Who Was Responsible For The First World War Essay Example

Who Was Responsible For The First World War Essay Who caused the deaths of over 20,000,000 people? Was it a single, callous, malicious person? Was it a group of these people or a country that caused the Great War? Or could it have been a system or policy at that time? Who caused the events that inspired the Jewish poet Isaac Rosenburg to write the poem Dead Mans Dump in 1917?The wheels lurched over sprawled deadBut pained them not, though their bones crunched;Their shut mouths made no moan.They lie there huddled, friend and foeman,Man born of man, and born of woman;And shells go crying over themFrom night till night and now.Private Isaac Rosenburg, 22311, was killed on April 1st, 1918, at dawn while on night patrol. Just another of the 20,000,000 then.France had completely resented Germany for years. The Franco-Prussian War began in July 1870 as a result of a dispute between France and Prussia, the main German State. All the other German states joined Prussia, and the conflict became one between France and Germany. The war ended wit h the Treaty of Frankfurt, which was signed on May 10, 1871. The treaty provided that France would give most of Alsace and part of Lorraine (parts of West France) to Germany, pay Germany 5 billion francs, and support a German army of occupation until the huge sum was paid. The money was paid off surprisingly quickly due to the French pulling together and taking out loans. However, there were two effects of this war, which contributed to World War One.The first was the new German Empire. Before the Franco-Prussian War, Germany had been made up of small independent states over 40 of them. Prussias defeat of Austria in the Seven-Week War of 1866 had established it as the main German State. After the Franco-Prussian War, Germanys states joined up together and the government realised how strong the new empire could potentially be.The second effect concerned Frances feelings towards Germany. They were extremely angry about their defeat and the loss of Alsace and Lorraine. Their hatred fo r Germany had increased even more, setting the stage for another war between them.An underlying cause of the First World War was nationalism. Nationalism is the political ideology that all people of the same ethnic origin, language, and political ideals had the right to independent states. At the close of the century, however, the problem of nationalism was still unresolved in other areas of Europe, resulting in tensions both within the regions involved and between various European nations. One particularly prominent nationalistic movement, Panslavism (the belief that all Eastern Orthodox Slavs should live in their own country), figured heavily in the events preceding the war.The spirit of nationalism also showed in economic rivalry. The Industrial Revolution, which took place in Britain at the end of the 18th century, followed in France in the early 19th century, and then in Germany after 1870, caused an great increase in each countrys produce and a need for foreign countries to se ll their goods in. The desired place for the European countries to have colonies was Africa, and on that continent colonial rivalry was usual. Several times between 1898 and 1914 the economic rivalry in Africa between France and Britain, and between Germany on one side and France and Britain on the other, almost precipitated a European war. An important example of this would be the Agadir Crisis.On July 1st, 1911, Germanys warship The Panther landed at Moroccos main port, Agadir. This angered the French owners of the country, who had taken it to Germanys objection in 1905, as they thought Germany would try and take Agadir. The British were also very worried by this move as they had a naval base in Gibraltar, Southern Spain, only a few miles north of Morocco. Germany could easily challenge them if they had Agadir as their port, and Britain prepared for a war. The war never came Germany gave way and let France have their port. But the damage was done. Britain and Frances relations wi th Germany were even more strained and could have snapped at any time.As a result of such tensions, between 1871 and 1914 the nations of Europe adopted domestic measures and foreign policies that in turn steadily increased the danger of war. Convinced that they were threatened, they maintained large standing armies, and increased the size of their navies. The naval race was intensely competitive. Britain, influenced by the growing German navy, begun in 1900 and by the events of the Russo-Japanese War, developed its fleet under the direction of Admiral Sir John Fisher. The war between Russia and Japan had proved that long-range naval guns were effective and the British developed the revolutionary and widely copied Dreadnought battleship, with a lot of armaments. Developments in other areas of military technology and organisation led to the dominance of general staffs with precisely laid plans for mobilisation and attack, often in situations that an army couldnt get out of once they h ad got into it. This became apparent during the war, when soldiers would stay in virtually the same place for long periods of time in the trench-filled battlefields.The countries of Europe started to make moves that eventually would make the scale of the war much larger. Germanys government decided it was in their best interests to make alliances with countries for extra protection if a war began. In 1879, Austria signed a treaty with Germany and a strong alliance was born. Germanys next move was to ally with Italy in 1882, and then with Russia in 1887. Unfortunately, Russia and Austria were enemies because of conflicts in the Balkans, so Germany did not renew the alliance with Russia in 1890. France felt threatened by The Central Powers (the name for the alliances between Germany, Austro-Hungary and Italy), so in 1892, a treaty was signed with Russia for protection and support. In 1904, Britain, feeling worried about Germanys growing naval force, allied with France and in 1907 with Russia. Now Europe had been divided into two armed camps the Central Powers and the Triple Entente (the name for France, Britain and Russias alliance).Southeast Europe is known as The Balkans. For centuries, the powerful Turks had ruled it, but when their empire began to fall apart in the 19th century, the Austro-Hungarian Empire swooped in and took much of the Balkans for itself. Only Bosnia, Albania and Montenegro were still ruled by the Turks and four countries gained independence Greece, Rumania, Bulgaria and Serbia. Austria annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1908.The Russians started to get very friendly with the people in the Balkans, persuading them to rebel against Turkish rule with a theory called Panslavism. Many Russians were Eastern Orthodox Christian Slavs, and the people in the Balkans were too. The Russians told them that they would help them if they tried to gain independence from Turkish rule, but they were actually manipulating these people for their own gain. Ru ssia wanted the Dardanelles, a narrow strip of sea which connected the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, because all of their Northern ports were frozen in winter, and the Dardanelles provided a route into the ocean. Turkey still controlled the Dardanelles at this time, but if the Slavic people of the Balkans rebelled, Turkey would weaken and Russia would have a chance to gain control of the Dardanelles.This angered Austria, as they hated Serbia, now on friendly terms with Russia. The inhabitants of Bosnia were mainly Serbian, and wanted to live freely like the Serbs in Serbia. The Austro-Hungary Empire was in danger of disintegrating if people rebelled for freedom, so their relations with Russia became much worse than they had been previously. The Central Powers were not very fond of the Triple Entente, and vice versa another push towards full-scale warfare.The Balkan Wars began in 1912, ending a year later. Turkey had lost most of its countries by now, but was clinging on to Macedo nia. The Balkan League, which was made up of the free Balkan countries, including Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia, wanted Macedonia to be free. A war was fought between Turkey and the League, ending in all the Turks being driven out from the area. In 1913, another war was fought, this time between the League members Serbia and Greece versus Bulgaria. This was because Serbia wanted more of Macedonia for itself, annoying Bulgaria who attacked Serbia. The war was over within 2 months, but had some important results.It resulted in an increased desire on the part of Serbia to obtain the parts of Austria-Hungary inhabited by Slavic peoples, strengthened Austro-Hungarian suspicion of Serbia, and left Bulgaria and the Turkish Empire, both defeated in the wars, with a desire for revenge. Germany, disappointed because Turkey had been deprived of its European territory by the Balkan Wars, increased the size of its army.Every war has a trigger. The trigger for the war to end all wars occurred in 1914, on a sunny June day in Belgrade, capital of Bosnia. The Emperor Francis Joseph of Austrias nephew, Archduke Francis Ferdinand (heir to the Austrian empire) and his wife Sophie were visiting for a military inspection. Members of the Black Hand Gang, a Serbian nationalist group, decided to kill him. Borijove Jevtic, one of the conspirators, gave this eyewitness account:When Francis Ferdinand and his retinue drove from the station they were allowed to pass the first two conspirators. The motor cars were driving too fast to make an attempt feasible and in the crowd were many Serbians; throwing a grenade would have killed many innocent people.When the car passed Gabrinovic, the compositor, he threw his grenade. It hit the side of the car, but Francis Ferdinand with presence of mind threw himself back and was uninjured. Several officers riding in his attendance were injured.The cars sped to the Town Hall and the rest of the conspirators did not interfere with them. After the recepti on in the Town Hall General Potiorek, the Austrian Commander, pleaded with Francis Ferdinand to leave the city, as it was seething with rebellion. The Archduke was persuaded to drive the shortest way out of the city and to go quickly.The road to the manoeuvres was shaped like the letter V, making a sharp turn at the bridge over the River Nilgacka. Francis Ferdinands car could go fast enough until it reached this spot but here it was forced to slow down for the turn. Here Princip had taken his stand.As the car came abreast he stepped forward from the curb, drew his automatic pistol from his coat and fired two shots. The first struck the wife of the Archduke, the Archduchess Sofia, in the abdomen. She was an expectant mother. She died instantly.The second bullet struck the Archduke close to the heart.He uttered only one word, Sofia a call to his stricken wife. Then his head fell back and he collapsed. He died almost instantly.The officers seized Princip. They beat him over the head w ith the flat of their swords. They knocked him down, they kicked him, scraped the skin from his neck with the edges of their swords, tortured him, all but killed him.This was the end of peace in Europe. Kaiser Wilhelm II, the rather insane ruler of Germany, was horrified at the assassination and sent a telegram to Emperor Josef offering support and advising him to declare war on Serbia. The Tsar of Russia, Nicholas II (cousin to the Kaiser and King George V of Britain) sent a telegram begging him to hold back:St. Petersburg, July 29, 1914, 1:00 A.M. Tsar Nicholas II to Kaiser Wilhelm II: I foresee that very soon I shall be overwhelmed by the pressure forced upon me and be forced to take extreme measures which will lead to war. NickyUnfortunately, Tsar Nicholas realised that The Central Powers were not going to hold back, so he mobilised his army that afternoon. This gave the Kaiser an excuse to do the same thing.Two days later, Germany declared war on his cousins country because Ru ssia was backing Serbia. Another two days later, Germany declared war on its old adversary, France. They intended to invade using the Schlieffen Plan they would attack France going through Belgium, and deal with Russia after an easy surprise victory over France.However, this was not going to work. Belgium was a neutral country, but Britain wanted to help them when the strong German forces invaded them. Britains entry into the war was on August 4th, 1914. The First World War was already in motion.In conclusion, I have found that no one person was to blame for one of the worst wars in human history. Many countries contributed to the tension and hatred surrounding the pre-war years, but more to blame, in my opinion, were certain systems. Imperialism, nationalism and the alliance system all greatly contributed to this tension and Gavrillo Princips act simply pushed everyone over the edge. Even if he had been stopped, war would have probably still broken out war was imminent before the assassination, not directly after it. Unfortunately, mankind did not learn from the First World War, but hopefully if we look back, war can be avoided in the future for good. And as the poet Wilfred Owen wrote in Dulce et Decorum Est:My friend; you would not tell with such high zestTo children ardent for some desperate glory,The old Lie: Dulce et decorum estPro patria mori*Sarah Watson*The last two lines of this poem mean It is a good and fitting thing to die for your country.

Shorten The Learning Curve For Onboarding Your Team To CoSchedule

Shorten The Learning Curve For Onboarding Your Team To Have you ever heard the epic story of Hernn Cortà ©s? He was the Spanish explorer who brought about six hundred soldiers with him to conquer a mysterious new world. As legend has it, when their ships touched ground, he gave a surprising order: Burn the ships! The explorer made it clear, their only option was to move forward.  In his journal, Cortà ©s explained,  Ã¢â‚¬Å"Were all in and theres no turning back.† While historians have a quibble with the nitty-gritty details- everyone agrees that their ships were scuttled and they forfeited their way home. The lesson for us marketers definitely isnt to strike out on a conquest but it is something radical. When your team is switching to , ensure there is no path back to the status quo. The old way of doing things. In this post, Im going to share three ways to shorten the learning curve for onboarding your team to . Because, lets face it, the faster your team gets rolling with , the faster your results go up, your time spent on trivial details goes down, and you look like a marketing genius while it happens. So, youre going to learn to: Be ultra-specific with what this new world of will look like. Create a desire in your team for accomplishing more (fueled by ). Remove friction between your team and adoption. To help you do this, I have a couple amazing things just for you: A free, 1-on-1 marketing demo of for you and your team, A bundle of specific resources to help you onboard your team with ease. ⠏ °Ã‚  Pick a time for your marketing demo. ðŸâ€"‚  Grab your resources. ðŸ˜Æ'  Now lets get to onboarding! in oneplace. Save 20 hrs this week alone and every weekafter. If youve ever kicked the tires on , nows the time to see what its reallylike. Schedule Your Demo Success! Your download should start shortly. Clean up the chaos with your editorial calendar! With , youll Save time with blogging, social, and email think HOURS every week Schedule your social posts in batches and increase your posting frequency super easily Get your sht together and hold yourself accountable to publishing like the boss you are! Now’s the perfect time to start your 14-day free trial to see for yourself! Start Your Free Trial

Environmental Issues Journal Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Environmental Issues Journal - Essay Example the temperature on earth continues to rise, the water cycle is further driven to evaporation, which allows water to be more available for storm formation but less accessible for some land masses. This increases the risk for flooding in the usual storm-afflicted areas, and the likelihood of drought in locations that get relatively less precipitation. The change in temperature also makes the storm tracks vary, making the weather less predictable. More importantly for humans, increasing temperature will lead to heat-related health incidents, air-quality respiratory illnesses, and low crop yields (Environment Protection Agency). The naturally-occurring gases contribute to climate change because the mechanisms that regulate their amounts in the atmosphere become less efficient. Although the temperature in earth started increasing since the 1800, the most rapid increase has been observed in the recent decades, most possibly due to human activity (Environmental Protection Agency). In the case of carbon dioxide, it is regulated by the carbon cycle. However, its increasing level in the atmosphere is partly attributed to industrialization that started 150 years ago, which emit the gas by burning fossil fuels to power the machineries. Currently, electricity generation and transportation add into the carbon dioxide emission. Methane from landfills, coal mines, oil and gas operations, and agriculture also add to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. As well, the continuing deforestation depletes the plant population that absorbs carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (National Energy Information Center, 2004). Unfortunately, we cannot prevent the earth from heating up. This is because many greenhouse gases take a long time to be degraded, and the cycling of the heat from the ocean to the atmosphere is relatively slow. What we can do is to slow it down. When the problem of increasing levels of greenhouse gas continues, the rate at which temperature of the Earth’s surface rise

Human Rights, Law and Police Ethics in Ireland and India Essay

Human Rights, Law and Police Ethics in Ireland and India - Essay Example And they have organised this close similarity in their belief and adherence to democratic values into operational institutions of democratic practice such as the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, each deriving its power and authority from the constitutions that the people, in their respective constituent assemblies, have given to themselves. A unanimous opinion of scholarly commentators is that both the constitutions provide for the 'rule of law'. "... every official, from the Prime Minister down to a constable or a collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen and all subordinates, though carrying out the commands of their official superiors, are as responsible for any act which the law does not authorise as is any private and unofficial person." (A V Dicey, Law of the Constitution,: MacMillan, London, 9th ed., 1950, p.194). An American interpretation of the Rule of Law equates it with the separation of powers between the three branches of government. Thus in exposing the theme the popular internet encyclopaedia Wikipedia, says: "In American law, the most famous exposition of the same principle (of Rule of Law) was drafted by John Adams for the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in justification of the principle of separation of powers: "In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." Massachusetts Constitution, Part The First, art. XXX (1780)" (from Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia, retrieved on May 25, 2006) Safeguarding the liberty of the individual citizen is a prime responsibility of the democratic state. The most effective safeguard of liberty is when 'government is a government of law and not of men'. To the extent that the rule of law prevails, to that extent also liberty has the chance of being safeguarded. Separation of powers is a necessary condition for safeguarding liberty; for, as Montesquieu said: "When the legislative and judicial powers are united in the same person or body of persons there can be no liberty; for apprehensions may arise that the same monarch or senate should pass tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical way. Again there is no liberty if the judicial power is not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to the arbitrary control and were it joined with

House prices in uk

House prices in uk Introduction According to a new study from Halifax one of the largest mortgage lenders. House prices in UK have beaten inflation over the past 50 years. It says that have risen 273% between 1959 and 2009 an average of 2.7% annually. But if measured by current prices, its uneven. The fastest growth was from 1999 to 2009 by 5% and in previous decade i.e. from 1989 and 1999, price fall by 24%. The rising price was on these years i.e. 1971-73, 1977-80, 1985-89 and the highest price was in 1998 and 2007. The study also noted that coincided with a very strong increase in owner occupation of homes. In 1961, only 43% of households owned the homes in which they lived by 2008 that had risen to 68%. The strongest rise in owner occupation rates occurred in the 1980s. The proportion that is privately rented also fell sharply over the past 50 years from 33% in 1961 to 14% in 2008. www.ft.com cited on 21/02/10. Demand And Supply Of Housing The comparison of prices in local and regional housing markets is an example of microeconomics. Lets see the interaction between buyer and seller with prices being offered and agreed before a final transaction is made. The transaction for house in UK depends upon a) The price that the seller is willing to agree for their property with prospective buyer. b) The actual price that the buyer is willing and able to pay. Buyers place offers for a property that the seller can either accept or reject. A Sellers Market When there is demand in a market for housing and short of good quality property i.e. means the supply is scarce. A Buyers Market When demand for good quality and bad quality property is weak than there should some offer or can negotiate the price than its published price. When the demand for houses in a particular area increases (perhaps because of an inflow of population into the area, or a rise in incomes following a fall in unemployment), there is upward pressure on market prices. Often the supply of available housing in the market is relatively inelastic. This is because there are time lags between a change in price and an increase in the supply of new properties becoming available, or other homeowners deciding to put their properties onto the market. When demand shifts outwards and supply is inelastic the result is a large rise in market price and a relatively small expansion of the quantity of houses traded. As supply becomes more elastic over time, assuming the conditions of demand remain unchanged, we expect to see downward pressure on prices and a further increase in the equilibrium quantity of houses bought and sold. Factors affecting housing price 1. Growth of real incomes Privately owned housing is a normal good for most people. As standard of living rise, the demand for house expands. 2. Consumer confidence Consumer has a vital role in the housing sector. When the economy is sustaining growth and rising property than its but natural that the number of house buyers and shifts the balance of power in the market. 3. Jobs The other factor is job. if it involves making a long-term commitment through a mortgage lender, changes in unemployment. If theres unemployment and average incomes are likely to be lower than confidence among buyers would affect. 4. Housing taxes and subsidies. Government policies, taxes and subsidies also affect the housing prices. Demand factors affecting house price FUTURE EXPECTATIONS 1. 2012 London Olympics May Help UK Economy Britains recovery can be done because of the infrastructure projects for 2012 London Olympics. Total spending is estimated for 2012  £9.3 (US$13.8) billion. There will be two major beneficiaries of the 2012 games: Londons crumbling mass transport system; East London, where the Olympic Stadium, the Olympic Village and other major facilities will be located. To accommodate the number of people in a city, the improvement is going on for transport of London upgrading to the London over ground. The Olympic delivery authority has given  £3.1bn for the construction of the Olympic park. The budget for this is  £1 billion for the Olympic village, and  £400 million for the media centre. This will benefit to the housing sector in UK. The more people going to accommodate in this country the space to live .That would benefit the housing sector of UK. http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/ cited on 15/02/10 2. UK Mortgage Supply Crash A loan to finance the purchase of real estates, usually with specified payment and interest rates. The borrower (mortgagor) gives the lender (mortgagee) a lien on the property as collateral for the loan. www.investorwords.com The data collected by British Bankers of Association is that the no of mortgages approved for purchase of house was 17,773 against 64,014 in July, 2007 a fall of 72%. The mortgage market clearly remains as extreme preventive measures are taken due to the collapse of Britains mortgage banks. The supply has fallen so the average value of loan offered for house purchases which peaked at  £159,600 in June 2007, and now averages at just  £116,700. Home owners imagining that equity of 25% despite the fall in house prices to date may in fact on attempting to remortgage find that remortgage purposes and hence not offered any loan at favorable interest rates. The interest rate cut from 5% straight to 2% in 2 months and  £600billion bank bailout package. The net effect to this area was total amount of mortgage loans were outstanding the amount was  £35billion, against to a stable market. And in 2009 the house price rose by 2.9% says government. But the data of nationwide and Halifax says that UK house price rose by 6%nearly. The fastest growth was in 2009 went up by 4.9%. http://www.independent.co.uk/ cited on 16/02/10 Repossessions Extreme Government Pressure In an attempt to limit the number of repossessions during 2009, the government is putting extreme pressure on the mortgage banks to ensure repossessions are a last resort. Up until September 2008 this amounted mostly to hot air from the politicians, however after having taken major stakes in most of Britains biggest banks there are strong signs that the banks are starting to comply with their new majority shareholders wishes (the government), that look set to increasingly introduce initiatives to reduce the number of repossessions. The most recent action on this front was by RBS which stated that it would give a 6 month reprieve to its mortgage customers that are in arrears before initiating court repossession orders. Whilst the measures will undoubtedly mean that less homes will now be repossessed than would have otherwise been the case, however it does act as a two edged sword in that whilst supply of repossessed homes onto the market will be less, at the same time the mortgage banks are being forced to carry loss making loans that prove costly to administer and without bringing in much needed revenue i.e. tieing up resources that could have gone to more profitable mortgage customers. The Governments initiatives to reduce repossessions will have no discernable impact on the housing market price trends either positive or negative due to the points about tieing up capital in loss making costly to administer loan accounts. The number of homes expected to be repossessed during 2008 is now revised lower to 55,000 with the expectations of 65,000 homes for 2009 in advance of further government interventions in the housing market to prevent repossessions on an larger scale. The government is engaged on a programme of forcing down mortgage interest rates by a series of deep unprecedented cuts in UK interest rates towards the target of 1% , and possibly even lower to make up the shortfall in the lack of responsiveness by mortgage lenders in cutting their rates, who at the same time have tightened lending criteria due to the increased risk of defaults. The mortgage interest rates have fallen significantly from the credit crisis extremes and are heading to below 4% which implies a strong pointer for support for house prices as the cost of servicing mortgages falls and therefore should support a recovery in housing prices. However the housing market has always been that of being driven by sentiment, in that it is the trend in house prices that is most significant and NOT the cost of servicing the mortgages, it is this which pushed house prices to above X7 earnings, where people were prepared to take on large mortgages at high interest rates for the prime reason that house price gains in the order of 15% per annum or more were far above that of the mortgage interest payments of typically 6%. However now that the housing bubble has burst has resulted in the trend and sentiment reversing as house prices have already fallen by nearly 20%, which equates to a loss of  £40,000 on an average  £200,000 house that is now worth  £160,000, which averages to a fall in value of  £2500 per month. Against which a typical mortgage of say  £160k on a  £200k property at 6% would result in monthly interest charge of  £800 per month. Now with mortgage rates having typically fallen to 4% which is resulting in an reduced interest payment of  £533 per month or a significant fall of  £277 per month that many commentators are taking as a cue for imminent price stability. Unfortunately the  £277 saving is just above 10% of the amount that home owners are typically losing in value per month! Therefore the interest rate cuts are having little if no effect on the housing market, I first warned of this likely outcome back in February 2008 that interest rate cuts will not stop hous e prices from falling. This therefore implies that low interest rates are not an important factor at this point in determining house price trend during 2009, as housing market sentiment is decidedly bearish and will take time to first stabilise and then start to recover. UK Economic Recession Unemployment UK unemployment has probably already risen above 2 million by the time Decembers data is released in March, with the original UK unemployment forecast for a rise to 2.6 million by April 2010 now destined to be breached as the UK economy targets a severe recession on par with that of the early 1980s rather than the more milder one of the 1990s. Increasing expectations are that the UK economy will contract by 3% GDP during 2009 which implies that the UK is heading for an unemployment rate that could pass above 3,000,000 by early 2010. Therefore this confirms that the UK housing market is at least 15 months away from a period of stabilising in nominal terms i.e. where house prices stop falling. The actual trigger for a resumption of the housing bull market would be a sustained period of falling unemployment with the trigger level of 2,000,000 expected to act as a strong marker for year on year housing market recovery as occurred following the last housing bear market. This suggests that the housing market may not embark on an sustainable up trend for as longs as another 4 years and thus points to a period of house price stagnation that will following the current crash in UK house prices. http://www.marketoracle.co.uk Credit Crunch a credit crunch is a period in the economy, distinct from a recession or depression, but potentially heralding one or the other. Credit crunch including mortgage loans, personal loans, car finance, credit cards and other type o f lending become much harder to obtain in a credit crunch. Credit crunch has completely changed the face of the global economy with hundreds of business. From banks and capital markets at given interest rates. The reduced availability of credit can result from many factors, including an increased perception of risk on the part of lenders, ann imposition of credit controls, or a sharp restriction of the money supply. www.teachmefinance.com A sudden reduction in the availability of loans and other types of credit Eg: Lehman brothers. Supply Factor Affecting House Price Immigration There had been a large influx of over 800,000 migrants from the Accession states who contributed towards the buy to let market bubble Strong UK Economy The UK economy at the centre of the worlds credit bubble continued to outperform mainland Europe, which looked on with envy from the less flexible and more regulated European countries of France and Germany, though as we find out during 2009, not participating in the credit boom did not help them as many of the European banks become belatedly suckered into buying U.S. subprime mortgage backed toxic securitized debt as one the last to fling themselves onto the debt derivatives pyramid.

Describe Australia’s Consitution

On the 1st January 1901 Australia became one nation. Prior to this Australia consisted of six separate colonies who all answered to British authority. The British government then passed the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and federation was achieved. The British government had provided Australia with a constitution which was a set of rules which the government had to follow in order to run the country. Parts of the constitution include the division of power between the different levels of government and the establishment of the High Court.Australia is a constitutional monarch. This is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of state and because the British monarchy still plays a role in the Australian parliament, the government has a Governor-General. The Governor-General is the representative of the monarch or head of state (now Queen Elizabeth II). He or she exercises the supreme power of the Commonwealth. The constitution grants the Governor-Gener al a wide range of powers. The most important power the Governor-General has is found in section 58 of the constitution. When a proposed law passed by both Houses of Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare †¦ that he assents in the Queen's name. † This means they have the power to decide which laws come into force. The constitution divides up the powers between the federal government and the states. This is covered in Chapter 1, Part V in sections 51 to 60. It specifies the legislative powers of the federal parliament which enables them to make laws.Section 52 outlines the exclusive powers of the federal government. The state parliament was given residual powers, these are the remaining matters which are not referred to in the constitution on which the states can legislate. The federal parliament was given the power to make laws on all matters listed in section 51. The state government can also make laws in many of the area s listed in section 51. This is an example of concurrent power which are powers held by both the state and federal parliaments.Each state has its own constitution along with residual powers. Some of the main powers of the state governments are in the areas of crime hospitals and public transport. When there is conflict between federal and state governments the solution is found in section 109 which states ‘When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency be invalid’. This means that federal overrules state.According to section 51, the federal government can pass laws on foreign relations and trade and commerce around the world, taxation, currency, immigration and emigration etc. They also have the power to pass laws on the naval and military defence of the commonwealth, naturalization and aliens and the provision of maternity allowances. This is just a handful of what the many areas listed in section 51 are. Overall the entire Australian government answers to the constitution. This constitution combined six colonies into one country. A country that is now one of the most powerful countries in the world.

Disraelis’ Reputaion and Promises

To establish whether this statement is true, the promises and reputation of Disraeli must first be identified. In his speeches in 1872 at Crystal Palace and in Manchester†s Free Trade Hall, Disraeli once again showed his skills as an orator. He laid out three basic aims or policies that he wanted to pursue, should he get in power. These were; to conserve the institutions in Britain, uphold British interests abroad and to improve the standard of life for the general population and especially the working classes. Disraeli had also created a reputation for himself with the 1867 Reform Act. He had successfully destroyed the liberal party and due to the nature of the act, extending the franchise by a considerable number, had acquired a reputation for being more open minded about matters of reform, even though the act was mainly passed through necessity, because the act would be passed and it was just a question about which party would do it. He had also tried successfully to establish the Conservative Party as the nationalistic party in the government, the one that would uphold British interest abroad and repair the damage that he claimed that Gladstone was causing. The Alabama arbitration and the dealings that Gladstone had with Russia over the situation in the Black Sea were perfect opportunities for Disraeli to show how Gladstone was destroying Britain†s Empire by his weakness in his dealings with other major powers. This meant that when Disraeli cam into power he had to act upon his criticisms of Gladstone as he had condemned the way that Gladstone had put his faith so strongly in arbitration rather than in action and the way that Gladstone was more concerned about the way that the negotiations were carried out rather than the end result. The only way that Disraeli could fulfil his promises about the welfare and conditions of the people and conserving the institutions was by bringing about various social reforms. In his famous speeches in 1872 he promised the people that he would improve the standard of their lives and give them â€Å"air light and water†. To an extent it would be fair to say that he achieved this although some of the acts that were meant to do this were not very effective at all. The Factory Legislations in 1874, 1875 and 1878 were major steps in Disraeli achieving what he had promised. These were some of his more effective acts because they were compulsory and the consequence of this was that it had a further reaching effect than a large number of the acts that Disraeli passed. In this respect it is very similar to the Public Health Act in 1875 because this also had aspects of it that were compulsory, for example the local councils were compelled to employ a Ministry of Health. The fact that acts like these were compulsory and not permissive is what makes them more successful than the others. While other acts would appear to conform to Disraeli†s claims that he was fulfilling his promises, upon closer inspection they did not have much effect upon the lives of the workingman. The Friendly Societies Act in 1875 was another act that could be used to support the statement that Disraeli†s was a government that lived up to its promises. The societies were formed as a kind of self-help organization and Disraeli†s government supported this, which indicates that he was trying to live up the promise that he would improve conditions for the working classes. The Labour Legislation and the amendment of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act in 1875 were other legislations that lived up to the promises of Disraeli, because they both attempted to change the law in order to make it more fair and even for the workers so that they could negotiate on equal grounds as the employer and to ensure that the laws were equal for both parties involved. The Enclosure of Commons Act in 1876 was an act that showed Disraeli trying to fulfil his promise that he would provide enjoyment of â€Å"air light and water. † However convincing these acts may seem to be in arguing that Disraeli lived up to his promises it must be recognised that there were a great many acts that he passed that were either totally ineffectual or would work in principle but not in practice. The River Pollution Prevention Act in 1876 was a totally ineffectual act. In principle it was supposed to prevent the factory owners who were polluting the rivers from doing so but in practice the pollution of the rivers continued and the act did not stop pollution. This is one of many examples of Disraeli†s government attempting to fulfil the promises that Disraeli made, but in the end passing an ineffectual act that simply does not achieve half as much as was promised. While these acts may have set a precedent to other acts in the future, they do not achieve very much at the time. Other acts like the Sale of Food and Drugs Act in 1875 show how that while the act looks to be a major act, it is only a permissive act that gives the power of change to the local councils who have men on their board who own the shops that are going to lose revenue if they are no longer allowed to adulterate the food or Drugs that they sell. As it was not in their interests, and as it was an enabling act, they simply did not bother to put anything into practice. There was a similar situation with the Merchant Shipping Act and the Artisans Dwelling Act in 1876 and 1875. These two were both permissive instead of compulsory, and both gave the power to change to those who would not benefit and may well lose out if they put the laws into practice. In the case of the Merchant Shipping Act the initiative was left with the owners of the ship who were never personally in danger abroad the ships and profited from the overloading. Again, in the Artisans Dwellings Act it was the councils decision whether to build houses or not, and to do this would require a raise in taxes for the rest of the constituency, and so the council may lose the next election so would not do anything. To illustrate this, by 1881, only ten out of 87 towns would take any action under the act. The Education Act in 1876 was not a very successful act either because it did nothing to ensure that the laws would be carried out until 1891 so there was a high level of truancy and children still worked when they should not, so although it added to the growing improvement of the education system, it did not really change anything significantly. The foreign policy that Disraeli followed between 1874 and 1880 was one that certainly appeared to be consistent with the reputation that Disraeli had acquired. It was very aggressive and he appeared to be fulfilling promises that he had made in 1872. His severe criticism of Gladstone†s weaknesses on foreign policy was one factor that formed peoples expectations that he would act upon the criticisms and that his foreign policy would be constructed so as to protect British interests abroad. Disraeli lived up to his reputation and promises in his foreign policy more than he did at home with his domestic policies. However it was not as he had promised to the people. He had promised to uphold British interests abroad, and to a certain extent he did, but there were events that he could not control and certain concessions that had to make to foreign powers that diminished the influence and threatened the power that Britain held abroad. The problems with Russia were a prime example where he had to concede and let Russia have a fleet in the Black sea even though this was against the interests of Britain. He could not realistically deliver all that he promised, as there would be times like these where he had to make concessions. On the other hand it must be said that Disraeli managed to fulfil the majority of his promises and reputation in regards to his foreign policy, even if at times he did not mean to. In a lot of his speeches a lot of what he said was rhetoric, but when men like Frere and Lytton took him at face value, and started wars with the Afghans and with the Zulus and started wars in order to preserve the British interests in those particular areas, they put action to his words. Even if Disraeli did not actually want these wars, which he did not, the two wars were both in keeping with the reputation that he had gained for being a very aggressive imperialist, even if these wars did work to his detriment. The Congress of Berlin was one of the high points of Disraeli†s foreign policy because in this he managed to rebuild Britain†s reputation as a major imperial power, which adds to the evidence that he did live up to the reputation that he had acquired, and he made secret agreements with the Turks, Russians and Austria-Hungary in order to preserve British interest in that area. The purchase of the Suez Canal shares in 1875 was another one of Disraeli's best judgements because for years on from then it was one of the biggest trade routes in the world and Britain†s involvement in it was a major asset to Britain†s power as an imperial nation. One side of Disraeli†s foreign policy that cannot be ignored is the fact that Disraeli took massive risks in his policy and could have got Britain involved in a war with Russia without nay powerful allies and with an obsolete navy, and also agreed to defend one of Turkeys frontiers without the resources to do so. The fact that was lucky and managed to steer clear of any problems is a credit to Disraeli as it would have been very easy for him to make a very costly mistake. Though Disraeli passed a large number of reforms for his time, he still managed to fulfil his final promise of his 1872 speeches and conserve the institutions. The institutions that he meant were the aristocracy, like the rich landowners and the Anglican Church. While someone like Gladstone was a fanatical Anglican, Disraeli was only really interested in it to keep everyone else happy. It has been argued that acts like the Education Acts sole intention was to prevent the board schools which were more financially popular with the working or lower classes from getting too much of a hold on the education system because most wanted the Anglican churches from being the dominant force in education and the board schools were not. During his period in rule, he did not do anything that was actively conserving the constitutions, he simply avoided doing anything that would offend or threaten the institutions. It would be fair to say in conclusion that while Disraeli fulfilled some of the promises that he made, he did not do so with all of them. His domestic policy is a hard one to say whether he achieved accomplishment of the aims that he laid down in 1872. He certainly tried to do so, as the number of acts that he passed, and the nature of them indicate that they were probably passed with the interests of the people that it would effect, in mind. However there are some opinions that argue that all of the acts passed in Disraeli†s era were in reaction to public opinion at the time. While this is not totally fair to Disraeli, there is a lot of evidence pointing to this being a major contributing factor to the decision. In the case of the Education Act the other politicians were mainly or all Anglican and so wanted to conserve the churches hold over education, in the 1876 Merchant Shipping Act, the reason was predominantly to pacify the people who worked on the docks and Samuel Plimsoll as he was getting particularly worked up over the issue. However far it is possible to give credit to these ideas, it would be unfair to Disraeli to say that he tried to passed acts solely to pacify public demand it is much more likely to be that he was more genuine in his actions than that. However, the did not live up to all of the promises that he made, he may have set a precedent for governments before him in what their duties were to the people, but to the majority of the people of the time he did not have the ability to pass anything that would significantly change their lives. This was due to a number of limiting factors, like a hostile cabinet and a general public that were already sick of reform after a great reforming ministry from Gladstone. In his foreign policy in upholding the interests of the British Empire Disraeli fared a little better. He did not make any disastrous decisions in terms of upholding British interests abroad, although his attitude to problems got him into trouble at home, and did not make any major concessions to foreign powers. His diplomacy in Turkey in 1878 probably saved the Turkish Empire and he was aggressive to an extent that nearly got him into trouble. He certainly lived up to his reputation and promises in his foreign policy, although certain reckless comments landed him in trouble. Overall I think that Disraeli†s government did not live up to the promises that Disraeli made in 1872 and although his foreign policy was very similar to what people would expect and so lived up to his reputation, he did not deliver on the domestic front. The reasons for this were not solely attributable to Disraeli, but the fact remains that he did not deliver what he promised, and if anything the situation worsened with the depression even though this was not his fault. Disraeli tried hard to deliver what he promised but the government, the budget and the attitude of the people, who were not overly enthusiastic to more reforms, limited him in what he was able to do. Disraelis’ Reputaion and Promises To establish whether this statement is true, the promises and reputation of Disraeli must first be identified. In his speeches in 1872 at Crystal Palace and in Manchester†s Free Trade Hall, Disraeli once again showed his skills as an orator. He laid out three basic aims or policies that he wanted to pursue, should he get in power. These were; to conserve the institutions in Britain, uphold British interests abroad and to improve the standard of life for the general population and especially the working classes. Disraeli had also created a reputation for himself with the 1867 Reform Act. He had successfully destroyed the liberal party and due to the nature of the act, extending the franchise by a considerable number, had acquired a reputation for being more open minded about matters of reform, even though the act was mainly passed through necessity, because the act would be passed and it was just a question about which party would do it. He had also tried successfully to establish the Conservative Party as the nationalistic party in the government, the one that would uphold British interest abroad and repair the damage that he claimed that Gladstone was causing. The Alabama arbitration and the dealings that Gladstone had with Russia over the situation in the Black Sea were perfect opportunities for Disraeli to show how Gladstone was destroying Britain†s Empire by his weakness in his dealings with other major powers. This meant that when Disraeli cam into power he had to act upon his criticisms of Gladstone as he had condemned the way that Gladstone had put his faith so strongly in arbitration rather than in action and the way that Gladstone was more concerned about the way that the negotiations were carried out rather than the end result. The only way that Disraeli could fulfil his promises about the welfare and conditions of the people and conserving the institutions was by bringing about various social reforms. In his famous speeches in 1872 he promised the people that he would improve the standard of their lives and give them â€Å"air light and water†. To an extent it would be fair to say that he achieved this although some of the acts that were meant to do this were not very effective at all. The Factory Legislations in 1874, 1875 and 1878 were major steps in Disraeli achieving what he had promised. These were some of his more effective acts because they were compulsory and the consequence of this was that it had a further reaching effect than a large number of the acts that Disraeli passed. In this respect it is very similar to the Public Health Act in 1875 because this also had aspects of it that were compulsory, for example the local councils were compelled to employ a Ministry of Health. The fact that acts like these were compulsory and not permissive is what makes them more successful than the others. While other acts would appear to conform to Disraeli†s claims that he was fulfilling his promises, upon closer inspection they did not have much effect upon the lives of the workingman. The Friendly Societies Act in 1875 was another act that could be used to support the statement that Disraeli†s was a government that lived up to its promises. The societies were formed as a kind of self-help organization and Disraeli†s government supported this, which indicates that he was trying to live up the promise that he would improve conditions for the working classes. The Labour Legislation and the amendment of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act in 1875 were other legislations that lived up to the promises of Disraeli, because they both attempted to change the law in order to make it more fair and even for the workers so that they could negotiate on equal grounds as the employer and to ensure that the laws were equal for both parties involved. The Enclosure of Commons Act in 1876 was an act that showed Disraeli trying to fulfil his promise that he would provide enjoyment of â€Å"air light and water. † However convincing these acts may seem to be in arguing that Disraeli lived up to his promises it must be recognised that there were a great many acts that he passed that were either totally ineffectual or would work in principle but not in practice. The River Pollution Prevention Act in 1876 was a totally ineffectual act. In principle it was supposed to prevent the factory owners who were polluting the rivers from doing so but in practice the pollution of the rivers continued and the act did not stop pollution. This is one of many examples of Disraeli†s government attempting to fulfil the promises that Disraeli made, but in the end passing an ineffectual act that simply does not achieve half as much as was promised. While these acts may have set a precedent to other acts in the future, they do not achieve very much at the time. Other acts like the Sale of Food and Drugs Act in 1875 show how that while the act looks to be a major act, it is only a permissive act that gives the power of change to the local councils who have men on their board who own the shops that are going to lose revenue if they are no longer allowed to adulterate the food or Drugs that they sell. As it was not in their interests, and as it was an enabling act, they simply did not bother to put anything into practice. There was a similar situation with the Merchant Shipping Act and the Artisans Dwelling Act in 1876 and 1875. These two were both permissive instead of compulsory, and both gave the power to change to those who would not benefit and may well lose out if they put the laws into practice. In the case of the Merchant Shipping Act the initiative was left with the owners of the ship who were never personally in danger abroad the ships and profited from the overloading. Again, in the Artisans Dwellings Act it was the councils decision whether to build houses or not, and to do this would require a raise in taxes for the rest of the constituency, and so the council may lose the next election so would not do anything. To illustrate this, by 1881, only ten out of 87 towns would take any action under the act. The Education Act in 1876 was not a very successful act either because it did nothing to ensure that the laws would be carried out until 1891 so there was a high level of truancy and children still worked when they should not, so although it added to the growing improvement of the education system, it did not really change anything significantly. The foreign policy that Disraeli followed between 1874 and 1880 was one that certainly appeared to be consistent with the reputation that Disraeli had acquired. It was very aggressive and he appeared to be fulfilling promises that he had made in 1872. His severe criticism of Gladstone†s weaknesses on foreign policy was one factor that formed peoples expectations that he would act upon the criticisms and that his foreign policy would be constructed so as to protect British interests abroad. Disraeli lived up to his reputation and promises in his foreign policy more than he did at home with his domestic policies. However it was not as he had promised to the people. He had promised to uphold British interests abroad, and to a certain extent he did, but there were events that he could not control and certain concessions that had to make to foreign powers that diminished the influence and threatened the power that Britain held abroad. The problems with Russia were a prime example where he had to concede and let Russia have a fleet in the Black sea even though this was against the interests of Britain. He could not realistically deliver all that he promised, as there would be times like these where he had to make concessions. On the other hand it must be said that Disraeli managed to fulfil the majority of his promises and reputation in regards to his foreign policy, even if at times he did not mean to. In a lot of his speeches a lot of what he said was rhetoric, but when men like Frere and Lytton took him at face value, and started wars with the Afghans and with the Zulus and started wars in order to preserve the British interests in those particular areas, they put action to his words. Even if Disraeli did not actually want these wars, which he did not, the two wars were both in keeping with the reputation that he had gained for being a very aggressive imperialist, even if these wars did work to his detriment. The Congress of Berlin was one of the high points of Disraeli†s foreign policy because in this he managed to rebuild Britain†s reputation as a major imperial power, which adds to the evidence that he did live up to the reputation that he had acquired, and he made secret agreements with the Turks, Russians and Austria-Hungary in order to preserve British interest in that area. The purchase of the Suez Canal shares in 1875 was another one of Disraeli's best judgements because for years on from then it was one of the biggest trade routes in the world and Britain†s involvement in it was a major asset to Britain†s power as an imperial nation. One side of Disraeli†s foreign policy that cannot be ignored is the fact that Disraeli took massive risks in his policy and could have got Britain involved in a war with Russia without nay powerful allies and with an obsolete navy, and also agreed to defend one of Turkeys frontiers without the resources to do so. The fact that was lucky and managed to steer clear of any problems is a credit to Disraeli as it would have been very easy for him to make a very costly mistake. Though Disraeli passed a large number of reforms for his time, he still managed to fulfil his final promise of his 1872 speeches and conserve the institutions. The institutions that he meant were the aristocracy, like the rich landowners and the Anglican Church. While someone like Gladstone was a fanatical Anglican, Disraeli was only really interested in it to keep everyone else happy. It has been argued that acts like the Education Acts sole intention was to prevent the board schools which were more financially popular with the working or lower classes from getting too much of a hold on the education system because most wanted the Anglican churches from being the dominant force in education and the board schools were not. During his period in rule, he did not do anything that was actively conserving the constitutions, he simply avoided doing anything that would offend or threaten the institutions. It would be fair to say in conclusion that while Disraeli fulfilled some of the promises that he made, he did not do so with all of them. His domestic policy is a hard one to say whether he achieved accomplishment of the aims that he laid down in 1872. He certainly tried to do so, as the number of acts that he passed, and the nature of them indicate that they were probably passed with the interests of the people that it would effect, in mind. However there are some opinions that argue that all of the acts passed in Disraeli†s era were in reaction to public opinion at the time. While this is not totally fair to Disraeli, there is a lot of evidence pointing to this being a major contributing factor to the decision. In the case of the Education Act the other politicians were mainly or all Anglican and so wanted to conserve the churches hold over education, in the 1876 Merchant Shipping Act, the reason was predominantly to pacify the people who worked on the docks and Samuel Plimsoll as he was getting particularly worked up over the issue. However far it is possible to give credit to these ideas, it would be unfair to Disraeli to say that he tried to passed acts solely to pacify public demand it is much more likely to be that he was more genuine in his actions than that. However, the did not live up to all of the promises that he made, he may have set a precedent for governments before him in what their duties were to the people, but to the majority of the people of the time he did not have the ability to pass anything that would significantly change their lives. This was due to a number of limiting factors, like a hostile cabinet and a general public that were already sick of reform after a great reforming ministry from Gladstone. In his foreign policy in upholding the interests of the British Empire Disraeli fared a little better. He did not make any disastrous decisions in terms of upholding British interests abroad, although his attitude to problems got him into trouble at home, and did not make any major concessions to foreign powers. His diplomacy in Turkey in 1878 probably saved the Turkish Empire and he was aggressive to an extent that nearly got him into trouble. He certainly lived up to his reputation and promises in his foreign policy, although certain reckless comments landed him in trouble. Overall I think that Disraeli†s government did not live up to the promises that Disraeli made in 1872 and although his foreign policy was very similar to what people would expect and so lived up to his reputation, he did not deliver on the domestic front. The reasons for this were not solely attributable to Disraeli, but the fact remains that he did not deliver what he promised, and if anything the situation worsened with the depression even though this was not his fault. Disraeli tried hard to deliver what he promised but the government, the budget and the attitude of the people, who were not overly enthusiastic to more reforms, limited him in what he was able to do.