 September 1819 after a conference held in the town of Karlsbad, Bohemia. They banned nationalist fraternities (Burschenschaften), removed liberal university professors, and expanded the censorship of the press. Prince Metternich feared liberal and national tendencies at German universities which might conduct revolutionary activities threatening the monarchistic order. Much of the debate societies did was theoretical in nature and probably above the understanding of most Germans. Another wave of student activity in the wake of the 1830 revolution in Paris. The Hamach festival claimed to be a peaceful festival but really it was a cover up for the red, gold and black colour of a Liberal Germany. These activies and demonstrations did little to advance the cause of German unifaction. However, national sentiment was never far away. At this timethe two outrages cited were a welcome pretext to take action. Histortians call this the Vormain (pre march) since they regard these restrictions as the background causes of the Year of Revolutions, 1948. As the educated, university educated, people such as the writers and the students they were influental and therefore it was easy for them to start influencing peoples opinions and the good aspects of being a nationalist state. However, Cultural factors were perhaps not the most important in the the rise of nationalism in Germany.

The population of Europe grew rapidly during this period. As in Britain, leading to industrialisation and the drift of people to the towns looking for new employment and hopefully better working and living conditions. The twin forces of urbanisation and industrialistion were important factors. As the population grew from 25m in 1816 to more than 34m in 1845, such changes were unevitable.Idustrialisation was gaining pace in Germany. Businessmen wanted to increase the markets available for their goods to maximise profits. Most existing trade was between the 39 states but developing this was hampered by high taxes. A single Germany without so many taxes and tariffs would help trade and increase prosperity. Middles classes were calling for an united market to compete with other european countries such as Britain. It can be suggested that politcal changes of the C19th can only be explained by an understanding of the social and economic developments of the time. David Thompson commenting in 1965 explains - "no social or politcal order could have remained unaffected by so immense an increase in humanity. And the events of the C19th remain unintelligle unless the greatest revolution of the all is kept constantly in mind." Eventhough, the production of such industries of coal and pig iron were increasing year on year, the German states were still lagging behind the industrial power house of Britain. It can be argued that forces unleashed by industrialisation helped Germany towards the eventual unifaction. The politcal fragmentation of German states was the biggest obstacle for German econimic development. The existance of many currencies, taxes and legal systems held back any attempt of modernation. Prussia's acquisiton of the River Rhine in 1815, its terroriitry now spead accross many German states, many miles away from its main terrority. This was a good reason to try and reach an agreement with its neighbours to ensure free travel of goods and people between lands. Businessmen in Prussian Rhineland complained about the tax burden they had to bear when moving goods accross the German states to reach Prussia in the east. Holding back futher developments. Ironically, Prussia made good use of the excellent road networks that had been set up by the French. In 1818 Prussia abolitated all internal taxes and custom duties in its lands creating a large free trade area. Taxes and tariffs were put on goods entering Prussian soil and the benefits of this system were that money raised for the Prussian government meant improved communications and helped meet the needs of buisnessmen. One writer at the time commented that: "little by little, under the direction of Prussia and because of common intrests, the state which makes up this union will compose a more or less compact body, acting in common." Prussia knew it had to encourage most of the German states to sign up to there scheme for a more efficent trade network with the prosects of expanding and expoliting the free tax on trading. In the following year, Purssia established the Zollverin (customs union) approximately 425,000 square kilometres of a free tade area including twenty-five out of the thirty-nine states. The Zollverin offered an economic alliance with trade concessions to other German states which made the envitable economic advantages but also for the first time, was an example of economic co-operation which proved and encourgaed those who were seeking politcal German unity between the states. By 1836, 25 other German states had joined this economic alliance. Prussia developed its road and rail networks to maximise trade opportunities. This economic co-operation was so successful it made people think of political union, ending isolation from another and enabling the transport and exploitation of Germany's natural resources. This was seen as prototype of things to come. Austria was exclued from the Zollverin, as Prussia and Austria were fiece rivals and such an advantage would punish the Austrians. This forshadowed the attempt of control of the states by Prussia later on. By 1850, over 3000 miles of railway had been laid, as in everwhere, railways had a spin-of benefits for the rest of the country and economy. It created jobs in construction and men were needed to run it. All round, a good investment. The demand for coal, iron and steel increased and lowering transport costs provided a boost to other industries including cotton and wool. All of this economic growth and unity accumulated to the Germany, which now spoke the same language, in a litery sence and now in the buisness sence also. Many could now see the dramatic benefits of having a one state Germany as the success of the Zollverin showed how well Germans could work together. Nationalism may have only just layed it foundations, but the increasing economy certainlty helped persuade Germans, especially buisnessmen, a united Germany would be benefitcal to all those concerned but it also made Germany united, in the very literal sence.

In conclusion, there were conflicting opions about the growth of nationalism in Germany between 1815 and 1848. On one hand it did seem that after the Karlsbad decrees that political nationalism made little progress overal. On the other hand, cultral - despite its limitations - encouraged the growth of a united German identiy whilst economic growth showed the possiblity of a united Germany under Prussian influence which challanged the power of Austria. Overall, while it is true to suggest that German nationalism seemed to have made little progress on the surface by 1848, it is certainly untrue that nothing happend. Germany identity was strong and economic unity was setting the scene for greater political unity later on.

[robbieyoung987654321]

Robbie Young
To what extent was Austrian strength the main obstacle to unification during the 1850's?

In 1800 there were around four hundred separate states in what we now call Germany. When Napoleon invaded he reduced the number of states to thirty-nine but had no intention of uniting Germany. By 1815, Napoleon had been defeated and the former German states had be returned to the separate monarch's with the intention of protecting the separate independent German states - with Austria's help. This lead to an increase of nationalism between 1815-1850 but failed as an accumulation of factors hindered its progress one being the religious differences seen by some as the greatest obstacle to German unification however others can argue that the opposition from Austria or the lack of popular support for nationalism or indeed the economic divisions played more a crucial role in the eventual failed attempt to unify Germany with the creation of the Frankfurt parliament in 1848 but this dissolved as divisions amongst nationalists and opposition from rulers lead to its eventual dis-formation. This essay will establish that although nationalism had grown it was not successful by 1850. Religious differences between German states was indeed one of the many obstacles to Germany unification however they were certainly not the most important. Austrian opposition was the largest obstacle to German unification closely followed by divisions amongst nationalists.

As in many other places religious differences have caused tension between different states. With Austria being a predominantly Catholic states and Prussia being Protestant this caused a split in the states with the south being clearly different from the Protestant north. The loyalty of the Protestant northern states historically was to Protestant Prussia and the loyalty of the Catholic southern states was to Catholic Austria. Thus it was more than just religion that divided the German states. The tension and rivalry that existed between the two largest German states exacerbated the existing religious divisions and made the possibility of unification more problematic. Before 1850, however whilst the religious divisions in the German states was clearly an obstacle any future unification, there were other other far more important factors - not least of all being the opposition of Austria to any form of unification.

Nationalism and Liberalism were two political philosophies that usually went hand in hand at this time. The arch-Conservative Austrian chancellor Prince Metternich very much feared the dangers of such philosophies. Nationalism, if allowed to spread could potentially lead to the disintegration of the vast Austro-Hungry empire. He was also keen to ensure Austria would not be excluded from German affairs by the creation of some of Klein-Deuchland. There are several other instances of Austrian opposition to German unification : two of the most important coming in 1819 and 1850. In 1819 Austria introduced the Carlsbad Decrees which suppressed the student Buchershaften which had been flourishing in German universities since the end of the Napoleonic war. These nationalist organisitations represented nothing more than a couple of demonstrations and terrible organisation skills however the burning of a effigy of Metternich at Wartburg in 1817, which infuriated the Prince. However, Metternich recognised the spirit of these organisations and was already seeking to clamp down on the Burschenschaften and their supporters when they provided him with a perfect pretext. On 23 March 1819 the student Karl Sand assassinated the conservative playwright August von Kotzebue in his apartment in Mannheim. Kotzebue had been a vociferous critic of the radical nationalist movement (one of his books was on the list burned at the Wartburg Festival); moreover, as a prolific and highly successful author of light comedies he was widely seen as the embodiment of Old Regime frivolity and lasciviousness. The Carslbad decrees as F Mckinnon stated effectively suppressed German nationalism 'for a generation.' In 1850 after recovering for the revolutions in 1849-1849 the new Austrian chancellor Scwartzenburg forced Prussians to accept 'humiliation' at the treaty of Olmutz. This meant that the Erfurt Union - a Prussian-led attempt to replace the Bund and unite German states on the terms of rulers was abandoned. Thus it is clear that while Austria remained strong, the prospect for unification of German states was still a immanent possibility. Before 1850, opposition from Austria was defiantly a main stumbling block for German nationalists in their attempts to unite the German states.

Nationalist feelings were first expressed to the growing educated middle classes in the universities, and amongst the highly acclaimed writers and poets of the time. Fichte's "address to the German Nation" intended to spread the Liberal ideals of the time but created nationalistic views by inductance. Enthusiasm of Nationalism tended to be of the romantic kind. Although passionate there was not yet clear ideas on how these aims may be achieved. It can be argued that they were following the C18th writers. Writers such as Wilhelm and Huntbolt already were in favor of the nationalist cause with demands of restrictions of power for the monarchy. The folk tales of Grimm celebrated Germany's past and looked forward to the day when it would at last be united in a independent nation. With language coming from a common source, these writers were conveying feelings for their country as one of pride and achievement. However some doubt how influential this was as very few 'Germans' could read let alone afford to go to the music concerts of pro nationalism musicans such a Beethoven. Many Germans 'seldom looked up from the plough' choosing to focus on day to day things rather than the politics of the time. Universities witnessed the emergence of many nationalist student societies called Burcherschaftten which organised student demonstrations of nationalist feeling but had no big effect as they were seen to be preaching the nationalist cause to a crowd that did not want to hear it and were terribly organised. However, the authorities kept a close eye on developments with the Burcherschaften's and their suspicions were soon justified. The Karslbad decrees were put in place to restrict freedom in speech, putting in restrictions in the states of the German Confederation by resolution of the Bundesversammlung on 20 September 1819 after a conference held in the town of Carlsbad, Bohemia. They banned nationalist fraternities (Burschenschaften), removed liberal university professors, and expanded the censorship of the press. Prince Metternich feared liberal and national tendencies at German universities which might conduct revolutionary activities threatening the monarchistic order. Much of the debate societies did was theoretical in nature and probably above the understanding of most Germans. Another wave of student activity in the wake of the 1830 revolution in Paris. The Hamach festival claimed to be a peaceful festival but really it was a cover up for the red, gold and black colour of a Liberal Germany. These activies and demonstrations did little to advance the cause of German unification. However, national sentiment was never far away. At this time the two outrages cited were a welcome pretext to take action. Historians call this the Vormain (pre march) since they regard these restrictions as the background causes of the Year of Revolutions, 1848, failures. As the educated, university educated, people such as the writers and the students they were influential and therefore it was easy for them to start influencing peoples opinions and the good aspects of being a nationalist state. However, the sheer lack of universal appeal -mainly being upper middle class while the majority of the population were lower class - was a obstacle for German unification as the teachings and ideas were just unavailable to the vast majority of the population. One biggest obstacle for the eventual unification of Germany was the immense divisions between nationalists.

Nationalists at the time had no clear aims and ceased to cohabit for the same exact cause. Although with the establishment of the Frankfurt parliament, unification seemed a very real possibility, its days were severely numbered as a lack of organisation and clear decisive leadership hindered its progress. The 1848 "Year of Revolution" started in the Bund in February 1848. When revolution in Paris overthrew the French monarchy, the same in Germany seemed a possibility. The year saw a combination of differing demands from working classes and the middle classes but above all they all wanted change. Prussia, ruled by the Hohenzollern family had a reputation pf being ultra-Conservative and cautious about change. Preferring not to be reactionary. Nationalists and Liberals took to Berlin, the capital, for some signs of leadership in Germany unity. Despite discussion in the 1820's and 1830's, a united Germany seemed only a dream. Austrian domination of the German Confederation meant no progress could be made on this issue and the Bund remained nothing but a talking shop. In the south west states support for Liberals increased. State of Baden elected members, which a halve had converted to Liberal ideas. Contrast in Prussia, as King Fredrick William the third continued to rule the autocratic state where power was in the hands of the king and no one else. In 1840, the king died. His son, Fredrick, an unstable man who swung between political extremes from being an autocrat and other times leading to Liberal ideas. Political prisionsers were released, censorship was relaxed and liberal leaders were appointed in government roles. Encouraged by his Liberal tendencies, demands grew for more progress. However, censorship was restored in 1843 which hindered any progress hoped for. By 1847, the king had to apply for a loan for a new railway liking East Prussia and Berlin. He contacted many Euro banks for loans but he found it difficult to win approval. He found no choice but to call union diet of Prussian estates. King expected the assembly would accept his demands however they demanded a constriction on his autocratic, absolute rule, in return for the loan. He rejected which did little for his popularity. The Frankfurt Parliament of 1848 established after widespread revolts, not only across the 39 states but also across many other European nations such as France, a Parliament was called to discuss reforms and attempt to draft a constitution for a unified Germany. This was seen as being the best way of stopping the political unrest. An invitation to all states at Vorparliment to meet at the end of March, 1848, was welcomed with a great response. 574 delegates met, and after a long debate they agreed on an mechanism for election national cosituent assembly. The Parliament was tasked with drawing up the rules of an government - Constitution- for an united Germany. Membership was baded on one member for every fifty thousand inhabitant to be elected by appropriate means in each state. The vote was restricted to owners of property. With no consideration for female suffrage or the poor or those receiving relief from the state, which were excluded from voting. However, this was not uncommon in Europe at this time. A prime example being Britain. Hopes of the constituent assembly were so dashed. From the start, it had been dominated by middle class and the well educated. Eighty percent of delegates were educated to a university level. And were more interested more in a united Germany rather than social reform. The Frankfurt parliament and the attempt to unify Germany through political reform failed. It relied too much on the support of King Frederick, who decided he changed his mind and decided that he no longer wanted to help unite Germany through revolutionary activity. The Frankfurt Parliament had to accept Prussia's decision. By the time the constituion was agreed, the moment had passed and the days of the Frankfurt Parliament were limited. One major problem being after the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament, Prussia put forward a plan to unify the German states under Prussian control. The question was whether a united Germany should contain Austria (Grossdeutschland) or leave it out (Kleindeutschland).The Prussians, as rivals of Austria, argued for Austria's exclusion. The Austrians refused to agree with the Prussian plan since it would eliminate their influence in German affairs. The Austrians persuaded the Bund's Federal Diet to threaten sanctions against Prussia. In 1850, with Russians supporting Austria, the Prussians backed down. Another attempt at a unified Germany had failed. The assembly disintegrated. Without clear aims, decisive leaderships, and an armed force to enforce it decisions, the Frankfurt Parliament had been unable to fulfill its revolutionary aims. To many, it seemed that a great opportunity to create a liberal, united Germany had been missed. Many including, the Austrians were now able to regain the territories they had lost. The effects of the failure of the parliament and the divisions between nationalists was certainly a huge obstacle for the eventual unification for the German states.

On the other hand, attitudes of the German states was also an obstacle to the eventual unification of the German states. Although old autocratic rulers agreed to the idea of elected Parliament they had little sympathy for the German parliament. Being afraid of loosing their empires and power, they waited and watched until they could reestablish there traditional control when the tide of revolution ceased. One such example was when the Frankfurt parliament offered the Crown to Prussia's King, the mentally unstable Frederick William IV. He had contempt the issue and refused to accept the crown because it had not been offered by the other German princes, stating that he would not "accept a crown from the gutter". He had nothing but disgust for the crown he was offered. "Every German nobleman is a hundred time too good to accept such a crown mouled of of the dirt and dregs of revolution, disloyalty, and treason." He would have only accepted the crown if it had been offered by his fellow rulers, which it wasn't. Many leads of the thirty-nine individual were against unification including Metternich, the chancellor of Austria who had been opposed to the Nationalist and Liberal ideologies surfacing at this time. Fearing the loss of wealth, power and respect among their states, they fiercely opposed any unify possibilities. Without the support of these top dogs, unification for Germany would be incredibly hard, or indeed impossible. Therefore, these autocrats played a large obstacle to the eventual unification of united Germany but on final analysis were not the biggest as the opposition from Austria which included Prince Metternich was far greater. Despite this, economic divisions also played a part in denying Germany unification.

With the political fragmentation of German states being the biggest obstacle for German economic development, with the existence of many currencies, taxes and legal systems combined with the businessmen in Prussian Rhineland complaining about the tax burden they had to bear when moving goods across the German states to reach Prussia in the east, the Prussian government proposed the Zollverein in 1818 which abominated all internal taxes and custom duties in its lands creating a large free trade area. One writer at the time commented that: "little by little, under the direction of Prussia and because of common interests, the state which makes up this union will compose a more or less compact body, acting in common. Prussia knew it had to encourage most of the German states to sign up to their scheme for a more efficient trade network with the prospects of expanding and exploiting the free tax on trading. In the following year, Prussia established the Zollverein, with by 1836 had approximately 425,000 square kilometers of free trade including twenty-five out of the thirty-nine states. The Zollverein offered inevitable economic advantages but also for the first time was an example of economic co-operation which proved and encouraged those who were seeking political German unity. This economic co-operation was so successful it made people think of political union, ending isolation from another and enabling the transport and exploitation of Germany's rich natural resources. This was seen as a prototype of things to come. However, Austria was excluded form the Zollverein, as Prussia and Austria were fierce rivals and such an advantage would punish the Austrians. This for shadowed the attempt of control of the states by Prussia later on, But with Austria excluded and only twenty-five states signing up for the union, it is clear looking back on the events, only some wanted to united Germany in unification. The divisions acted as an obstacle to unification as they excluded many states which would be vital in the eventual unification of Germany which made the unification even more difficult to achieve. Although many now could see the dramatic benefits of having a one state Germany as the success of the Zollverein proved how well these early Germans could work together, it also proved to the critics that a Germany working together had many flaws. Not least the exclusion of many a state who Prussia felt it could control and therefore exclude from such benefits. The Austrians put forwards its own Zollverein in 1852, with little chance of success.

On final analysis, it cannot be denied that Austrian opposition was indeed one of the greatest, or indeed the greatest obstacle to German unification during the 1850's despite the failed attempts of the Frankfurt Parliament and varies other endeavors to exploit the nationalist cause in the thirty-nine states which made up Germany. Many other obstacles can be credited as reasons for the delayed eventual unification of Germany in 1871. One major reason being the religious differences which effectively split the states in two which made the rivalries between Austria and Prussia even more prominent along with the lack of popular support from the public for the nationalist cause. Many nationalists and nationalist ideals were exclusive to the middle-upper classes which most of the population were not. Many German's rarely 'raised their heads from the plough', which meant that many German's simply were not interested in the unification of Germany. They simply got on with life while the upper middles classes warred over the issue. However, it is clear that Austrian opposition was the most prolific obstacle for German unification with the Carlsbad decrees -put forward by Austria- which hindered and effectively killed any nationalist groups or organisations - Buchershaften - from operating thereby killing the nationalist cause or indeed Prussia's humiliation at Olmutz when Austria after the revolutions in 1849-1849 , when Scwartzenburg forced the Prussian government to accept the Erfurt Union - a Prussian-led attempt to replace the Bund and unify German states on the terms of rulers was dissolved. Thus it is clear that while Austria remained strong, the prospect for unification of German states was inconceivable as Austria would destroy any attempt to unify the German states, especially on the terms of Prussia.