Sample Essay On The Standard Of Living, 1955-64

HOW FAR DO THE SOURCES AGREE THAT THE CONSERVATIVES EFFECTIVELY MANAGED THE STANDARD OF LIVING BETWEEN 1955 AND 1964?

The sources generally suggest that the Conservatives were ineffective in managing the standard of living. Sources 1 and 2 are both critical of the Conservatives' efforts and although Source 3 does suggest that things have got better for the majority, it does concede that there are some potential problems to follow .

Source 3 gives a robust defence of what the Conservatives have achieved with regard to the standard of living. It proudly states that "most of our people have never had it so good", a clear indication of rising living standards. Particularly, the source highlights "increased earnings" for workers in certain key industries. At first glance, this healthy state of the economy appears to be reflected in the overweight figures of Butler, Macmillan and Thorneycroft in Source 1. However, closer reading of Source 1 shows that it strongly contrasts with Source 3 . Source 1 tries to highlight the way that the Conservatives are promising 'never had it so good' while actually delivering "wage restraint" and "inflationary pressure" , both of which will lead to a fall in living standards. Source 1 seems to make a point about income inequality, that the Conservative government is effective in raising the standards for some, but not for the majority of working people. Naturally, this contrast of opinions is not unexpected . One would assume that Prime Minister Macmillan would want to highlight his own successes - and those of his party - in any public speech such as that in Source 3. Equally, a left-of-centre newspaper cartoonist would often seek to ridicule or satirise the attempts of the Conservatives to manage the country . Moreover, a historian might well point out that neither source can carry much weight regarding this period - as both were written in 1957, a full 7 years before the end of the period specified in the question.

HOW FAR DO THE SOURCES AGREE THAT THE CONSERVATIVES EFFECTIVELY MANAGED THE STANDARD OF LIVING BETWEEN 1955 AND 1964?

The sources generally suggest that the Conservatives were ineffective in managing the standard of living. Sources 1 and 2 are both critical of the Conservatives' efforts and although Source 3 does suggest that things have got better for the majority, it does concede that there are some potential problems to follow .

Source 3 gives a robust defence of what the Conservatives have achieved with regard to the standard of living. It proudly states that "most of our people have never had it so good", a clear indication of rising living standards. Particularly, the source highlights "increased earnings" for workers in certain key industries. At first glance, this healthy state of the economy appears to be reflected in the overweight figures of Butler, Macmillan and Thorneycroft in Source 1. However, closer reading of Source 1 shows that it strongly contrasts with Source 3 . Source 1 tries to highlight the way that the Conservatives are promising 'never had it so good' while actually delivering "wage restraint" and "inflationary pressure" , both of which will lead to a fall in living standards. Source 1 seems to make a point about income inequality, that the Conservative government is effective in raising the standards for some, but not for the majority of working people. Naturally, this contrast of opinions is not unexpected . One would assume that Prime Minister Macmillan would want to highlight his own successes - and those of his party - in any public speech such as that in Source 3. Equally, a left-of-centre newspaper cartoonist would often seek to ridicule or satirise the attempts of the Conservatives to manage the country . Moreover, a historian might well point out that neither source can carry much weight regarding this period - as both were written in 1957, a full 7 years before the end of the period specified in the question.

Predictably, Source 2 offers the most critical account of the Conservatives' efforts. It argues that the Conservatives have "disastrously wasted" the opportunities offered to them by the scientific revolution. This perspective is clearly echoed by Source 1 , which picks up on the idea that Macmillan is claiming that people have 'never had it so good' on the one hand, while demanding that workers show "wage restraint" on the other. This seems to be an attempt by the Conservatives to "combat inflation and rising prices" that are mentioned in Source 2 . Of course, it is not surprising that both sources are critical of the Conservatives' achievements. The Daily Mirror is a left-of-centre publication that is always likely to criticise a Conservative government. Equally, the Labour Party's manifesto is only going to highlight the drawbacks of a Conservative government, as it will deliberately seek to discredit the Conservatives. That said, Source 2 is at least the only source with a full perspective of the period 1955 and 1964, having been published in 1964. This might make it a better-informed piece of writing, if not necessarily a more reliable one. For all the drawbacks of Source 1 and Source 2, the most telling contribution comes from Source 3. Macmillan himself concedes that "inflation. is the problem of our time", which offers a clear indication that he considers this to be a major economic problem. Macmillan therefore warns that the Conservatives will not be judged successful if they fail to combat inflation .

Overall, the inescapable conclusion is that the Conservatives were ineffective in managing the standard of living, particularly because of the way that they encouraged a 'stop-go' cycle of high inflation and high unemployment, as identified in Source 3 . With the Prime Minister himself agreeing that this situation is unacceptable in Source 3, it seems fair to accept Labour's judgement in Source 2 that "progress in the past 12 years has been fitful".