Social, Political and Economic Impacts of Thatcher

Social, Political and Economic Impacts of Thatcher There is little doubt that the Thatcher administration had a social, political and economic impact on Britain during its years of reign. The push for privatisation of the public sector, the subsequent unemployment, and the drive to divert housing away from the control of the state and into the control of private parties are, among others, the key events that shaped the influence that Thatcherism had on the British public. It has often been argued that the concept of Thatcherism goes against the grain of traditional Conservative political thought since the end of the Second World War in 1945, and that Thatcher’s â€Å"New Right† set out challenge the elements of classic liberalism that were traditionally embraced by the Tory’s up to her victory in 1979.[1] However, others have also argued that Thatcher’s New Right still embraced one key factor of traditional Tory political thought: the concept of tradition.[2] The most accurate definition of the New Right s chool of thought is the fact is combines elements of both liberalism (the need for freedom) and traditionalism (the preservation of concepts of heritage) into a new form of ultra-conservative thinking, which is said to have first come to prominence during Ronald Reagan’s election to the White House in 1980.[3] Thatcher’s foreign policy embraced the US as a close ally during Reagan’s presidency, and as such they shared political thoughts and ideas on certain issues.[4] The Thatcher government is attributed as being responsible for the reformation of the labour market during the 1980’s. One main method of achieving this was through the reformation of the income tax system, which dropped the top marginal tax rate for the extremely wealthy.[5] The basic tax rate was cut from 33% to 25%, and the top tax rate was reduced from 83% to 40%.[6] This reduction in taxes is said to have lead to an increase in big business and skilled workforce interest in Britain, rather than having to shift their operations offshore to avoid the high taxes. Having large business back in Britain, set up through the encouragement of a foreign skilled workforce to set up in Britain through lower income tax, meant that the economy would subsequently strengthen due to an increased import/export market and foreign trade deals, regardless of the fact that the government would initially lose up to half its revenue from the top marginal tax bracket. The labour market also faced a shake-up in terms of union involvement, with Thatcher legislating extensively to restrict their involvement in industrial relations, and effectively disabling their ability to call strikes.[7] This meant that the common man’s rights at work were severely challenged by the Thatcher legislative agenda, thereby effectively distancing government from the middle to working classes of British society. This is somewhat contradictory to her proclamation that, upon arriving to Downing Street, her vision was of an â€Å"open, classless Britain†.[8] Rather it could be argued that, in some areas at least, her agenda has somewhat reinforced the class system in Britain, and created a breed of ‘working poor’ class, where encouragement to own property and shares has lead to the inability to create free capital, on which a family can survive. Thatcher also believed that state ownership of many companies was hampering growth in other sectors. Famous firms such as Cable Wireless, British Aerospace, British Petroleum, Rover, British Airways, and British Telecom are now quite largely owned by the public, as well as basic suppliers of gas, electricity, water, telecommunications, road and rail.[9] With the transfer from public to private enterprise meant subsequent deregulation of those companies, allowing them to make changes to the company as their respective boards of directors saw fit. This also could be argued to mean that many employees would no longer be government employees that were provided with government benefits, such as generous superannuation contributions. Rather, superannuation would be at the discretion of the employer, and those that did not receive such benefits would be reliant upon the welfare of the state come unemployment or retirement. This is especially relevant where a mandatory retirement age is enf orced. Again, this further demonstrates the position of the Thatcher administration in terms of providing for middle to lower classes of British society, and only looking out for those that are wealthy enough to own stock in such privatised companies (20% of Britons in 1990, compared with 7% in 1979).[10] Interestingly, under Thatcher in 1980, the Royal Family was given an increase in its allowance from the British government by several million pounds, while cuts in expenditure were being made in most other areas![11] Britain began to pay a price for Thatcher’s cost cutting and privatisation during the 1980s. While the Thatcher administration had inherited high inflation from the preceding Heath Labour government,[12] methods still had to be put in place to control this. Within a few years, inflation was down to 5%, however as a result of strict money control as a method of control, unemployment had risen to around 3 million (or 6%) in the mid 1980s.[13] However, 70% of the British public now owned their own homes, which promoted Thatcher’s importance of personal wealth as a fundamental policy.[14] The economy was favoured over infrastructure and social welfare, with roads and railways showing â€Å"signs of neglect† and homelessness having â€Å"visibly increased†.[15] An example of Thatcher’s favouritism towards the economy is demonstrated by the Local Government Bill 1988, which would have made it illegal to promote homosexuality, or to promote the teaching of homosexuality in any school.[16] It could be argued that this Bill was introduced in the wake of a perceived AIDS epidemic that was striking Britain at the time[17] and, rather than spending money to combat this problem through social welfare programs, it seemed much more economically sound to eradicate the problem at a political level. This again demonstrates the distance between the Thatcher government and the social sphere of Britain, also considering proposals in terms of their ‘pounds-and-pence’ value, and not at a grassroots social level. Upon considering various commentaries and statistical data on the issue, it become clear that the success of the Thatcher administration from 1979-1990 can only best be judged in a two-pronged sense: economically and socially. From an economist’s (and upper class) perspective, it is clear that the Thatcher government achieved success in stabilising the British economy and made life in Britain generally more appealing for those of a higher socio-economic status. This was highlighted by the push for people to own their own homes, own stock portfolios and the ability for people in the highest tax bracket to retain 43% more of their earnings. This is in stark contrast to those of middle to working class populations, where the basic tax rate was cut by a mere 8%, union representation was cut and state-owned enterprise was sold to the public, creating a deregulated corporate anarchic sphere. This meant unemployment rates rose, due to the government having less ability to undertake r emedial programs in the formerly state-owned companies, such as job placement. Rather these people became reliant upon the welfare of the state, which was lacking due to the â€Å"classless† approach of the Thatcher government. In short, Thatcherism is critical of any form of post-war political thought in Britain up until the victory in the 1979 election, due to the ‘one nation’ approach of the New Right. From an economic perspective, it was a godsend. From a socialist’s perspective, it has its flaws. But there is no disputing the fact that Thatcher has left a lasting legacy in British political thought, one which continues in part today through Tony Blair’s New Labour. So what of the future? With the rise of big business, one would assume that corporate deregulation and denationalisation will continue in the future, putting more peoples’ jobs at risk. However, the Labour government have traditionally taken a kind view towards the working man and their union representations. So will this mean more rights for the common man? Only time will tell Bibliography Books Barker, R, Political Ideas in Modern Britain: In and After the 20th Century (1997, 2nd ed), Routledge, London. Hickson, K (ed), The Political Thought of the Conservative Party Since 1945 (2005), Palgrave MacMillan, Hampshire. Marquand, D and Seldon, A, The Ideas that Shaped Modern Britain (1996), Fontana Press, London. Robertson, D, The Penguin Dictionary of Politics (1993, 2nd ed), Penguin, London. Journal Articles Hitchens, C, ‘This Thatchered Land, This England’ (1980) 231 Nation 3. Nelan, B, ‘A Legacy of Revolution’ (1990) 136 Time 24. Stelzer, I, ‘What Thatcher Wrought’ (1992) Public Interest 107. Legislation Local Government Bill 1998 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880009_en_5.htm Footnotes [1] Kevin Hickson (ed), The Political Thought of the Conservative Party Since 1945 (2005), 28. [2] Rodney Barker, Political Ideas in Modern Britain: In and After the 20th Century (1997, 2nd ed), 224. [3] David Robertson, The Penguin Dictionary of Politics (1993, 2nd ed), 348-9. [4] Ibid, 460. [5] David Marquand and Anthony Seldon, The Ideas that Shaped Modern Britain (1996), 154. [6] Bruce Nelan, ‘A Legacy of Revolution’ (1990) 136 Time 24, 66. [7] Nelan, as above n 6. [8] Ibid. [9] Irwin Stelzer, ‘What Thatcher Wrought’ (1992) Public Interest 107, 33-6. [10] Nelan, as above n 6. [11] Christopher Hitchens, ‘This Thatchered Land, This England’ (1980) 231 Nation 3, 72-3. [12] Hickson, as above n 1, 42. [13] Ibid. [14] Nelan, as above n 6. [15] Ibid. [16] Local Government Bill 1988 (UK), s 2A. [17] Stelzer, as above n 9, 49.

The Lords of Discipline - Life in a Military Academy Essay -- essays r

The Lords of Discipline - Life in a Military Academy   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  To the average person, school is a place to learn where one may speak their mind freely, yet stay orderly through a light set of values and order. In The Lords of Discipline, we learn of a different type of school. The Institute is a military academy with rigorous mental and physical standards, and very straight-forward and rigid policies. What is learned at the Institute is to stay loyal to your classmates. The upperclassmen do their best to keep this primary rule imbedded in the minds of the plebe’s. In this story, we learn about an open-minded student at the academy whose own pride and determination allows him to stay in the system and not give up. He disagrees with the ways of the academy, but finds himself able to deal wit...

Sir Gawain And The Green Knight: Stanza 74 Essay -- essays research pa

In stanza 74, fit III, the lady of the castle offers a magical, green girdle to Sir Gawain and explains to him that the wearer of this corset "cannot be killed by any cunning on earth." Sir Gawain, amidst an ethical dilemma, accepts the gift and chooses to conceal it from Lord Bertilak. This passage contains three of the main themes of the story – the inner and outer conflicts between Sir Gawain’s ethics and desire to live, and the test of religion. When Sir Gawain is offered the girdle, his knightly principles are questioned. The honorable thing would be to reject the offer or bring it to the lord of the castle, but Gawain places the preservation of his life ahead of chivalry. The knight has withstood the lady’s constant barrage of sexual advances, and kept his promise to the lord of the castle, but when the chance to save his life is presented, he snatches it up without a second thought. This point is shown by the way the author puts "Outright" on a line of it’s own, emphasizing Gawain’s quick decision. He is then ecstatic about the thought that he will survive his meeting with the knight the next day, shown by "often thanks gave he/ With all his heart and might." Later, Sir Gawain finds three faults in his actions, the first being his cowardice – in direct contrast to the main principles of knighthood, the second being his covetousness, his lust for life, and the third being his lack of faith in God. Even when it is shown that God has forgiven him by healing the wound on his neck, Sir Gawain still feels that he has sinned, and is not as willing to forgive himself. He decides that more atonement is in order, so he makes the decision to wear the girdle from then on, as a sign of his eternal sin, but even then he does not feel that he has been cleansed of his sin. He understands that he will be forced to bear the shame and disgrace of the sin for the rest of his life. The observers’ opinions of whether Sir Gawain is forgiven are the complete opposite of Sir Gawain’s. In the passage, it is mentioned that the lady kissed the constant knight. The question arises as to the author’s meaning of constant. It is obvious that it does not mean that Gawain is constant in his moral decisions, as he just made an unethical decision. It also wouldn’t mean that he is determined or steadfast, for he just caved in to h... ...ly a minor sin though; when the truth about the Green Knight is revealed, Sir Gawain is repentant, and his penance is served through the knick of Bertilak’s axe. Though technically Gawain fails the test when he gives into the lady’s temptations, he does well enough to pass in God’s eyes. As mentioned before, Sir Gawain is forgiven by God, as shown by the healing of the axe wound. The combination of these three themes creates a complex moral dilemma for the antagonist, Sir Gawain. This perplexity asks the question of life versus religion; is it acceptable to forsake God to save one’s own life? In the poem, obviously, it would have been wiser for Gawain to have denied the gift of the girdle; denial of the offering would have been the more ethical, socially acceptable, and pious choice to make. Sir Gawain’s acquisition of the present is accepted by others and by God as only a minor fault, and that is the author’s point. When confronted with a complicated decision, the person making the judgment will always be either supported or forgiven by his peers and by God; that person must appease themselves, however, and make the decision that he or she feels is ethically and morally correct.

L Shaddock & Associates Essay

I’ll be presenting the case: L Shaddock & Associates case v Parramatta City Council. First, I’ll provide a brief summary of situation that resulted in the court case, followed by the case itself, which brings up issues of duty of care and negligent mis-statement, and concluding with the judgement that was passed. The CASE: Shaddock proposed to purchase a property for the purpose of redevelopment. A telephone inquiry made by Mr Carroll, Shaddock’s solicitor, as to whether there was any local road widening proposal, was answered in negative. A written application lodged with the Council, for various certificates, AND an request for an indication of any such proposal, returned with no reference made, so Shaddock entered into a contract to purpose the property. However after the settlement of the property, part of the land was subsumed by the Council, for road widening purposes, and Shaddock sued Parramatta City Council for damages of negligent misstatement, breach of duty and care and liability for providing erroneous information. DUTY OF CARE: This case brings to light, issues of duty and care associated with liability of providing negligent mis-statement. To establish whether there was indeed a duty of care or not, 3 criteria must be satisfied. These are: The advice is of business or serious nature Defendant should have known that the plaintiff intended to rely on advice Reasonable in circumstances for plaintiff to rely on defendant’s advice In reference to judgement passed in another case: Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co. Ltd: The majority view held was that, duty of care is cast only on a person who carries on a business or profession which involves giving of advice of a kind which calls for special skill and competence, or let it be known he claims to possess skill and competence. In this case, it was argued that there was a difference in giving of advice and the giving of information, where the later, would not necessarily require an exercise of skill or judgement. It was established that the Council: As a public body, it was common practice to supply information for purposes of public functions: That the information given would be relied upon by others, and thus Under a duty to exercise reasonable care that information is given is correct. In the present case, it was also found that: Mr Carroll believed that the absence of any notation to a local road widening proposal indicated that there was indeed none. His previous experience indicated that it was practice of Council, to type or write (in red ink), a reference to the any proposal at the foot of the certificate. An examination in Council files of period January 1971 to July 1973, found 650 certificates indorsed with references to road widening proposals. There was no evidence to explain the failure to make a reference on the certificate issued to Mr Carroll. He also relied on Council to exercise reasonable care in advising him, as the Council was in a better position of the existence of such proposal. This was inferred from the fact that the supplier was the exclusive possessor of the information. Given the importance of certificates sought, the purpose of information as conveyancing, conveyed quite clearly that in the inquiry has been made in connexion with the sale of a property and, thus indicative that the advice was of business or serious nature. In conclusion, The duty of care did not exist when Mr Carroll made an oral inquiry, as it was informal, and he did not identify the officer to whom he spoke, nor followed oral request by confirming the conversation in writing. The duty of care gave rise to liability for negligent mis-statement, in the written application, as it were practice of the council to do so, knowing that one may suffer loss if info proved incorrect. Liability is not confined to those who have special skill or competence, but also to those whose profession to give advice or information. Resulted in damage compensation of $173938 for purchase of property and expenses related to holding the property

Germany during and after World War II Essay

The Second World War was a global war that was fought between 1939 and 1945. The war essentially begun when Nazi Germany together with other members of the â€Å"axis† went on the rampage and were seeking ways of spreading their occupation on other countries. Such countries like Great Britain, Australia, Denmark, Canada, and later the U. S felt threatened and formed what would be known as the allied powers with the sole purpose of defeating the fast advancing Nazi Germany. (Weinberg G. L. 1994) On 1 September 1939, when Germany invaded Poland, it marked the beginning of the Second World War and Poland’s allies in the West that included Australia, United Kingdom, and New Zealand declared war on Germany on September 3. The allies were later to be joined by such countries as Canada, France, South Africa and many others. The U. S joined the War later after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. (Weinberg G. L. 1994) The War is rated as the most expensive war that has ever been fought with an estimated cost standing at about 1 trillion U. S Dollars worldwide as at 1944, and is also rated as the most deadly conflict with an estimated loss of 60 million people. Of these Countries, Germany suffered the most severe devastation to be ever witnessed in the country’s history. It suffered greatly politically, socially and economically especially after its humiliating defeat by the allies and its eventual surrender on 7th May 1945. (Weinberg G. L. 1994) This paper is going to discuss some of the impact that the War had on Germany and how quickly it recovered. Political Impact Adolph Hitler was the undisputed leader of Nazi Germany who had the ambitious plan to expand the Third Reich to occupy the whole world. This expansion idea is what led to the eruption of the Second World War. The expansion strategy had obvious implication of the strength of the leadership in the occupied areas. However when the Allies’ closed in on the Germany Forces, Hitler committed suicide on 30th April 1945 and Germany was left without a leader. This led to the occupation of Germany by the Allied forces who divided the country into four occupation zones between 1945 -1949 these zones included The American zone of occupation, British zone of occupation, Soviet zone of occupation, and the French zone of occupation. However, tension grew between the west and the Soviet Union, which led to the merger of the American, French, and British zones on one hand and the Soviet Union zone on the other. Germany was now divided into two zones of East Germany under the Soviets to form the German Democratic Republic and West Germany under the commonwealth to form the Federal Republic of Germany. Economic and social impact During the War Germany was heavily bombarded by the Allied Forces who concentrated their bombing on the on the industrial parts of Germany. The exercise was aimed at incapacitating completely Germans sources of revenue, which was fueling the War. Between 1940-1942 the English RAF, concentrated much of the bombings on such industrial facilities like oil, aluminum, transport and aero-engine plants. By the end of the war therefore the countries economy was totally dilapidated and the infrastructure had totally collapsed. In total in Dresden alone, with approximately 1300 raids and about 3900 tons of highly explosive bombs there were heavy losses where the cities were completely shattered and many lives lost. By the end of WWII Germany alone had lost approximately 600,000 people who included civilians alone. (Coleman, P. 1999) Coincidentally the war was taking place when the holocaust in Germany and the occupied states was at its highest. Hitler sought to cleanse the areas he occupied of all the Jews and other races that he considered inferior; this alone was to cost the region approximately 6 million lives. There high number of lives had a great impact at the social and cultural front because most of those who lost their lives were young and energetic men that the country would have needed to recover. (Coleman, P. 1999) Recovery Although Germany suffered great losses and the devastation was complete the recover was equally fast and dramatic. This fast recovery was witnessed especially in West Germany, which had now become The Federal Republic of Germany. (Kitson A 2001) The fast recovery was termed an â€Å"economic miracle† by the Times Magazine and was attributed to the United States’ economic aid to Germany and the Marshal plan that was instituted by the Allied countries. However the fast recovery was witnessed because of the currency reforms of 1948, which saw the replacement of the Reichsmark as the legal tender with the Deutsche Mark. The later reason was an effective means of ensuring that runaway inflation was contained once and for all. (Kitson A 2001) By 1990, the west and the East German united and worked together and by December 2nd 1990, there were elections for the first time. Today German has been the center of the European union. It is also rated as the third richest economy, which is set to continue growing. The aftermath of the World War II helped Germany rise economically and unite with other European countries like France. (Kitson A 2001) REFERENCE Coleman, P. (1999) â€Å"Cost of the War,† World War II Resource Guide: Gardena, California: The American War Library Kitson, Alison (2001): Germany 1858-1990: Hope, Terror, and Revival: Oxford University Press Weinberg, Gerhard L. (1994): A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II: New York: Cambridge University Press.

Drug Use and Delinquency Essay

Drug Use and Delinquency Response Adolescents may try drugs just to experiment or by feeling pressured into trying the drug by other family members or friends. Drug use among adolescences may lead to delinquency for the fact that an adolescents’ behavior most likely started before the start of drugs or alcohol. I will give a brief explanation on reasons for delinquency and drug use starting with reasons adolescents may start using drugs or alcohol and then describe how drug use may relate to delinquency. According to studies adolescents who experienced substance abuse gave several reasons in why they turned to drugs or alcohol such as â€Å"my friends pressured me† or â€Å"I wanted to feel good and get high,† â€Å"to have a good time with friends,† or to â€Å"escape from my problems† (Titus, Godley & White 2006, p33. ). Adolescents may also be influenced by other negative events that may be happening in the adolescent’s life. Research typically shows the reasons related to starting drugs or alcohol is peer-social behavior, dealing with negative conditions or feelings, or achieving a satisfying state (Titus, Godley & White, 2006). Studies reveal positive and negative emotions in the understanding of deviant behavior in youths’. Most teenagers generally use drugs for gratification however the adolescents who may become addicted say they are unhappy with past decisions or current situations (Brunelle, Cousineau, & Brochu, (2005). There could be many factors in how drug use becomes related to delinquency for example by having family conflict inside the house it could lead to an adolescences delinquency such as damaging property or the start of substance abuse. Research shows adolescents with less supervision and monitoring, more family conflict, and weak parent/child attachment most likely is at more risk in delinquency and drug use (Fagan, Van Horn, Antaramian & Hawkins 2011).

Why Did European Powers Seek Colonies Overseas?

In 1871, a new form of colonisation emerged in Europe and was later differentiated from the Empires of Spain and Portugal in the 15th and 16th centuries as New Imperialism. Intelligibly, it is also referred to as ‘the Scramble for Africa’, as a result of the swift rate at which nations clamoured to gain control of weaker regions in deviated areas from the 1600’s. There is much speculation surrounding the reasoning of such accelerated expansion, however, there is a clear correlation of events that have been linked to New Imperialism.I do not attest the popular belief that this colonisation increased tension in Europe and, in this essay, I will endeavour to present a synthesis of this premise. Similar to the explorers of old imperialism, European powers were drawn to Africa for economic benefits. The British economist, J. A Hobson, argued the drive for new colonies was influenced by the desire of capitalists to profit from these regions. The credibility of this asse rtion is heightened by the knowledge of the ongoing industrialisation of Europe, prompting a demand for larger markets and cheaper raw materials and labour.It was equally the case of nations, such as Britain, that were at the end of the industrial boom, as they sought new markets for manufactured goods. The abandonment of free trade in Europe in the 1870s signified the introduction of a wave of tariffs on imported goods and resulted in a sweeping effect across Europe to search for alternative markets elsewhere. The validation of this is reflected in the leap of Britain’s overseas investments from 187 million pounds in 1871 to 4,000 million pounds in 1914.Economic advantage was certainly a motivating factor, however, some European nations, such as France, underwent little industrial growth and had gained little from colonising. It appears imperialism was a source of national pride and acted as a distraction to unfavourable events at home. This was certainly the case in France, which was still recovering from a humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian war and was understandably envious of its European counterparts that were replete with wealth and power.It is then unsurprising that the French became one of the leading imperialists of the time, with an empire of Indo-China, north and west Africa and over 60 million people by 1914, although their colonies contributed sparsely to the economy. Imperialism was an accepted route to regard, as was expressed by both the French statesman, Leon Gambetta in the remark, â€Å"to remain a great nation/you must colonise† and the British writer A. C Benson, in his song, â€Å"Land of Hope and Glory† which applauded colonisation.The most intriguing and often bewildering explanation for imperialism was concerned with philanthropy. Although it seems an unnatural concept in this day and age, 19th century Europeans believed they were a superior race and it was their duty to cultivate European ideas and ways of living in Africa. This perspective was a manipulated adaptation of Darwin’s theory of natural selection and was widely regarded, particularly in Britain and Germany, as the truth.The view of the British writer, Rudyard Kipling, in ‘The White Man’s Burden’ is an appropriate reflection of this and depicts the so-called â€Å"burden† upon Europeans to help less fortunate races. Evidently, it was conceited; nevertheless, missionaries such as The White Fathers and Robert Moffat made progress in Africa to soothe troubles and, polemically, converted many from Paganism to Christianity. European Governments often used Darwin’s theory as an excuse to subjugate Africans and, thus, imperialism grew in popularity.Technological advances like the railway, steamship and telegraph and improved weaponry like the breech-loading rifle, capable of firing several rounds before the need to reload also gave Europeans a distinct advantage over natives and made Afric a much more vulnerable to attack. Many saw medical advances, such as, the use of quinine as protection from malaria and advances in transport as an opportunity to explore what was known as the ‘Dark Continent’, as many of the inner regions of Africa remained untouched until this time.The most famous of which, Dr. David Livingstone, whom travelled from his native Scotland to the vast regions of Central Africa to carry out medical and missionary work, enlightened the imagination of the European public. In 1869, Henry Stanley of the New York Herald sent for Livingstone after a loss of contact for over four years, and eventually succeeded when Livingstone was found at Lake Tanganyika in east Africa, greeting him with the famous line, â€Å"Dr. Livingstone, I presume? †. Following the disclosure of the story, Europeans became increasingly nterested in what Africa had to offer and pressure was put on governments to colonise; in Germany, many lobby groups, such as The G erman Navy League were created in support of colonisation and achieved their desires when Bismark, apparently â€Å"no man for colonies† acquired colonies in the Cameroons, Togal and east Africa, south west Africa and the Pacific Islands, like Marshall Isle. In fact, it was with adept explorers that ‘The Scramble of Africa’ began, when, in 1870, Henry Stanley took his experience from travelling Africa and, under the advice of King Leopold of Belgium, formed the International African Association.He then reached agreements with tribal leaders in the Congo region, in which they placed themselves and their subjects under the protection of King Leopold. The French followed suit with their explorer, Savorgnan de Brazza, being sent to the north of the River Congo where he reached similar agreements with indigenous tribal chiefs. The Germans joined in with their protectorate over the Cameroons in 1884 and so the scramble commenced. Wilhelm II was in power in Germany from 1890 to 1914, at the height of imperialism. He is largely responsible for the damaged relations in Europe as opposed to colonisation.Under the management of Bismark, 1871-1890, Europe was reasonably calm and relations remained unchanged, regardless of the imperialism taking place at the time. Bismarck realised the potential tension that could arise as a result of the race for colonies and called The Second Conference of Berlin, 1884-1885, to resolve the issue. It was agreed that the Congo Free State would be controlled by an international organisation and was to operate on a free trade basis, meaning the importation of goods would go without taxation.Natives were not to be exploited by European powers and the slave trade was to be abolished. Most importantly, Africa was to be divided into spheres of influence, whereby European powers were to be given economic and political rights in particular areas of the continent. This move cleared any uncertainty regarding where one could colon ise, with the exception of The Fashoda Crisis, 1898, which actually resulted in improved Anglo-French relations, following a brief clash over interests in a small village on the Nile in southern Sudan.In 1896, General Kitchener led the British in an attempt to secure Sudan from the north, while French forces, under General Marchand, arrived in Fashoda, 650km from the British-occupied Khartoum, seeking the very same result. Both leaders confronted one another at Fashoda and remained there for six months, until the French Foreign Minister, Theophile Delcasse, stood down, as the French were unprepared for war without their Russian ally and their difficult time after the Dreyfus Affair. The incident ended peacefully. Following the resignation of Bismarck in 1890, European relations were severed and the balance of power shifted uneasily.However, this was not the result of colonial rivalry; Wilhelm II made numerous mistakes in his administration of German foreign policy to disrupt Europea n relations and cause tension. This began with his poor response to Britain’s humiliating defeat in what is known as, the Jameson Raid. In 1895, the British Colonial Secretary, Joseph Chamberlain, along with Cecil Rhodes, Prime Minister of the Cape Colony and Dr. Starr Jameson, official to the British South African Company led a badly organised attack on the Boers in the Transvaal area of South Africa. They were easily defeated and Jameson himself was captured.This incident humiliated the British but did not affect European relations; it was the unnecessary telegram sent by Wilhelm II to Paul Kruger, President of the Transvaal, congratulating him of his defeat of the British, â€Å"without appealing to a friendly power† that caused uproar and hostility throughout Europe. The incident to follow – the First Moroccan Crisis, 1905-1906 – was a means of sabre rattling or troublemaking for Wilhelm II. In 1905, having been suspicious of French intentions, he lan ded his yacht at Tangiers and announced his support of Moroccan independence to the Sultan and pledged German protection of that independence.He then demanded a conference to be held in Algeciras to discuss the matter which France reluctantly agreed to. The main intention of Wilhelm II at this point was to test the strength of the Entente Cordiale between France and Britain and he hoped to weaken it through this intervention. However, Germany managed only to get the support of Morocco and Austria-Hungary, while France was supported by Britain, the US, Russia, Spain and even Italy. The crisis strengthened rather than weakened the Entente and was a direct result of the sabre rattling of Wilhelm II, not colonial rivalry.He interceded once again in the Second Moroccan Crisis, 1911, when he accused France of annexing Morocco. The grounds of his argument, after the occupation of French troops of Morocco when a war had broken out in the capital, Fez and foreigners were in danger, was a sup posed breech of the terms agreed in the Algeciras Conference, 1906. Wilhelm II sent a gunboat, the Panther to Agadir, however the British then intervened by commanding his retreat and threatening to send naval forces to stop him. He surrendered and Anglo-French ties were further strengthened.Wilhelm II was viewed as a warmonger – a seeker of war – and tension within Europe was strong, as a result of his conduct. New Imperialism did not occur as a result of one factor, but of an accumulation of vacillating events, for example, industrialisation that prompted technological advances, which encouraged explorers and eventually a saturation of industry or a failure to industrialise and a need to gain prestige elsewhere – all of which contributed heavily to imperialism. Regardless of the reasoning, by the 19th century, all of Africa with the exception of Abyssinia and Liberia had been conquered by European powers.However, the important question remains on how colonisat ion affected European relations; was it truly a contributing factor to World War I or was it indeed a derivative of existing tension at home that was actually accelerated by distrust between nations? Is it possible that imperialism was simply a distraction for Europeans from their quickly diminishing relations and may have delayed the inevitable outburst of war? It remains unanswered but I simply hope I have justified a slightly different interpretation of the affairs outlined above.