<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=TomFowdy</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=TomFowdy"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/TomFowdy"/>
	<updated>2026-09-30T16:23:21Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:TomFowdy&amp;diff=1068698</id>
		<title>User:TomFowdy</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:TomFowdy&amp;diff=1068698"/>
		<updated>2013-10-24T13:25:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: blanking my page&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Section_28&amp;diff=877126</id>
		<title>Section 28</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Section_28&amp;diff=877126"/>
		<updated>2011-06-09T00:20:05Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Section 28''' is a former piece of legislation in the United Kingdom which was introduced as part of the Local Government Act 1986. The legislation banned local authorities and schools from teaching and promoting [[homosexuality]] in any shape or form alike; also providing a right for teachers not to deal with homophobic bullying. The legislation was introduced by the government of [[Margaret Thatcher]] in response to left wing ([[Labour Party]]) controlled authorities seeking to deliberately indoctrinate and teach homosexuality to children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2003 the Act was repealed by the government of [[Tony Blair]]. Nowadays in Britain, the education system is encouraged to teach, encourage and indoctrinate acceptance of [[homosexuality]] to children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1349951/Gayness-mandatory-schools-Gay-victims-prejudice-new-McCarthyites.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8275937/Gay-lessons-in-maths-geography-and-science.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/28/david-cameron-gay-equality]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Homosexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/section28.htm Christian Apologists defending the needs for the act and arguments against the teaching of homosexuality in schools]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&amp;diff=877124</id>
		<title>Margaret Thatcher</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&amp;diff=877124"/>
		<updated>2011-06-09T00:17:55Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Prime Minister&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Margaret_Thatcher.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|seq=71&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start=May 4 1979&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end=November 28 1990&lt;br /&gt;
|party=Conservative Party&lt;br /&gt;
|previous=James Callaghan&lt;br /&gt;
|next=John Major&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_date=October 13 1925&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_place=Grantham&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse=[[Denis Thatcher|Sir Denis Thatcher, Bt]]&lt;br /&gt;
|religion=[[Methodist]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Margaret Hilda Thatcher (nee Roberts)''', later Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven (born October 13, 1925), was [[Prime Minister]] of the [[United Kingdom]] from 1979 to 1990, the first woman to hold the position. Her leadership permanently moved  Britain to the right and reshaped the nation's political environment to stress economic growth and international competitiveness.  The [[Labour Party]] in response under [[Tony Blair]] jettisoned their old leftist ideas and followed Thatcher-lite programs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thatcher was chosen to be the leader of the Conservative Party in February 1975, succeeding former Prime Minister [[Edward Heath]]. She was opposed to [[socialism]] and out-of-control union power which had brought down the previous Conservative government in 1974. She led the Conservatives to victory in the May 1979 [[General Election]] and thus became Prime Minister.&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|'''The economic success of the Western world is a product of its moral philosophy and practice. ''The economic results are better because the moral philosophy is superior.''  Choice is the essence of ethics: if there were no choice, there would be no ethics, no good, no evil; good and evil have meaning only insofar as man is free to choose.''' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/103336 1977 speech by Margaret Thatcher; Zurich Economic Society]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thatcher sold many of the nationalized industries back to private investors and made tax cuts. She broke the power of the trade unions which stood in the way of the rationalization of the coal industry and modernization of the newspaper industry. Due to her strong standards and her leadership style, she became known as the &amp;quot;[[Iron Lady]],&amp;quot; a term originally coined as an insult by the communist [[Soviet Union]], but one she adopted. A famous statement of hers was that &amp;quot;the lady is not for turning&amp;quot;, in reference to calls from within her own party to back down on issues that were important to her. Thatcher was always a strong supporter of the the [[United States]], and was a good friend of President [[Ronald Reagan]], uniting with him in actions against the Communists.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She led Britain to victory against [[Argentina]] in a 1982 war over sovereignty of the [[Falkland Islands]]. The United States was allied with both countries,  and initially tried to broker a negotiated settlement. When that failed,  the U.S. supported Britain with vital intelligence information. The conflict led to a strong friendship with the Chilean leader [[Augusto Pinochet]] after Chile helped Britain in the conflict. In 1986, she banned the teaching of homosexuality in schools in a piece of legislation known as [[Section 28]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thatcher led the Conservative Party to victory in three general elections (1979, 1983 and 1987).  By 1990, her popularity was waning and there were calls from within her own party for her to step aside.  She was challenged for the party leadership, and when it became clear to her that she would not have the necessary votes she decided not to stand for a second party vote in 1990.  [[John Major]] won the party leadership vote, and was subsequently appointed to succeed Thatcher as Prime Minister.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Thatcher was the longest serving British Prime Minister in more than 150 years and, alongside [[Winston Churchill]], considered to be one of the two most important British political leaders of the twentieth century.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She fundamentally moved the British economy from factories and mines to services and finance.  [[Time|Time Magazine]] wrote of Lady Thatcher: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|'''She was the catalyst who set in motion a series of interconnected events that gave a revolutionary twist to the century's last two decades and helped mankind end the millennium on a note of hope and confidence. The triumph of capitalism, the almost universal acceptance of the market as indispensable to prosperity, the collapse of Soviet imperialism, the downsizing of the state on nearly every continent and in almost every country in the world — Margaret Thatcher played a part in all those transformations, and it is not easy to see how any would have occurred without her. ''Champion of free minds and markets, she helped topple the welfare state and make the world safer for capitalism and mankind.''''' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/thatcher.html Time Magazine; Time 100 citation]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Career prior to 1979==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The predominant influence in Lady Thatcher's early life was her father, [[Alfred Roberts]]. Roberts  was a grocer by occupation who was active in local politics. She attended Somerville College, [[Oxford University|Oxford]], where she read chemistry and became chairman of the university Conservative association. After graduating, she worked for a time as a research chemist before qualifying as a barrister and practicing as a tax lawyer, an indication of her interest in financial matters. In this time period, it was uncommon in Britain for a woman from a background to go to an upper-class university and then to pursue a career in the elitist male world of the Bar.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lady Thatcher married Denis Thatcher, a successful businessman whom she met at a Conservative Party meeting; a quiet man, he kept out of the spotlight. They had two children, twins Mark Thatcher and Carol Thatcher.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the troubled Conservative premiership of [[Edward Heath]] (1970-1974), Thatcher served as Secretary of State for Education during which time her most noted achievement was the withdrawal of a daily milk ration to primary age schoolchildren earning her the nickname Milk-Snatcher. After the Conservatives were defeated in the elections of February and October 1974, Thatcher challenged the more liberal Heath for the leadership of the party. When she went into Heath's office to tell him her decision, he did not even bother to look up. &amp;quot;You'll lose,&amp;quot; he said. &amp;quot;Good day to you.&amp;quot; [http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/thatcher.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though at the time she was a relatively untested figure (and many in the party were wary of choosing a woman leader), she defeated both Heath and other male rivals in the contest in February 1975. Heath subsequently became a prominent personal and political adversary of Thatcher, drawing accusations of bitterness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the 1970s, Thatcher's strongly conservative, pro-capitalist stance resonated with a new mood among the British electorate, many of whom had become dissatisfied with the post-[[World War II]] liberal consensus (the &amp;quot;post-war consensus&amp;quot;, sometimes also called &amp;quot;Butskellism&amp;quot; after the centrist Conservative politician [[Rab Butler]] and the moderate Labour politician [[Hugh Gaitskell]]). Thatcher and the Conservatives offered a clear alternative vision for an increasingly aspirational society. The Conservative politician Sir [[Keith Joseph]] was the primary intellectual force behind these theories that later became known as ''Thatcherism''. They were strongly influenced by the pro-market intellectuals [[Friedrich von Hayek]] and [[Milton Friedman]].&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:503px-Thatcher-loc.jpg|right|thumb|Margaret Thatcher as Leader of the Opposition in 1975.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Attitude to Abortion===&lt;br /&gt;
Thatcher, throughout her parliamentary career, voted in favor of liberal abortion laws.[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1988thatcher.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==1979 election==&lt;br /&gt;
The Labour party under [[James Callaghan]] (prime minister 1976-79) contested the May 1979 election as unemployment passed the one-million mark and unions became more aggressive. The Conservatives used a highly effective poster created by Saatchi and Saatchi, showing a dole queue snaking into the distance and it carried the caption &amp;quot;Labour isn't working&amp;quot;.  &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:THATCH~1.JPG|right|350px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Voters gave Conservatives 43.9% of the vote and 339 seats to Labour's 269, for an overall majority of 43 seats. People generally voted against Labour rather than for the Conservatives. Labour was weakened by the steady long-term decline in the proportion of manual workers in the electorate. Twice as many manual workers normally voted Labour as voted Conservative, but they now constituted only 56% of the electorate. When [[Harold Wilson]] won narrowly for Labour in 1964, they had accounted for 63%. Furthermore they were beginning to turn against the trade unions—alienated, perhaps, by the difficulties of the winter of 1978-9. In contrast, Tory policies stressing wider home ownership, which Labour refused to match.  Thatcher did best in districts where the economy was relatively strong and was weaker where it was contracting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Prime Ministership==&lt;br /&gt;
===Economic policy===&lt;br /&gt;
Thatcher's chief goals in power were to reverse Britain's economic decline and to reduce the range of the state as well as standing taller on the international stage. She found a soul-mate in Ronald Reagan, elected in 1980 but whom she had met in 1975. Thatcher started by increasing interest rates to drive down inflation which hit the manufacturing sector and caused unemployment to rise sharply and there was a deep recession in the early 1980s blamed on her Government's economic policy. This led to her famous quote: 'the lady is not for turning', and she refused a policy u-turn and, despite an open letter from 364 &amp;quot;economists&amp;quot;, taxes were increased in the middle of a recession. Although unemployment did not reach 3 million till 1982, a year earlier British cities burned as thousands took to the streets to demonstrate their frustration. Inflation was going down though, allowing interest rates to fall, proving those &amp;quot;economists&amp;quot; wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Falkland Islands===&lt;br /&gt;
As the economy started to recover Argentina invaded the Falklands, the first (and unprovoked) invasion of sovereign British territory by a foreign government since the Second World War. This invasion was preceded by her withdrawal of military defense from the islands.  Thatcher immediately declared her resolve to recapture the islands in line with the wishes of their inhabitants, and dispatched a naval task force to that end. With help from President [[Augusto Pinochet|Pinochet]] of [[Chile]] and, more covertly, [[Ronald Reagan]], the British forces swiftly recaptured the islands. The resulting wave of patriotic enthusiasm as well as her right to buy policy for council homes, and a uselessly divided opposition, meant she got a landslide victory in the June 1983 general election.&lt;br /&gt;
===Unions===&lt;br /&gt;
The central theme of Thatcher's second term was reducing the power of the trade unions with a series of measures that a number of unions reacted to with industrial action. In particular the National Union of Mineworkers led by Arthur Scargill. The Tories had prepared for the strike by building up coal reserves and the deploying well paid police units fitted out with new riot gear brought in after the disturbances of 1981 who taunted the strikers by waving fivers at them. The miners responded with bricks and very ugly scenes developed on picket lines that split the country. Scargill's failure to hold a ballot for the strike undermined public support and the striker's chant of 'vote with your feet' calling miners to join the strike was turned on them as more and more returned to work over the year of the strike.&lt;br /&gt;
===IRA===&lt;br /&gt;
In the middle of the strike, on October 12 1984, the IRA detonated a bomb during the Conservative Party conference in Brighton. Thatcher escaped injury but five people died in the attack and Margaret Tebbit was left paralyzed; the conference went on as normal. &lt;br /&gt;
===Privatization===&lt;br /&gt;
Thatcher's political and economic philosophy emphasized free markets and since gaining power she had experimented in selling off nationalized industries starting with the National Freight company, most of the large utilities followed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Privatization was perhaps the most enduring legacy of the political economy developed under Thatcher. She privatized long-nationalized corporations (such as the telephone and aerospace firms) and, most important, sold public housing to tenants, all on favorable terms. Theis turned Labour-minded tenants into Conservative-minded property owners and mortgage payers. The policy developed an important electoral dimension during the second Thatcher government (1983-90). It involved more than denationalization: wider share ownership was the second plank of the policy, and this provides an important historical perspective on the relationship between Thatcherism and 20th-century conservatism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Richard Stevens, &amp;quot;The Evolution of Privatisation as an Electoral Policy, c. 1970-90.&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2004 18(2): 47-75. Issn: 1361-9462 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Foreign policy===&lt;br /&gt;
Thatcher supported Reagan's [[Cold War]] policies of [[rollback]] of Communism. She supported the stationing of nuclear missiles in Europe and at British bases, ignoring the last-gasp protests by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. She supported the American bombing raid on [[Libya]] from bases in Britain in 1986 and, by refusing to side with a European consortium, in backing the American-based Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation over a British company Westland. [[Michael Heseltine]] resigned in protest at her style of leadership over this. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1984 she visited [[China]] and signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration with [[Deng Xiaoping]] that agreed the handover of [[Hong Kong]] in 1997. At the Fontainebleau summit in 1984 Thatcher argued that the UK paid far more to the EEC than it received in spending and negotiated a budget rebate using the argument that ‘We want our money back’. In 1985, the University of Oxford voted to refuse her an honorary degree in protest against her cuts in funding for education.&lt;br /&gt;
===Reelected 1987===&lt;br /&gt;
In 1987, Thatcher became the first British Prime Minister to win three consecutive general elections since [[Lord Liverpool]] (1812-1827). &lt;br /&gt;
===Environment===&lt;br /&gt;
In the late 1980's Thatcher began to be concerned by environmental policy and in 1988 she made a major speech accepting the problems of global warming, ozone depletion and acid rain. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=107346 Speech to the Royal Society, 9/27/1988]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Europe===&lt;br /&gt;
At Bruges, she made a speech in which she outlined her opposition to proposals from the European Communities for a federal structure and increasing centralization of decision-making believing that the role of the EC should be limited to ensuring free trade and effective competition. She was specifically against Economic and Monetary Union, through which a single currency would replace national currencies, and for which the EC was making preparations. In 1989 the economy high interest rates were imposed to stop an unsustainable boom. At the Madrid European summit, Nigel Lawson and Geoffrey Howe forced Thatcher to agree the circumstances in which she would join the Exchange Rate Mechanism, a preparation for monetary union. She took revenge on both by demoting Howe and listening more to her adviser Sir Alan Walters on economic matters. Lawson resigned that October and in November, a so-called ‘stalking horse candidate Sir Anthony Meyer challenged Thatcher for the leadership of the Conservative Party. In 1989 a new system of local government finance to replace the rates was introduced for Scotland in 1989 and for England and Wales in 1990. Called the 'Community Charge' but known as the Poll Tax was applied at the same amount to every individual resident with only limited discounts. Widespread opposition culminated in a huge [http://newsfilm.bufvc.ac.uk/article.php?story=200510081953085 demonstration] in London on March 31 that turned into the largest outbreak of public disorder central London had seen in a century which was followed by millions of people refusing to pay the tax. This along with her government's handling of the economy, her perceived arrogance and a general feeling that she would never retire,  made her politically vulnerable. Geoffrey Howe resigned on November 1 and condemned Thatcher's policy on the European Communities then openly invited 'others to consider their own response'. Michael Heseltine's response was a leadership challenge which resulted in a narrow failure, by two votes, for Thatcher to win automatic re-election. After consulting with cabinet colleagues she found a vast majority thought that she could not win on the second ballot. On November 22nd Thatcher announced that she would not be a candidate in the second ballot. She supported John Major as her successor, and retired from Parliament at the 1992 election.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Thatcherism==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Thatcherism]] refers to Thatcher's economic policies while prime minister 1979 and 1990.&lt;br /&gt;
It consisted of&lt;br /&gt;
*[[free market]] [[Supply-side economics|supply-side economics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[tax]] reduction &lt;br /&gt;
*artificial manipulation of the money supply to reduce [[inflation]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[privatization]] of public industry&lt;br /&gt;
*reining in of [[labor union|trade union]] influence and power&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Life after being Prime Minister==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After leaving the House of Commons, Thatcher was dubbed '''Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven''' and entered the House of Lords.  Denis Thatcher was given a Baronetcy, which ensured that their son, Mark, would inherit the title of &amp;quot;Sir Mark&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
She publicly endorsed [[William Hague]] against Kenneth Clarke for the Conservative leadership in 1997.  She made many speaking engagements around the world, including very vocal support of former General [[Augusto Pinochet]], whom the new Labour administration extradited to Spain on trumped-up charges of torturing political opponents. In March 2002 she suffered a mild stroke, and made few speeches. In 2004 she attended the  funeral of her old friend and political soul-mate, Ronald Reagan. Baroness Thatcher is still seen at Tory party gatherings and has continued endorsing party leaders, such as Iain Duncan Smith. In August 2008, it became known that she was suffering from [[dementia]] and had withdrawn from public life. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7579352.stm Thatcher suffers from dementia]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/thatcher.html][http://www.fandmpublications.co.uk/pages/margaretbiography1.htm][http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page126.asp]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Quick Facts==&lt;br /&gt;
*Born: 13 October 1925 in [[Grantham]], [[Lincolnshire]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*First entered Parliament: 8 October 1959&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Became leader of the [[Conservative]] Party in February 1975&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Elected as Prime Minister in May 1979 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Age she became PM: 53 years, 204 days&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Maiden Speech: 5 February 1960 during the second reading of her Private Member's Bill&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Total time as PM: 11 years, 209 days&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Nickname: &amp;quot;The Iron Lady&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Education: Kesteven and Grantham Girls' School and Somerville College, Oxford&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Before Thatcher became an MP, she worked as a research chemist for British Xylonite and then Lyons &amp;amp; Company, where she helped develop methods for preserving ice cream.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Family: Margaret Thatcher is the younger of two daughters. She often gave her father as an example of an outstanding citizen. She married [[Sir Denis Thatcher]], and has one son and one daughter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Interests: Music, art, opera and reading.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page126.asp][http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/thatcher.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Husband==&lt;br /&gt;
Denis Thatcher, ''as the first male PM spouse in history'', was always likely to be the center of media attention - and he didn't disappoint. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When she met him, Baroness Thatcher remarked that &amp;quot;it was clear to me at once that Denis was an exceptional man - he had a certain style and dash.&amp;quot; Described as a man of integrity, humor and common sense, he had a strong business background and fought with the Royal Artillery during the war. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was said that Denis was in 'the Thatcher party not the Tory party'. He once famously remarked, recalling the words of Mark Twain, that: &amp;quot;it's better to keep my mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than open it and remove all doubt.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When he died in 2003 his wife paid tribute to the man she loved by saying: &amp;quot;Being PM is a lonely job. In a sense, it ought to be - you cannot lead from a crowd. But with Denis there I was never alone. What a man. What a husband. What a friend.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page126.asp][http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/thatcher.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Notable quotes== &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;I like Mr Gorbachev, we can do business together.&amp;quot;  &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;The lady is not for turning&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;I have made it quite clear that a unified Ireland was one solution that is out. A second solution was a confederation of two states. That is out. A third solution was joint authority. That is out-that is a derogation of sovereignty.&amp;quot;   &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.&amp;quot;   &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;If you lead a country like Britain, a strong country, a country which has taken a lead in world affairs in good times and in bad, a country that is always reliable, then you have to have a touch of iron about you.&amp;quot;   &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;I do not know anyone who has got to the top without hard work. That is the recipe. It will not always get you to the top, but should get you pretty near.&amp;quot;  &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot; There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate&amp;quot; [http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=106689]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;What Britain needs is an iron lady.&amp;quot;   &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;Unless we change our ways and our direction, our greatness as a nation will soon be a footnote in the history books, a distant memory of an offshore island, lost in the mists of time like Camelot, remembered kindly for its noble past.&amp;quot;  &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;I just owe almost everything to my father [and] it's passionately interesting for me that the things that I learned in a small town, in a very modest home, are just the things that I believe have won the election.&amp;quot;   &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;Democratic nations must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.&amp;quot;   [http://www.quoteworld.org/authors/margaret-thatcher/1/]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;It will be years before a woman either leads the Conservative Party or becomes Prime Minister. I don't see it happening in my time&amp;quot; (in 1970)[http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page126.asp]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*“You may have to fight the battle more than once to win it.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://books.google.com/books?id=zac9AAAAIAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA283&amp;amp;dq=fight+the+battle+more+than+once+to+win+it.&amp;amp;ei=3hpnS82IAaSyNNvx1PwN&amp;amp;cd=2 The Routledge dictionary of quotations‎ - Page 283 by Robert Andrews]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Thatcherism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservative Links]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.margaretthatcher.org/ Margaret Thatcher Foundation]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
==Bibliography==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Thatcher-pic.jpg|thumb|260px]]&lt;br /&gt;
===Biography===&lt;br /&gt;
* Blundell, John. ''Margaret Thatcher: A Portrait of the Iron Lady'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Margaret-Thatcher-Portrait-Iron-Lady/dp/087586631X/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1256981278&amp;amp;sr=1-9 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Campbell, John.  ''Margaret Thatcher. Vol. 1: The Grocer's Daughter.'' (2000); ''Margaret Thatcher. vol. 2: Iron Lady'' (2007), 520pp; 913pp;  long, detailed authoritative biography &lt;br /&gt;
* Clarke, Peter. &amp;quot;Margaret Thatcher's Place in History: Two Views,&amp;quot; ''Journal of the History of Economic Thought'' 2002 24(3): 357-368 online at EBSCO&lt;br /&gt;
* Geelhoed, Bruce E. and Hobbs, James F.  ''Margaret Thatcher's Last Hurrah: In Victory and Downfall, 1987 and 1990.'' (1992). 193 pp.  [http://www.questia.com/read/15091359?title=Margaret%20Thatcher%3a%20In%20Victory%20and%20Downfall%2c%201987%20and%201990 online edition]; also [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Margaret-Thatcher-Victory-Downfall-1987/dp/0275941485/ref=sr_1_34?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1212823416&amp;amp;sr=8-34 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* King, Anthony. &amp;quot;The Outsider as Political Leader: the Case of Margaret Thatcher.&amp;quot; ''British Journal of Political Science'' 2002 32(3): 435-454. Issn: 0007-1234 Fulltext: [[CUP]] and [[Jstor]]. Thatcher was a social outsider, psychological outsider and political outsider.&lt;br /&gt;
*  Thompson, Juliet S., and  Wayne C. Thompson. ''Margaret Thatcher: Prime Minister Indomitable'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/read/85710688?title=Margaret%20Thatcher%3a%20Prime%20Minister%20Indomitable online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Young, Hugo.  ''The Iron Lady: A Biography of Margaret Thatcher.'' (1989). 570 pp. well-written and well researched   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Political studies===&lt;br /&gt;
* Adonis, Andrew, and Tim Hames, eds. ''A Conservative Revolution: The Thatcher-Reagan Decade'' (1994), comparative perspective&lt;br /&gt;
* Backhouse, Roger E. &amp;quot;The Macroeconomics of Margaret Thatcher,&amp;quot; ''Journal of the History of Economic Thought'' 2002 24(3): 313-334 online at EBSCO&lt;br /&gt;
* Dellheim, Charles.  ''The Disenchanted Isle: Mrs. Thatcher's Capitalist Revolution.'' (1995) 352 pp.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Evans, Brendan. ''Thatcherism and British Politics, 1975-1997'' (2000) &lt;br /&gt;
* Evans, Eric J.  ''Thatcher and Thatcherism.'' (2nd ed. 2004). 176 pp [http://www.questia.com/read/107494201?title=Thatcher%20and%20Thatcherism online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
*  Fry, Geoffrey K. ''Politics of the Thatcher Revolution: An Interpretation of British Politics 1975 - 1990'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Thatcher-Revolution-Interpretation-British/dp/0333751965/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1256981278&amp;amp;sr=1-11 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Haseler, Stephen.  ''The Battle for Britain: Thatcher and the New Liberals.'' (1990). 195 pp.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Holmes, Martin. ''The First Thatcher Government, 1979-83: Contemporary Conservatism and Economic Change'' (1985); ''Thatcherism: Scope and Limits, 1983-87.'' (1989). 174 pp. a sympathetic assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenkins, Peter.  ''Mrs. Thatcher's Revolution: The Ending of the Socialist Era.'' (1988). 417 pp.  critical&lt;br /&gt;
* Johnson, Christopher.  ''The Grand Experiment: Mrs. Thatcher's Economy and How It Spread.'' (1993). 341 pp.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Kavanagh, Dennis.  ''Thatcherism and British Politics: The End of Consensus?'' (1987). 334 pp.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Kavanagh, Dennis, and Anthony Seldon, eds. ''The Thatcher Effect'' (1989), major interpretive essays by experts&lt;br /&gt;
* Krieger, Joel.  ''Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Decline.'' (1987). 247 pp.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Moon, Jeremy.  ''Innovative Leadership in Democracy: Policy Change under Thatcher.'' (1993). 157 pp. &lt;br /&gt;
*  Morgan, K.O. ''The People's Peace: British History, 1945-90'' (1990) survey by leading scholar&lt;br /&gt;
* Pugliese, Stanislao, ed.  ''The Political Legacy of Margaret Thatcher.'' (2003). 419 pp.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Reitan, Earl A.  ''The Thatcher Revolution: Margaret Thatcher, John Major, and Tony Blair, and the Transformation of Modern Britain, 1979-2001.'' (2003). 260 pp.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Reitan, Earl A.  ''Tory Radicalism: Margaret Thatcher, John Major, and the Transformation of Modern Britain, 1979-1997.'' (1997). 222 pp.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Riddell, Peter.  ''The Thatcher Decade: How Britain Has Changed during the 1980's.'' (1989). 236 pp.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Roy, Subroto and Clarke, John, eds.  ''Margaret Thatcher's Revolution: How It Happened and What It Meant.'' (2005). 209 pp.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Savage, S.P.,  and L. Robbins, eds. ''Public Policy under Thatcher'' (1990), essays by experts&lt;br /&gt;
* Sharp, Paul.  ''Thatcher's Diplomacy: The Revival of British Foreign Policy.'' (1997). 269 pp.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Smith, Geoffrey.  ''Reagan and Thatcher.'' (1991). 285 pp.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Waine, Barbara.  ''The Rhetoric of Independence: The Ideology and Practice of Social Policy in Thatcher's Britain.'' (1992). 172 pp.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Wall,  Stephen. ''A Stranger in Europe: Britain and the EU from Thatcher to Blair'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Stranger-Europe-Britain-Thatcher-Blair/dp/0199284555/ref=sr_1_26?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1212823185&amp;amp;sr=1-26 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Walters, A. A.  ''Britain's Economic Renaissance: Margaret Thatcher's Reforms, 1979-1984.'' (1986). 200 pp.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Wapshott, Nicholas.  ''Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: A Political Marriage.'' (2007) 329 pp.  [http://www.amazon.com/Ronald-Reagan-Margaret-Thatcher-Political/dp/159523053X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1256981278&amp;amp;sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Whipple, Amy C.  &amp;quot;'Ordinary People': The Cultural Origins of Popular Thatcherism in Britain, 1964-1979.&amp;quot; PhD dissertation Northwestern U. 2004. 253 pp.  DAI 2004 65(5): 1926-A. DA3132626  Fulltext: [[ProQuest Dissertations &amp;amp; Theses]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.amazon.com/Margaret-Thatcher-Bibliography-Bibliographies-Statesmen/dp/book-citations/0313282889/ref=sid_dp_av?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;citeType=citing#citing additional books]&lt;br /&gt;
===Primary sources===&lt;br /&gt;
* Clark, Alan.  ''Mrs. Thatcher's Minister: The Private Diaries of Alan Clark.'' (1994). 421 pp.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Thatcher, Margaret.  ''The Path to Power (1995); ''The Downing Street Years.'' (1993). 914 pp., highly detailed memoirs&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Thatcher, Margaret}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:United Kingdom Prime Ministers]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cold War]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:British History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Conservatives]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:British Politics]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Section_28&amp;diff=877121</id>
		<title>Section 28</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Section_28&amp;diff=877121"/>
		<updated>2011-06-09T00:14:10Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Section 28''' is a former piece of legislation in the United Kingdom which was introduced in 1986 as part of the Local Government Act 1986. The legislation banned local authorities and schools from teaching and promoting [[homosexuality]] in any shape or form alike; also providing a right for teachers not to deal with homophobic bullying. The legislation was introduced by the government of [[Margaret Thatcher]] in response to left wing ([[Labour Party]]) controlled authorities seeking to deliberately indoctrinate and teach homosexuality to children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2003 the Act was repealed by the government of [[Tony Blair]]. Nowadays in Britain, the education system is encouraged to teach, encourage and indoctrinate acceptance of [[homosexuality]] to children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1349951/Gayness-mandatory-schools-Gay-victims-prejudice-new-McCarthyites.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8275937/Gay-lessons-in-maths-geography-and-science.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/28/david-cameron-gay-equality]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Homosexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/section28.htm Christian Apologists defending the needs for the act and arguments against the teaching of homosexuality in schools]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Section_28&amp;diff=877118</id>
		<title>Section 28</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Section_28&amp;diff=877118"/>
		<updated>2011-06-09T00:11:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Section 28''' is a former piece of legislation in the United Kingdom which was introduced in 1986 as part of the Local Government Act 1986. The legislation banned local authorities and schools from teaching and promoting [[homosexuality]] in any shape or form alike; also providing a right for teachers not to deal with homophobic bullying. The legislation was introduced by the government of [[Margaret Thatcher]] in response to left wing ([[Labour Party]]) controlled authorities seeking to deliberately indoctrinate and teach homosexuality to children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2003 the Act was repealed by the government of [[Tony Blair]]. Nowadays in Britain, the education system is encouraged to teach, encourage and indoctrinate acceptance of [[homosexuality]] to children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1349951/Gayness-mandatory-schools-Gay-victims-prejudice-new-McCarthyites.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8275937/Gay-lessons-in-maths-geography-and-science.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/28/david-cameron-gay-equality]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Homosexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Section_28&amp;diff=877117</id>
		<title>Section 28</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Section_28&amp;diff=877117"/>
		<updated>2011-06-09T00:11:13Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Section 28''' is a former piece of legislation in the United Kingdom which was introduced in 1986 as part of the Local Government Act 1986. The legislation banned local authorities and schools from teaching and promoting [[homosexuality]] in any shape or form alike; also providing a right for teachers not to deal with homophobic bullying. The legislation was introduced by the government of [[Margaret Thatcher]] in response to left wing ([[Labour Party]]) controlled authorities seeking to deliberately indoctrinate and teach homosexuality to children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2003 the Act was repealed by the government of [[Tony Blair]]. Nowadays in Britain, the education system is encouraged to teach, encourage and indoctrinate acceptance of [[homosexuality]] to children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1349951/Gayness-mandatory-schools-Gay-victims-prejudice-new-McCarthyites.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8275937/Gay-lessons-in-maths-geography-and-science.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/28/david-cameron-gay-equality]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Homosexuality]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Section_28&amp;diff=877116</id>
		<title>Section 28</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Section_28&amp;diff=877116"/>
		<updated>2011-06-09T00:10:51Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Section 28''' is a former piece of legislation in the United Kingdom which was introduced in 1986 as part of the Local Government Act 1986. The legislation banned local authorities and schools from teaching and promoting [[homosexuality]] in any shape or form alike; also providing a right for teachers not to deal with homophobic bullying. The legislation was introduced by the government of [[Margaret Thatcher]] in response to left wing ([[Labour Party]]) controlled authorities seeking to deliberately indoctrinate and teach homosexuality to children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2003 the Act was repealed by the government of [[Tony Blair]]. Nowadays in Britain, the education system is encouraged to teach and indoctrinate acceptance of [[homosexuality]] to children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1349951/Gayness-mandatory-schools-Gay-victims-prejudice-new-McCarthyites.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8275937/Gay-lessons-in-maths-geography-and-science.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/28/david-cameron-gay-equality]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Homosexuality]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Section_28&amp;diff=877115</id>
		<title>Section 28</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Section_28&amp;diff=877115"/>
		<updated>2011-06-09T00:10:05Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: Created page with &amp;quot;'''Section 28''' is a former piece of legislation in the United Kingdom which was introduced in 1986 as part of the Local Government Act 1986. The legislation banned local author...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Section 28''' is a former piece of legislation in the United Kingdom which was introduced in 1986 as part of the Local Government Act 1986. The legislation banned local authorities and schools from teaching and promoting [[homosexuality]] in any shape or form alike; also providing a right for teachers not to deal with homophobic bullying. The legislation was introduced by the government of [[Margaret Thatcher]] in response to left wing ([[Labour Party) controlled authorities seeking to deliberately indoctrinate and teach homosexuality to children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2003 the Act was repealed by the government of [[Tony Blair]]. Nowadays in Britain, the education system is encouraged to teach and indoctrinate acceptance of [[homosexuality]] to children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1349951/Gayness-mandatory-schools-Gay-victims-prejudice-new-McCarthyites.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8275937/Gay-lessons-in-maths-geography-and-science.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/28/david-cameron-gay-equality]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Homosexuality]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:TomFowdy&amp;diff=877107</id>
		<title>User:TomFowdy</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:TomFowdy&amp;diff=877107"/>
		<updated>2011-06-09T00:00:20Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[http://www.fowdy92.blogspot.com my blog]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am an English Conservative and a Christian.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am pro-life, I strongly oppose: gay marriage, the sexualisation of society, binge drinking, liberal methods of education, big government, atheism, junk sciences, consumerism &amp;amp; secular morality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here on Conservapedia I am mostly concerned in regards to editing issues on British Politics, History and Society from a Conservative viewpoint. Considering this is an American website such things are given little coverage and attention, thus my job is to write, sharpen, improve and tell the truth about what I largely consider to a Britain in decline due to decades of whitewashing by Social Liberals and socialists alike.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===My Articles===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Section 28]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{userboxtop|Tom Fowdy}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Liberal Facist}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&amp;diff=877101</id>
		<title>Book of Mormon</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&amp;diff=877101"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T23:45:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: /* Historicity */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]; Title page since 1982: ''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.'' Original title page: ''The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of [[Mormon]] upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is one of the four standard works, or scriptures, of the [[Mormons|Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]] ([[Mormon]]s). The other standard works are the [[Bible]], the [[Pearl of Great Price]], and the [[Doctrine and Covenants]].&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Moroni gives Joseph the plates.jpg|thumb|100px|Moroni gives Joseph Smith the plates]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Joseph Translating.jpg|thumb|100px|Joseph Smith Translating the Plates]]&lt;br /&gt;
Mormons believe that [[Joseph Smith]], Jr. translated the Book of Mormon from a set of gold plates he received from an angel named Moroni&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/34-35#34 &amp;quot;History of Joseph Smith,&amp;quot;] History of the Church Vol. 1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;-Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1993.htm/ensign%20july%201993.htm/a%20treasured%20testament.htm &amp;quot;A Treasured Testament,&amp;quot;] Ensign, July 1993, 61&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon tells the story of the descendents of a man named Lehi, who took his family from Jerusalem to the Americas. According to the book, Lehi's wicked sons, Laman and Lemual, turned against his righteous sons, Nephi and Sam, and were cursed with dark skin&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/Alma3.htm GospelDoctrine.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  Mormons believe that descendents of Lehi were the ancestors of some Native Americans; these people are referred to as &amp;quot;Lamanites&amp;quot; in the Book of Mormon:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://search.ldslibrary.com/125037 Elder Spencer W. Kimball of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A post-resurrection appearance in the New World by [[Jesus]] is also described in the Book of Mormon. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Nephi and Sam's descendents, the Nephites, eventually turned to wickedness and were destroyed by the more numerous Lamanites. One of the last Nephites, Moroni, buried the golden plates in what is now New York State to keep them from falling into the hands of the Lamanites and being destroyed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Three Nephites were blessed with eternal life and still wander the Earth today serving others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://deseretmail.com/mormon-life/curric/story?story_id=1580 &amp;quot;Clyde J. Williams on the Three Nephites and the Doctrine of Translation,&amp;quot;] Thoughts on Gospel Doctrine Lesson 42, Deseret Book.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1982, the subtitle, &amp;quot;Another Testament of Jesus Christ,&amp;quot; was added to the title page&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/bookofmormon.htm A Short Introduction to the Book of Mormon]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mormons and other Latter-Day Saints believe that the book is of ancient origin and that the personages and events described therein are factual. At the same time, Mormons deny that the book is to be considered inerrant. Critics assert that its contents have been changed a number of times by LDS authorities; Mormons reply that the changes are merely grammatical corrections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Historicity==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon has been often criticized for a supposed lack of evidence of cities, metals, wars, weapons, animals and etc. mentioned in the book as being part of the history of the Western Hemisphere over the many hundreds of years covered by the narrative. In addition, some of these artifacts are known to have been introduced into the areas in question by Europeans colonists coming much later than the timeframe claimed in the Book of Mormon. Mormon Apologists though have worked to find counterarguments and responses to all of these claims in detail to draw more plausible debate objects and items in the Book&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Mormon]] apologists have responded by citing, for example, the first Book of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi) in which discoveries of place locations thought not to have existed prior to discovery are to be found. An instance of this concerns the alleged discovery of the place known as &amp;quot;Nahom&amp;quot; as mentioned here ([http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/16.34?lang=eng#33]), a burial place which was discovered and is said by Mormons to be referred to in no other text.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Nahom FAIR Wiki- Mormon Apologetic resource- Nahom]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Likewise Old world geography in the Book has been pinpointed by apologists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Old_World]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opponents have pointed to linguistic anachronisms in the text, such as it being written entirely in a Sixteenth-century King James style and its use of words such as French word &amp;quot;adieu&amp;quot;. However Apologists argue to have found to have numerous Semetic linguistic and literary traits within it which make it appear authenitic, such as the inclusion of Chaismus&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms/Chiasmus Chiasmus]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and numerous other Hebrew traits within the text&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mormons do ultimately confess that the main evidence and support for the Book of Mormon does not center upon history or language but upon faith that it is a divinely inspired document. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mormon apologist Jeff Lindsay has compiled his own list Book of Mormon evidences.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Contents==&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is divided up into many sections or parts, including a [[Title Page (Book of Mormon)|Title Page]], [[Introduction (Book of Mormon)|Introduction]], [[The Testimony of Three Witnesses (Book of Mormon)|The Testimony of Three Witnesses]], [[The Testimony of Eight Witnesses (Book of Mormon)|The Testimony of Eight Witnesses]], the [[Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Book of Mormon)|Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith]], [[A Brief Explanation about The Book of Mormon]], and the following main parts or divisions commonly referred to as &amp;quot;books,&amp;quot; as in &amp;quot;The Book of Moroni,&amp;quot; followed by the common abbreviation in parentheses: &lt;br /&gt;
*[[First Nephi]] (1 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Second Nephi]] (2 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Jacob (Book of Mormon)|Jacob]] (Jacob)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Enos (Book of Mormon)|Enos]] (Enos)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Jarom (Book of Mormon)|Jarom]] (Jarom)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Omni (Book of Mormon)|Omni]] (Omni)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Words of Mormon]] (W of M)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mosiah (Book of Mormon)|Mosiah]] (Mosiah)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Alma (Book of Mormon)|Alma]] (Alma)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Helaman (Book of Mormon)|Helaman]] (Hel.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Third Nephi]] (3 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Fourth Nephi]] (4 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mormon (Book of Mormon)|Mormon]] (Morm.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Ether (Book of Mormon)|Ether]] (Ether)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Moroni (Book of Mormon)|Moroni]] (Moro.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first sentence of the Introduction is quite self-explanatory: &amp;quot;The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Objects listed in the Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[People listed in the Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Places listed in the Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other denominations==&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon is accepted as Scripture by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and by other Latter-day Saints denominations, the largest of which, the [[Community of Christ]] (est. 1860), publishes its own versions of the Book of Mormon with different chapter and verse divisions and one with &amp;quot;modernized&amp;quot; language. Other Christian denominations, Catholic and Protestant, reject the Book of Mormon, considering it to be neither inspired nor ancient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Polygamy ==&lt;br /&gt;
Although the Book of Mormon generally forbids [[polygamy]], it allows for its practice when divinely mandated, apparently for the purpose of raising righteous posterity. The Book of Mormon says the following concerning plural marriage:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;Wherefore, my bretheren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife, and [[concubine]]s he shall have none... For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.&amp;quot;'' (Jacob 2:27,30).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The alleged revelation that authorized the practice of polygamy among Latter-day Saints during the 19th Century is recorded in the [[Doctrine and Covenants]], section 132. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes and references==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents The Book of Mormon] - An online edition&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.moroni10.com/Book_of_Mormon_Logic.html The Logical Arguments of the Book of Mormon], Kelly Bingham, November 1, 1997&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:LDS Church]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&amp;diff=877100</id>
		<title>Book of Mormon</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&amp;diff=877100"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T23:44:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: /* Historicity */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]; Title page since 1982: ''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.'' Original title page: ''The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of [[Mormon]] upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is one of the four standard works, or scriptures, of the [[Mormons|Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]] ([[Mormon]]s). The other standard works are the [[Bible]], the [[Pearl of Great Price]], and the [[Doctrine and Covenants]].&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Moroni gives Joseph the plates.jpg|thumb|100px|Moroni gives Joseph Smith the plates]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Joseph Translating.jpg|thumb|100px|Joseph Smith Translating the Plates]]&lt;br /&gt;
Mormons believe that [[Joseph Smith]], Jr. translated the Book of Mormon from a set of gold plates he received from an angel named Moroni&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/34-35#34 &amp;quot;History of Joseph Smith,&amp;quot;] History of the Church Vol. 1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;-Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1993.htm/ensign%20july%201993.htm/a%20treasured%20testament.htm &amp;quot;A Treasured Testament,&amp;quot;] Ensign, July 1993, 61&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon tells the story of the descendents of a man named Lehi, who took his family from Jerusalem to the Americas. According to the book, Lehi's wicked sons, Laman and Lemual, turned against his righteous sons, Nephi and Sam, and were cursed with dark skin&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/Alma3.htm GospelDoctrine.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  Mormons believe that descendents of Lehi were the ancestors of some Native Americans; these people are referred to as &amp;quot;Lamanites&amp;quot; in the Book of Mormon:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://search.ldslibrary.com/125037 Elder Spencer W. Kimball of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A post-resurrection appearance in the New World by [[Jesus]] is also described in the Book of Mormon. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Nephi and Sam's descendents, the Nephites, eventually turned to wickedness and were destroyed by the more numerous Lamanites. One of the last Nephites, Moroni, buried the golden plates in what is now New York State to keep them from falling into the hands of the Lamanites and being destroyed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Three Nephites were blessed with eternal life and still wander the Earth today serving others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://deseretmail.com/mormon-life/curric/story?story_id=1580 &amp;quot;Clyde J. Williams on the Three Nephites and the Doctrine of Translation,&amp;quot;] Thoughts on Gospel Doctrine Lesson 42, Deseret Book.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1982, the subtitle, &amp;quot;Another Testament of Jesus Christ,&amp;quot; was added to the title page&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/bookofmormon.htm A Short Introduction to the Book of Mormon]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mormons and other Latter-Day Saints believe that the book is of ancient origin and that the personages and events described therein are factual. At the same time, Mormons deny that the book is to be considered inerrant. Critics assert that its contents have been changed a number of times by LDS authorities; Mormons reply that the changes are merely grammatical corrections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Historicity==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon has been often criticized for a supposed lack of evidence of cities, metals, wars, weapons, animals and etc. mentioned in the book as being part of the history of the Western Hemisphere over the many hundreds of years covered by the narrative. In addition, some of these artifacts are known to have been introduced into the areas in question by Europeans colonists coming much later than the timeframe claimed in the Book of Mormon. Mormon Apologists though have worked to find counterarguments and responses to all of these claims in detail to draw more plausible debate objects and items in the Book&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Mormon]] apologists have responded by citing, for example, the first Book of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi) in which discoveries of place locations thought not to have existed prior to discovery are to be found. An instance of this concerns the alleged discovery of the place known as &amp;quot;Nahom&amp;quot; as mentioned here ([http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/16.34?lang=eng#33]), a burial place which was discovered and is said by Mormons to be referred to in no other text.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Nahom FAIR Wiki- Mormon Apologetic resource- Nahom]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Likewise Old world geography has been pinpointed by apologists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Old_World]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opponents have pointed to linguistic anachronisms in the text, such as it being written entirely in a Sixteenth-century King James style and its use of words such as French word &amp;quot;adieu&amp;quot;. However Apologists argue to have found to have numerous Semetic linguistic and literary traits within it which make it appear authenitic, such as the inclusion of Chaismus&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms/Chiasmus Chiasmus]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and numerous other Hebrew traits within the text&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mormons do ultimately confess that the main evidence and support for the Book of Mormon does not center upon history or language but upon faith that it is a divinely inspired document. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mormon apologist Jeff Lindsay has compiled his own list Book of Mormon evidences.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Contents==&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is divided up into many sections or parts, including a [[Title Page (Book of Mormon)|Title Page]], [[Introduction (Book of Mormon)|Introduction]], [[The Testimony of Three Witnesses (Book of Mormon)|The Testimony of Three Witnesses]], [[The Testimony of Eight Witnesses (Book of Mormon)|The Testimony of Eight Witnesses]], the [[Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Book of Mormon)|Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith]], [[A Brief Explanation about The Book of Mormon]], and the following main parts or divisions commonly referred to as &amp;quot;books,&amp;quot; as in &amp;quot;The Book of Moroni,&amp;quot; followed by the common abbreviation in parentheses: &lt;br /&gt;
*[[First Nephi]] (1 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Second Nephi]] (2 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Jacob (Book of Mormon)|Jacob]] (Jacob)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Enos (Book of Mormon)|Enos]] (Enos)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Jarom (Book of Mormon)|Jarom]] (Jarom)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Omni (Book of Mormon)|Omni]] (Omni)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Words of Mormon]] (W of M)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mosiah (Book of Mormon)|Mosiah]] (Mosiah)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Alma (Book of Mormon)|Alma]] (Alma)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Helaman (Book of Mormon)|Helaman]] (Hel.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Third Nephi]] (3 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Fourth Nephi]] (4 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mormon (Book of Mormon)|Mormon]] (Morm.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Ether (Book of Mormon)|Ether]] (Ether)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Moroni (Book of Mormon)|Moroni]] (Moro.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first sentence of the Introduction is quite self-explanatory: &amp;quot;The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Objects listed in the Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[People listed in the Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Places listed in the Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other denominations==&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon is accepted as Scripture by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and by other Latter-day Saints denominations, the largest of which, the [[Community of Christ]] (est. 1860), publishes its own versions of the Book of Mormon with different chapter and verse divisions and one with &amp;quot;modernized&amp;quot; language. Other Christian denominations, Catholic and Protestant, reject the Book of Mormon, considering it to be neither inspired nor ancient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Polygamy ==&lt;br /&gt;
Although the Book of Mormon generally forbids [[polygamy]], it allows for its practice when divinely mandated, apparently for the purpose of raising righteous posterity. The Book of Mormon says the following concerning plural marriage:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;Wherefore, my bretheren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife, and [[concubine]]s he shall have none... For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.&amp;quot;'' (Jacob 2:27,30).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The alleged revelation that authorized the practice of polygamy among Latter-day Saints during the 19th Century is recorded in the [[Doctrine and Covenants]], section 132. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes and references==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents The Book of Mormon] - An online edition&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.moroni10.com/Book_of_Mormon_Logic.html The Logical Arguments of the Book of Mormon], Kelly Bingham, November 1, 1997&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:LDS Church]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&amp;diff=877099</id>
		<title>Book of Mormon</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&amp;diff=877099"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T23:44:27Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: /* Historicity */ restore removed cited content without reverting prior edits&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]; Title page since 1982: ''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.'' Original title page: ''The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of [[Mormon]] upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is one of the four standard works, or scriptures, of the [[Mormons|Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]] ([[Mormon]]s). The other standard works are the [[Bible]], the [[Pearl of Great Price]], and the [[Doctrine and Covenants]].&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Moroni gives Joseph the plates.jpg|thumb|100px|Moroni gives Joseph Smith the plates]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Joseph Translating.jpg|thumb|100px|Joseph Smith Translating the Plates]]&lt;br /&gt;
Mormons believe that [[Joseph Smith]], Jr. translated the Book of Mormon from a set of gold plates he received from an angel named Moroni&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/34-35#34 &amp;quot;History of Joseph Smith,&amp;quot;] History of the Church Vol. 1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;-Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1993.htm/ensign%20july%201993.htm/a%20treasured%20testament.htm &amp;quot;A Treasured Testament,&amp;quot;] Ensign, July 1993, 61&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon tells the story of the descendents of a man named Lehi, who took his family from Jerusalem to the Americas. According to the book, Lehi's wicked sons, Laman and Lemual, turned against his righteous sons, Nephi and Sam, and were cursed with dark skin&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/Alma3.htm GospelDoctrine.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  Mormons believe that descendents of Lehi were the ancestors of some Native Americans; these people are referred to as &amp;quot;Lamanites&amp;quot; in the Book of Mormon:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://search.ldslibrary.com/125037 Elder Spencer W. Kimball of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A post-resurrection appearance in the New World by [[Jesus]] is also described in the Book of Mormon. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Nephi and Sam's descendents, the Nephites, eventually turned to wickedness and were destroyed by the more numerous Lamanites. One of the last Nephites, Moroni, buried the golden plates in what is now New York State to keep them from falling into the hands of the Lamanites and being destroyed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Three Nephites were blessed with eternal life and still wander the Earth today serving others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://deseretmail.com/mormon-life/curric/story?story_id=1580 &amp;quot;Clyde J. Williams on the Three Nephites and the Doctrine of Translation,&amp;quot;] Thoughts on Gospel Doctrine Lesson 42, Deseret Book.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1982, the subtitle, &amp;quot;Another Testament of Jesus Christ,&amp;quot; was added to the title page&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/bookofmormon.htm A Short Introduction to the Book of Mormon]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mormons and other Latter-Day Saints believe that the book is of ancient origin and that the personages and events described therein are factual. At the same time, Mormons deny that the book is to be considered inerrant. Critics assert that its contents have been changed a number of times by LDS authorities; Mormons reply that the changes are merely grammatical corrections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Historicity==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon has been often criticized for a supposed lack of evidence of cities, metals, wars, weapons, animals and etc. mentioned in the book as being part of the history of the Western Hemisphere over the many hundreds of years covered by the narrative. In addition, some of these artifacts are known to have been introduced into the areas in question by Europeans colonists coming much later than the timeframe claimed in the Book of Mormon. Mormon Apologists though have worked to find counterarguments and responses to all of these claims in detail to draw more plausible debate objects and items in the Book&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Mormon]] apologists have responded by citing, for example, the first Book of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi) in which discoveries of place locations thought not to have existed prior to discovery are to be found. An instance of this concerns the alleged discovery of the place known as &amp;quot;Nahom&amp;quot; as mentioned here ([http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/16.34?lang=eng#33]), a burial place which was discovered and is said by Mormons to be referred to in no other text.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Nahom FAIR Wiki- Mormon Apologetic resource- Nahom]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Likewise Old world geography has been pinpointed by apologists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Old_World]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opponents have pointed to linguistic anachronisms in the text, such as it being written entirely in a Sixteenth-century King James style and its use of words such as French word &amp;quot;adieu&amp;quot;. However Apologists argue to have found to have numerous Semetic linguistic and literary traits within it which make it appear authenitic, such as the inclusion of Chaismus&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms/Chiasmus Chiasmus]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and numerous other Hebrew traits within the text&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 Mormons do ultimately confess that the main evidence and support for the Book of Mormon does not center upon history or language but upon faith that it is a divinely inspired document. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mormon apologist Jeff Lindsay has compiled his own list Book of Mormon evidences.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Contents==&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is divided up into many sections or parts, including a [[Title Page (Book of Mormon)|Title Page]], [[Introduction (Book of Mormon)|Introduction]], [[The Testimony of Three Witnesses (Book of Mormon)|The Testimony of Three Witnesses]], [[The Testimony of Eight Witnesses (Book of Mormon)|The Testimony of Eight Witnesses]], the [[Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Book of Mormon)|Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith]], [[A Brief Explanation about The Book of Mormon]], and the following main parts or divisions commonly referred to as &amp;quot;books,&amp;quot; as in &amp;quot;The Book of Moroni,&amp;quot; followed by the common abbreviation in parentheses: &lt;br /&gt;
*[[First Nephi]] (1 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Second Nephi]] (2 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Jacob (Book of Mormon)|Jacob]] (Jacob)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Enos (Book of Mormon)|Enos]] (Enos)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Jarom (Book of Mormon)|Jarom]] (Jarom)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Omni (Book of Mormon)|Omni]] (Omni)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Words of Mormon]] (W of M)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mosiah (Book of Mormon)|Mosiah]] (Mosiah)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Alma (Book of Mormon)|Alma]] (Alma)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Helaman (Book of Mormon)|Helaman]] (Hel.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Third Nephi]] (3 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Fourth Nephi]] (4 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mormon (Book of Mormon)|Mormon]] (Morm.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Ether (Book of Mormon)|Ether]] (Ether)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Moroni (Book of Mormon)|Moroni]] (Moro.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first sentence of the Introduction is quite self-explanatory: &amp;quot;The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Objects listed in the Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[People listed in the Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Places listed in the Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other denominations==&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon is accepted as Scripture by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and by other Latter-day Saints denominations, the largest of which, the [[Community of Christ]] (est. 1860), publishes its own versions of the Book of Mormon with different chapter and verse divisions and one with &amp;quot;modernized&amp;quot; language. Other Christian denominations, Catholic and Protestant, reject the Book of Mormon, considering it to be neither inspired nor ancient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Polygamy ==&lt;br /&gt;
Although the Book of Mormon generally forbids [[polygamy]], it allows for its practice when divinely mandated, apparently for the purpose of raising righteous posterity. The Book of Mormon says the following concerning plural marriage:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;Wherefore, my bretheren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife, and [[concubine]]s he shall have none... For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.&amp;quot;'' (Jacob 2:27,30).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The alleged revelation that authorized the practice of polygamy among Latter-day Saints during the 19th Century is recorded in the [[Doctrine and Covenants]], section 132. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes and references==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents The Book of Mormon] - An online edition&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.moroni10.com/Book_of_Mormon_Logic.html The Logical Arguments of the Book of Mormon], Kelly Bingham, November 1, 1997&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:LDS Church]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harold_Wilson&amp;diff=877023</id>
		<title>Harold Wilson</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harold_Wilson&amp;diff=877023"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T21:02:40Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: /* Europe */ spelling + an addition&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Prime Minister&lt;br /&gt;
|image=&lt;br /&gt;
|seq=69&lt;br /&gt;
|party=Labour Party&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start=October 16 1964&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end=June 19 1970&lt;br /&gt;
|previous=Alec Douglas-Home&lt;br /&gt;
|next=Edward Heath&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start2=March 4 1974&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end2=April 5 1976&lt;br /&gt;
|previous2=Edward Heath&lt;br /&gt;
|next2=James Callaghan&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_date=March 11 1916&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_place=Huddersfield&lt;br /&gt;
|death_date=May 24 1995 (aged 79)&lt;br /&gt;
|death_place=London&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse=&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse2=&lt;br /&gt;
|religion=[[Congregationalist]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Harold Wilson''' (born James Harold Wilson) was the [[Labour Party|Labour]] Prime Minister of Britain (the [[United Kingdom]]) from 1964-1970 and from 1974-1976. Having spent 13 years out of office after defeat in 1951; Harold Wilson was elected prime minister in 1964 following widespread discontent against the Conservative government. Wilson's government saw the liberalisation of Britain begin, with the legalisation of homosexuality, abortion and the removal of theatrical and cinema moral censorship. All anointed to be causes of the &amp;quot;permissive society&amp;quot; in Britain in the 1960's. Wilson set out also to drastically advance the British Economy through the creation of the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA). However all his Economic ideas held little success and he was defeated in the 1970 election by [[Edward Heath]]; whom Wilson would then defeat again narrowly in 1974. Combined, the economic failures of Heath and Wilson set the stage for the renewal of British energy and leadership under [[Margaret Thatcher]], beginning in 1979.[[File:Pimlott.jpg|thumb|350px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Career==&lt;br /&gt;
Born in 1916 and first elected to Parliament in 1945 he was appointed a junior minister in the Department of Trade immediately.  He was Member of Parliament for the [[Liverpool]] constituency of Huyton from 1945 until 1979.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==1964 election==&lt;br /&gt;
The 1964 election marked a crucial moment in postwar British politics. Wilson's victory confounded those critics who believed that three successive defeats in the 1950s meant that the Labour Party was becoming electorally obsolete. The &amp;quot;road to 1964&amp;quot; compares favourably with that of [[Clement Attlee]] in 1945, the only previous occasion Labour had removed the Conservative Party from power to form a majority government. In many respects the two elections were very different. Participation in [[Winston Churchill]]'s wartime coalition gave Labour a credibility that helped to ensure a landslide in 1945, whereas Wilson's margin of victory - just four seats - was tiny.  One important similarity stands out. Historians now tend to play down the &amp;quot;onward march of socialism&amp;quot; as the driving force behind 1945, stressing instead disillusionment with wartime conservatism. In the same way too much credit should not be attached to the vote-catching appeal of Wilson and his vision of &amp;quot;scientific socialism.&amp;quot; The root cause of 1964 lay in deep disenchantment with [[Harold Macmillan]]'s Tory administration, scarred by the sexual scandal of the perfumo affair and several lacklustre Economic setbacks. The Labour success in 1964 confirms the adage that elections are lost by governments rather than won by the opposition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Prime Minister==&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson won more general elections than any other British politician in the 20th Century. He won in 1964, 1966, and twice in 1974 although the February 1974 election resulted in a minority government. During his time in office he only once had a large majority (96 seats at the 1966 election) and struggled to get contentious legislation passed. Even so his legacy includes the [[Open University]] and the first steps toward British membership of the [[EEC]]. He also successfully kept Britain out of the war in [[Vietnam]].&lt;br /&gt;
===Relations with U.S.===&lt;br /&gt;
Although the United States and Britain have shared a &amp;quot;special relationship&amp;quot; in foreign relations since 1940, this link was weakened during the 1960s by several factors: differing foreign policy aims, varying national and international security ideas, and unfriendly personal relations between President [[Lyndon Johnson]] and Wilson. The relationship did not improve until the 1970s. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1965, Johnson proposed that the United States prop up Britain's pound sterling. In return he sought from Wilson's government such measures as support of deflationary policies and of American policies in the Vietnam War. Wilson refused to involve Britain in the conflict&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Making of Modern Britain 1951-2007- Chris Rowe: Page 80&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The initiative failed to materialize. Wilson defenders say the United States reneged after Wilson fended off American efforts to compromise Britain's sovereignty. Americans believe the change in US policy stemmed from new perceptions in the Johnson administration on Labour Party misrule in Britain. Americans concluded it was a mistake to indulge Britain in light of the Wilson government's unsatisfactory positions on Vietnam, its smaller contributions to European defense, its international monetary ideas, and its Middle Eastern policies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; John Dumbrell, &amp;quot;The Johnson Administration and the British Labour Government: Vietnam, the Pound and East of Suez&amp;quot; ''Journal of American Studies'' 1996 30(2): 211-231. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Economy===&lt;br /&gt;
Much of the disillusionment with Wilson was due to his perceived failure on the economic front. He pledged not to devalue sterling, however he crumbled under pressure by striking from the National Union of Seamen and resorted to devaluation in 1967&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Making of Modern Britain 1951-2007- Chris Rowe: Page 53&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He also promised to keep unemployment low, but by 1970 had accepted a higher rate of joblessness than the Conservatives had endorsed. Wilson failed to implement two radical election pledges: to produce a comprehensive state earnings-related pension scheme and to introduce the 'income guarantee' - a minimum benefit to be paid without recourse to the traditional means test. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson's problems and defeats have obscured some of the modest achievements of the period. Science and education spending grew very quickly, industrial investment rose, and government was increasingly well-informed and better advised about the performance of the economy. In an increasingly unstable and rapidly changing economic environment, this government's economic record was one of muddling through, with little long-term vision.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; O'Hara (2006)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Labour Party when it was out of power in the early 1960s argued that Britain was lagging behind in science and technology. In 1963 Wilson, as party leader, pledged that a Labour government would lead the country through the &amp;quot;white heat&amp;quot; of a technological revolution. In fact, Britain in the 1960s spent more on research and development (R&amp;amp;D), both industrially and governmentally funded, than any other capitalist country besides the United States. The Labour government coming to power in 1964 found that Britain lacked not technology but strong industrial organization and management. Under [[Anthony Wedgwood Benn]], 1966-70, the Ministry of Technology attempted to rectify these deficiencies in high technology industries. This effort, only marginally successful, confirmed the lack of positive correlation between R&amp;amp;D and overall economic growth. Indeed, overexpenditure on &amp;quot;high tech&amp;quot; R&amp;amp;D could even be detrimental to such growth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; David Edgerton, &amp;quot;The 'White Heat' Revisited: The British Government and Technology in the 1960s.&amp;quot; ''Twentieth Century British History'' 1996 7(1): 53-82. in [[EBSCO]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson realized he had to fight the 1966 strike by the National Union of Seamen. Determined to save his government's income policy and bolster the British pound, Wilson declared a state of emergency. When that proved ineffective, he turned to claiming that the union was being influenced by Communists. The 47-day strike ended when the shipowners presented an acceptable offer. While Wilson appeared to be the winner, his tactics antagonized many Labour Party supporters.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;  Keir Thorpe, &amp;quot;The 'Juggernaut Method': The 1966 State of Emergency and the Wilson Government's Response to the Seamen's Strike&amp;quot;. ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2001 12(4): 461-485 in [[EBSCO]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Liberalisation===&lt;br /&gt;
The Wilson government committed itself to the Liberalisation of British Society in the 1960's. Wilson's Home Secretary [[Roy Jenkins]] undertook an extreme liberal agenda abolishing Capital Punishment, completely legalizing abortion and then homosexuality&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Making of Modern Britain 1951-2007- Chris Rowe: Page 51&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. At the same time censorship on obsenity was abolished paving the way for what would become known as the &amp;quot;Permissive Society&amp;quot; in Britain during the 1960's and a new sex culture emerged. This polarized society creating tense divisions between the [[Liberal]] young generations and older Conservative Christians such as [[Mary Whitehouse]] who seeked to defend tradition morals and values in the country, becoming what would be known as the &amp;quot;Generation Gap&amp;quot; in Britain.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Making of Modern Britain 1951-2007- Chris Rowe: Page 69&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Immigration===&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson reversed the policy of uncontrolled Commonwealth immigration of his predecessor Hugh Gaitskell. With an eye on public opinion and election returns, Wilson developed a three-phased race-relations policy, including tightened immigration controls, prohibition of domestic racial discrimination and incitement, and creation of local conciliation and integration mechanisms. His pragmatic, carefully balanced immigration and race-relations policies were in the short run successful, not least because of acquiescence by the opposition Conservative leadership. Racial issues, conspicuous in some urban working-class constituencies in the 1964 general election, were marginalized in the 1966 election. During Wilson's second administration (1966-70), pressure by Asian immigrants from East Africa and [[Enoch Powell]]'s populist Conservatism rekindled race-related issues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dennis Dean, &amp;quot;The Race Relations Policy of the First Wilson Government&amp;quot;. ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2000 11(3): 259-283  in [[EBSCO]] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Socialism===&lt;br /&gt;
Despite its alleged commitment to socialism, the British Labour Party has been flexible and reformist in its doctrine ever since it was founded in 1900. After the crisis of 1931, the party adopted a broadly social democratic program in which socialism was linked with the idea of economic planning and social welfare. The Attlee government of 1945-51 was very moderate in its commitment to socialism. The years of opposition saw violent arguments in the party between left-wing Bevanites and the center-right supporters of Hugh Gaitskell. But the main differences concerned foreign and defense policy. On domestic issues, the party was now broadly revisionist, committed to the mixed economy and social equality. &lt;br /&gt;
===New Left===&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson, on becoming prime minister in 1964, tried to bypass old doctrinal arguments by harnessing socialism to ideas of scientific modernization. But his government was a great failure, not least in its relations with the trade unions, the linchpin of the party since its founding. This bred much disillusionment and launched a new left-wing socialism in the 1970s. Wilson represented the older traditions of the Party and never understood the emerging &amp;quot;New Left&amp;quot; with new social roots, radical new ideas and new styles of political behaviour in the late 1970s. Following the disillusion and demoralization of traditional Labour Party activists with Wilson's government, a more radical and well-educated local Labour leadership appeared at the local level.  The Labour government of 1974-79 added to this division. The left-wing pressure reached its climax in the early 1980s when Thatcher was in power, but resulted only in heavy defeats for Labour in 1983 and 1987. The general impression in 1989 is of a loss of political and intellectual confidence, with British socialism trapped between a cherished past and an uncertain future.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Kenneth O. Morgan, ''Britain since 1945: The People's Peace'' (2001)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Europe===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1966 Wilson quietly began an enquiry among European Economic Community (EEC) countries to see if the conditions existed for British membership in the EEC. His move politically rather than economically motivated. Faced with the contraction of Britain's political influence in Europe and in the Atlantic alliance, the erosion of Britain's position in the Commonwealth, and the termination of Britain's defense commitments east of Suez, Wilson had little choice but to turn to the EEC. His bid was subsequentially rejected, vetoed again by France.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Administration===&lt;br /&gt;
Changes to the machinery of government were central to the British Labour Party's policy agenda during 1964-70, key parts of which, particularly the drive for planned economic growth, were not achieved. The ideological basis for the objectives being pursued, such as economic expansion, was never properly explored or developed. However, some of Wilson's innovations, such as the incorporation of more outsiders into Whitehall, the first use of special advisers, and the establishment of the Ministry of Overseas Development and the Welsh Office, were successful.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Andrew Blick, &amp;quot;Harold Wilson, Labour and the Machinery of Government&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2006 20(3): 343-362   &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Image==&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson acquired a reputation as a somewhat devious, scheming figure. He cultivated a particular image of himself in the media, which included ostentatiously smoking a pipe, though in private he is said to have preferred cigars. He came from a working-class background, and retained a northern English working-class accent throughout his life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was preceded by Sir [[Alec Douglas-Home]] and succeeded by [[James Callaghan]]. His periods of premiership were broken by that of [[Edward Heath]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He died of colon cancer and Alzheimer's disease in 1995.&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
* Fielding, Steven.  &amp;quot;Rethinking Labour's 1964 Campaign&amp;quot;. ''Contemporary British History'' 2007 21(3): 309-324 &lt;br /&gt;
* Fielding, Steven and John W. Young, eds. ''The Wilson Government 1964-70'' (3 vol., 2004), highly detailed, favourable analysis&lt;br /&gt;
* Morgan, Austen.  ''Harold Wilson'' (1992), 625pp; negative appraisal&lt;br /&gt;
* O'Hara, Glen. &amp;quot;'Dynamic, Exciting, Thrilling Change': The Wilson Government's Economic Policies, 1964-70,&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2006 20(3): 383-402 &lt;br /&gt;
* Pimlott, Ben. ''Harold Wilson'' (1992). Pimlott tries to rehabilitate Wilson’s political reputation, revealing that he was the prisoner rather than the master of various domestic and international dilemmas. &lt;br /&gt;
* Ponting, Clive. ''Breach of Promise: Labour in Power, 1964-70'' (1989)&lt;br /&gt;
* Vickers, Rhiannon. &amp;quot;Harold Wilson, the British Labour Party, and the War in Vietnam&amp;quot;. ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2008 10(2): 41-70 30p.in [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====References====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:British History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:United Kingdom Prime Ministers|Wilson, Harold]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cold War]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:1960s]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:New Left]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Wilson, Harold}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&amp;diff=877013</id>
		<title>Book of Mormon</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&amp;diff=877013"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T20:37:05Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: removed false statement. Its contents have not been &amp;quot;revised repeatedly&amp;quot;, merely a few wordal + grammatical changes have been made in the space of 180 years..&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]; Title page since 1982: ''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.'' Original title page: ''The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of [[Mormon]] upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is one of the four standard works, or scriptures, of the [[Mormons|Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]] ([[Mormon]]s). The other standard works are the [[Bible]], the [[Pearl of Great Price]], and the [[Doctrine and Covenants]].&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Moroni gives Joseph the plates.jpg|thumb|100px|Moroni gives Joseph Smith the plates]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Joseph Translating.jpg|thumb|100px|Joseph Smith Translating the Plates]]&lt;br /&gt;
Mormons believe that [[Joseph Smith]], Jr. translated the Book of Mormon from a set of gold plates he received from an angel named Moroni&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/34-35#34 &amp;quot;History of Joseph Smith,&amp;quot;] History of the Church Vol. 1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;-Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1993.htm/ensign%20july%201993.htm/a%20treasured%20testament.htm &amp;quot;A Treasured Testament,&amp;quot;] Ensign, July 1993, 61&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon tells the story of the descendents of a man named Lehi, who took his family from Jerusalem to the Americas. According to the book, Lehi's wicked sons, Laman and Lemual, turned against his righteous sons, Nephi and Sam, and were cursed with dark skin&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/Alma3.htm GospelDoctrine.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  Mormons believe that descendents of Lehi were the ancestors of some Native Americans; these people are referred to as &amp;quot;Lamanites&amp;quot; in the Book of Mormon:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://search.ldslibrary.com/125037 Elder Spencer W. Kimball of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nephi and Sam's descendents, the Nephites, eventually turned to wickedness and were destroyed by the more numerous Lamanites. One of the last Nephites, Moroni, buried the golden plates in what is now New York State to keep them from falling into the hands of the Lamanites and being destroyed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Three Nephites were blessed with eternal life and still wander the Earth today serving others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://deseretmail.com/mormon-life/curric/story?story_id=1580 &amp;quot;Clyde J. Williams on the Three Nephites and the Doctrine of Translation,&amp;quot;] Thoughts on Gospel Doctrine Lesson 42, Deseret Book.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A post-resurrection appearance in the New World by [[Jesus]] is also described in the Book of Mormon. In 1982, the subtitle, &amp;quot;Another Testament of Jesus Christ&amp;quot; was added to the title page&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/bookofmormon.htm A Short Introduction to the Book of Mormon]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mormons and other Latter-Day Saints believe that the book is of ancient origin and that the personages and events described therein are factual. At the same time, Mormons deny that the book is to be considered inerrant. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Historicity==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon is often criticized for a supposed lack of &amp;quot;evidence&amp;quot; and authenicity&amp;quot; which would be necessary to support the claimed Historical platform which it is built upon. However, [[Mormon]] apologists have made deep and detailed efforts to combat criticism from mainstream archaeologists. In the old world narrative in the first Book of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi) apologists have made accurate discoveries of numerous locations thought not to have existed prior to discovery. An example of this is the discovery of the place known as &amp;quot;Nahom&amp;quot; as mentioned here ([http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/16.34?lang=eng#33]) a burial place which was discovered and is referenced in no other text.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Nahom FAIR Wiki- Mormon Apologetic resource- Nahom]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Likewise Old world geography has been very accurately pinpointed by apologists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Old_World]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the New World setting fo the Book of Mormon, there has been criticism directed towards the Book that numerous &amp;quot;Anachronisms&amp;quot; in regards to supposed items mentioned in the Book which are thought not to exist within the Americas, or accusations of alleged Anachronisms within the Book. Mormon Apologists though have worked to find counterarguments and responses to all of these claims in detail to draw more plausible debate around the Book&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Linguistically evidence the Book of Mormon has infact been more positive. Linguists have worked to find links numerous between Hebrew and Native American languages&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Language/Hebrew_and_Native_American_languages]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. At the same time there has been claimed linguistical anachronisms in the text, such as the mention of the French word &amp;quot;adieu&amp;quot;. Though nonetheless the Book of Mormon been found to have numerous Semetic linguistic and literary traits within it which make it appear to be more authenitic, such as the inclusion of Chaismus&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms/Chiasmus Chiasmus]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and numerous other Hebrew traits within the text&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Nonetheless, how much this fits in to confirmed evidence regarding pre-columbian America is largely limited and Mormon apologists do ultimately confess that the main evidence and support of the Book of Mormon does center upon ones very faith in that it is a divinely inspired document. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite such, Mormon apologist Jeff Lindsay has compiled his own list of positive Book of Mormon evidences.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Contents==&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is divided up into many sections or parts, including a [[Title Page (Book of Mormon)|Title Page]], [[Introduction (Book of Mormon)|Introduction]], [[The Testimony of Three Witnesses (Book of Mormon)|The Testimony of Three Witnesses]], [[The Testimony of Eight Witnesses (Book of Mormon)|The Testimony of Eight Witnesses]], the [[Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Book of Mormon)|Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith]], [[A Brief Explanation about The Book of Mormon]], and the following main parts or divisions commonly referred to as &amp;quot;books,&amp;quot; as in &amp;quot;The Book of Moroni,&amp;quot; followed by the common abbreviation in parentheses: &lt;br /&gt;
*[[First Nephi]] (1 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Second Nephi]] (2 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Jacob (Book of Mormon)|Jacob]] (Jacob)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Enos (Book of Mormon)|Enos]] (Enos)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Jarom (Book of Mormon)|Jarom]] (Jarom)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Omni (Book of Mormon)|Omni]] (Omni)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Words of Mormon]] (W of M)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mosiah (Book of Mormon)|Mosiah]] (Mosiah)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Alma (Book of Mormon)|Alma]] (Alma)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Helaman (Book of Mormon)|Helaman]] (Hel.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Third Nephi]] (3 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Fourth Nephi]] (4 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mormon (Book of Mormon)|Mormon]] (Morm.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Ether (Book of Mormon)|Ether]] (Ether)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Moroni (Book of Mormon)|Moroni]] (Moro.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first sentence of the Introduction is quite self-explanatory: &amp;quot;The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Objects listed in the Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[People listed in the Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Places listed in the Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other denominations==&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon is also accepted as Scripture by some breakaway denominations, the largest of which, the [[Community of Christ]] (est. 1860), publishes its own versions of the Book of Mormon, with different chapter and verse divisions, and one with &amp;quot;modernized&amp;quot; language. Most other Christian denominations, Catholic and Protestant, reject the Book of Mormon as Scripture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Polygamy ==&lt;br /&gt;
It should be noted that although the Book of Mormon generally forbids [[polygamy]], it allows for its practice when divinely mandated, apparently for the purpose of raising righteous posterity. The Book of Mormon says the following concerning plural marriage:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;Wherefore, my bretheren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife, and [[concubine]]s he shall have none... For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.&amp;quot;'' (Jacob 2:27,30).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revelation that authorized the practice of polygamy among Latter-day Saints during the 19th Century is recorded in the [[Doctrine and Covenants]], section 132. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes and references==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents The Book of Mormon] - An online edition&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.moroni10.com/Book_of_Mormon_Logic.html The Logical Arguments of the Book of Mormon], Kelly Bingham, November 1, 1997&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:LDS Church]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&amp;diff=877012</id>
		<title>Book of Mormon</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&amp;diff=877012"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T20:35:40Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: /* Historicity */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]; Title page since 1982: ''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.'' Original title page: ''The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of [[Mormon]] upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is one of the four standard works, or scriptures, of the [[Mormons|Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]] ([[Mormon]]s). The other standard works are the [[Bible]], the [[Pearl of Great Price]], and the [[Doctrine and Covenants]].&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Moroni gives Joseph the plates.jpg|thumb|100px|Moroni gives Joseph Smith the plates]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Joseph Translating.jpg|thumb|100px|Joseph Smith Translating the Plates]]&lt;br /&gt;
Mormons believe that [[Joseph Smith]], Jr. translated the Book of Mormon from a set of gold plates he received from an angel named Moroni&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/34-35#34 &amp;quot;History of Joseph Smith,&amp;quot;] History of the Church Vol. 1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;-Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1993.htm/ensign%20july%201993.htm/a%20treasured%20testament.htm &amp;quot;A Treasured Testament,&amp;quot;] Ensign, July 1993, 61&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon tells the story of the descendents of a man named Lehi, who took his family from Jerusalem to the Americas. According to the book, Lehi's wicked sons, Laman and Lemual, turned against his righteous sons, Nephi and Sam, and were cursed with dark skin&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/Alma3.htm GospelDoctrine.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  Mormons believe that descendents of Lehi were the ancestors of some Native Americans; these people are referred to as &amp;quot;Lamanites&amp;quot; in the Book of Mormon:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://search.ldslibrary.com/125037 Elder Spencer W. Kimball of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nephi and Sam's descendents, the Nephites, eventually turned to wickedness and were destroyed by the more numerous Lamanites. One of the last Nephites, Moroni, buried the golden plates in what is now New York State to keep them from falling into the hands of the Lamanites and being destroyed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Three Nephites were blessed with eternal life and still wander the Earth today serving others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://deseretmail.com/mormon-life/curric/story?story_id=1580 &amp;quot;Clyde J. Williams on the Three Nephites and the Doctrine of Translation,&amp;quot;] Thoughts on Gospel Doctrine Lesson 42, Deseret Book.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A post-resurrection appearance in the New World by [[Jesus]] is also described in the Book of Mormon. In 1982, the subtitle, &amp;quot;Another Testament of Jesus Christ&amp;quot; was added to the title page&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/bookofmormon.htm A Short Introduction to the Book of Mormon]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mormons and other Latter-Day Saints believe that the book is of ancient origin and that the personages and events described therein are factual. At the same time, Mormons deny that the book is to be considered inerrant. Its contents have been revised repeatedly by the Church authorities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Historicity==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon is often criticized for a supposed lack of &amp;quot;evidence&amp;quot; and authenicity&amp;quot; which would be necessary to support the claimed Historical platform which it is built upon. However, [[Mormon]] apologists have made deep and detailed efforts to combat criticism from mainstream archaeologists. In the old world narrative in the first Book of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi) apologists have made accurate discoveries of numerous locations thought not to have existed prior to discovery. An example of this is the discovery of the place known as &amp;quot;Nahom&amp;quot; as mentioned here ([http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/16.34?lang=eng#33]) a burial place which was discovered and is referenced in no other text.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Nahom FAIR Wiki- Mormon Apologetic resource- Nahom]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Likewise Old world geography has been very accurately pinpointed by apologists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Old_World]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the New World setting fo the Book of Mormon, there has been criticism directed towards the Book that numerous &amp;quot;Anachronisms&amp;quot; in regards to supposed items mentioned in the Book which are thought not to exist within the Americas, or accusations of alleged Anachronisms within the Book. Mormon Apologists though have worked to find counterarguments and responses to all of these claims in detail to draw more plausible debate around the Book&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Linguistically evidence the Book of Mormon has infact been more positive. Linguists have worked to find links numerous between Hebrew and Native American languages&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Language/Hebrew_and_Native_American_languages]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. At the same time there has been claimed linguistical anachronisms in the text, such as the mention of the French word &amp;quot;adieu&amp;quot;. Though nonetheless the Book of Mormon been found to have numerous Semetic linguistic and literary traits within it which make it appear to be more authenitic, such as the inclusion of Chaismus&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms/Chiasmus Chiasmus]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and numerous other Hebrew traits within the text&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Nonetheless, how much this fits in to confirmed evidence regarding pre-columbian America is largely limited and Mormon apologists do ultimately confess that the main evidence and support of the Book of Mormon does center upon ones very faith in that it is a divinely inspired document. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite such, Mormon apologist Jeff Lindsay has compiled his own list of positive Book of Mormon evidences.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Contents==&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is divided up into many sections or parts, including a [[Title Page (Book of Mormon)|Title Page]], [[Introduction (Book of Mormon)|Introduction]], [[The Testimony of Three Witnesses (Book of Mormon)|The Testimony of Three Witnesses]], [[The Testimony of Eight Witnesses (Book of Mormon)|The Testimony of Eight Witnesses]], the [[Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Book of Mormon)|Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith]], [[A Brief Explanation about The Book of Mormon]], and the following main parts or divisions commonly referred to as &amp;quot;books,&amp;quot; as in &amp;quot;The Book of Moroni,&amp;quot; followed by the common abbreviation in parentheses: &lt;br /&gt;
*[[First Nephi]] (1 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Second Nephi]] (2 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Jacob (Book of Mormon)|Jacob]] (Jacob)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Enos (Book of Mormon)|Enos]] (Enos)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Jarom (Book of Mormon)|Jarom]] (Jarom)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Omni (Book of Mormon)|Omni]] (Omni)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Words of Mormon]] (W of M)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mosiah (Book of Mormon)|Mosiah]] (Mosiah)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Alma (Book of Mormon)|Alma]] (Alma)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Helaman (Book of Mormon)|Helaman]] (Hel.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Third Nephi]] (3 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Fourth Nephi]] (4 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mormon (Book of Mormon)|Mormon]] (Morm.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Ether (Book of Mormon)|Ether]] (Ether)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Moroni (Book of Mormon)|Moroni]] (Moro.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first sentence of the Introduction is quite self-explanatory: &amp;quot;The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Objects listed in the Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[People listed in the Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Places listed in the Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other denominations==&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon is also accepted as Scripture by some breakaway denominations, the largest of which, the [[Community of Christ]] (est. 1860), publishes its own versions of the Book of Mormon, with different chapter and verse divisions, and one with &amp;quot;modernized&amp;quot; language. Most other Christian denominations, Catholic and Protestant, reject the Book of Mormon as Scripture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Polygamy ==&lt;br /&gt;
It should be noted that although the Book of Mormon generally forbids [[polygamy]], it allows for its practice when divinely mandated, apparently for the purpose of raising righteous posterity. The Book of Mormon says the following concerning plural marriage:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;Wherefore, my bretheren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife, and [[concubine]]s he shall have none... For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.&amp;quot;'' (Jacob 2:27,30).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revelation that authorized the practice of polygamy among Latter-day Saints during the 19th Century is recorded in the [[Doctrine and Covenants]], section 132. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes and references==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents The Book of Mormon] - An online edition&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.moroni10.com/Book_of_Mormon_Logic.html The Logical Arguments of the Book of Mormon], Kelly Bingham, November 1, 1997&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:LDS Church]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&amp;diff=876918</id>
		<title>Book of Mormon</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&amp;diff=876918"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T17:42:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: /* Historicity / re-write&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]; Title page since 1982: ''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.'' Original title page: ''The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of [[Mormon]] upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is one of the four standard works, or scriptures, of the [[Mormons|Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]] ([[Mormon]]s). The other standard works are the [[Bible]], the [[Pearl of Great Price]], and the [[Doctrine and Covenants]].&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Moroni gives Joseph the plates.jpg|thumb|100px|Moroni gives Joseph Smith the plates]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Joseph Translating.jpg|thumb|100px|Joseph Smith Translating the Plates]]&lt;br /&gt;
Mormons believe that [[Joseph Smith]], Jr. translated the Book of Mormon from a set of gold plates he received from an angel named Moroni&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/34-35#34 &amp;quot;History of Joseph Smith,&amp;quot;] History of the Church Vol. 1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;-Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1993.htm/ensign%20july%201993.htm/a%20treasured%20testament.htm &amp;quot;A Treasured Testament,&amp;quot;] Ensign, July 1993, 61&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon tells the story of the descendents of a man named Lehi, who took his family from Jerusalem to the Americas. According to the book, Lehi's wicked sons, Laman and Lemual, turned against his righteous sons, Nephi and Sam, and were cursed with dark skin&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/Alma3.htm GospelDoctrine.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  Mormons believe that descendents of Lehi were the ancestors of some Native Americans; these people are referred to as &amp;quot;Lamanites&amp;quot; in the Book of Mormon:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://search.ldslibrary.com/125037 Elder Spencer W. Kimball of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nephi and Sam's descendents, the Nephites, eventually turned to wickedness and were destroyed by the more numerous Lamanites. One of the last Nephites, Moroni, buried the golden plates in what is now New York State to keep them from falling into the hands of the Lamanites and being destroyed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Three Nephites were blessed with eternal life and still wander the Earth today serving others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://deseretmail.com/mormon-life/curric/story?story_id=1580 &amp;quot;Clyde J. Williams on the Three Nephites and the Doctrine of Translation,&amp;quot;] Thoughts on Gospel Doctrine Lesson 42, Deseret Book.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A post-resurrection appearance in the New World by [[Jesus]] is also described in the Book of Mormon. In 1982, the subtitle, &amp;quot;Another Testament of Jesus Christ&amp;quot; was added to the title page&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/bookofmormon.htm A Short Introduction to the Book of Mormon]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mormons and other Latter-Day Saints believe that the book is of ancient origin and that the personages and events described therein are factual. At the same time, Mormons deny that the book is to be considered inerrant. Its contents have been revised repeatedly by the Church authorities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Historicity==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon is often criticized for a supposed lack of &amp;quot;evidence&amp;quot; and authenicity&amp;quot; which would be necessary to support the claimed Historical platform which it is built upon. However, [[Mormon]] apologists have made deep and detailed efforts to combat criticism from mainstream archaeologists. In the old world narrative in the first Book of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi) apologists have made accurate discoveries of numerous locations thought not to have existed prior to discovery. An example of this is the discovery of the place known as &amp;quot;Nahom&amp;quot; as mentioned here ([http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/16.34?lang=eng#33) a burial place which was discovered and is referenced in no other text.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Nahom FAIR Wiki- Mormon Apologetic resource- Nahom]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Likewise Old world geography has been very accurately pinpointed by apologists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Old_World]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the New World setting fo the Book of Mormon, there has been criticism directed towards the Book that numerous &amp;quot;Anachronisms&amp;quot; in regards to supposed items mentioned in the Book which are thought not to exist within the Americas, or accusations of alleged Anachronisms within the Book. Mormon Apologists though have worked to find counterarguments and responses to all of these claims in detail to draw more plausible debate around the Book&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Linguistically the Book of Mormon has infact been more positive. Linguists have worked to find links numerous between Hebrew and Native American languages&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Language/Hebrew_and_Native_American_languages]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. At the same time there has been claimed linguistical anachronisms in the text, such as the mention of the French word &amp;quot;adieu&amp;quot;. Though nonetheless the Book of Mormon been found to have numerous Semetic linguistic and literary traits within it which make it appear to be more authenitic, such as the inclusion of Chaismus&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms/Chiasmus Chiasmus]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and numerous other Hebrew traits within the text&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Nonetheless, how much this fits in to confirmed evidence regarding pre-columbian America is largely limited and Mormon apologists do ultimately confess that the main evidence and support of the Book of Mormon does center upon ones very faith in it that it is a divinely inspired document.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Contents==&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is divided up into many sections or parts, including a [[Title Page (Book of Mormon)|Title Page]], [[Introduction (Book of Mormon)|Introduction]], [[The Testimony of Three Witnesses (Book of Mormon)|The Testimony of Three Witnesses]], [[The Testimony of Eight Witnesses (Book of Mormon)|The Testimony of Eight Witnesses]], the [[Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Book of Mormon)|Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith]], [[A Brief Explanation about The Book of Mormon]], and the following main parts or divisions commonly referred to as &amp;quot;books,&amp;quot; as in &amp;quot;The Book of Moroni,&amp;quot; followed by the common abbreviation in parentheses: &lt;br /&gt;
*[[First Nephi]] (1 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Second Nephi]] (2 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Jacob (Book of Mormon)|Jacob]] (Jacob)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Enos (Book of Mormon)|Enos]] (Enos)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Jarom (Book of Mormon)|Jarom]] (Jarom)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Omni (Book of Mormon)|Omni]] (Omni)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Words of Mormon]] (W of M)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mosiah (Book of Mormon)|Mosiah]] (Mosiah)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Alma (Book of Mormon)|Alma]] (Alma)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Helaman (Book of Mormon)|Helaman]] (Hel.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Third Nephi]] (3 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Fourth Nephi]] (4 Ne.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mormon (Book of Mormon)|Mormon]] (Morm.)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Ether (Book of Mormon)|Ether]] (Ether)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Moroni (Book of Mormon)|Moroni]] (Moro.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first sentence of the Introduction is quite self-explanatory: &amp;quot;The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Objects listed in the Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[People listed in the Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Places listed in the Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other denominations==&lt;br /&gt;
The Book of Mormon is also accepted as Scripture by some breakaway denominations, the largest of which, the [[Community of Christ]] (est. 1860), publishes its own versions of the Book of Mormon, with different chapter and verse divisions, and one with &amp;quot;modernized&amp;quot; language. Most other Christian denominations, Catholic and Protestant, reject the Book of Mormon as Scripture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Polygamy ==&lt;br /&gt;
It should be noted that although the Book of Mormon generally forbids [[polygamy]], it allows for its practice when divinely mandated, apparently for the purpose of raising righteous posterity. The Book of Mormon says the following concerning plural marriage:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;Wherefore, my bretheren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife, and [[concubine]]s he shall have none... For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.&amp;quot;'' (Jacob 2:27,30).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The revelation that authorized the practice of polygamy among Latter-day Saints during the 19th Century is recorded in the [[Doctrine and Covenants]], section 132. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes and references==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents The Book of Mormon] - An online edition&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.moroni10.com/Book_of_Mormon_Logic.html The Logical Arguments of the Book of Mormon], Kelly Bingham, November 1, 1997&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Book of Mormon]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:LDS Church]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:TomFowdy&amp;diff=876916</id>
		<title>User:TomFowdy</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:TomFowdy&amp;diff=876916"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T17:15:38Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[http://www.fowdy92.blogspot.com my blog]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am an English Conservative and a Christian.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am pro-life, I strongly oppose: gay marriage, the sexualisation of society, binge drinking, liberal methods of education, big government, atheism, junk sciences, consumerism &amp;amp; secular morality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here on Conservapedia I am mostly concerned in regards to editing issues on British Politics, History and Society from a Conservative viewpoint. Considering this is an American website such things are given little coverage and attention, thus my job is to write, sharpen, improve and tell the truth about what I largely consider to a Britain in decline due to decades of whitewashing by Social Liberals and socialists alike.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{userboxtop|Tom Fowdy}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Liberal Facist}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:TomFowdy&amp;diff=876915</id>
		<title>User:TomFowdy</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:TomFowdy&amp;diff=876915"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T17:14:47Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[http://www.fowdy92.blogspot.com my blog]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am an English Conservative and a Christian.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Liberal Facist}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am pro-life, I strongly oppose: gay marriage, the sexualisation of society, binge drinking, liberal methods of education, big government, atheism, junk sciences, consumerism &amp;amp; secular morality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here on Conservapedia I am mostly concerned in regards to editing issues on British Politics, History and Society from a Conservative viewpoint. Considering this is an American website such things are given little coverage and attention, thus my job is to write, sharpen, improve and tell the truth about what I largely consider to a Britain in decline due to decades of whitewashing by Social Liberals and socialists alike.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=British_Broadcasting_Corporation&amp;diff=876913</id>
		<title>British Broadcasting Corporation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=British_Broadcasting_Corporation&amp;diff=876913"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T17:08:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;''&amp;quot;The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias&amp;quot;''-&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt; Andrew Marr- BBC spokesman.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''British Broadcasting Corporation''' (BBC) is the major national public service broadcaster of the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the UK and is the largest broadcaster in the world by audience figures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BBC was given a royal charter in 1927 as a public body; it replaced a private, commercially run British Broadcasting Company, which began in 1922. The royal charter and license, constitute the BBC as a public corporation with a mandate to provide broadcasting as a public service.  BBC is funded by an annual license fee levied on all UK owning a television set. The BBC's monopoly on lasted from 1922 until 1973 and the introduction of commercial radio. It monopolised television from 1936 to 1954, when the Television Act allowed for the establishment of commercial stations financed by spot advertising. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC is criticised for political bias, particularly [[liberal]], and for being overly [[politically correct]] and overly supportive and selective in its coverage of the [[Labour Party]]. Analysts have accused the numerous extremist links to this BBC indicates a possible propaganda media network connection to [[Al Qaeda]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8472430/WikiLeaks-Leaked-files-accuse-BBC-of-being-part-of-a-possible-propaganda-media-network.html BBC part of 'possible propaganda media network', Telegraphe UK, April 25, 2011]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Broadcasting ==&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC operates eight national television channels (nine including the High-Definition service- BBC HD)[http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/] in the UK and ten national radio stations[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/]. Alongside these are its regional television services, which are variations of the national services, and separate regional radio stations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC produces many well-known television programmes, including ''The Ten O'Clock News'', ''Newsnight'', ''Question Time'', ''Eastenders'', ''Holby City'', ''Casualty'', ''Top Gear'', ''Match of the Day'', ''Have I Got News For You'' and ''Doctor Who''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its best known TV channels in the UK are BBC 1 and BBC 2. The other channels are broadcast as digital-only services and are available to owners of terrestrial digital receiving equipment. BBC 1 typically shows more mainstream programmes while BBC 2 has a reputation for more diversity and special interest content.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Outside the UK the best known service is the BBC World Service radio network which transmits in 33 languages to an estimated 163 million listeners a week[http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/05_may/21/global.shtml]. The BBC operates a number of commercially-funded international television channels including BBC World, the international news channel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Funding ==&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC is a Crown corporation supported by a licensing fee applied to television owners&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; of £135.50 (about $250 ) per year. All owners of TV receiving equipment are obliged to pay the fee whether they watch BBC content or not. As such the license fee is often criticised as being a tax.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BBC programming is free of commercial advertising.  However, it has some obligations to transmit statements by political parties and it advertises its own programmes. BBC channels transmitted in the UK are nevertheless free of commercial advertising - with the exception of sporting events, during which it is still permitted to display commercial advertising. Cricket matches were a previous source of contention as adverts projected onto the field of play are only visible to television viewers. This results in much greater non-advertising broadcasting time and uninterrupted broadcast of feature films. However, since the funding is determined by the government, the BBC can be slow to criticise those in power. This arrangement means the government has to do very little to apply pressure on the BBC and often the BBC will self regulate in favour of the government without any formal instruction being given.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbbc/50/5006.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This in turn leads to the government and the BBC being able to declare independence and neutrality officially, while in reality this is far from the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whilst there is a vocal campaign to have the BBC changed into a commercial company, this appears highly unlikely to happen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ownership ==&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC is an independent body which is held in trust for the British people. The BBC was most recently given a ten-year royal charter in 2006 that defines its purposes and allows it to act somewhat autonomously, free from commercial and government influence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Control rests with the 12-person BBC Trust, which replaced the Board of Governors in 2007. Trust members are paid and are appointed by the British prime minister and are supposed to represent the interests of a broad cross-section of the British listening and viewing public. Day-to-day management is handled by the board of management, headed by the director general; its members are appointed by the board of governors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==BBC News==&lt;br /&gt;
BBC News and Current Affairs is the largest news organisation in the world. It has at least 2,000 journalists and 44 news-gathering bureaus, three in the UK and 41 overseas. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/] It produces some 120 hours of news broadcasts daily.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
News programmes are produced for both TV and radio stations. Much of the TV news programming is delivered in a few major news bulletins throughout the day, the most recognised of which is the flagship Ten O'Clock News in the evening on BBC1. On BBC radio, news is delivered in mostly smaller segments on the hour or half hour. However, the Today programme on Radio 4 is broadcast from 7am to 9am and is often considered the most influential news broadcast in the UK.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
News produced by the BBC is made available and archived on the BBC news website.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Internet==&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC has a news and archive website, one of the top twenty most popular English language websites. Like its TV and radio broadcasting it is not allowed to show advertising if the site is viewed from within the UK. This has prompted some criticism from within the BBC as it means funds from the licensing fee used for the website are not available for TV and radio programming. However, some costs of the site are now, since late 2007, offset by advertising to non-UK based visitors to the site.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Competitors have also criticised the BBC website due to its ability to fund itself non-commercially without advertising to the detriment of its commercial competitors such as on-line versions of national newspapers and other news broadcasters such as Sky and ITN.&lt;br /&gt;
==History==&lt;br /&gt;
From its inception in 1922, J. C. W. Reith, the first director-general of the BBC, envisioned the organisation as an integral advocate of patriotism and the empire at home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Second World War===&lt;br /&gt;
From June 1940 to March 1941, the writer J. B. Priestley (1894-1984), broadcast a widely popular series of Sunday-night radio talks, 'Postscripts to the News.' He became the best known, most gifted, and probably most popular BBC commentator, for he had caught the mood of the British people during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz.  His forced departure was controversial and harmful to the BBC. Priestley blamed Prime Minister Churchill's negative reaction to his left-wing views on postwar reconstruction. Actually his firing was mainly due to Ministry of Information and BBC reluctance to allow an extended forum to a 'demagogic' personality who might attract a personal following, as [[Father Coughlin]] had done in the United States in the 1930s. The upshot was employment of a wider range of speakers and careful avoidance of controversy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC played a major role in promoting the British Empire worldwide during [[World War II|The Second World War, 1939-45]]. The BBC became the voice of Britain, reflecting as well as constructing the nation's history, culture, and tradition. At first the BBC worked aggressively to deflect criticism and insure that the Empire appeared as a source of strength. It presented British imperialism as a benefit to both Britain and the colonised areas. However, as the war progressed and postwar objectives became a concern, the focus of the BBC expanded to include the importance of maintaining Britain as an imperial power.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Thomas Hajkowski, &amp;quot;The BBC, the Empire, and the Second World War, 1939-1945,&amp;quot; ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 2002 22(2): 135-155 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Special programs were directed to peoples controlled by the Nazis; listening to the short-wave broadcasts was illegal but widespread. The German-language Austrian Service was directed by Patrick Smith, who emphasised the 'separateness' of Austria from Germany and on 'freedom and independence' as the Austrian goal. As victory approached the BBC stressed the need for Austrians themselves to take part in their own liberation. There were interviews with Austrian prisoners of war held in Britain. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Until 1944, broadcasts by the BBC's Hungarian service avoided describing the plight of the Jews in Hungary for fear that it would create an anti-Semitic backlash against one of the few Jewish populations in Europe which, though persecuted, was still allowed to live. Shortly after the Nazi occupation of Hungary in March 1944 the rounding up and deporting of Jews to death camps began. For the next four months, until Hungarian regent Horthy suspended the deportations, the Hungarian service repeatedly broadcast news of the deportation of Jews and urged Hungarians to obstruct, delay, and hinder the deportations in the name of humanity and Hungarian patriotism. Altering BBC Hungarian service policies regarding the Final Solution would perhaps have done little to slow the [[Holocaust]] in Hungary.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Gabriel Milland, &amp;quot;The BBC Hungarian Service and the Final Solution in Hungary,&amp;quot; ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 1998 18(3): 353-373 online in [[EBSCO]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The BBC Home Service rarely mentioned the massacre of Jews for many reasons, including the restraints formally imposed by a government at war, the notions that such reports simply would not be believed (or, being incomprehensible, written off as propaganda) or might spur a latent anti-Semitism, and the fact that people were not interested in gloomy stories but wanted to hear about the war effort.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Jeremy D. Harris, &amp;quot;Broadcasting the Massacres: an Analysis of the BBC's Contemporary Coverage of the Holocaust.&amp;quot; ''Yad Vashem Studies'' 1996 25: 65-98 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Cultural Impact===&lt;br /&gt;
====Monopoly years====&lt;br /&gt;
As the only TV broadcaster until the mid 1950s and only radio broadcaster until the mid 1970s, the BBC had a monopoly hold on British electronic media. As such its content was highly influential. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Children's Hour', begun in the late 1920s, was intended as a medium for democracy and the production of exemplary citizens through the dissemination of idealised middle-class values. In time, this approach proved to be out of touch with the listening habits and working class context of many 'Children's Hour' listeners. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Music broadcasts for schools were begun in 1924, and did much to disseminate new ideas, especially through 'music and movement' programs and the enormously popular 'Singing Together' during the Second World War. However, the more formal programs, designed to teach the rudiments of music and notation, were less successful, and Sir Walford Davies's idea of tune building by children was abandoned in 1934. Radio's ability to teach music formally appeared severely limited, and serious doubts as to its precise function in relationship to music teachers were constantly voiced and never answered.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gordon Cox, &amp;quot;School Music Broadcasts and the BBC 1924-47,&amp;quot; ''History of Education'' 1996 25(4): 363-371 online in [[EBSCO]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scottish broadcasters forged a unique and specifically Scottish tradition of radio programming in the 1920s, led by the Aberdeen studies of the BBC. However its role was weakened by a policy of centralisation in London after 1932. Radio drama based on collaboration with local theatre companies was especially strong, included much original work, and made a major contribution to the development of professional theatre in Scotland. The centralisation of radio broadcasting in London reflected the shift in the organisation of the British state toward greater involvement in the everyday lives of its citizens during the interwar years.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Adrienne Scullion, &amp;quot;BBC Radio in Scotland, 1923-1939: Devolution, Regionalism and Centralisation.&amp;quot; ''Northern Scotland'' 1995 15: 63-93 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
====Competitive years====&lt;br /&gt;
Since the late 1970s the BBC, while exposed to high volumes and variable quality of competition, has remained popular with the British public and its cultural influence is still a major force. The BBC is considered the default choice by many when viewing major events such as breaking news or state occasions, even though competitors may be broadcasting the same content.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC has had enormous influence over British attitudes to not just politics but also comedy, [[multiculturalism]], travel, natural history, international culture, popular trends, fashion and even the way the British speak. Through its foreign broadcasts on the BBC World Service, it has also had significant cultural influence outside the UK.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Accusations of Bias==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC has a long history of being criticised for bias. As well as persistent criticisms of [[liberal bias]], it also receives accusations of cultural [[bias]], regional bias, [[political correctness]], bias towards multiculturalism and minority interests, as well as both pro- and anti-government bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC is often accused of right-wing bias by those on the left and of left-wing bias by those on the right. This is sometimes attributed to UK governments of either persuasion simply objecting to negative reporting of its policies. However, it is also common for opposition to the government to be critical of the BBC. In some cases, the BBC can be subject to criticism from both sides citing bias in favour of their opposition, as in its reporting of the war in Iraq.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the BBC had been accused of bias many times in its history, a liberal bias became prevalent during the reign of Prime Minster [[Margaret Thatcher]], likely as a direct result of her government's efforts to streamline the corporation and make it more efficient. Before her reign, the BBC's overall ideology had fluctuated quite often between being pro-Conservative and pro-Liberal, mostly depending on which party was in power. Since Thatcher's reign though, it has been guilty of a quite pro-Liberal stance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Bias against the US and Israel===&lt;br /&gt;
Although its charter requires it to be impartial, critics often accuse it of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]].  However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen.  Steven Sugar, a Jewish critic of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the High Court of England and Wales.  The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar.  Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007.  The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias.  Conservative MP David Davies commented: &amp;quot;An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinise governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers' money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible&amp;quot; and called the BBC's actions a &amp;quot;shameful hypocrisy&amp;quot;.  It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2003, Media Tenor, an independent, Bonn-based research group, conducted a study and found that the BBC’s Middle East coverage was 85 percent negative, 15 percent neutral, and 0 percent positive toward Israel.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;“Beeb Outdoes Itself”, Tzvi Fleischer, The Review, September 2003, p. 8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During a 2006 internal &amp;quot;impartiality summit&amp;quot;, BBC executives said they would happily broadcast an image of a [[Bible]] being thrown away, but would not do the same with a [[Koran]]. At the summit, the BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused the executives of being anti-American, saying they treated the nation with scorn and derision and no moral weight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 15, 2007, BBC drew criticism due to their apology over calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813036973&amp;amp;pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The incident is one of many examples of repeated and systematic anti-Israeli bias from the BBC over a number of years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the BBC was also criticised by some for refusing to show a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza following the fighting in the region in December 2008 - January 2009. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4789700/BBC-Trust-chairman-attacks-politicians-over-Gaza-appeal-pressure.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Liberal bias===&lt;br /&gt;
Details of the BBC's alleged bias were further tabled in an official report&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;'''Revoir, Paul''', ''BBC comes under fire for institutional Left-wing bias'' [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462679&amp;amp;in_page_id=1770&amp;amp;ct=5 Daily Mail] June 18, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml BBC report finds bias within corporation], Gary Cleland,''Telegraph'', June 18, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/node/13530 BBC Report: Network’s Bias Due to 'The Inherent Liberal Culture of its Staff’], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], June 17, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; - in preparation since 2005 - which found that the BBC:&lt;br /&gt;
*has an &amp;quot;institutional Left-wing bias&amp;quot; (its 'Play for Today' series in the 1960s/70s was known as the '[[Trotskyist|Trot]] Slot')&lt;br /&gt;
*has &amp;quot;a tendency to 'group think' with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
*promotes anti-Christian sentiment&lt;br /&gt;
*promotes anti-American sentiment&lt;br /&gt;
*allows schedules to be &amp;quot;hijacked by special interest groups promoting trendy issues&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
*over-represents homosexuals&lt;br /&gt;
*over-represents ethnic minorities&lt;br /&gt;
*fails to reflect the views of the [[British]] public on issues such as [[capital punishment]]&lt;br /&gt;
*fails to reflect the broader views of British people&lt;br /&gt;
*fails to reflect concerns about pornography and family-unfriendly broadcasting (1960s Director General Hugh Carleton-Greene notoriously refused ever to meet broadcasting standards campaigner [[Mary Whitehouse]] and would commonly refer to her in opprobrious terms)&lt;br /&gt;
*allows itself to be used by &amp;quot;sinister&amp;quot; campaign groups&lt;br /&gt;
*finds it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Antony Jay]], a former producer on Tonight, a nightly BBC current affairs television programme, said the BBC News and Current Affairs are part of the &amp;quot;liberal media consensus&amp;quot;. Jay also said his ex-colleagues &amp;quot;were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/node/14114 Former BBC Producer Explains Why Media Are Liberally Biased], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], July 15, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/nbeeb314.xml&amp;amp;page=1 Here is the news (as we want to report it)], [[Telegraph]], July 15, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;Paul Dacre, the editor of the British newspaper, the [[Daily Mail]], in his January 2007 Hugh Cudlipp Memorial Lecture, said that &amp;quot;the BBC is, in every corpuscle of its corporate body, against the values of conservatism, with a small 'c', which just happen to be the values held by millions of Britons.&amp;quot;  He also accused the BBC of being hostile to the &amp;quot;traditional Right, Britain's past and British values, America, Ulster Unionism, Euro-scepticism, capitalism and big business, the countryside, Christianity and family values.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A survey of BBC employees with profiles on the [[Facebook]] site showed that 11 times more of them class themselves as &amp;quot;[[liberal]]&amp;quot; than &amp;quot;[[conservative]]&amp;quot;.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/10/27/facebook-provides-fascinating-glimpse-society-media-demographics Facebook Provides Fascinating Glimpse Into Society, Media Demographics], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], October 27, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490047&amp;amp;in_page_id=1770&amp;amp;ito=1490 Facebook reveals the BBC as a liberal hotbed], Jane Merrick and Kirsty Walker, [[Daily Mail]], October 27, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Regional bias===&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC is based in [[London]], in the South East of England. It often faces accusations of being London-centric, with events in the North of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland having a reduced profile. A perceived disproportionately private school education is often claimed to be illustrated in the output, with a disproportionate emphasis on private school events and sports.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also argued that the BBC also systematically discriminates against [[Scots]] speakers. Although over 1.5 million&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/schule25.pdf Language Policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; people speak it there is no service in the language of those licence fee payers&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Trust_the_BBC%3F.html/translate/english Trust the BBC?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/departs/all/report/research/art_of_ulster_scots.rtf BBC NI less than generous]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Supporters of the BBC and some linguists argue that the large number of regional dialects of Scots makes it no more viable to programme for the language than it would be with English&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.eng.umu.se/city/Fredrik/city/scottish.htm Scottish Dialects and Accents]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  In September 2008, the BBC launched BBC Alba, a [[Gaelic]] service consisting of a digital TV channel, a radio station and an online portal&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bbc.co.uk/alba/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Other===&lt;br /&gt;
BBC employees have changed [[Wikipedia]] entries, including a derogatory word in the entry for [[George W. Bush]] and changing the word “[[Terrorism|terrorists]]” to &amp;quot;[[freedom fighter]]s&amp;quot;. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26669&amp;amp;only&amp;amp;rss Wikipedia EditGate: BBC Edits], [[LittleGreenFootballs]], August 15, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/node/11982 BBC Cancels TV Movie On Iraq War Hero As 'Too Positive,' Would 'Alienate' War Opponents], Lynn Davidson, [[NewsBusters]], April 11, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/08/wiraq308.xml Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC], Chris Hastings, [[Telegraph]], July 4, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC funded a [[Paintball|paintballing]] trip for men later accused of [[Islamic terrorism]] and didn't pass on information about the 21/7 [[Terrorism|bombers]] to [[police]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/12/06/paintball-terrorists-bbc-paid-islamic-radical Paintball for Terrorists? BBC Paid for Islamic Radicals' Amusement], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], December 6, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=499795&amp;amp;in_page_id=1770 BBC 'funded paintballing trip for Islamic terrorists and didn't pass on information about 21/7 bombers'], Daniel Bates, [[Daily Mail]], December 5, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pauline Neville Jones]], who is a member of [[United Kingdom|Britain's]] [[British_politics#Conservatives|Conservative party]], a former [[Espionage|spy]] chief and former BBC governor, accused the BBC of &amp;quot;parroting&amp;quot; [[Al Qaeda]] [[propaganda]] to [[children]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/09/29/bbc-still-blaming-u-s-9-11 BBC Still Blaming U.S. for 9/11], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], September 29, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484577&amp;amp;in_page_id=1770 BBC's Newsround fed youngsters Al Qaeda propaganda, claims ex-spy chief], James Chapman , [[Daily Mail]], September 29, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ BBCresistance - Campaigns against the television licence]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1942930.ece Bias at the Beeb - official], June 17, 2007, ''UK Times Online''.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]&lt;br /&gt;
==Bibliography==&lt;br /&gt;
* Briggs, Asa, and Peter Burke. '' A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Social-History-Media-Gutenberg-Internet/dp/0745623751/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1197415587&amp;amp;sr=1-10 excerpt and text search] &lt;br /&gt;
* Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom'' (Oxford University Press, 1961). &lt;br /&gt;
**  Briggs Asa. '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume I: The Birth of Broadcasting'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Birth/dp/0192129260/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1197415587&amp;amp;sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
**  Briggs Asa.  '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume II: The Golden Age of  Wireless,'' (1995)&lt;br /&gt;
**  Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume III: The War of Words'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Words/dp/0192129562/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1197415587&amp;amp;sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
**  Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Volume IV: Sound &amp;amp; Vision'' (1979)  &lt;br /&gt;
**  Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume V: Competition'' (1995) &lt;br /&gt;
* Crisell, Andrew ''An Introductory History of British Broadcasting.'' 2nd ed. London: Routledge. (2002) &lt;br /&gt;
*  Nicholas, Siân. ''The Echo of War: Home Front Propaganda and the Wartime BBC, 1939-45.'' (1996) 307p.&lt;br /&gt;
* Hickman, Tom. ''What Did You Do in the War, Auntie? The BBC at War, 1939-45.'' (1995) 224p. &lt;br /&gt;
* Scannell, Paddy, and Cardiff, David. ''A Social History of British Broadcasting, Volume One, 1922-1939'' (Basil Blackwell, 1991). &lt;br /&gt;
* Smith, Anthony, and Richard Paterson. ''Television: An International History'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Television-International-History-Anthony-Smith/dp/0198159285/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1197416369&amp;amp;sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Broadcasters]][[Category:Television]][[Category:Radio]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:TomFowdy&amp;diff=876911</id>
		<title>User:TomFowdy</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:TomFowdy&amp;diff=876911"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T17:06:32Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[http://www.fowdy92.blogspot.com my blog]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am an English Conservative and a Christian.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am pro-life, I strongly oppose: gay marriage, the sexualisation of society, binge drinking, liberal methods of education, big government, atheism, junk sciences, consumerism &amp;amp; secular morality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here on Conservapedia I am mostly concerned in regards to editing issues on British Politics, History and Society from a Conservative viewpoint. Considering this is an American website such things are given little coverage and attention, thus my job is to write, sharpen, improve and tell the truth about what I largely consider to a Britain in decline due to decades of whitewashing by Social Liberals and socialists alike.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Book_of_Mormon&amp;diff=876909</id>
		<title>Talk:Book of Mormon</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Book_of_Mormon&amp;diff=876909"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T16:32:25Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: /* I am interested in editing this page */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Wikiproject Religion}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a question about the ancestry of Native Americans.  I thought, that since genetic tests couldn't find a common ancestry between Jews and Native Americans, that modern LDS teaching is that while the descendants of the Lammanites lived (and still live, presumably) in America, the bulk of the Native Americans are descendants of people dispersed after the Flood (I think?), and not necessarily from Nephi et al.  I don't want to change the article, because I'm not LDS, and I'm not sure about it, but I did want to ask if that part of this article was accurate.  [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 20:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding the ancestry of Native Americans, although you accurately state that genetic tests have failed to show any correlation between Jews and Native Americans (and have conclusively shown that Native Americans are in fact descended from Asians who crossed the Bering Straight), I know of no modern LDS teaching that changes this concept - at least not as an official teaching of the mainstream LDS church.  Indeed, for the LDS church to do so would seriously undermine the Book of Mormon which is the foundation of the entire religion.  Would inclusion of this (properly documented) information be considered neutral?  Although factual, it could easily be considered disparaging to the LDS religion.  If it were to be included, perhaps it could be put under a heading such as &amp;quot;Historicity&amp;quot;, which could also house other aspects of BoM problems such as the lack of archaeological evidence and linguistic evidence etc.  Is there any objection to such a section? [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 9:10, 10 August 2009 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Restored the proper title of the book which this article references; please do not remove or change. ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The title of the book commonly known as &amp;quot;The Book of Mormon&amp;quot; is actually &amp;quot;The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The removal of the rightful subtitle of such an extensively published book from a reference such as the Conservapedia wouldn't make sense coming from a neutral party. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The front matter of The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ makes it quite clear that the name of the book is indeed as I noted. If you wish to verify the authenticity of my observation, please take a look [http://scriptures.lds.org/ here] and [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents here]. Please also feel free to open physical copy of the aforementioned book you may have at hand, and you will find in the front matter of the book the same full title.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as the full title of Sean Hannity's most recently published book is &amp;quot;Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism,&amp;quot; so too does &amp;quot;The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ&amp;quot; have a proper name, including a subtitle. Please do not remove the book's subtitle from the first reference to the name of the book in the article. [[User:Leader|Leader]] 22:54, 6 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole thing seems a little bizarre, but, hey, to each his own.[[User:Livingston|Livingston]] 22:56, 6 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bizarre that we use the proper name of what is arguably the most important uniquely American religious text in publication? Why would anyone oppose the proper name of a book? [[User:Leader|Leader]] 23:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The subtitle was added in 1982.  Maybe that deserves a mention?  [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 10:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: Never mind, see that it's in the reference section. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 10:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The title business==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Look, I think I know what this is about, and it's silly, let's stop it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is an appropriate courtesy to Mormons to use the full title as it is presently given, if they really care about this point. A footnote symbol alerts the reader that there might be something more, and the footnote notes the title change. Nothing is being hidden, everything's on the up-and-up. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, [[User:Leader|Leader]], do you commonly refer to &amp;quot;The Holy Bible, Containing the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesty's Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches?&amp;quot; I'll bet you don't. I'll bet just call it &amp;quot;the King James version&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;the Holy Bible&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;the Bible.&amp;quot; Even though that long sentence is exactly what's on the title page. And I'll bet you just call the Book of Mormon &amp;quot;the Book of Mormon&amp;quot; when you're not trying to make a point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I'm sure this is all about is that Mormons have views that are somewhat outside the Christian mainstream. That's not going to go away. Some Christians are always going to say Mormons aren't really Christians. Just as some Catholics don't think Protestants are really Christians (and vice versa). Just as some Friends General Conference Quakers don't think Friends United Meeting Quakers are really Quakers. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And without even looking I can tell you with 99% accuracy what the title business is about. I betcha the Mormons-are-not-Christians faction says &amp;quot;See? They just added it as window-dressing to fool people,&amp;quot; and I betcha the Mormons say &amp;quot;We've always been Christians, that was taken for granted, we didn't think anything need to be said about it, but when the question came up we adjusted the title to reflect what's always been true.&amp;quot; Am I right? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We can talk about it, but please, no edit wars or changes without discussion or flat assertions that one title &amp;quot;the proper title&amp;quot; and others are wrong. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A SysOp inserted the word &amp;quot;supposedly&amp;quot; into a quote; I fixed this error. ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CPAdmin1 inserted the word &amp;quot;supposedly&amp;quot; as follows; I have illustrated with strikeout text:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Thus the Book of Mormon was &amp;lt;s&amp;gt;supposedly&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt; translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man. (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Check out the reference to the article in question if you wish to see proof of the fact that the text is as I quoted it, and not as CPAdmin1 altered it to read.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have fixed this error, and kindly request that all who disagree with the personal religious views of Latter-day Saints not resort to doctoring quotes to express their views. [[User:Leader|Leader]] 20:14, 7 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Ease up a bit. With the previous formatting the situation wasn't clear. With the previous formatting, the words &amp;quot;Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God...&amp;quot; was ''not'' within quotation marks and it looked as if the article was stating this as a fact. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Now that it is clear that it is a quotation I don't think anyone is going to alter it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:You were right to call the change an error. You were right to correct the error. You were right to change the formatting to make it clear that the passage is a direct quotation. But I think talking about &amp;quot;doctoring a quote&amp;quot; was unfair to CPAdmin1 and uncalled for. I think it was just a very understandable mistake. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Sorry, I didn't think it was part of the quotation. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 22:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== I am interested in editing this page ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am interested in editing this page, I feel in the &amp;quot;Historicity&amp;quot; section many of the statements regarding the book are &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a) heavily biased against it&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b) factually misleading and inaccurate&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
c) some facts are out of date &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
d) too many assumptioms made&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
e) no citations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to gel up this page a lot! I would like to reference it more, clean up the text and make it more accurate and well presented. The reason I am discussing this here first is that it may be met with considerable opposition if I just jump in making changes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What we have to remember is that although Mormons have a seperate theology, there are very Conservative in nature and should be treat with considerably less hostility. Afterall this a church which is battling against gay marriage, abortion, sexualisation of society and strongly adheres to family values. You don't have to believe in them, but they hold values socially in which every American Conservative would infact agree with. [[User:TomFowdy|TomFowdy]] 12:31, 8 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Book_of_Mormon&amp;diff=876908</id>
		<title>Talk:Book of Mormon</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Book_of_Mormon&amp;diff=876908"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T16:31:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: /* I am interested in editing this page */ new section&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Wikiproject Religion}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a question about the ancestry of Native Americans.  I thought, that since genetic tests couldn't find a common ancestry between Jews and Native Americans, that modern LDS teaching is that while the descendants of the Lammanites lived (and still live, presumably) in America, the bulk of the Native Americans are descendants of people dispersed after the Flood (I think?), and not necessarily from Nephi et al.  I don't want to change the article, because I'm not LDS, and I'm not sure about it, but I did want to ask if that part of this article was accurate.  [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 20:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding the ancestry of Native Americans, although you accurately state that genetic tests have failed to show any correlation between Jews and Native Americans (and have conclusively shown that Native Americans are in fact descended from Asians who crossed the Bering Straight), I know of no modern LDS teaching that changes this concept - at least not as an official teaching of the mainstream LDS church.  Indeed, for the LDS church to do so would seriously undermine the Book of Mormon which is the foundation of the entire religion.  Would inclusion of this (properly documented) information be considered neutral?  Although factual, it could easily be considered disparaging to the LDS religion.  If it were to be included, perhaps it could be put under a heading such as &amp;quot;Historicity&amp;quot;, which could also house other aspects of BoM problems such as the lack of archaeological evidence and linguistic evidence etc.  Is there any objection to such a section? [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 9:10, 10 August 2009 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Restored the proper title of the book which this article references; please do not remove or change. ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The title of the book commonly known as &amp;quot;The Book of Mormon&amp;quot; is actually &amp;quot;The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The removal of the rightful subtitle of such an extensively published book from a reference such as the Conservapedia wouldn't make sense coming from a neutral party. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The front matter of The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ makes it quite clear that the name of the book is indeed as I noted. If you wish to verify the authenticity of my observation, please take a look [http://scriptures.lds.org/ here] and [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents here]. Please also feel free to open physical copy of the aforementioned book you may have at hand, and you will find in the front matter of the book the same full title.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as the full title of Sean Hannity's most recently published book is &amp;quot;Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism,&amp;quot; so too does &amp;quot;The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ&amp;quot; have a proper name, including a subtitle. Please do not remove the book's subtitle from the first reference to the name of the book in the article. [[User:Leader|Leader]] 22:54, 6 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The whole thing seems a little bizarre, but, hey, to each his own.[[User:Livingston|Livingston]] 22:56, 6 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bizarre that we use the proper name of what is arguably the most important uniquely American religious text in publication? Why would anyone oppose the proper name of a book? [[User:Leader|Leader]] 23:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The subtitle was added in 1982.  Maybe that deserves a mention?  [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 10:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: Never mind, see that it's in the reference section. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 10:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The title business==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Look, I think I know what this is about, and it's silly, let's stop it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is an appropriate courtesy to Mormons to use the full title as it is presently given, if they really care about this point. A footnote symbol alerts the reader that there might be something more, and the footnote notes the title change. Nothing is being hidden, everything's on the up-and-up. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, [[User:Leader|Leader]], do you commonly refer to &amp;quot;The Holy Bible, Containing the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesty's Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches?&amp;quot; I'll bet you don't. I'll bet just call it &amp;quot;the King James version&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;the Holy Bible&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;the Bible.&amp;quot; Even though that long sentence is exactly what's on the title page. And I'll bet you just call the Book of Mormon &amp;quot;the Book of Mormon&amp;quot; when you're not trying to make a point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I'm sure this is all about is that Mormons have views that are somewhat outside the Christian mainstream. That's not going to go away. Some Christians are always going to say Mormons aren't really Christians. Just as some Catholics don't think Protestants are really Christians (and vice versa). Just as some Friends General Conference Quakers don't think Friends United Meeting Quakers are really Quakers. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And without even looking I can tell you with 99% accuracy what the title business is about. I betcha the Mormons-are-not-Christians faction says &amp;quot;See? They just added it as window-dressing to fool people,&amp;quot; and I betcha the Mormons say &amp;quot;We've always been Christians, that was taken for granted, we didn't think anything need to be said about it, but when the question came up we adjusted the title to reflect what's always been true.&amp;quot; Am I right? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We can talk about it, but please, no edit wars or changes without discussion or flat assertions that one title &amp;quot;the proper title&amp;quot; and others are wrong. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A SysOp inserted the word &amp;quot;supposedly&amp;quot; into a quote; I fixed this error. ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CPAdmin1 inserted the word &amp;quot;supposedly&amp;quot; as follows; I have illustrated with strikeout text:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Thus the Book of Mormon was &amp;lt;s&amp;gt;supposedly&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt; translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man. (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;Check out the reference to the article in question if you wish to see proof of the fact that the text is as I quoted it, and not as CPAdmin1 altered it to read.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have fixed this error, and kindly request that all who disagree with the personal religious views of Latter-day Saints not resort to doctoring quotes to express their views. [[User:Leader|Leader]] 20:14, 7 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Ease up a bit. With the previous formatting the situation wasn't clear. With the previous formatting, the words &amp;quot;Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God...&amp;quot; was ''not'' within quotation marks and it looked as if the article was stating this as a fact. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Now that it is clear that it is a quotation I don't think anyone is going to alter it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:You were right to call the change an error. You were right to correct the error. You were right to change the formatting to make it clear that the passage is a direct quotation. But I think talking about &amp;quot;doctoring a quote&amp;quot; was unfair to CPAdmin1 and uncalled for. I think it was just a very understandable mistake. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Sorry, I didn't think it was part of the quotation. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 22:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== I am interested in editing this page ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am interested in editing this page, I feel in the &amp;quot;Historicity&amp;quot; section many of the statements regarding the book are &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a) heavily biased against it&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b) factually misleading and inaccurate&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
c) some facts are out of date &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
d) too many assumptioms made&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
e) no citations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to gel up this page. I would like to reference it more, clean up the text and make it more accurate andt we have to remember is that although Mormons have a seperate theology, there are very Conservative in nature and should be treat with considerably less hostility. Afterall this a church which is battling against gay marriage, abortion, sexualisation of society and strongly adheres to family values. You don't have to believe in them, but they hold values socially in which every American Conservative would infact agree with. [[User:TomFowdy|TomFowdy]] 12:31, 8 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Jcw&amp;diff=876893</id>
		<title>User talk:Jcw</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Jcw&amp;diff=876893"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T14:33:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: /* Question */ new section&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This is a [[meritocracy]], and you deserve blocking privileges. They have just been awarded to you. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:55, 7 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks Andy, much appreciated. I'll endeavor to use the privileges responsibly and to the benefit of CP. If I have questions about blocking policy or anti-vandal tactics, is it alright to ask publicly on your talk page, or is there a better venue? Thanks again. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:50, 7 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Wow, your new privileges were just in time!  Great effort a little while ago.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I'll mark your talk page here as &amp;quot;watched&amp;quot; and you can ask any questions about blocking here, or on my talk page.  Looks like you already know what you need, however!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 7 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Indeed, the vandals never seem to be far away... One question occurs at once: from the username policy, I'd assume that anyone with a clearly incorrect username should be gently blocked and invited to re-join. Is that something I can legitimately do, or should I leave it to the admins? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:57, 7 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Please do block inappropriate user names, even before any edits.  Note that it is necessary to unblock the option boxes in those cases in order to allow re-registering under an appropriate name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:22, 7 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Ah yes, I'll be careful of that. Thanks for all the help. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:29, 7 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Freyja==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I won't put up with edit warring over my talk page. If you want to have this sort of discussion on here, you have to be civil and respectful. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:21, 8 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Genuine thanks for being even handed and deleting the whole thread, rather than selectively deleting individual contributions. [[User:Freyja|Freyja]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I suppose I can't be upset at your using a sock to post that... I look forward to an interesting discussion elsewhere - perhaps on your talk page, or a CP debate page? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:44, 8 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Question ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hello there, I'm new here on Conservapedia. However it seems I cannot create new pages. Is there any way I am able to do so? Or is it a restriction to protect the wiki from vandals creating nonsense pages? [[User:TomFowdy|TomFowdy]] 10:33, 8 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harold_Wilson&amp;diff=876892</id>
		<title>Harold Wilson</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harold_Wilson&amp;diff=876892"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T14:30:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Prime Minister&lt;br /&gt;
|image=&lt;br /&gt;
|seq=69&lt;br /&gt;
|party=Labour Party&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start=October 16 1964&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end=June 19 1970&lt;br /&gt;
|previous=Alec Douglas-Home&lt;br /&gt;
|next=Edward Heath&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start2=March 4 1974&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end2=April 5 1976&lt;br /&gt;
|previous2=Edward Heath&lt;br /&gt;
|next2=James Callaghan&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_date=March 11 1916&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_place=Huddersfield&lt;br /&gt;
|death_date=May 24 1995 (aged 79)&lt;br /&gt;
|death_place=London&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse=&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse2=&lt;br /&gt;
|religion=[[Congregationalist]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Harold Wilson''' (born James Harold Wilson) was the [[Labour Party|Labour]] Prime Minister of Britain (the [[United Kingdom]]) from 1964-1970 and from 1974-1976. Having spent 13 years out of office after defeat in 1951; Harold Wilson was elected prime minister in 1964 following widespread discontent against the Conservative government. Wilson's government saw the liberalisation of Britain begin, with the legalisation of homosexuality, abortion and the removal of theatrical and cinema moral censorship. All anointed to be causes of the &amp;quot;permissive society&amp;quot; in Britain in the 1960's. Wilson set out also to drastically advance the British Economy through the creation of the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA). However all his Economic ideas held little success and he was defeated in the 1970 election by [[Edward Heath]]; whom Wilson would then defeat again narrowly in 1974. Combined, the economic failures of Heath and Wilson set the stage for the renewal of British energy and leadership under [[Margaret Thatcher]], beginning in 1979.[[File:Pimlott.jpg|thumb|350px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Career==&lt;br /&gt;
Born in 1916 and first elected to Parliament in 1945 he was appointed a junior minister in the Department of Trade immediately.  He was Member of Parliament for the [[Liverpool]] constituency of Huyton from 1945 until 1979.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==1964 election==&lt;br /&gt;
The 1964 election marked a crucial moment in postwar British politics. Wilson's victory confounded those critics who believed that three successive defeats in the 1950s meant that the Labour Party was becoming electorally obsolete. The &amp;quot;road to 1964&amp;quot; compares favourably with that of [[Clement Attlee]] in 1945, the only previous occasion Labour had removed the Conservative Party from power to form a majority government. In many respects the two elections were very different. Participation in [[Winston Churchill]]'s wartime coalition gave Labour a credibility that helped to ensure a landslide in 1945, whereas Wilson's margin of victory - just four seats - was tiny.  One important similarity stands out. Historians now tend to play down the &amp;quot;onward march of socialism&amp;quot; as the driving force behind 1945, stressing instead disillusionment with wartime conservatism. In the same way too much credit should not be attached to the vote-catching appeal of Wilson and his vision of &amp;quot;scientific socialism.&amp;quot; The root cause of 1964 lay in deep disenchantment with [[Harold Macmillan]]'s Tory administration, scarred by the sexual scandal of the perfumo affair and several lacklustre Economic setbacks. The Labour success in 1964 confirms the adage that elections are lost by governments rather than won by the opposition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Prime Minister==&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson won more general elections than any other British politician in the 20th Century. He won in 1964, 1966, and twice in 1974 although the February 1974 election resulted in a minority government. During his time in office he only once had a large majority (96 seats at the 1966 election) and struggled to get contentious legislation passed. Even so his legacy includes the [[Open University]] and the first steps toward British membership of the [[EEC]]. He also successfully kept Britain out of the war in [[Vietnam]].&lt;br /&gt;
===Relations with U.S.===&lt;br /&gt;
Although the United States and Britain have shared a &amp;quot;special relationship&amp;quot; in foreign relations since 1940, this link was weakened during the 1960s by several factors: differing foreign policy aims, varying national and international security ideas, and unfriendly personal relations between President [[Lyndon Johnson]] and Wilson. The relationship did not improve until the 1970s. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1965, Johnson proposed that the United States prop up Britain's pound sterling. In return he sought from Wilson's government such measures as support of deflationary policies and of American policies in the Vietnam War. Wilson refused to involve Britain in the conflict&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Making of Modern Britain 1951-2007- Chris Rowe: Page 80&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The initiative failed to materialize. Wilson defenders say the United States reneged after Wilson fended off American efforts to compromise Britain's sovereignty. Americans believe the change in US policy stemmed from new perceptions in the Johnson administration on Labour Party misrule in Britain. Americans concluded it was a mistake to indulge Britain in light of the Wilson government's unsatisfactory positions on Vietnam, its smaller contributions to European defense, its international monetary ideas, and its Middle Eastern policies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; John Dumbrell, &amp;quot;The Johnson Administration and the British Labour Government: Vietnam, the Pound and East of Suez&amp;quot; ''Journal of American Studies'' 1996 30(2): 211-231. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Economy===&lt;br /&gt;
Much of the disillusionment with Wilson was due to his perceived failure on the economic front. He pledged not to devalue sterling, however he crumbled under pressure by striking from the National Union of Seamen and resorted to devaluation in 1967&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Making of Modern Britain 1951-2007- Chris Rowe: Page 53&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He also promised to keep unemployment low, but by 1970 had accepted a higher rate of joblessness than the Conservatives had endorsed. Wilson failed to implement two radical election pledges: to produce a comprehensive state earnings-related pension scheme and to introduce the 'income guarantee' - a minimum benefit to be paid without recourse to the traditional means test. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson's problems and defeats have obscured some of the modest achievements of the period. Science and education spending grew very quickly, industrial investment rose, and government was increasingly well-informed and better advised about the performance of the economy. In an increasingly unstable and rapidly changing economic environment, this government's economic record was one of muddling through, with little long-term vision.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; O'Hara (2006)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Labour Party when it was out of power in the early 1960s argued that Britain was lagging behind in science and technology. In 1963 Wilson, as party leader, pledged that a Labour government would lead the country through the &amp;quot;white heat&amp;quot; of a technological revolution. In fact, Britain in the 1960s spent more on research and development (R&amp;amp;D), both industrially and governmentally funded, than any other capitalist country besides the United States. The Labour government coming to power in 1964 found that Britain lacked not technology but strong industrial organization and management. Under [[Anthony Wedgwood Benn]], 1966-70, the Ministry of Technology attempted to rectify these deficiencies in high technology industries. This effort, only marginally successful, confirmed the lack of positive correlation between R&amp;amp;D and overall economic growth. Indeed, overexpenditure on &amp;quot;high tech&amp;quot; R&amp;amp;D could even be detrimental to such growth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; David Edgerton, &amp;quot;The 'White Heat' Revisited: The British Government and Technology in the 1960s.&amp;quot; ''Twentieth Century British History'' 1996 7(1): 53-82. in [[EBSCO]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson realized he had to fight the 1966 strike by the National Union of Seamen. Determined to save his government's income policy and bolster the British pound, Wilson declared a state of emergency. When that proved ineffective, he turned to claiming that the union was being influenced by Communists. The 47-day strike ended when the shipowners presented an acceptable offer. While Wilson appeared to be the winner, his tactics antagonized many Labour Party supporters.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;  Keir Thorpe, &amp;quot;The 'Juggernaut Method': The 1966 State of Emergency and the Wilson Government's Response to the Seamen's Strike&amp;quot;. ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2001 12(4): 461-485 in [[EBSCO]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Liberalisation===&lt;br /&gt;
The Wilson government committed itself to the Liberalisation of British Society in the 1960's. Wilson's Home Secretary [[Roy Jenkins]] undertook an extreme liberal agenda abolishing Capital Punishment, completely legalizing abortion and then homosexuality&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Making of Modern Britain 1951-2007- Chris Rowe: Page 51&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. At the same time censorship on obsenity was abolished paving the way for what would become known as the &amp;quot;Permissive Society&amp;quot; in Britain during the 1960's and a new sex culture emerged. This polarized society creating tense divisions between the [[Liberal]] young generations and older Conservative Christians such as [[Mary Whitehouse]] who seeked to defend tradition morals and values in the country, becoming what would be known as the &amp;quot;Generation Gap&amp;quot; in Britain.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Making of Modern Britain 1951-2007- Chris Rowe: Page 69&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Immigration===&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson reversed the policy of uncontrolled Commonwealth immigration of his predecessor Hugh Gaitskell. With an eye on public opinion and election returns, Wilson developed a three-phased race-relations policy, including tightened immigration controls, prohibition of domestic racial discrimination and incitement, and creation of local conciliation and integration mechanisms. His pragmatic, carefully balanced immigration and race-relations policies were in the short run successful, not least because of acquiescence by the opposition Conservative leadership. Racial issues, conspicuous in some urban working-class constituencies in the 1964 general election, were marginalized in the 1966 election. During Wilson's second administration (1966-70), pressure by Asian immigrants from East Africa and [[Enoch Powell]]'s populist Conservatism rekindled race-related issues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dennis Dean, &amp;quot;The Race Relations Policy of the First Wilson Government&amp;quot;. ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2000 11(3): 259-283  in [[EBSCO]] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Socialism===&lt;br /&gt;
Despite its alleged commitment to socialism, the British Labour Party has been flexible and reformist in its doctrine ever since it was founded in 1900. After the crisis of 1931, the party adopted a broadly social democratic program in which socialism was linked with the idea of economic planning and social welfare. The Attlee government of 1945-51 was very moderate in its commitment to socialism. The years of opposition saw violent arguments in the party between left-wing Bevanites and the center-right supporters of Hugh Gaitskell. But the main differences concerned foreign and defense policy. On domestic issues, the party was now broadly revisionist, committed to the mixed economy and social equality. &lt;br /&gt;
===New Left===&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson, on becoming prime minister in 1964, tried to bypass old doctrinal arguments by harnessing socialism to ideas of scientific modernization. But his government was a great failure, not least in its relations with the trade unions, the linchpin of the party since its founding. This bred much disillusionment and launched a new left-wing socialism in the 1970s. Wilson represented the older traditions of the Party and never understood the emerging &amp;quot;New Left&amp;quot; with new social roots, radical new ideas and new styles of political behaviour in the late 1970s. Following the disillusion and demoralization of traditional Labour Party activists with Wilson's government, a more radical and well-educated local Labour leadership appeared at the local level.  The Labour government of 1974-79 added to this division. The left-wing pressure reached its climax in the early 1980s when Thatcher was in power, but resulted only in heavy defeats for Labour in 1983 and 1987. The general impression in 1989 is of a loss of political and intellectual confidence, with British socialism trapped between a cherished past and an uncertain future.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Kenneth O. Morgan, ''Britain since 1945: The People's Peace'' (2001)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Europe===&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1966 Wilson quietly began an nquiry among European Economic Community (EEC) countries to see if the conditions existed for British membership in the EEC. His move politically rather than economically motivated. Faced with the contraction of Britain's political influence in Europe and in the Atlantic alliance, the erosion of Britain's position in the Commonwealth, and the termination of Britain's defense commitments east of Suez, Wilson had little choice but to turn to the EEC.&lt;br /&gt;
===Administration===&lt;br /&gt;
Changes to the machinery of government were central to the British Labour Party's policy agenda during 1964-70, key parts of which, particularly the drive for planned economic growth, were not achieved. The ideological basis for the objectives being pursued, such as economic expansion, was never properly explored or developed. However, some of Wilson's innovations, such as the incorporation of more outsiders into Whitehall, the first use of special advisers, and the establishment of the Ministry of Overseas Development and the Welsh Office, were successful.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Andrew Blick, &amp;quot;Harold Wilson, Labour and the Machinery of Government&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2006 20(3): 343-362   &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Image==&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson acquired a reputation as a somewhat devious, scheming figure. He cultivated a particular image of himself in the media, which included ostentatiously smoking a pipe, though in private he is said to have preferred cigars. He came from a working-class background, and retained a northern English working-class accent throughout his life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was preceded by Sir [[Alec Douglas-Home]] and succeeded by [[James Callaghan]]. His periods of premiership were broken by that of [[Edward Heath]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He died of colon cancer and Alzheimer's disease in 1995.&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
* Fielding, Steven.  &amp;quot;Rethinking Labour's 1964 Campaign&amp;quot;. ''Contemporary British History'' 2007 21(3): 309-324 &lt;br /&gt;
* Fielding, Steven and John W. Young, eds. ''The Wilson Government 1964-70'' (3 vol., 2004), highly detailed, favourable analysis&lt;br /&gt;
* Morgan, Austen.  ''Harold Wilson'' (1992), 625pp; negative appraisal&lt;br /&gt;
* O'Hara, Glen. &amp;quot;'Dynamic, Exciting, Thrilling Change': The Wilson Government's Economic Policies, 1964-70,&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2006 20(3): 383-402 &lt;br /&gt;
* Pimlott, Ben. ''Harold Wilson'' (1992). Pimlott tries to rehabilitate Wilson’s political reputation, revealing that he was the prisoner rather than the master of various domestic and international dilemmas. &lt;br /&gt;
* Ponting, Clive. ''Breach of Promise: Labour in Power, 1964-70'' (1989)&lt;br /&gt;
* Vickers, Rhiannon. &amp;quot;Harold Wilson, the British Labour Party, and the War in Vietnam&amp;quot;. ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2008 10(2): 41-70 30p.in [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====References====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:British History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:United Kingdom Prime Ministers|Wilson, Harold]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cold War]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:1960s]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:New Left]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Wilson, Harold}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harold_Wilson&amp;diff=876891</id>
		<title>Harold Wilson</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harold_Wilson&amp;diff=876891"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T14:26:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: /* Prime Minister */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Prime Minister&lt;br /&gt;
|image=&lt;br /&gt;
|seq=69&lt;br /&gt;
|party=Labour Party&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start=October 16 1964&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end=June 19 1970&lt;br /&gt;
|previous=Alec Douglas-Home&lt;br /&gt;
|next=Edward Heath&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start2=March 4 1974&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end2=April 5 1976&lt;br /&gt;
|previous2=Edward Heath&lt;br /&gt;
|next2=James Callaghan&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_date=March 11 1916&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_place=Huddersfield&lt;br /&gt;
|death_date=May 24 1995 (aged 79)&lt;br /&gt;
|death_place=London&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse=&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse2=&lt;br /&gt;
|religion=[[Anglican]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Harold Wilson''' (born James Harold Wilson) was the [[Labour Party|Labour]] Prime Minister of Britain (the [[United Kingdom]]) from 1964-1970 and from 1974-1976. Having spent 13 years out of office after defeat in 1951; Harold Wilson was elected prime minister in 1964 following widespread discontent against the Conservative government. Wilson's government saw the liberalisation of Britain begin, with the legalisation of homosexuality, abortion and the removal of theatrical and cinema moral censorship. All anointed to be causes of the &amp;quot;permissive society&amp;quot; in Britain in the 1960's. Wilson set out also to drastically advance the British Economy through the creation of the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA). However all his Economic ideas held little success and he was defeated in the 1970 election by [[Edward Heath]]; whom Wilson would then defeat again narrowly in 1974. Combined, the economic failures of Heath and Wilson set the stage for the renewal of British energy and leadership under [[Margaret Thatcher]], beginning in 1979.[[File:Pimlott.jpg|thumb|350px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Career==&lt;br /&gt;
Born in 1916 and first elected to Parliament in 1945 he was appointed a junior minister in the Department of Trade immediately.  He was Member of Parliament for the [[Liverpool]] constituency of Huyton from 1945 until 1979.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==1964 election==&lt;br /&gt;
The 1964 election marked a crucial moment in postwar British politics. Wilson's victory confounded those critics who believed that three successive defeats in the 1950s meant that the Labour Party was becoming electorally obsolete. The &amp;quot;road to 1964&amp;quot; compares favourably with that of [[Clement Attlee]] in 1945, the only previous occasion Labour had removed the Conservative Party from power to form a majority government. In many respects the two elections were very different. Participation in [[Winston Churchill]]'s wartime coalition gave Labour a credibility that helped to ensure a landslide in 1945, whereas Wilson's margin of victory - just four seats - was tiny.  One important similarity stands out. Historians now tend to play down the &amp;quot;onward march of socialism&amp;quot; as the driving force behind 1945, stressing instead disillusionment with wartime conservatism. In the same way too much credit should not be attached to the vote-catching appeal of Wilson and his vision of &amp;quot;scientific socialism.&amp;quot; The root cause of 1964 lay in deep disenchantment with [[Harold Macmillan]]'s Tory administration, scarred by the sexual scandal of the perfumo affair and several lacklustre Economic setbacks. The Labour success in 1964 confirms the adage that elections are lost by governments rather than won by the opposition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Prime Minister==&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson won more general elections than any other British politician in the 20th Century. He won in 1964, 1966, and twice in 1974 although the February 1974 election resulted in a minority government. During his time in office he only once had a large majority (96 seats at the 1966 election) and struggled to get contentious legislation passed. Even so his legacy includes the [[Open University]] and the first steps toward British membership of the [[EEC]]. He also successfully kept Britain out of the war in [[Vietnam]].&lt;br /&gt;
===Relations with U.S.===&lt;br /&gt;
Although the United States and Britain have shared a &amp;quot;special relationship&amp;quot; in foreign relations since 1940, this link was weakened during the 1960s by several factors: differing foreign policy aims, varying national and international security ideas, and unfriendly personal relations between President [[Lyndon Johnson]] and Wilson. The relationship did not improve until the 1970s. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1965, Johnson proposed that the United States prop up Britain's pound sterling. In return he sought from Wilson's government such measures as support of deflationary policies and of American policies in the Vietnam War. Wilson refused to involve Britain in the conflict&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Making of Modern Britain 1951-2007- Chris Rowe: Page 80&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The initiative failed to materialize. Wilson defenders say the United States reneged after Wilson fended off American efforts to compromise Britain's sovereignty. Americans believe the change in US policy stemmed from new perceptions in the Johnson administration on Labour Party misrule in Britain. Americans concluded it was a mistake to indulge Britain in light of the Wilson government's unsatisfactory positions on Vietnam, its smaller contributions to European defense, its international monetary ideas, and its Middle Eastern policies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; John Dumbrell, &amp;quot;The Johnson Administration and the British Labour Government: Vietnam, the Pound and East of Suez&amp;quot; ''Journal of American Studies'' 1996 30(2): 211-231. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Economy===&lt;br /&gt;
Much of the disillusionment with Wilson was due to his perceived failure on the economic front. He pledged not to devalue sterling, however he crumbled under pressure by striking from the National Union of Seamen and resorted to devaluation in 1967&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Making of Modern Britain 1951-2007- Chris Rowe: Page 53&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He also promised to keep unemployment low, but by 1970 had accepted a higher rate of joblessness than the Conservatives had endorsed. Wilson failed to implement two radical election pledges: to produce a comprehensive state earnings-related pension scheme and to introduce the 'income guarantee' - a minimum benefit to be paid without recourse to the traditional means test. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson's problems and defeats have obscured some of the modest achievements of the period. Science and education spending grew very quickly, industrial investment rose, and government was increasingly well-informed and better advised about the performance of the economy. In an increasingly unstable and rapidly changing economic environment, this government's economic record was one of muddling through, with little long-term vision.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; O'Hara (2006)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Labour Party when it was out of power in the early 1960s argued that Britain was lagging behind in science and technology. In 1963 Wilson, as party leader, pledged that a Labour government would lead the country through the &amp;quot;white heat&amp;quot; of a technological revolution. In fact, Britain in the 1960s spent more on research and development (R&amp;amp;D), both industrially and governmentally funded, than any other capitalist country besides the United States. The Labour government coming to power in 1964 found that Britain lacked not technology but strong industrial organization and management. Under [[Anthony Wedgwood Benn]], 1966-70, the Ministry of Technology attempted to rectify these deficiencies in high technology industries. This effort, only marginally successful, confirmed the lack of positive correlation between R&amp;amp;D and overall economic growth. Indeed, overexpenditure on &amp;quot;high tech&amp;quot; R&amp;amp;D could even be detrimental to such growth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; David Edgerton, &amp;quot;The 'White Heat' Revisited: The British Government and Technology in the 1960s.&amp;quot; ''Twentieth Century British History'' 1996 7(1): 53-82. in [[EBSCO]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson realized he had to fight the 1966 strike by the National Union of Seamen. Determined to save his government's income policy and bolster the British pound, Wilson declared a state of emergency. When that proved ineffective, he turned to claiming that the union was being influenced by Communists. The 47-day strike ended when the shipowners presented an acceptable offer. While Wilson appeared to be the winner, his tactics antagonized many Labour Party supporters.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;  Keir Thorpe, &amp;quot;The 'Juggernaut Method': The 1966 State of Emergency and the Wilson Government's Response to the Seamen's Strike&amp;quot;. ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2001 12(4): 461-485 in [[EBSCO]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Liberalisation===&lt;br /&gt;
The Wilson government committed itself to the Liberalisation of British Society in the 1960's. Wilson's Home Secretary [[Roy Jenkins]] undertook an extreme liberal agenda abolishing Capital Punishment, completely legalizing abortion and then homosexuality&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Making of Modern Britain 1951-2007- Chris Rowe: Page 51&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. At the same time censorship on obsenity was abolished paving the way for what would become known as the &amp;quot;Permissive Society&amp;quot; in Britain during the 1960's and a new sex culture emerged. This polarized society creating tense divisions between the [[Liberal]] young generations and older Conservative Christians such as [[Mary Whitehouse]] who seeked to defend tradition morals and values in the country, becoming what would be known as the &amp;quot;Generation Gap&amp;quot; in Britain.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Making of Modern Britain 1951-2007- Chris Rowe: Page 69&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Immigration===&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson reversed the policy of uncontrolled Commonwealth immigration of his predecessor Hugh Gaitskell. With an eye on public opinion and election returns, Wilson developed a three-phased race-relations policy, including tightened immigration controls, prohibition of domestic racial discrimination and incitement, and creation of local conciliation and integration mechanisms. His pragmatic, carefully balanced immigration and race-relations policies were in the short run successful, not least because of acquiescence by the opposition Conservative leadership. Racial issues, conspicuous in some urban working-class constituencies in the 1964 general election, were marginalized in the 1966 election. During Wilson's second administration (1966-70), pressure by Asian immigrants from East Africa and [[Enoch Powell]]'s populist Conservatism rekindled race-related issues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dennis Dean, &amp;quot;The Race Relations Policy of the First Wilson Government&amp;quot;. ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2000 11(3): 259-283  in [[EBSCO]] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Socialism===&lt;br /&gt;
Despite its alleged commitment to socialism, the British Labour Party has been flexible and reformist in its doctrine ever since it was founded in 1900. After the crisis of 1931, the party adopted a broadly social democratic program in which socialism was linked with the idea of economic planning and social welfare. The Attlee government of 1945-51 was very moderate in its commitment to socialism. The years of opposition saw violent arguments in the party between left-wing Bevanites and the center-right supporters of Hugh Gaitskell. But the main differences concerned foreign and defense policy. On domestic issues, the party was now broadly revisionist, committed to the mixed economy and social equality. &lt;br /&gt;
===New Left===&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson, on becoming prime minister in 1964, tried to bypass old doctrinal arguments by harnessing socialism to ideas of scientific modernization. But his government was a great failure, not least in its relations with the trade unions, the linchpin of the party since its founding. This bred much disillusionment and launched a new left-wing socialism in the 1970s. Wilson represented the older traditions of the Party and never understood the emerging &amp;quot;New Left&amp;quot; with new social roots, radical new ideas and new styles of political behaviour in the late 1970s. Following the disillusion and demoralization of traditional Labour Party activists with Wilson's government, a more radical and well-educated local Labour leadership appeared at the local level.  The Labour government of 1974-79 added to this division. The left-wing pressure reached its climax in the early 1980s when Thatcher was in power, but resulted only in heavy defeats for Labour in 1983 and 1987. The general impression in 1989 is of a loss of political and intellectual confidence, with British socialism trapped between a cherished past and an uncertain future.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Kenneth O. Morgan, ''Britain since 1945: The People's Peace'' (2001)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Europe===&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1966 Wilson quietly began an nquiry among European Economic Community (EEC) countries to see if the conditions existed for British membership in the EEC. His move politically rather than economically motivated. Faced with the contraction of Britain's political influence in Europe and in the Atlantic alliance, the erosion of Britain's position in the Commonwealth, and the termination of Britain's defense commitments east of Suez, Wilson had little choice but to turn to the EEC.&lt;br /&gt;
===Administration===&lt;br /&gt;
Changes to the machinery of government were central to the British Labour Party's policy agenda during 1964-70, key parts of which, particularly the drive for planned economic growth, were not achieved. The ideological basis for the objectives being pursued, such as economic expansion, was never properly explored or developed. However, some of Wilson's innovations, such as the incorporation of more outsiders into Whitehall, the first use of special advisers, and the establishment of the Ministry of Overseas Development and the Welsh Office, were successful.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Andrew Blick, &amp;quot;Harold Wilson, Labour and the Machinery of Government&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2006 20(3): 343-362   &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Image==&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson acquired a reputation as a somewhat devious, scheming figure. He cultivated a particular image of himself in the media, which included ostentatiously smoking a pipe, though in private he is said to have preferred cigars. He came from a working-class background, and retained a northern English working-class accent throughout his life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was preceded by Sir [[Alec Douglas-Home]] and succeeded by [[James Callaghan]]. His periods of premiership were broken by that of [[Edward Heath]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He died of colon cancer and Alzheimer's disease in 1995.&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
* Fielding, Steven.  &amp;quot;Rethinking Labour's 1964 Campaign&amp;quot;. ''Contemporary British History'' 2007 21(3): 309-324 &lt;br /&gt;
* Fielding, Steven and John W. Young, eds. ''The Wilson Government 1964-70'' (3 vol., 2004), highly detailed, favourable analysis&lt;br /&gt;
* Morgan, Austen.  ''Harold Wilson'' (1992), 625pp; negative appraisal&lt;br /&gt;
* O'Hara, Glen. &amp;quot;'Dynamic, Exciting, Thrilling Change': The Wilson Government's Economic Policies, 1964-70,&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2006 20(3): 383-402 &lt;br /&gt;
* Pimlott, Ben. ''Harold Wilson'' (1992). Pimlott tries to rehabilitate Wilson’s political reputation, revealing that he was the prisoner rather than the master of various domestic and international dilemmas. &lt;br /&gt;
* Ponting, Clive. ''Breach of Promise: Labour in Power, 1964-70'' (1989)&lt;br /&gt;
* Vickers, Rhiannon. &amp;quot;Harold Wilson, the British Labour Party, and the War in Vietnam&amp;quot;. ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2008 10(2): 41-70 30p.in [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====References====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:British History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:United Kingdom Prime Ministers|Wilson, Harold]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cold War]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:1960s]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:New Left]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Wilson, Harold}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harold_Wilson&amp;diff=876889</id>
		<title>Harold Wilson</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harold_Wilson&amp;diff=876889"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T14:19:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: /* Economy */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Prime Minister&lt;br /&gt;
|image=&lt;br /&gt;
|seq=69&lt;br /&gt;
|party=Labour Party&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start=October 16 1964&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end=June 19 1970&lt;br /&gt;
|previous=Alec Douglas-Home&lt;br /&gt;
|next=Edward Heath&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start2=March 4 1974&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end2=April 5 1976&lt;br /&gt;
|previous2=Edward Heath&lt;br /&gt;
|next2=James Callaghan&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_date=March 11 1916&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_place=Huddersfield&lt;br /&gt;
|death_date=May 24 1995 (aged 79)&lt;br /&gt;
|death_place=London&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse=&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse2=&lt;br /&gt;
|religion=[[Anglican]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Harold Wilson''' (born James Harold Wilson) was the [[Labour Party|Labour]] Prime Minister of Britain (the [[United Kingdom]]) from 1964-1970 and from 1974-1976. Having spent 13 years out of office after defeat in 1951; Harold Wilson was elected prime minister in 1964 following widespread discontent against the Conservative government. Wilson's government saw the liberalisation of Britain begin, with the legalisation of homosexuality, abortion and the removal of theatrical and cinema moral censorship. All anointed to be causes of the &amp;quot;permissive society&amp;quot; in Britain in the 1960's. Wilson set out also to drastically advance the British Economy through the creation of the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA). However all his Economic ideas held little success and he was defeated in the 1970 election by [[Edward Heath]]; whom Wilson would then defeat again narrowly in 1974. Combined, the economic failures of Heath and Wilson set the stage for the renewal of British energy and leadership under [[Margaret Thatcher]], beginning in 1979.[[File:Pimlott.jpg|thumb|350px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Career==&lt;br /&gt;
Born in 1916 and first elected to Parliament in 1945 he was appointed a junior minister in the Department of Trade immediately.  He was Member of Parliament for the [[Liverpool]] constituency of Huyton from 1945 until 1979.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==1964 election==&lt;br /&gt;
The 1964 election marked a crucial moment in postwar British politics. Wilson's victory confounded those critics who believed that three successive defeats in the 1950s meant that the Labour Party was becoming electorally obsolete. The &amp;quot;road to 1964&amp;quot; compares favourably with that of [[Clement Attlee]] in 1945, the only previous occasion Labour had removed the Conservative Party from power to form a majority government. In many respects the two elections were very different. Participation in [[Winston Churchill]]'s wartime coalition gave Labour a credibility that helped to ensure a landslide in 1945, whereas Wilson's margin of victory - just four seats - was tiny.  One important similarity stands out. Historians now tend to play down the &amp;quot;onward march of socialism&amp;quot; as the driving force behind 1945, stressing instead disillusionment with wartime conservatism. In the same way too much credit should not be attached to the vote-catching appeal of Wilson and his vision of &amp;quot;scientific socialism.&amp;quot; The root cause of 1964 lay in deep disenchantment with [[Harold Macmillan]]'s Tory administration, scarred by the sexual scandal of the perfumo affair and several lacklustre Economic setbacks. The Labour success in 1964 confirms the adage that elections are lost by governments rather than won by the opposition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Prime Minister==&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson won more general elections than any other British politician in the 20th Century. He won in 1964, 1966, and twice in 1974 although the February 1974 election resulted in a minority government. During his time in office he only once had a large majority (96 seats at the 1966 election) and struggled to get contentious legislation passed. Even so his legacy includes the [[Open University]] and the first steps toward British membership of the [[EEC]]. He also successfully kept Britain out of the war in [[Vietnam]].&lt;br /&gt;
===Relations with U.S.===&lt;br /&gt;
Although the United States and Britain have shared a &amp;quot;special relationship&amp;quot; in foreign relations since 1940, this link was weakened during the 1960s by several factors: differing foreign policy aims, varying national and international security ideas, and unfriendly personal relations between President [[Lyndon Johnson]] and Wilson. The relationship did not improve until the 1970s. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1965, Johnson proposed that the United States prop up Britain's pound sterling. In return he sought from Wilson's government such measures as support of deflationary policies and of American policies in the Vietnam War. Wilson refused to involve Britain in the conflict&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Making of Modern Britain 1951-2007- Chris Rowe: Page 80&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The initiative failed to materialize. Wilson defenders say the United States reneged after Wilson fended off American efforts to compromise Britain's sovereignty. Americans believe the change in US policy stemmed from new perceptions in the Johnson administration on Labour Party misrule in Britain. Americans concluded it was a mistake to indulge Britain in light of the Wilson government's unsatisfactory positions on Vietnam, its smaller contributions to European defense, its international monetary ideas, and its Middle Eastern policies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; John Dumbrell, &amp;quot;The Johnson Administration and the British Labour Government: Vietnam, the Pound and East of Suez&amp;quot; ''Journal of American Studies'' 1996 30(2): 211-231. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Economy===&lt;br /&gt;
Much of the disillusionment with Wilson was due to his perceived failure on the economic front. He pledged not to devalue sterling, however he crumbled under pressure by striking from the National Union of Seamen and resorted to devaluation in 1967&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Making of Modern Britain 1951-2007- Chris Rowe: Page 53&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He also promised to keep unemployment low, but by 1970 had accepted a higher rate of joblessness than the Conservatives had endorsed. Wilson failed to implement two radical election pledges: to produce a comprehensive state earnings-related pension scheme and to introduce the 'income guarantee' - a minimum benefit to be paid without recourse to the traditional means test. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson's problems and defeats have obscured some of the modest achievements of the period. Science and education spending grew very quickly, industrial investment rose, and government was increasingly well-informed and better advised about the performance of the economy. In an increasingly unstable and rapidly changing economic environment, this government's economic record was one of muddling through, with little long-term vision.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; O'Hara (2006)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Labour Party when it was out of power in the early 1960s argued that Britain was lagging behind in science and technology. In 1963 Wilson, as party leader, pledged that a Labour government would lead the country through the &amp;quot;white heat&amp;quot; of a technological revolution. In fact, Britain in the 1960s spent more on research and development (R&amp;amp;D), both industrially and governmentally funded, than any other capitalist country besides the United States. The Labour government coming to power in 1964 found that Britain lacked not technology but strong industrial organization and management. Under [[Anthony Wedgwood Benn]], 1966-70, the Ministry of Technology attempted to rectify these deficiencies in high technology industries. This effort, only marginally successful, confirmed the lack of positive correlation between R&amp;amp;D and overall economic growth. Indeed, overexpenditure on &amp;quot;high tech&amp;quot; R&amp;amp;D could even be detrimental to such growth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; David Edgerton, &amp;quot;The 'White Heat' Revisited: The British Government and Technology in the 1960s.&amp;quot; ''Twentieth Century British History'' 1996 7(1): 53-82. in [[EBSCO]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson realized he had to fight the 1966 strike by the National Union of Seamen. Determined to save his government's income policy and bolster the British pound, Wilson declared a state of emergency. When that proved ineffective, he turned to claiming that the union was being influenced by Communists. The 47-day strike ended when the shipowners presented an acceptable offer. While Wilson appeared to be the winner, his tactics antagonized many Labour Party supporters.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;  Keir Thorpe, &amp;quot;The 'Juggernaut Method': The 1966 State of Emergency and the Wilson Government's Response to the Seamen's Strike&amp;quot;. ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2001 12(4): 461-485 in [[EBSCO]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Immigration===&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson reversed the policy of uncontrolled Commonwealth immigration of his predecessor Hugh Gaitskell. With an eye on public opinion and election returns, Wilson developed a three-phased race-relations policy, including tightened immigration controls, prohibition of domestic racial discrimination and incitement, and creation of local conciliation and integration mechanisms. His pragmatic, carefully balanced immigration and race-relations policies were in the short run successful, not least because of acquiescence by the opposition Conservative leadership. Racial issues, conspicuous in some urban working-class constituencies in the 1964 general election, were marginalized in the 1966 election. During Wilson's second administration (1966-70), pressure by Asian immigrants from East Africa and [[Enoch Powell]]'s populist Conservatism rekindled race-related issues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dennis Dean, &amp;quot;The Race Relations Policy of the First Wilson Government&amp;quot;. ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2000 11(3): 259-283  in [[EBSCO]] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Socialism===&lt;br /&gt;
Despite its alleged commitment to socialism, the British Labour Party has been flexible and reformist in its doctrine ever since it was founded in 1900. After the crisis of 1931, the party adopted a broadly social democratic program in which socialism was linked with the idea of economic planning and social welfare. The Attlee government of 1945-51 was very moderate in its commitment to socialism. The years of opposition saw violent arguments in the party between left-wing Bevanites and the center-right supporters of Hugh Gaitskell. But the main differences concerned foreign and defense policy. On domestic issues, the party was now broadly revisionist, committed to the mixed economy and social equality. &lt;br /&gt;
===New Left===&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson, on becoming prime minister in 1964, tried to bypass old doctrinal arguments by harnessing socialism to ideas of scientific modernization. But his government was a great failure, not least in its relations with the trade unions, the linchpin of the party since its founding. This bred much disillusionment and launched a new left-wing socialism in the 1970s. Wilson represented the older traditions of the Party and never understood the emerging &amp;quot;New Left&amp;quot; with new social roots, radical new ideas and new styles of political behaviour in the late 1970s. Following the disillusion and demoralization of traditional Labour Party activists with Wilson's government, a more radical and well-educated local Labour leadership appeared at the local level.  The Labour government of 1974-79 added to this division. The left-wing pressure reached its climax in the early 1980s when Thatcher was in power, but resulted only in heavy defeats for Labour in 1983 and 1987. The general impression in 1989 is of a loss of political and intellectual confidence, with British socialism trapped between a cherished past and an uncertain future.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Kenneth O. Morgan, ''Britain since 1945: The People's Peace'' (2001)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Europe===&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1966 Wilson quietly began an nquiry among European Economic Community (EEC) countries to see if the conditions existed for British membership in the EEC. His move politically rather than economically motivated. Faced with the contraction of Britain's political influence in Europe and in the Atlantic alliance, the erosion of Britain's position in the Commonwealth, and the termination of Britain's defense commitments east of Suez, Wilson had little choice but to turn to the EEC.&lt;br /&gt;
===Administration===&lt;br /&gt;
Changes to the machinery of government were central to the British Labour Party's policy agenda during 1964-70, key parts of which, particularly the drive for planned economic growth, were not achieved. The ideological basis for the objectives being pursued, such as economic expansion, was never properly explored or developed. However, some of Wilson's innovations, such as the incorporation of more outsiders into Whitehall, the first use of special advisers, and the establishment of the Ministry of Overseas Development and the Welsh Office, were successful.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Andrew Blick, &amp;quot;Harold Wilson, Labour and the Machinery of Government&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2006 20(3): 343-362   &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
==Image==&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson acquired a reputation as a somewhat devious, scheming figure. He cultivated a particular image of himself in the media, which included ostentatiously smoking a pipe, though in private he is said to have preferred cigars. He came from a working-class background, and retained a northern English working-class accent throughout his life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was preceded by Sir [[Alec Douglas-Home]] and succeeded by [[James Callaghan]]. His periods of premiership were broken by that of [[Edward Heath]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He died of colon cancer and Alzheimer's disease in 1995.&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
* Fielding, Steven.  &amp;quot;Rethinking Labour's 1964 Campaign&amp;quot;. ''Contemporary British History'' 2007 21(3): 309-324 &lt;br /&gt;
* Fielding, Steven and John W. Young, eds. ''The Wilson Government 1964-70'' (3 vol., 2004), highly detailed, favourable analysis&lt;br /&gt;
* Morgan, Austen.  ''Harold Wilson'' (1992), 625pp; negative appraisal&lt;br /&gt;
* O'Hara, Glen. &amp;quot;'Dynamic, Exciting, Thrilling Change': The Wilson Government's Economic Policies, 1964-70,&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2006 20(3): 383-402 &lt;br /&gt;
* Pimlott, Ben. ''Harold Wilson'' (1992). Pimlott tries to rehabilitate Wilson’s political reputation, revealing that he was the prisoner rather than the master of various domestic and international dilemmas. &lt;br /&gt;
* Ponting, Clive. ''Breach of Promise: Labour in Power, 1964-70'' (1989)&lt;br /&gt;
* Vickers, Rhiannon. &amp;quot;Harold Wilson, the British Labour Party, and the War in Vietnam&amp;quot;. ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2008 10(2): 41-70 30p.in [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====References====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:British History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:United Kingdom Prime Ministers|Wilson, Harold]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cold War]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:1960s]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:New Left]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Wilson, Harold}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harold_Wilson&amp;diff=876887</id>
		<title>Harold Wilson</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harold_Wilson&amp;diff=876887"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T14:18:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: /* Economy */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Prime Minister&lt;br /&gt;
|image=&lt;br /&gt;
|seq=69&lt;br /&gt;
|party=Labour Party&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start=October 16 1964&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end=June 19 1970&lt;br /&gt;
|previous=Alec Douglas-Home&lt;br /&gt;
|next=Edward Heath&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start2=March 4 1974&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end2=April 5 1976&lt;br /&gt;
|previous2=Edward Heath&lt;br /&gt;
|next2=James Callaghan&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_date=March 11 1916&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_place=Huddersfield&lt;br /&gt;
|death_date=May 24 1995 (aged 79)&lt;br /&gt;
|death_place=London&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse=&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse2=&lt;br /&gt;
|religion=[[Anglican]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Harold Wilson''' (born James Harold Wilson) was the [[Labour Party|Labour]] Prime Minister of Britain (the [[United Kingdom]]) from 1964-1970 and from 1974-1976. Having spent 13 years out of office after defeat in 1951; Harold Wilson was elected prime minister in 1964 following widespread discontent against the Conservative government. Wilson's government saw the liberalisation of Britain begin, with the legalisation of homosexuality, abortion and the removal of theatrical and cinema moral censorship. All anointed to be causes of the &amp;quot;permissive society&amp;quot; in Britain in the 1960's. Wilson set out also to drastically advance the British Economy through the creation of the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA). However all his Economic ideas held little success and he was defeated in the 1970 election by [[Edward Heath]]; whom Wilson would then defeat again narrowly in 1974. Combined, the economic failures of Heath and Wilson set the stage for the renewal of British energy and leadership under [[Margaret Thatcher]], beginning in 1979.[[File:Pimlott.jpg|thumb|350px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Career==&lt;br /&gt;
Born in 1916 and first elected to Parliament in 1945 he was appointed a junior minister in the Department of Trade immediately.  He was Member of Parliament for the [[Liverpool]] constituency of Huyton from 1945 until 1979.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==1964 election==&lt;br /&gt;
The 1964 election marked a crucial moment in postwar British politics. Wilson's victory confounded those critics who believed that three successive defeats in the 1950s meant that the Labour Party was becoming electorally obsolete. The &amp;quot;road to 1964&amp;quot; compares favourably with that of [[Clement Attlee]] in 1945, the only previous occasion Labour had removed the Conservative Party from power to form a majority government. In many respects the two elections were very different. Participation in [[Winston Churchill]]'s wartime coalition gave Labour a credibility that helped to ensure a landslide in 1945, whereas Wilson's margin of victory - just four seats - was tiny.  One important similarity stands out. Historians now tend to play down the &amp;quot;onward march of socialism&amp;quot; as the driving force behind 1945, stressing instead disillusionment with wartime conservatism. In the same way too much credit should not be attached to the vote-catching appeal of Wilson and his vision of &amp;quot;scientific socialism.&amp;quot; The root cause of 1964 lay in deep disenchantment with [[Harold Macmillan]]'s Tory administration, scarred by the sexual scandal of the perfumo affair and several lacklustre Economic setbacks. The Labour success in 1964 confirms the adage that elections are lost by governments rather than won by the opposition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Prime Minister==&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson won more general elections than any other British politician in the 20th Century. He won in 1964, 1966, and twice in 1974 although the February 1974 election resulted in a minority government. During his time in office he only once had a large majority (96 seats at the 1966 election) and struggled to get contentious legislation passed. Even so his legacy includes the [[Open University]] and the first steps toward British membership of the [[EEC]]. He also successfully kept Britain out of the war in [[Vietnam]].&lt;br /&gt;
===Relations with U.S.===&lt;br /&gt;
Although the United States and Britain have shared a &amp;quot;special relationship&amp;quot; in foreign relations since 1940, this link was weakened during the 1960s by several factors: differing foreign policy aims, varying national and international security ideas, and unfriendly personal relations between President [[Lyndon Johnson]] and Wilson. The relationship did not improve until the 1970s. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1965, Johnson proposed that the United States prop up Britain's pound sterling. In return he sought from Wilson's government such measures as support of deflationary policies and of American policies in the Vietnam War. Wilson refused to involve Britain in the conflict&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Making of Modern Britain 1951-2007- Chris Rowe: Page 80&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The initiative failed to materialize. Wilson defenders say the United States reneged after Wilson fended off American efforts to compromise Britain's sovereignty. Americans believe the change in US policy stemmed from new perceptions in the Johnson administration on Labour Party misrule in Britain. Americans concluded it was a mistake to indulge Britain in light of the Wilson government's unsatisfactory positions on Vietnam, its smaller contributions to European defense, its international monetary ideas, and its Middle Eastern policies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; John Dumbrell, &amp;quot;The Johnson Administration and the British Labour Government: Vietnam, the Pound and East of Suez&amp;quot; ''Journal of American Studies'' 1996 30(2): 211-231. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Economy===&lt;br /&gt;
Much of the disillusionment with Wilson was due to his perceived failure on the economic front. He pledged not to devalue sterling, however he crumbled under pressure by striking from the National Union of Seamen and resorted to devaluation in 1967. He also promised to keep unemployment low, but by 1970 had accepted a higher rate of joblessness than the Conservatives had endorsed. Wilson failed to implement two radical election pledges: to produce a comprehensive state earnings-related pension scheme and to introduce the 'income guarantee' - a minimum benefit to be paid without recourse to the traditional means test. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson's problems and defeats have obscured some of the modest achievements of the period. Science and education spending grew very quickly, industrial investment rose, and government was increasingly well-informed and better advised about the performance of the economy. In an increasingly unstable and rapidly changing economic environment, this government's economic record was one of muddling through, with little long-term vision.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; O'Hara (2006)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Labour Party when it was out of power in the early 1960s argued that Britain was lagging behind in science and technology. In 1963 Wilson, as party leader, pledged that a Labour government would lead the country through the &amp;quot;white heat&amp;quot; of a technological revolution. In fact, Britain in the 1960s spent more on research and development (R&amp;amp;D), both industrially and governmentally funded, than any other capitalist country besides the United States. The Labour government coming to power in 1964 found that Britain lacked not technology but strong industrial organization and management. Under [[Anthony Wedgwood Benn]], 1966-70, the Ministry of Technology attempted to rectify these deficiencies in high technology industries. This effort, only marginally successful, confirmed the lack of positive correlation between R&amp;amp;D and overall economic growth. Indeed, overexpenditure on &amp;quot;high tech&amp;quot; R&amp;amp;D could even be detrimental to such growth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; David Edgerton, &amp;quot;The 'White Heat' Revisited: The British Government and Technology in the 1960s.&amp;quot; ''Twentieth Century British History'' 1996 7(1): 53-82. in [[EBSCO]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson realized he had to fight the 1966 strike by the National Union of Seamen. Determined to save his government's income policy and bolster the British pound, Wilson declared a state of emergency. When that proved ineffective, he turned to claiming that the union was being influenced by Communists. The 47-day strike ended when the shipowners presented an acceptable offer. While Wilson appeared to be the winner, his tactics antagonized many Labour Party supporters.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;  Keir Thorpe, &amp;quot;The 'Juggernaut Method': The 1966 State of Emergency and the Wilson Government's Response to the Seamen's Strike&amp;quot;. ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2001 12(4): 461-485 in [[EBSCO]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Immigration===&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson reversed the policy of uncontrolled Commonwealth immigration of his predecessor Hugh Gaitskell. With an eye on public opinion and election returns, Wilson developed a three-phased race-relations policy, including tightened immigration controls, prohibition of domestic racial discrimination and incitement, and creation of local conciliation and integration mechanisms. His pragmatic, carefully balanced immigration and race-relations policies were in the short run successful, not least because of acquiescence by the opposition Conservative leadership. Racial issues, conspicuous in some urban working-class constituencies in the 1964 general election, were marginalized in the 1966 election. During Wilson's second administration (1966-70), pressure by Asian immigrants from East Africa and [[Enoch Powell]]'s populist Conservatism rekindled race-related issues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dennis Dean, &amp;quot;The Race Relations Policy of the First Wilson Government&amp;quot;. ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2000 11(3): 259-283  in [[EBSCO]] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Socialism===&lt;br /&gt;
Despite its alleged commitment to socialism, the British Labour Party has been flexible and reformist in its doctrine ever since it was founded in 1900. After the crisis of 1931, the party adopted a broadly social democratic program in which socialism was linked with the idea of economic planning and social welfare. The Attlee government of 1945-51 was very moderate in its commitment to socialism. The years of opposition saw violent arguments in the party between left-wing Bevanites and the center-right supporters of Hugh Gaitskell. But the main differences concerned foreign and defense policy. On domestic issues, the party was now broadly revisionist, committed to the mixed economy and social equality. &lt;br /&gt;
===New Left===&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson, on becoming prime minister in 1964, tried to bypass old doctrinal arguments by harnessing socialism to ideas of scientific modernization. But his government was a great failure, not least in its relations with the trade unions, the linchpin of the party since its founding. This bred much disillusionment and launched a new left-wing socialism in the 1970s. Wilson represented the older traditions of the Party and never understood the emerging &amp;quot;New Left&amp;quot; with new social roots, radical new ideas and new styles of political behaviour in the late 1970s. Following the disillusion and demoralization of traditional Labour Party activists with Wilson's government, a more radical and well-educated local Labour leadership appeared at the local level.  The Labour government of 1974-79 added to this division. The left-wing pressure reached its climax in the early 1980s when Thatcher was in power, but resulted only in heavy defeats for Labour in 1983 and 1987. The general impression in 1989 is of a loss of political and intellectual confidence, with British socialism trapped between a cherished past and an uncertain future.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Kenneth O. Morgan, ''Britain since 1945: The People's Peace'' (2001)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Europe===&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1966 Wilson quietly began an nquiry among European Economic Community (EEC) countries to see if the conditions existed for British membership in the EEC. His move politically rather than economically motivated. Faced with the contraction of Britain's political influence in Europe and in the Atlantic alliance, the erosion of Britain's position in the Commonwealth, and the termination of Britain's defense commitments east of Suez, Wilson had little choice but to turn to the EEC.&lt;br /&gt;
===Administration===&lt;br /&gt;
Changes to the machinery of government were central to the British Labour Party's policy agenda during 1964-70, key parts of which, particularly the drive for planned economic growth, were not achieved. The ideological basis for the objectives being pursued, such as economic expansion, was never properly explored or developed. However, some of Wilson's innovations, such as the incorporation of more outsiders into Whitehall, the first use of special advisers, and the establishment of the Ministry of Overseas Development and the Welsh Office, were successful.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Andrew Blick, &amp;quot;Harold Wilson, Labour and the Machinery of Government&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2006 20(3): 343-362   &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
==Image==&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson acquired a reputation as a somewhat devious, scheming figure. He cultivated a particular image of himself in the media, which included ostentatiously smoking a pipe, though in private he is said to have preferred cigars. He came from a working-class background, and retained a northern English working-class accent throughout his life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was preceded by Sir [[Alec Douglas-Home]] and succeeded by [[James Callaghan]]. His periods of premiership were broken by that of [[Edward Heath]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He died of colon cancer and Alzheimer's disease in 1995.&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
* Fielding, Steven.  &amp;quot;Rethinking Labour's 1964 Campaign&amp;quot;. ''Contemporary British History'' 2007 21(3): 309-324 &lt;br /&gt;
* Fielding, Steven and John W. Young, eds. ''The Wilson Government 1964-70'' (3 vol., 2004), highly detailed, favourable analysis&lt;br /&gt;
* Morgan, Austen.  ''Harold Wilson'' (1992), 625pp; negative appraisal&lt;br /&gt;
* O'Hara, Glen. &amp;quot;'Dynamic, Exciting, Thrilling Change': The Wilson Government's Economic Policies, 1964-70,&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2006 20(3): 383-402 &lt;br /&gt;
* Pimlott, Ben. ''Harold Wilson'' (1992). Pimlott tries to rehabilitate Wilson’s political reputation, revealing that he was the prisoner rather than the master of various domestic and international dilemmas. &lt;br /&gt;
* Ponting, Clive. ''Breach of Promise: Labour in Power, 1964-70'' (1989)&lt;br /&gt;
* Vickers, Rhiannon. &amp;quot;Harold Wilson, the British Labour Party, and the War in Vietnam&amp;quot;. ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2008 10(2): 41-70 30p.in [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====References====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:British History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:United Kingdom Prime Ministers|Wilson, Harold]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cold War]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:1960s]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:New Left]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Wilson, Harold}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harold_Wilson&amp;diff=876886</id>
		<title>Harold Wilson</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harold_Wilson&amp;diff=876886"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T14:16:11Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: /* Relations with U.S. */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Prime Minister&lt;br /&gt;
|image=&lt;br /&gt;
|seq=69&lt;br /&gt;
|party=Labour Party&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start=October 16 1964&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end=June 19 1970&lt;br /&gt;
|previous=Alec Douglas-Home&lt;br /&gt;
|next=Edward Heath&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start2=March 4 1974&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end2=April 5 1976&lt;br /&gt;
|previous2=Edward Heath&lt;br /&gt;
|next2=James Callaghan&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_date=March 11 1916&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_place=Huddersfield&lt;br /&gt;
|death_date=May 24 1995 (aged 79)&lt;br /&gt;
|death_place=London&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse=&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse2=&lt;br /&gt;
|religion=[[Anglican]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Harold Wilson''' (born James Harold Wilson) was the [[Labour Party|Labour]] Prime Minister of Britain (the [[United Kingdom]]) from 1964-1970 and from 1974-1976. Having spent 13 years out of office after defeat in 1951; Harold Wilson was elected prime minister in 1964 following widespread discontent against the Conservative government. Wilson's government saw the liberalisation of Britain begin, with the legalisation of homosexuality, abortion and the removal of theatrical and cinema moral censorship. All anointed to be causes of the &amp;quot;permissive society&amp;quot; in Britain in the 1960's. Wilson set out also to drastically advance the British Economy through the creation of the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA). However all his Economic ideas held little success and he was defeated in the 1970 election by [[Edward Heath]]; whom Wilson would then defeat again narrowly in 1974. Combined, the economic failures of Heath and Wilson set the stage for the renewal of British energy and leadership under [[Margaret Thatcher]], beginning in 1979.[[File:Pimlott.jpg|thumb|350px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Career==&lt;br /&gt;
Born in 1916 and first elected to Parliament in 1945 he was appointed a junior minister in the Department of Trade immediately.  He was Member of Parliament for the [[Liverpool]] constituency of Huyton from 1945 until 1979.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==1964 election==&lt;br /&gt;
The 1964 election marked a crucial moment in postwar British politics. Wilson's victory confounded those critics who believed that three successive defeats in the 1950s meant that the Labour Party was becoming electorally obsolete. The &amp;quot;road to 1964&amp;quot; compares favourably with that of [[Clement Attlee]] in 1945, the only previous occasion Labour had removed the Conservative Party from power to form a majority government. In many respects the two elections were very different. Participation in [[Winston Churchill]]'s wartime coalition gave Labour a credibility that helped to ensure a landslide in 1945, whereas Wilson's margin of victory - just four seats - was tiny.  One important similarity stands out. Historians now tend to play down the &amp;quot;onward march of socialism&amp;quot; as the driving force behind 1945, stressing instead disillusionment with wartime conservatism. In the same way too much credit should not be attached to the vote-catching appeal of Wilson and his vision of &amp;quot;scientific socialism.&amp;quot; The root cause of 1964 lay in deep disenchantment with [[Harold Macmillan]]'s Tory administration, scarred by the sexual scandal of the perfumo affair and several lacklustre Economic setbacks. The Labour success in 1964 confirms the adage that elections are lost by governments rather than won by the opposition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Prime Minister==&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson won more general elections than any other British politician in the 20th Century. He won in 1964, 1966, and twice in 1974 although the February 1974 election resulted in a minority government. During his time in office he only once had a large majority (96 seats at the 1966 election) and struggled to get contentious legislation passed. Even so his legacy includes the [[Open University]] and the first steps toward British membership of the [[EEC]]. He also successfully kept Britain out of the war in [[Vietnam]].&lt;br /&gt;
===Relations with U.S.===&lt;br /&gt;
Although the United States and Britain have shared a &amp;quot;special relationship&amp;quot; in foreign relations since 1940, this link was weakened during the 1960s by several factors: differing foreign policy aims, varying national and international security ideas, and unfriendly personal relations between President [[Lyndon Johnson]] and Wilson. The relationship did not improve until the 1970s. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1965, Johnson proposed that the United States prop up Britain's pound sterling. In return he sought from Wilson's government such measures as support of deflationary policies and of American policies in the Vietnam War. Wilson refused to involve Britain in the conflict&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Making of Modern Britain 1951-2007- Chris Rowe: Page 80&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The initiative failed to materialize. Wilson defenders say the United States reneged after Wilson fended off American efforts to compromise Britain's sovereignty. Americans believe the change in US policy stemmed from new perceptions in the Johnson administration on Labour Party misrule in Britain. Americans concluded it was a mistake to indulge Britain in light of the Wilson government's unsatisfactory positions on Vietnam, its smaller contributions to European defense, its international monetary ideas, and its Middle Eastern policies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; John Dumbrell, &amp;quot;The Johnson Administration and the British Labour Government: Vietnam, the Pound and East of Suez&amp;quot; ''Journal of American Studies'' 1996 30(2): 211-231. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Economy===&lt;br /&gt;
Much of the disillusionment with Wilson was due to his perceived failure on the economic front. He pledged not to devalue sterling, but did exactly that in 1967. He also promised to keep unemployment low, but by 1970 had accepted a higher rate of joblessness than the Conservatives had endorsed. Wilson failed to implement two radical election pledges: to produce a comprehensive state earnings-related pension scheme and to introduce the 'income guarantee' - a minimum benefit to be paid without recourse to the traditional means test. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson's problems and defeats have obscured some of the modest achievements of the period. Science and education spending grew very quickly, industrial investment rose, and government was increasingly well-informed and better advised about the performance of the economy. In an increasingly unstable and rapidly changing economic environment, this government's economic record was one of muddling through, with little long-term vision.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; O'Hara (2006)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Labour Party when it was out of power in the early 1960s argued that Britain was lagging behind in science and technology. In 1963 Wilson, as party leader, pledged that a Labour government would lead the country through the &amp;quot;white heat&amp;quot; of a technological revolution. In fact, Britain in the 1960s spent more on research and development (R&amp;amp;D), both industrially and governmentally funded, than any other capitalist country besides the United States. The Labour government coming to power in 1964 found that Britain lacked not technology but strong industrial organization and management. Under [[Anthony Wedgwood Benn]], 1966-70, the Ministry of Technology attempted to rectify these deficiencies in high technology industries. This effort, only marginally successful, confirmed the lack of positive correlation between R&amp;amp;D and overall economic growth. Indeed, overexpenditure on &amp;quot;high tech&amp;quot; R&amp;amp;D could even be detrimental to such growth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; David Edgerton, &amp;quot;The 'White Heat' Revisited: The British Government and Technology in the 1960s.&amp;quot; ''Twentieth Century British History'' 1996 7(1): 53-82. in [[EBSCO]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson realized he had to fight the 1966 strike by the National Union of Seamen. Determined to save his government's income policy and bolster the British pound, Wilson declared a state of emergency. When that proved ineffective, he turned to claiming that the union was being influenced by Communists. The 47-day strike ended when the shipowners presented an acceptable offer. While Wilson appeared to be the winner, his tactics antagonized many Labour Party supporters.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;  Keir Thorpe, &amp;quot;The 'Juggernaut Method': The 1966 State of Emergency and the Wilson Government's Response to the Seamen's Strike&amp;quot;. ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2001 12(4): 461-485 in [[EBSCO]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Immigration===&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson reversed the policy of uncontrolled Commonwealth immigration of his predecessor Hugh Gaitskell. With an eye on public opinion and election returns, Wilson developed a three-phased race-relations policy, including tightened immigration controls, prohibition of domestic racial discrimination and incitement, and creation of local conciliation and integration mechanisms. His pragmatic, carefully balanced immigration and race-relations policies were in the short run successful, not least because of acquiescence by the opposition Conservative leadership. Racial issues, conspicuous in some urban working-class constituencies in the 1964 general election, were marginalized in the 1966 election. During Wilson's second administration (1966-70), pressure by Asian immigrants from East Africa and [[Enoch Powell]]'s populist Conservatism rekindled race-related issues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dennis Dean, &amp;quot;The Race Relations Policy of the First Wilson Government&amp;quot;. ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2000 11(3): 259-283  in [[EBSCO]] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Socialism===&lt;br /&gt;
Despite its alleged commitment to socialism, the British Labour Party has been flexible and reformist in its doctrine ever since it was founded in 1900. After the crisis of 1931, the party adopted a broadly social democratic program in which socialism was linked with the idea of economic planning and social welfare. The Attlee government of 1945-51 was very moderate in its commitment to socialism. The years of opposition saw violent arguments in the party between left-wing Bevanites and the center-right supporters of Hugh Gaitskell. But the main differences concerned foreign and defense policy. On domestic issues, the party was now broadly revisionist, committed to the mixed economy and social equality. &lt;br /&gt;
===New Left===&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson, on becoming prime minister in 1964, tried to bypass old doctrinal arguments by harnessing socialism to ideas of scientific modernization. But his government was a great failure, not least in its relations with the trade unions, the linchpin of the party since its founding. This bred much disillusionment and launched a new left-wing socialism in the 1970s. Wilson represented the older traditions of the Party and never understood the emerging &amp;quot;New Left&amp;quot; with new social roots, radical new ideas and new styles of political behaviour in the late 1970s. Following the disillusion and demoralization of traditional Labour Party activists with Wilson's government, a more radical and well-educated local Labour leadership appeared at the local level.  The Labour government of 1974-79 added to this division. The left-wing pressure reached its climax in the early 1980s when Thatcher was in power, but resulted only in heavy defeats for Labour in 1983 and 1987. The general impression in 1989 is of a loss of political and intellectual confidence, with British socialism trapped between a cherished past and an uncertain future.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Kenneth O. Morgan, ''Britain since 1945: The People's Peace'' (2001)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Europe===&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1966 Wilson quietly began an nquiry among European Economic Community (EEC) countries to see if the conditions existed for British membership in the EEC. His move politically rather than economically motivated. Faced with the contraction of Britain's political influence in Europe and in the Atlantic alliance, the erosion of Britain's position in the Commonwealth, and the termination of Britain's defense commitments east of Suez, Wilson had little choice but to turn to the EEC.&lt;br /&gt;
===Administration===&lt;br /&gt;
Changes to the machinery of government were central to the British Labour Party's policy agenda during 1964-70, key parts of which, particularly the drive for planned economic growth, were not achieved. The ideological basis for the objectives being pursued, such as economic expansion, was never properly explored or developed. However, some of Wilson's innovations, such as the incorporation of more outsiders into Whitehall, the first use of special advisers, and the establishment of the Ministry of Overseas Development and the Welsh Office, were successful.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Andrew Blick, &amp;quot;Harold Wilson, Labour and the Machinery of Government&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2006 20(3): 343-362   &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
==Image==&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson acquired a reputation as a somewhat devious, scheming figure. He cultivated a particular image of himself in the media, which included ostentatiously smoking a pipe, though in private he is said to have preferred cigars. He came from a working-class background, and retained a northern English working-class accent throughout his life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was preceded by Sir [[Alec Douglas-Home]] and succeeded by [[James Callaghan]]. His periods of premiership were broken by that of [[Edward Heath]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He died of colon cancer and Alzheimer's disease in 1995.&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
* Fielding, Steven.  &amp;quot;Rethinking Labour's 1964 Campaign&amp;quot;. ''Contemporary British History'' 2007 21(3): 309-324 &lt;br /&gt;
* Fielding, Steven and John W. Young, eds. ''The Wilson Government 1964-70'' (3 vol., 2004), highly detailed, favourable analysis&lt;br /&gt;
* Morgan, Austen.  ''Harold Wilson'' (1992), 625pp; negative appraisal&lt;br /&gt;
* O'Hara, Glen. &amp;quot;'Dynamic, Exciting, Thrilling Change': The Wilson Government's Economic Policies, 1964-70,&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2006 20(3): 383-402 &lt;br /&gt;
* Pimlott, Ben. ''Harold Wilson'' (1992). Pimlott tries to rehabilitate Wilson’s political reputation, revealing that he was the prisoner rather than the master of various domestic and international dilemmas. &lt;br /&gt;
* Ponting, Clive. ''Breach of Promise: Labour in Power, 1964-70'' (1989)&lt;br /&gt;
* Vickers, Rhiannon. &amp;quot;Harold Wilson, the British Labour Party, and the War in Vietnam&amp;quot;. ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2008 10(2): 41-70 30p.in [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====References====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:British History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:United Kingdom Prime Ministers|Wilson, Harold]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cold War]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:1960s]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:New Left]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Wilson, Harold}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harold_Wilson&amp;diff=876885</id>
		<title>Harold Wilson</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harold_Wilson&amp;diff=876885"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T14:15:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: /* Relations with U.S. */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Prime Minister&lt;br /&gt;
|image=&lt;br /&gt;
|seq=69&lt;br /&gt;
|party=Labour Party&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start=October 16 1964&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end=June 19 1970&lt;br /&gt;
|previous=Alec Douglas-Home&lt;br /&gt;
|next=Edward Heath&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start2=March 4 1974&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end2=April 5 1976&lt;br /&gt;
|previous2=Edward Heath&lt;br /&gt;
|next2=James Callaghan&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_date=March 11 1916&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_place=Huddersfield&lt;br /&gt;
|death_date=May 24 1995 (aged 79)&lt;br /&gt;
|death_place=London&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse=&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse2=&lt;br /&gt;
|religion=[[Anglican]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Harold Wilson''' (born James Harold Wilson) was the [[Labour Party|Labour]] Prime Minister of Britain (the [[United Kingdom]]) from 1964-1970 and from 1974-1976. Having spent 13 years out of office after defeat in 1951; Harold Wilson was elected prime minister in 1964 following widespread discontent against the Conservative government. Wilson's government saw the liberalisation of Britain begin, with the legalisation of homosexuality, abortion and the removal of theatrical and cinema moral censorship. All anointed to be causes of the &amp;quot;permissive society&amp;quot; in Britain in the 1960's. Wilson set out also to drastically advance the British Economy through the creation of the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA). However all his Economic ideas held little success and he was defeated in the 1970 election by [[Edward Heath]]; whom Wilson would then defeat again narrowly in 1974. Combined, the economic failures of Heath and Wilson set the stage for the renewal of British energy and leadership under [[Margaret Thatcher]], beginning in 1979.[[File:Pimlott.jpg|thumb|350px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Career==&lt;br /&gt;
Born in 1916 and first elected to Parliament in 1945 he was appointed a junior minister in the Department of Trade immediately.  He was Member of Parliament for the [[Liverpool]] constituency of Huyton from 1945 until 1979.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==1964 election==&lt;br /&gt;
The 1964 election marked a crucial moment in postwar British politics. Wilson's victory confounded those critics who believed that three successive defeats in the 1950s meant that the Labour Party was becoming electorally obsolete. The &amp;quot;road to 1964&amp;quot; compares favourably with that of [[Clement Attlee]] in 1945, the only previous occasion Labour had removed the Conservative Party from power to form a majority government. In many respects the two elections were very different. Participation in [[Winston Churchill]]'s wartime coalition gave Labour a credibility that helped to ensure a landslide in 1945, whereas Wilson's margin of victory - just four seats - was tiny.  One important similarity stands out. Historians now tend to play down the &amp;quot;onward march of socialism&amp;quot; as the driving force behind 1945, stressing instead disillusionment with wartime conservatism. In the same way too much credit should not be attached to the vote-catching appeal of Wilson and his vision of &amp;quot;scientific socialism.&amp;quot; The root cause of 1964 lay in deep disenchantment with [[Harold Macmillan]]'s Tory administration, scarred by the sexual scandal of the perfumo affair and several lacklustre Economic setbacks. The Labour success in 1964 confirms the adage that elections are lost by governments rather than won by the opposition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Prime Minister==&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson won more general elections than any other British politician in the 20th Century. He won in 1964, 1966, and twice in 1974 although the February 1974 election resulted in a minority government. During his time in office he only once had a large majority (96 seats at the 1966 election) and struggled to get contentious legislation passed. Even so his legacy includes the [[Open University]] and the first steps toward British membership of the [[EEC]]. He also successfully kept Britain out of the war in [[Vietnam]].&lt;br /&gt;
===Relations with U.S.===&lt;br /&gt;
Although the United States and Britain have shared a &amp;quot;special relationship&amp;quot; in foreign relations since 1940, this link was weakened during the 1960s by several factors: differing foreign policy aims, varying national and international security ideas, and unfriendly personal relations between President [[Lyndon Johnson]] and Wilson. The relationship did not improve until the 1970s. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1965, Johnson proposed that the United States prop up Britain's pound sterling. In return he sought from Wilson's government such measures as support of deflationary policies and of American policies in the Vietnam War. Wilson refused to involve Britain in the conflict&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[The Making of Modern Britain 1951-2007- Chris Rowe: Page 80]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The initiative failed to materialize. Wilson defenders say the United States reneged after Wilson fended off American efforts to compromise Britain's sovereignty. Americans believe the change in US policy stemmed from new perceptions in the Johnson administration on Labour Party misrule in Britain. Americans concluded it was a mistake to indulge Britain in light of the Wilson government's unsatisfactory positions on Vietnam, its smaller contributions to European defense, its international monetary ideas, and its Middle Eastern policies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; John Dumbrell, &amp;quot;The Johnson Administration and the British Labour Government: Vietnam, the Pound and East of Suez&amp;quot; ''Journal of American Studies'' 1996 30(2): 211-231. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Economy===&lt;br /&gt;
Much of the disillusionment with Wilson was due to his perceived failure on the economic front. He pledged not to devalue sterling, but did exactly that in 1967. He also promised to keep unemployment low, but by 1970 had accepted a higher rate of joblessness than the Conservatives had endorsed. Wilson failed to implement two radical election pledges: to produce a comprehensive state earnings-related pension scheme and to introduce the 'income guarantee' - a minimum benefit to be paid without recourse to the traditional means test. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson's problems and defeats have obscured some of the modest achievements of the period. Science and education spending grew very quickly, industrial investment rose, and government was increasingly well-informed and better advised about the performance of the economy. In an increasingly unstable and rapidly changing economic environment, this government's economic record was one of muddling through, with little long-term vision.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; O'Hara (2006)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Labour Party when it was out of power in the early 1960s argued that Britain was lagging behind in science and technology. In 1963 Wilson, as party leader, pledged that a Labour government would lead the country through the &amp;quot;white heat&amp;quot; of a technological revolution. In fact, Britain in the 1960s spent more on research and development (R&amp;amp;D), both industrially and governmentally funded, than any other capitalist country besides the United States. The Labour government coming to power in 1964 found that Britain lacked not technology but strong industrial organization and management. Under [[Anthony Wedgwood Benn]], 1966-70, the Ministry of Technology attempted to rectify these deficiencies in high technology industries. This effort, only marginally successful, confirmed the lack of positive correlation between R&amp;amp;D and overall economic growth. Indeed, overexpenditure on &amp;quot;high tech&amp;quot; R&amp;amp;D could even be detrimental to such growth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; David Edgerton, &amp;quot;The 'White Heat' Revisited: The British Government and Technology in the 1960s.&amp;quot; ''Twentieth Century British History'' 1996 7(1): 53-82. in [[EBSCO]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson realized he had to fight the 1966 strike by the National Union of Seamen. Determined to save his government's income policy and bolster the British pound, Wilson declared a state of emergency. When that proved ineffective, he turned to claiming that the union was being influenced by Communists. The 47-day strike ended when the shipowners presented an acceptable offer. While Wilson appeared to be the winner, his tactics antagonized many Labour Party supporters.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;  Keir Thorpe, &amp;quot;The 'Juggernaut Method': The 1966 State of Emergency and the Wilson Government's Response to the Seamen's Strike&amp;quot;. ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2001 12(4): 461-485 in [[EBSCO]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Immigration===&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson reversed the policy of uncontrolled Commonwealth immigration of his predecessor Hugh Gaitskell. With an eye on public opinion and election returns, Wilson developed a three-phased race-relations policy, including tightened immigration controls, prohibition of domestic racial discrimination and incitement, and creation of local conciliation and integration mechanisms. His pragmatic, carefully balanced immigration and race-relations policies were in the short run successful, not least because of acquiescence by the opposition Conservative leadership. Racial issues, conspicuous in some urban working-class constituencies in the 1964 general election, were marginalized in the 1966 election. During Wilson's second administration (1966-70), pressure by Asian immigrants from East Africa and [[Enoch Powell]]'s populist Conservatism rekindled race-related issues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dennis Dean, &amp;quot;The Race Relations Policy of the First Wilson Government&amp;quot;. ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2000 11(3): 259-283  in [[EBSCO]] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Socialism===&lt;br /&gt;
Despite its alleged commitment to socialism, the British Labour Party has been flexible and reformist in its doctrine ever since it was founded in 1900. After the crisis of 1931, the party adopted a broadly social democratic program in which socialism was linked with the idea of economic planning and social welfare. The Attlee government of 1945-51 was very moderate in its commitment to socialism. The years of opposition saw violent arguments in the party between left-wing Bevanites and the center-right supporters of Hugh Gaitskell. But the main differences concerned foreign and defense policy. On domestic issues, the party was now broadly revisionist, committed to the mixed economy and social equality. &lt;br /&gt;
===New Left===&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson, on becoming prime minister in 1964, tried to bypass old doctrinal arguments by harnessing socialism to ideas of scientific modernization. But his government was a great failure, not least in its relations with the trade unions, the linchpin of the party since its founding. This bred much disillusionment and launched a new left-wing socialism in the 1970s. Wilson represented the older traditions of the Party and never understood the emerging &amp;quot;New Left&amp;quot; with new social roots, radical new ideas and new styles of political behaviour in the late 1970s. Following the disillusion and demoralization of traditional Labour Party activists with Wilson's government, a more radical and well-educated local Labour leadership appeared at the local level.  The Labour government of 1974-79 added to this division. The left-wing pressure reached its climax in the early 1980s when Thatcher was in power, but resulted only in heavy defeats for Labour in 1983 and 1987. The general impression in 1989 is of a loss of political and intellectual confidence, with British socialism trapped between a cherished past and an uncertain future.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Kenneth O. Morgan, ''Britain since 1945: The People's Peace'' (2001)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Europe===&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1966 Wilson quietly began an nquiry among European Economic Community (EEC) countries to see if the conditions existed for British membership in the EEC. His move politically rather than economically motivated. Faced with the contraction of Britain's political influence in Europe and in the Atlantic alliance, the erosion of Britain's position in the Commonwealth, and the termination of Britain's defense commitments east of Suez, Wilson had little choice but to turn to the EEC.&lt;br /&gt;
===Administration===&lt;br /&gt;
Changes to the machinery of government were central to the British Labour Party's policy agenda during 1964-70, key parts of which, particularly the drive for planned economic growth, were not achieved. The ideological basis for the objectives being pursued, such as economic expansion, was never properly explored or developed. However, some of Wilson's innovations, such as the incorporation of more outsiders into Whitehall, the first use of special advisers, and the establishment of the Ministry of Overseas Development and the Welsh Office, were successful.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Andrew Blick, &amp;quot;Harold Wilson, Labour and the Machinery of Government&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2006 20(3): 343-362   &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
==Image==&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson acquired a reputation as a somewhat devious, scheming figure. He cultivated a particular image of himself in the media, which included ostentatiously smoking a pipe, though in private he is said to have preferred cigars. He came from a working-class background, and retained a northern English working-class accent throughout his life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was preceded by Sir [[Alec Douglas-Home]] and succeeded by [[James Callaghan]]. His periods of premiership were broken by that of [[Edward Heath]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He died of colon cancer and Alzheimer's disease in 1995.&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
* Fielding, Steven.  &amp;quot;Rethinking Labour's 1964 Campaign&amp;quot;. ''Contemporary British History'' 2007 21(3): 309-324 &lt;br /&gt;
* Fielding, Steven and John W. Young, eds. ''The Wilson Government 1964-70'' (3 vol., 2004), highly detailed, favourable analysis&lt;br /&gt;
* Morgan, Austen.  ''Harold Wilson'' (1992), 625pp; negative appraisal&lt;br /&gt;
* O'Hara, Glen. &amp;quot;'Dynamic, Exciting, Thrilling Change': The Wilson Government's Economic Policies, 1964-70,&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2006 20(3): 383-402 &lt;br /&gt;
* Pimlott, Ben. ''Harold Wilson'' (1992). Pimlott tries to rehabilitate Wilson’s political reputation, revealing that he was the prisoner rather than the master of various domestic and international dilemmas. &lt;br /&gt;
* Ponting, Clive. ''Breach of Promise: Labour in Power, 1964-70'' (1989)&lt;br /&gt;
* Vickers, Rhiannon. &amp;quot;Harold Wilson, the British Labour Party, and the War in Vietnam&amp;quot;. ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2008 10(2): 41-70 30p.in [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====References====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:British History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:United Kingdom Prime Ministers|Wilson, Harold]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cold War]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:1960s]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:New Left]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Wilson, Harold}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harold_Wilson&amp;diff=876884</id>
		<title>Harold Wilson</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harold_Wilson&amp;diff=876884"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T14:13:37Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: /* Relations with U.S. */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Prime Minister&lt;br /&gt;
|image=&lt;br /&gt;
|seq=69&lt;br /&gt;
|party=Labour Party&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start=October 16 1964&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end=June 19 1970&lt;br /&gt;
|previous=Alec Douglas-Home&lt;br /&gt;
|next=Edward Heath&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start2=March 4 1974&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end2=April 5 1976&lt;br /&gt;
|previous2=Edward Heath&lt;br /&gt;
|next2=James Callaghan&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_date=March 11 1916&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_place=Huddersfield&lt;br /&gt;
|death_date=May 24 1995 (aged 79)&lt;br /&gt;
|death_place=London&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse=&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse2=&lt;br /&gt;
|religion=[[Anglican]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Harold Wilson''' (born James Harold Wilson) was the [[Labour Party|Labour]] Prime Minister of Britain (the [[United Kingdom]]) from 1964-1970 and from 1974-1976. Having spent 13 years out of office after defeat in 1951; Harold Wilson was elected prime minister in 1964 following widespread discontent against the Conservative government. Wilson's government saw the liberalisation of Britain begin, with the legalisation of homosexuality, abortion and the removal of theatrical and cinema moral censorship. All anointed to be causes of the &amp;quot;permissive society&amp;quot; in Britain in the 1960's. Wilson set out also to drastically advance the British Economy through the creation of the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA). However all his Economic ideas held little success and he was defeated in the 1970 election by [[Edward Heath]]; whom Wilson would then defeat again narrowly in 1974. Combined, the economic failures of Heath and Wilson set the stage for the renewal of British energy and leadership under [[Margaret Thatcher]], beginning in 1979.[[File:Pimlott.jpg|thumb|350px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Career==&lt;br /&gt;
Born in 1916 and first elected to Parliament in 1945 he was appointed a junior minister in the Department of Trade immediately.  He was Member of Parliament for the [[Liverpool]] constituency of Huyton from 1945 until 1979.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==1964 election==&lt;br /&gt;
The 1964 election marked a crucial moment in postwar British politics. Wilson's victory confounded those critics who believed that three successive defeats in the 1950s meant that the Labour Party was becoming electorally obsolete. The &amp;quot;road to 1964&amp;quot; compares favourably with that of [[Clement Attlee]] in 1945, the only previous occasion Labour had removed the Conservative Party from power to form a majority government. In many respects the two elections were very different. Participation in [[Winston Churchill]]'s wartime coalition gave Labour a credibility that helped to ensure a landslide in 1945, whereas Wilson's margin of victory - just four seats - was tiny.  One important similarity stands out. Historians now tend to play down the &amp;quot;onward march of socialism&amp;quot; as the driving force behind 1945, stressing instead disillusionment with wartime conservatism. In the same way too much credit should not be attached to the vote-catching appeal of Wilson and his vision of &amp;quot;scientific socialism.&amp;quot; The root cause of 1964 lay in deep disenchantment with [[Harold Macmillan]]'s Tory administration, scarred by the sexual scandal of the perfumo affair and several lacklustre Economic setbacks. The Labour success in 1964 confirms the adage that elections are lost by governments rather than won by the opposition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Prime Minister==&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson won more general elections than any other British politician in the 20th Century. He won in 1964, 1966, and twice in 1974 although the February 1974 election resulted in a minority government. During his time in office he only once had a large majority (96 seats at the 1966 election) and struggled to get contentious legislation passed. Even so his legacy includes the [[Open University]] and the first steps toward British membership of the [[EEC]]. He also successfully kept Britain out of the war in [[Vietnam]].&lt;br /&gt;
===Relations with U.S.===&lt;br /&gt;
Although the United States and Britain have shared a &amp;quot;special relationship&amp;quot; in foreign relations since 1940, this link was weakened during the 1960s by several factors: differing foreign policy aims, varying national and international security ideas, and unfriendly personal relations between President [[Lyndon Johnson]] and Wilson. The relationship did not improve until the 1970s. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1965, Johnson proposed that the United States prop up Britain's pound sterling. In return he sought from Wilson's government such measures as support of deflationary policies and of American policies in the Vietnam War (he did not seek soldiers from britain)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[The Making of Modern Britain 1951-2007- Chris Rowe: Page 80]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The initiative failed to materialize. Wilson defenders say the United States reneged after Wilson fended off American efforts to compromise Britain's sovereignty. Americans believe the change in US policy stemmed from new perceptions in the Johnson administration on Labour Party misrule in Britain. Americans concluded it was a mistake to indulge Britain in light of the Wilson government's unsatisfactory positions on Vietnam, its smaller contributions to European defense, its international monetary ideas, and its Middle Eastern policies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; John Dumbrell, &amp;quot;The Johnson Administration and the British Labour Government: Vietnam, the Pound and East of Suez&amp;quot; ''Journal of American Studies'' 1996 30(2): 211-231. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Economy===&lt;br /&gt;
Much of the disillusionment with Wilson was due to his perceived failure on the economic front. He pledged not to devalue sterling, but did exactly that in 1967. He also promised to keep unemployment low, but by 1970 had accepted a higher rate of joblessness than the Conservatives had endorsed. Wilson failed to implement two radical election pledges: to produce a comprehensive state earnings-related pension scheme and to introduce the 'income guarantee' - a minimum benefit to be paid without recourse to the traditional means test. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson's problems and defeats have obscured some of the modest achievements of the period. Science and education spending grew very quickly, industrial investment rose, and government was increasingly well-informed and better advised about the performance of the economy. In an increasingly unstable and rapidly changing economic environment, this government's economic record was one of muddling through, with little long-term vision.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; O'Hara (2006)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Labour Party when it was out of power in the early 1960s argued that Britain was lagging behind in science and technology. In 1963 Wilson, as party leader, pledged that a Labour government would lead the country through the &amp;quot;white heat&amp;quot; of a technological revolution. In fact, Britain in the 1960s spent more on research and development (R&amp;amp;D), both industrially and governmentally funded, than any other capitalist country besides the United States. The Labour government coming to power in 1964 found that Britain lacked not technology but strong industrial organization and management. Under [[Anthony Wedgwood Benn]], 1966-70, the Ministry of Technology attempted to rectify these deficiencies in high technology industries. This effort, only marginally successful, confirmed the lack of positive correlation between R&amp;amp;D and overall economic growth. Indeed, overexpenditure on &amp;quot;high tech&amp;quot; R&amp;amp;D could even be detrimental to such growth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; David Edgerton, &amp;quot;The 'White Heat' Revisited: The British Government and Technology in the 1960s.&amp;quot; ''Twentieth Century British History'' 1996 7(1): 53-82. in [[EBSCO]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson realized he had to fight the 1966 strike by the National Union of Seamen. Determined to save his government's income policy and bolster the British pound, Wilson declared a state of emergency. When that proved ineffective, he turned to claiming that the union was being influenced by Communists. The 47-day strike ended when the shipowners presented an acceptable offer. While Wilson appeared to be the winner, his tactics antagonized many Labour Party supporters.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;  Keir Thorpe, &amp;quot;The 'Juggernaut Method': The 1966 State of Emergency and the Wilson Government's Response to the Seamen's Strike&amp;quot;. ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2001 12(4): 461-485 in [[EBSCO]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Immigration===&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson reversed the policy of uncontrolled Commonwealth immigration of his predecessor Hugh Gaitskell. With an eye on public opinion and election returns, Wilson developed a three-phased race-relations policy, including tightened immigration controls, prohibition of domestic racial discrimination and incitement, and creation of local conciliation and integration mechanisms. His pragmatic, carefully balanced immigration and race-relations policies were in the short run successful, not least because of acquiescence by the opposition Conservative leadership. Racial issues, conspicuous in some urban working-class constituencies in the 1964 general election, were marginalized in the 1966 election. During Wilson's second administration (1966-70), pressure by Asian immigrants from East Africa and [[Enoch Powell]]'s populist Conservatism rekindled race-related issues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dennis Dean, &amp;quot;The Race Relations Policy of the First Wilson Government&amp;quot;. ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2000 11(3): 259-283  in [[EBSCO]] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Socialism===&lt;br /&gt;
Despite its alleged commitment to socialism, the British Labour Party has been flexible and reformist in its doctrine ever since it was founded in 1900. After the crisis of 1931, the party adopted a broadly social democratic program in which socialism was linked with the idea of economic planning and social welfare. The Attlee government of 1945-51 was very moderate in its commitment to socialism. The years of opposition saw violent arguments in the party between left-wing Bevanites and the center-right supporters of Hugh Gaitskell. But the main differences concerned foreign and defense policy. On domestic issues, the party was now broadly revisionist, committed to the mixed economy and social equality. &lt;br /&gt;
===New Left===&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson, on becoming prime minister in 1964, tried to bypass old doctrinal arguments by harnessing socialism to ideas of scientific modernization. But his government was a great failure, not least in its relations with the trade unions, the linchpin of the party since its founding. This bred much disillusionment and launched a new left-wing socialism in the 1970s. Wilson represented the older traditions of the Party and never understood the emerging &amp;quot;New Left&amp;quot; with new social roots, radical new ideas and new styles of political behaviour in the late 1970s. Following the disillusion and demoralization of traditional Labour Party activists with Wilson's government, a more radical and well-educated local Labour leadership appeared at the local level.  The Labour government of 1974-79 added to this division. The left-wing pressure reached its climax in the early 1980s when Thatcher was in power, but resulted only in heavy defeats for Labour in 1983 and 1987. The general impression in 1989 is of a loss of political and intellectual confidence, with British socialism trapped between a cherished past and an uncertain future.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Kenneth O. Morgan, ''Britain since 1945: The People's Peace'' (2001)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Europe===&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1966 Wilson quietly began an nquiry among European Economic Community (EEC) countries to see if the conditions existed for British membership in the EEC. His move politically rather than economically motivated. Faced with the contraction of Britain's political influence in Europe and in the Atlantic alliance, the erosion of Britain's position in the Commonwealth, and the termination of Britain's defense commitments east of Suez, Wilson had little choice but to turn to the EEC.&lt;br /&gt;
===Administration===&lt;br /&gt;
Changes to the machinery of government were central to the British Labour Party's policy agenda during 1964-70, key parts of which, particularly the drive for planned economic growth, were not achieved. The ideological basis for the objectives being pursued, such as economic expansion, was never properly explored or developed. However, some of Wilson's innovations, such as the incorporation of more outsiders into Whitehall, the first use of special advisers, and the establishment of the Ministry of Overseas Development and the Welsh Office, were successful.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Andrew Blick, &amp;quot;Harold Wilson, Labour and the Machinery of Government&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2006 20(3): 343-362   &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
==Image==&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson acquired a reputation as a somewhat devious, scheming figure. He cultivated a particular image of himself in the media, which included ostentatiously smoking a pipe, though in private he is said to have preferred cigars. He came from a working-class background, and retained a northern English working-class accent throughout his life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was preceded by Sir [[Alec Douglas-Home]] and succeeded by [[James Callaghan]]. His periods of premiership were broken by that of [[Edward Heath]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He died of colon cancer and Alzheimer's disease in 1995.&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
* Fielding, Steven.  &amp;quot;Rethinking Labour's 1964 Campaign&amp;quot;. ''Contemporary British History'' 2007 21(3): 309-324 &lt;br /&gt;
* Fielding, Steven and John W. Young, eds. ''The Wilson Government 1964-70'' (3 vol., 2004), highly detailed, favourable analysis&lt;br /&gt;
* Morgan, Austen.  ''Harold Wilson'' (1992), 625pp; negative appraisal&lt;br /&gt;
* O'Hara, Glen. &amp;quot;'Dynamic, Exciting, Thrilling Change': The Wilson Government's Economic Policies, 1964-70,&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2006 20(3): 383-402 &lt;br /&gt;
* Pimlott, Ben. ''Harold Wilson'' (1992). Pimlott tries to rehabilitate Wilson’s political reputation, revealing that he was the prisoner rather than the master of various domestic and international dilemmas. &lt;br /&gt;
* Ponting, Clive. ''Breach of Promise: Labour in Power, 1964-70'' (1989)&lt;br /&gt;
* Vickers, Rhiannon. &amp;quot;Harold Wilson, the British Labour Party, and the War in Vietnam&amp;quot;. ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2008 10(2): 41-70 30p.in [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====References====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:British History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:United Kingdom Prime Ministers|Wilson, Harold]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cold War]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:1960s]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:New Left]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Wilson, Harold}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harold_Wilson&amp;diff=876883</id>
		<title>Harold Wilson</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harold_Wilson&amp;diff=876883"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T14:11:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: /* 1964 election */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Prime Minister&lt;br /&gt;
|image=&lt;br /&gt;
|seq=69&lt;br /&gt;
|party=Labour Party&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start=October 16 1964&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end=June 19 1970&lt;br /&gt;
|previous=Alec Douglas-Home&lt;br /&gt;
|next=Edward Heath&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start2=March 4 1974&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end2=April 5 1976&lt;br /&gt;
|previous2=Edward Heath&lt;br /&gt;
|next2=James Callaghan&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_date=March 11 1916&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_place=Huddersfield&lt;br /&gt;
|death_date=May 24 1995 (aged 79)&lt;br /&gt;
|death_place=London&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse=&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse2=&lt;br /&gt;
|religion=[[Anglican]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Harold Wilson''' (born James Harold Wilson) was the [[Labour Party|Labour]] Prime Minister of Britain (the [[United Kingdom]]) from 1964-1970 and from 1974-1976. Having spent 13 years out of office after defeat in 1951; Harold Wilson was elected prime minister in 1964 following widespread discontent against the Conservative government. Wilson's government saw the liberalisation of Britain begin, with the legalisation of homosexuality, abortion and the removal of theatrical and cinema moral censorship. All anointed to be causes of the &amp;quot;permissive society&amp;quot; in Britain in the 1960's. Wilson set out also to drastically advance the British Economy through the creation of the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA). However all his Economic ideas held little success and he was defeated in the 1970 election by [[Edward Heath]]; whom Wilson would then defeat again narrowly in 1974. Combined, the economic failures of Heath and Wilson set the stage for the renewal of British energy and leadership under [[Margaret Thatcher]], beginning in 1979.[[File:Pimlott.jpg|thumb|350px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Career==&lt;br /&gt;
Born in 1916 and first elected to Parliament in 1945 he was appointed a junior minister in the Department of Trade immediately.  He was Member of Parliament for the [[Liverpool]] constituency of Huyton from 1945 until 1979.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==1964 election==&lt;br /&gt;
The 1964 election marked a crucial moment in postwar British politics. Wilson's victory confounded those critics who believed that three successive defeats in the 1950s meant that the Labour Party was becoming electorally obsolete. The &amp;quot;road to 1964&amp;quot; compares favourably with that of [[Clement Attlee]] in 1945, the only previous occasion Labour had removed the Conservative Party from power to form a majority government. In many respects the two elections were very different. Participation in [[Winston Churchill]]'s wartime coalition gave Labour a credibility that helped to ensure a landslide in 1945, whereas Wilson's margin of victory - just four seats - was tiny.  One important similarity stands out. Historians now tend to play down the &amp;quot;onward march of socialism&amp;quot; as the driving force behind 1945, stressing instead disillusionment with wartime conservatism. In the same way too much credit should not be attached to the vote-catching appeal of Wilson and his vision of &amp;quot;scientific socialism.&amp;quot; The root cause of 1964 lay in deep disenchantment with [[Harold Macmillan]]'s Tory administration, scarred by the sexual scandal of the perfumo affair and several lacklustre Economic setbacks. The Labour success in 1964 confirms the adage that elections are lost by governments rather than won by the opposition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Prime Minister==&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson won more general elections than any other British politician in the 20th Century. He won in 1964, 1966, and twice in 1974 although the February 1974 election resulted in a minority government. During his time in office he only once had a large majority (96 seats at the 1966 election) and struggled to get contentious legislation passed. Even so his legacy includes the [[Open University]] and the first steps toward British membership of the [[EEC]]. He also successfully kept Britain out of the war in [[Vietnam]].&lt;br /&gt;
===Relations with U.S.===&lt;br /&gt;
Although the United States and Britain have shared a &amp;quot;special relationship&amp;quot; in foreign relations since 1940, this link was weakened during the 1960s by several factors: differing foreign policy aims, varying national and international security ideas, and unfriendly personal relations between President [[Lyndon Johnson]] and Wilson. The relationship did not improve until the 1970s. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1965, Johnson proposed that the United States prop up Britain's pound sterling. In return he sought from Wilson's government such measures as support of deflationary policies and of American policies in the Vietnam War (he did not seek soldiers from britain). The initiative failed to materialize. Wilson defenders say the United States reneged after Wilson fended off American efforts to compromise Britain's sovereignty. Americans believe the change in US policy stemmed from new perceptions in the Johnson administration on Labour Party misrule in Britain. Americans concluded it was a mistake to indulge Britain in light of the Wilson government's unsatisfactory positions on Vietnam, its smaller contributions to European defense, its international monetary ideas, and its Middle Eastern policies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; John Dumbrell, &amp;quot;The Johnson Administration and the British Labour Government: Vietnam, the Pound and East of Suez&amp;quot; ''Journal of American Studies'' 1996 30(2): 211-231. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
===Economy===&lt;br /&gt;
Much of the disillusionment with Wilson was due to his perceived failure on the economic front. He pledged not to devalue sterling, but did exactly that in 1967. He also promised to keep unemployment low, but by 1970 had accepted a higher rate of joblessness than the Conservatives had endorsed. Wilson failed to implement two radical election pledges: to produce a comprehensive state earnings-related pension scheme and to introduce the 'income guarantee' - a minimum benefit to be paid without recourse to the traditional means test. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson's problems and defeats have obscured some of the modest achievements of the period. Science and education spending grew very quickly, industrial investment rose, and government was increasingly well-informed and better advised about the performance of the economy. In an increasingly unstable and rapidly changing economic environment, this government's economic record was one of muddling through, with little long-term vision.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; O'Hara (2006)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Labour Party when it was out of power in the early 1960s argued that Britain was lagging behind in science and technology. In 1963 Wilson, as party leader, pledged that a Labour government would lead the country through the &amp;quot;white heat&amp;quot; of a technological revolution. In fact, Britain in the 1960s spent more on research and development (R&amp;amp;D), both industrially and governmentally funded, than any other capitalist country besides the United States. The Labour government coming to power in 1964 found that Britain lacked not technology but strong industrial organization and management. Under [[Anthony Wedgwood Benn]], 1966-70, the Ministry of Technology attempted to rectify these deficiencies in high technology industries. This effort, only marginally successful, confirmed the lack of positive correlation between R&amp;amp;D and overall economic growth. Indeed, overexpenditure on &amp;quot;high tech&amp;quot; R&amp;amp;D could even be detrimental to such growth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; David Edgerton, &amp;quot;The 'White Heat' Revisited: The British Government and Technology in the 1960s.&amp;quot; ''Twentieth Century British History'' 1996 7(1): 53-82. in [[EBSCO]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson realized he had to fight the 1966 strike by the National Union of Seamen. Determined to save his government's income policy and bolster the British pound, Wilson declared a state of emergency. When that proved ineffective, he turned to claiming that the union was being influenced by Communists. The 47-day strike ended when the shipowners presented an acceptable offer. While Wilson appeared to be the winner, his tactics antagonized many Labour Party supporters.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;  Keir Thorpe, &amp;quot;The 'Juggernaut Method': The 1966 State of Emergency and the Wilson Government's Response to the Seamen's Strike&amp;quot;. ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2001 12(4): 461-485 in [[EBSCO]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Immigration===&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson reversed the policy of uncontrolled Commonwealth immigration of his predecessor Hugh Gaitskell. With an eye on public opinion and election returns, Wilson developed a three-phased race-relations policy, including tightened immigration controls, prohibition of domestic racial discrimination and incitement, and creation of local conciliation and integration mechanisms. His pragmatic, carefully balanced immigration and race-relations policies were in the short run successful, not least because of acquiescence by the opposition Conservative leadership. Racial issues, conspicuous in some urban working-class constituencies in the 1964 general election, were marginalized in the 1966 election. During Wilson's second administration (1966-70), pressure by Asian immigrants from East Africa and [[Enoch Powell]]'s populist Conservatism rekindled race-related issues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dennis Dean, &amp;quot;The Race Relations Policy of the First Wilson Government&amp;quot;. ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2000 11(3): 259-283  in [[EBSCO]] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Socialism===&lt;br /&gt;
Despite its alleged commitment to socialism, the British Labour Party has been flexible and reformist in its doctrine ever since it was founded in 1900. After the crisis of 1931, the party adopted a broadly social democratic program in which socialism was linked with the idea of economic planning and social welfare. The Attlee government of 1945-51 was very moderate in its commitment to socialism. The years of opposition saw violent arguments in the party between left-wing Bevanites and the center-right supporters of Hugh Gaitskell. But the main differences concerned foreign and defense policy. On domestic issues, the party was now broadly revisionist, committed to the mixed economy and social equality. &lt;br /&gt;
===New Left===&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson, on becoming prime minister in 1964, tried to bypass old doctrinal arguments by harnessing socialism to ideas of scientific modernization. But his government was a great failure, not least in its relations with the trade unions, the linchpin of the party since its founding. This bred much disillusionment and launched a new left-wing socialism in the 1970s. Wilson represented the older traditions of the Party and never understood the emerging &amp;quot;New Left&amp;quot; with new social roots, radical new ideas and new styles of political behaviour in the late 1970s. Following the disillusion and demoralization of traditional Labour Party activists with Wilson's government, a more radical and well-educated local Labour leadership appeared at the local level.  The Labour government of 1974-79 added to this division. The left-wing pressure reached its climax in the early 1980s when Thatcher was in power, but resulted only in heavy defeats for Labour in 1983 and 1987. The general impression in 1989 is of a loss of political and intellectual confidence, with British socialism trapped between a cherished past and an uncertain future.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Kenneth O. Morgan, ''Britain since 1945: The People's Peace'' (2001)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Europe===&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1966 Wilson quietly began an nquiry among European Economic Community (EEC) countries to see if the conditions existed for British membership in the EEC. His move politically rather than economically motivated. Faced with the contraction of Britain's political influence in Europe and in the Atlantic alliance, the erosion of Britain's position in the Commonwealth, and the termination of Britain's defense commitments east of Suez, Wilson had little choice but to turn to the EEC.&lt;br /&gt;
===Administration===&lt;br /&gt;
Changes to the machinery of government were central to the British Labour Party's policy agenda during 1964-70, key parts of which, particularly the drive for planned economic growth, were not achieved. The ideological basis for the objectives being pursued, such as economic expansion, was never properly explored or developed. However, some of Wilson's innovations, such as the incorporation of more outsiders into Whitehall, the first use of special advisers, and the establishment of the Ministry of Overseas Development and the Welsh Office, were successful.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Andrew Blick, &amp;quot;Harold Wilson, Labour and the Machinery of Government&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2006 20(3): 343-362   &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
==Image==&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson acquired a reputation as a somewhat devious, scheming figure. He cultivated a particular image of himself in the media, which included ostentatiously smoking a pipe, though in private he is said to have preferred cigars. He came from a working-class background, and retained a northern English working-class accent throughout his life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was preceded by Sir [[Alec Douglas-Home]] and succeeded by [[James Callaghan]]. His periods of premiership were broken by that of [[Edward Heath]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He died of colon cancer and Alzheimer's disease in 1995.&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
* Fielding, Steven.  &amp;quot;Rethinking Labour's 1964 Campaign&amp;quot;. ''Contemporary British History'' 2007 21(3): 309-324 &lt;br /&gt;
* Fielding, Steven and John W. Young, eds. ''The Wilson Government 1964-70'' (3 vol., 2004), highly detailed, favourable analysis&lt;br /&gt;
* Morgan, Austen.  ''Harold Wilson'' (1992), 625pp; negative appraisal&lt;br /&gt;
* O'Hara, Glen. &amp;quot;'Dynamic, Exciting, Thrilling Change': The Wilson Government's Economic Policies, 1964-70,&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2006 20(3): 383-402 &lt;br /&gt;
* Pimlott, Ben. ''Harold Wilson'' (1992). Pimlott tries to rehabilitate Wilson’s political reputation, revealing that he was the prisoner rather than the master of various domestic and international dilemmas. &lt;br /&gt;
* Ponting, Clive. ''Breach of Promise: Labour in Power, 1964-70'' (1989)&lt;br /&gt;
* Vickers, Rhiannon. &amp;quot;Harold Wilson, the British Labour Party, and the War in Vietnam&amp;quot;. ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2008 10(2): 41-70 30p.in [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====References====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:British History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:United Kingdom Prime Ministers|Wilson, Harold]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cold War]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:1960s]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:New Left]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Wilson, Harold}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harold_Wilson&amp;diff=876881</id>
		<title>Harold Wilson</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harold_Wilson&amp;diff=876881"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T14:08:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Prime Minister&lt;br /&gt;
|image=&lt;br /&gt;
|seq=69&lt;br /&gt;
|party=Labour Party&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start=October 16 1964&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end=June 19 1970&lt;br /&gt;
|previous=Alec Douglas-Home&lt;br /&gt;
|next=Edward Heath&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start2=March 4 1974&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end2=April 5 1976&lt;br /&gt;
|previous2=Edward Heath&lt;br /&gt;
|next2=James Callaghan&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_date=March 11 1916&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_place=Huddersfield&lt;br /&gt;
|death_date=May 24 1995 (aged 79)&lt;br /&gt;
|death_place=London&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse=&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse2=&lt;br /&gt;
|religion=[[Anglican]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Harold Wilson''' (born James Harold Wilson) was the [[Labour Party|Labour]] Prime Minister of Britain (the [[United Kingdom]]) from 1964-1970 and from 1974-1976. Having spent 13 years out of office after defeat in 1951; Harold Wilson was elected prime minister in 1964 following widespread discontent against the Conservative government. Wilson's government saw the liberalisation of Britain begin, with the legalisation of homosexuality, abortion and the removal of theatrical and cinema moral censorship. All anointed to be causes of the &amp;quot;permissive society&amp;quot; in Britain in the 1960's. Wilson set out also to drastically advance the British Economy through the creation of the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA). However all his Economic ideas held little success and he was defeated in the 1970 election by [[Edward Heath]]; whom Wilson would then defeat again narrowly in 1974. Combined, the economic failures of Heath and Wilson set the stage for the renewal of British energy and leadership under [[Margaret Thatcher]], beginning in 1979.[[File:Pimlott.jpg|thumb|350px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Career==&lt;br /&gt;
Born in 1916 and first elected to Parliament in 1945 he was appointed a junior minister in the Department of Trade immediately.  He was Member of Parliament for the [[Liverpool]] constituency of Huyton from 1945 until 1979.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==1964 election==&lt;br /&gt;
The 1964 election marked a crucial moment in postwar British politics. Wilson's victory confounded those critics who believed that three successive defeats in the 1950s meant that the Labour Party was becoming electorally obsolete. The &amp;quot;road to 1964&amp;quot; compares favourably with that of [[Clement Attlee]] in 1945, the only previous occasion Labour had removed the Conservative Party from power to form a majority government. In many respects the two elections were very different. Participation in [[Winston Churchill]]'s wartime coalition gave Labour a credibility that helped to ensure a landslide in 1945, whereas Wilson's margin of victory - just four seats - was tiny.  One important similarity stands out. Historians now tend to play down the &amp;quot;onward march of socialism&amp;quot; as the driving force behind 1945, stressing instead disillusionment with wartime conservatism. In the same way too much credit should not be attached to the vote-catching appeal of Wilson and his vision of &amp;quot;scientific socialism.&amp;quot; The root cause of 1964 lay in deep disenchantment with [[Harold Macmillan]]'s Tory administration. The Labour success in 1964 confirms the adage that elections are lost by governments rather than won by the opposition. &lt;br /&gt;
==Prime Minister==&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson won more general elections than any other British politician in the 20th Century. He won in 1964, 1966, and twice in 1974 although the February 1974 election resulted in a minority government. During his time in office he only once had a large majority (96 seats at the 1966 election) and struggled to get contentious legislation passed. Even so his legacy includes the [[Open University]] and the first steps toward British membership of the [[EEC]]. He also successfully kept Britain out of the war in [[Vietnam]].&lt;br /&gt;
===Relations with U.S.===&lt;br /&gt;
Although the United States and Britain have shared a &amp;quot;special relationship&amp;quot; in foreign relations since 1940, this link was weakened during the 1960s by several factors: differing foreign policy aims, varying national and international security ideas, and unfriendly personal relations between President [[Lyndon Johnson]] and Wilson. The relationship did not improve until the 1970s. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1965, Johnson proposed that the United States prop up Britain's pound sterling. In return he sought from Wilson's government such measures as support of deflationary policies and of American policies in the Vietnam War (he did not seek soldiers from britain). The initiative failed to materialize. Wilson defenders say the United States reneged after Wilson fended off American efforts to compromise Britain's sovereignty. Americans believe the change in US policy stemmed from new perceptions in the Johnson administration on Labour Party misrule in Britain. Americans concluded it was a mistake to indulge Britain in light of the Wilson government's unsatisfactory positions on Vietnam, its smaller contributions to European defense, its international monetary ideas, and its Middle Eastern policies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; John Dumbrell, &amp;quot;The Johnson Administration and the British Labour Government: Vietnam, the Pound and East of Suez&amp;quot; ''Journal of American Studies'' 1996 30(2): 211-231. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
===Economy===&lt;br /&gt;
Much of the disillusionment with Wilson was due to his perceived failure on the economic front. He pledged not to devalue sterling, but did exactly that in 1967. He also promised to keep unemployment low, but by 1970 had accepted a higher rate of joblessness than the Conservatives had endorsed. Wilson failed to implement two radical election pledges: to produce a comprehensive state earnings-related pension scheme and to introduce the 'income guarantee' - a minimum benefit to be paid without recourse to the traditional means test. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson's problems and defeats have obscured some of the modest achievements of the period. Science and education spending grew very quickly, industrial investment rose, and government was increasingly well-informed and better advised about the performance of the economy. In an increasingly unstable and rapidly changing economic environment, this government's economic record was one of muddling through, with little long-term vision.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; O'Hara (2006)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Labour Party when it was out of power in the early 1960s argued that Britain was lagging behind in science and technology. In 1963 Wilson, as party leader, pledged that a Labour government would lead the country through the &amp;quot;white heat&amp;quot; of a technological revolution. In fact, Britain in the 1960s spent more on research and development (R&amp;amp;D), both industrially and governmentally funded, than any other capitalist country besides the United States. The Labour government coming to power in 1964 found that Britain lacked not technology but strong industrial organization and management. Under [[Anthony Wedgwood Benn]], 1966-70, the Ministry of Technology attempted to rectify these deficiencies in high technology industries. This effort, only marginally successful, confirmed the lack of positive correlation between R&amp;amp;D and overall economic growth. Indeed, overexpenditure on &amp;quot;high tech&amp;quot; R&amp;amp;D could even be detrimental to such growth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; David Edgerton, &amp;quot;The 'White Heat' Revisited: The British Government and Technology in the 1960s.&amp;quot; ''Twentieth Century British History'' 1996 7(1): 53-82. in [[EBSCO]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson realized he had to fight the 1966 strike by the National Union of Seamen. Determined to save his government's income policy and bolster the British pound, Wilson declared a state of emergency. When that proved ineffective, he turned to claiming that the union was being influenced by Communists. The 47-day strike ended when the shipowners presented an acceptable offer. While Wilson appeared to be the winner, his tactics antagonized many Labour Party supporters.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;  Keir Thorpe, &amp;quot;The 'Juggernaut Method': The 1966 State of Emergency and the Wilson Government's Response to the Seamen's Strike&amp;quot;. ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2001 12(4): 461-485 in [[EBSCO]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Immigration===&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson reversed the policy of uncontrolled Commonwealth immigration of his predecessor Hugh Gaitskell. With an eye on public opinion and election returns, Wilson developed a three-phased race-relations policy, including tightened immigration controls, prohibition of domestic racial discrimination and incitement, and creation of local conciliation and integration mechanisms. His pragmatic, carefully balanced immigration and race-relations policies were in the short run successful, not least because of acquiescence by the opposition Conservative leadership. Racial issues, conspicuous in some urban working-class constituencies in the 1964 general election, were marginalized in the 1966 election. During Wilson's second administration (1966-70), pressure by Asian immigrants from East Africa and [[Enoch Powell]]'s populist Conservatism rekindled race-related issues.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dennis Dean, &amp;quot;The Race Relations Policy of the First Wilson Government&amp;quot;. ''Twentieth Century British History'' 2000 11(3): 259-283  in [[EBSCO]] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Socialism===&lt;br /&gt;
Despite its alleged commitment to socialism, the British Labour Party has been flexible and reformist in its doctrine ever since it was founded in 1900. After the crisis of 1931, the party adopted a broadly social democratic program in which socialism was linked with the idea of economic planning and social welfare. The Attlee government of 1945-51 was very moderate in its commitment to socialism. The years of opposition saw violent arguments in the party between left-wing Bevanites and the center-right supporters of Hugh Gaitskell. But the main differences concerned foreign and defense policy. On domestic issues, the party was now broadly revisionist, committed to the mixed economy and social equality. &lt;br /&gt;
===New Left===&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson, on becoming prime minister in 1964, tried to bypass old doctrinal arguments by harnessing socialism to ideas of scientific modernization. But his government was a great failure, not least in its relations with the trade unions, the linchpin of the party since its founding. This bred much disillusionment and launched a new left-wing socialism in the 1970s. Wilson represented the older traditions of the Party and never understood the emerging &amp;quot;New Left&amp;quot; with new social roots, radical new ideas and new styles of political behaviour in the late 1970s. Following the disillusion and demoralization of traditional Labour Party activists with Wilson's government, a more radical and well-educated local Labour leadership appeared at the local level.  The Labour government of 1974-79 added to this division. The left-wing pressure reached its climax in the early 1980s when Thatcher was in power, but resulted only in heavy defeats for Labour in 1983 and 1987. The general impression in 1989 is of a loss of political and intellectual confidence, with British socialism trapped between a cherished past and an uncertain future.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Kenneth O. Morgan, ''Britain since 1945: The People's Peace'' (2001)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Europe===&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1966 Wilson quietly began an nquiry among European Economic Community (EEC) countries to see if the conditions existed for British membership in the EEC. His move politically rather than economically motivated. Faced with the contraction of Britain's political influence in Europe and in the Atlantic alliance, the erosion of Britain's position in the Commonwealth, and the termination of Britain's defense commitments east of Suez, Wilson had little choice but to turn to the EEC.&lt;br /&gt;
===Administration===&lt;br /&gt;
Changes to the machinery of government were central to the British Labour Party's policy agenda during 1964-70, key parts of which, particularly the drive for planned economic growth, were not achieved. The ideological basis for the objectives being pursued, such as economic expansion, was never properly explored or developed. However, some of Wilson's innovations, such as the incorporation of more outsiders into Whitehall, the first use of special advisers, and the establishment of the Ministry of Overseas Development and the Welsh Office, were successful.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Andrew Blick, &amp;quot;Harold Wilson, Labour and the Machinery of Government&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2006 20(3): 343-362   &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
==Image==&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson acquired a reputation as a somewhat devious, scheming figure. He cultivated a particular image of himself in the media, which included ostentatiously smoking a pipe, though in private he is said to have preferred cigars. He came from a working-class background, and retained a northern English working-class accent throughout his life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was preceded by Sir [[Alec Douglas-Home]] and succeeded by [[James Callaghan]]. His periods of premiership were broken by that of [[Edward Heath]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He died of colon cancer and Alzheimer's disease in 1995.&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
* Fielding, Steven.  &amp;quot;Rethinking Labour's 1964 Campaign&amp;quot;. ''Contemporary British History'' 2007 21(3): 309-324 &lt;br /&gt;
* Fielding, Steven and John W. Young, eds. ''The Wilson Government 1964-70'' (3 vol., 2004), highly detailed, favourable analysis&lt;br /&gt;
* Morgan, Austen.  ''Harold Wilson'' (1992), 625pp; negative appraisal&lt;br /&gt;
* O'Hara, Glen. &amp;quot;'Dynamic, Exciting, Thrilling Change': The Wilson Government's Economic Policies, 1964-70,&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2006 20(3): 383-402 &lt;br /&gt;
* Pimlott, Ben. ''Harold Wilson'' (1992). Pimlott tries to rehabilitate Wilson’s political reputation, revealing that he was the prisoner rather than the master of various domestic and international dilemmas. &lt;br /&gt;
* Ponting, Clive. ''Breach of Promise: Labour in Power, 1964-70'' (1989)&lt;br /&gt;
* Vickers, Rhiannon. &amp;quot;Harold Wilson, the British Labour Party, and the War in Vietnam&amp;quot;. ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2008 10(2): 41-70 30p.in [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====References====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:British History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:United Kingdom Prime Ministers|Wilson, Harold]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cold War]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:1960s]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:New Left]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Wilson, Harold}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=British_Broadcasting_Corporation&amp;diff=876757</id>
		<title>British Broadcasting Corporation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=British_Broadcasting_Corporation&amp;diff=876757"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T01:48:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;''&amp;quot;The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias&amp;quot;''-&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt; Andrew Marr- BBC spokesman.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''British Broadcasting Corporation''' (BBC) is the major national public service broadcaster of the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the UK and is the largest broadcaster in the world by audience figures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BBC was given a royal charter in 1927 as a public body; it replaced a private, commercially run British Broadcasting Company, which began in 1922. The royal charter and license, constitute the BBC as a public corporation with a mandate to provide broadcasting as a public service.  BBC is funded by an annual license fee levied on all UK owning a television set. The BBC's monopoly on lasted from 1922 until 1973 and the introduction of commercial radio. It monopolised television from 1936 to 1954, when the Television Act allowed for the establishment of commercial stations financed by spot advertising. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC is often criticised for political bias, particularly [[liberal]], and for being overly [[politically correct]]. Analysts have accused the numerous extremist links to this BBC indicates a possible propaganda media network connection to [[Al Qaeda]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8472430/WikiLeaks-Leaked-files-accuse-BBC-of-being-part-of-a-possible-propaganda-media-network.html BBC part of 'possible propaganda media network', Telegraphe UK, April 25, 2011]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Broadcasting ==&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC operates eight national television channels (nine including the High-Definition service- BBC HD)[http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/] in the UK and ten national radio stations[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/]. Alongside these are its regional television services, which are variations of the national services, and separate regional radio stations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC produces many well-known television programmes, including ''The Ten O'Clock News'', ''Newsnight'', ''Question Time'', ''Eastenders'', ''Holby City'', ''Casualty'', ''Top Gear'', ''Match of the Day'', ''Have I Got News For You'' and ''Doctor Who''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its best known TV channels in the UK are BBC 1 and BBC 2. The other channels are broadcast as digital-only services and are available to owners of terrestrial digital receiving equipment. BBC 1 typically shows more mainstream programmes while BBC 2 has a reputation for more diversity and special interest content.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Outside the UK the best known service is the BBC World Service radio network which transmits in 33 languages to an estimated 163 million listeners a week[http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/05_may/21/global.shtml]. The BBC operates a number of commercially-funded international television channels including BBC World, the international news channel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Funding ==&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC is a Crown corporation supported by a licensing fee applied to television owners&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; of £135.50 (about $250 ) per year. All owners of TV receiving equipment are obliged to pay the fee whether they watch BBC content or not. As such the license fee is often criticised as being a tax.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BBC programming is free of commercial advertising.  However, it has some obligations to transmit statements by political parties and it advertises its own programmes. BBC channels transmitted in the UK are nevertheless free of commercial advertising - with the exception of sporting events, during which it is still permitted to display commercial advertising. Cricket matches were a previous source of contention as adverts projected onto the field of play are only visible to television viewers. This results in much greater non-advertising broadcasting time and uninterrupted broadcast of feature films. However, since the funding is determined by the government, the BBC can be slow to criticise those in power. This arrangement means the government has to do very little to apply pressure on the BBC and often the BBC will self regulate in favour of the government without any formal instruction being given.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbbc/50/5006.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This in turn leads to the government and the BBC being able to declare independence and neutrality officially, while in reality this is far from the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whilst there is a vocal campaign to have the BBC changed into a commercial company, this appears highly unlikely to happen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ownership ==&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC is an independent body which is held in trust for the British people. The BBC was most recently given a ten-year royal charter in 2006 that defines its purposes and allows it to act somewhat autonomously, free from commercial and government influence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Control rests with the 12-person BBC Trust, which replaced the Board of Governors in 2007. Trust members are paid and are appointed by the British prime minister and are supposed to represent the interests of a broad cross-section of the British listening and viewing public. Day-to-day management is handled by the board of management, headed by the director general; its members are appointed by the board of governors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==BBC News==&lt;br /&gt;
BBC News and Current Affairs is the largest news organisation in the world. It has at least 2,000 journalists and 44 news-gathering bureaus, three in the UK and 41 overseas. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/] It produces some 120 hours of news broadcasts daily.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
News programmes are produced for both TV and radio stations. Much of the TV news programming is delivered in a few major news bulletins throughout the day, the most recognised of which is the flagship Ten O'Clock News in the evening on BBC1. On BBC radio, news is delivered in mostly smaller segments on the hour or half hour. However, the Today programme on Radio 4 is broadcast from 7am to 9am and is often considered the most influential news broadcast in the UK.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
News produced by the BBC is made available and archived on the BBC news website.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Internet==&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC has a news and archive website, one of the top twenty most popular English language websites. Like its TV and radio broadcasting it is not allowed to show advertising if the site is viewed from within the UK. This has prompted some criticism from within the BBC as it means funds from the licensing fee used for the website are not available for TV and radio programming. However, some costs of the site are now, since late 2007, offset by advertising to non-UK based visitors to the site.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Competitors have also criticised the BBC website due to its ability to fund itself non-commercially without advertising to the detriment of its commercial competitors such as on-line versions of national newspapers and other news broadcasters such as Sky and ITN.&lt;br /&gt;
==History==&lt;br /&gt;
From its inception in 1922, J. C. W. Reith, the first director-general of the BBC, envisioned the organisation as an integral advocate of patriotism and the empire at home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Second World War===&lt;br /&gt;
From June 1940 to March 1941, the writer J. B. Priestley (1894-1984), broadcast a widely popular series of Sunday-night radio talks, 'Postscripts to the News.' He became the best known, most gifted, and probably most popular BBC commentator, for he had caught the mood of the British people during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz.  His forced departure was controversial and harmful to the BBC. Priestley blamed Prime Minister Churchill's negative reaction to his left-wing views on postwar reconstruction. Actually his firing was mainly due to Ministry of Information and BBC reluctance to allow an extended forum to a 'demagogic' personality who might attract a personal following, as [[Father Coughlin]] had done in the United States in the 1930s. The upshot was employment of a wider range of speakers and careful avoidance of controversy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC played a major role in promoting the British Empire worldwide during [[World War II|The Second World War, 1939-45]]. The BBC became the voice of Britain, reflecting as well as constructing the nation's history, culture, and tradition. At first the BBC worked aggressively to deflect criticism and insure that the Empire appeared as a source of strength. It presented British imperialism as a benefit to both Britain and the colonised areas. However, as the war progressed and postwar objectives became a concern, the focus of the BBC expanded to include the importance of maintaining Britain as an imperial power.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Thomas Hajkowski, &amp;quot;The BBC, the Empire, and the Second World War, 1939-1945,&amp;quot; ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 2002 22(2): 135-155 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Special programs were directed to peoples controlled by the Nazis; listening to the short-wave broadcasts was illegal but widespread. The German-language Austrian Service was directed by Patrick Smith, who emphasised the 'separateness' of Austria from Germany and on 'freedom and independence' as the Austrian goal. As victory approached the BBC stressed the need for Austrians themselves to take part in their own liberation. There were interviews with Austrian prisoners of war held in Britain. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Until 1944, broadcasts by the BBC's Hungarian service avoided describing the plight of the Jews in Hungary for fear that it would create an anti-Semitic backlash against one of the few Jewish populations in Europe which, though persecuted, was still allowed to live. Shortly after the Nazi occupation of Hungary in March 1944 the rounding up and deporting of Jews to death camps began. For the next four months, until Hungarian regent Horthy suspended the deportations, the Hungarian service repeatedly broadcast news of the deportation of Jews and urged Hungarians to obstruct, delay, and hinder the deportations in the name of humanity and Hungarian patriotism. Altering BBC Hungarian service policies regarding the Final Solution would perhaps have done little to slow the [[Holocaust]] in Hungary.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Gabriel Milland, &amp;quot;The BBC Hungarian Service and the Final Solution in Hungary,&amp;quot; ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 1998 18(3): 353-373 online in [[EBSCO]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The BBC Home Service rarely mentioned the massacre of Jews for many reasons, including the restraints formally imposed by a government at war, the notions that such reports simply would not be believed (or, being incomprehensible, written off as propaganda) or might spur a latent anti-Semitism, and the fact that people were not interested in gloomy stories but wanted to hear about the war effort.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Jeremy D. Harris, &amp;quot;Broadcasting the Massacres: an Analysis of the BBC's Contemporary Coverage of the Holocaust.&amp;quot; ''Yad Vashem Studies'' 1996 25: 65-98 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Cultural Impact===&lt;br /&gt;
====Monopoly years====&lt;br /&gt;
As the only TV broadcaster until the mid 1950s and only radio broadcaster until the mid 1970s, the BBC had a monopoly hold on British electronic media. As such its content was highly influential. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Children's Hour', begun in the late 1920s, was intended as a medium for democracy and the production of exemplary citizens through the dissemination of idealised middle-class values. In time, this approach proved to be out of touch with the listening habits and working class context of many 'Children's Hour' listeners. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Music broadcasts for schools were begun in 1924, and did much to disseminate new ideas, especially through 'music and movement' programs and the enormously popular 'Singing Together' during the Second World War. However, the more formal programs, designed to teach the rudiments of music and notation, were less successful, and Sir Walford Davies's idea of tune building by children was abandoned in 1934. Radio's ability to teach music formally appeared severely limited, and serious doubts as to its precise function in relationship to music teachers were constantly voiced and never answered.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gordon Cox, &amp;quot;School Music Broadcasts and the BBC 1924-47,&amp;quot; ''History of Education'' 1996 25(4): 363-371 online in [[EBSCO]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scottish broadcasters forged a unique and specifically Scottish tradition of radio programming in the 1920s, led by the Aberdeen studies of the BBC. However its role was weakened by a policy of centralisation in London after 1932. Radio drama based on collaboration with local theatre companies was especially strong, included much original work, and made a major contribution to the development of professional theatre in Scotland. The centralisation of radio broadcasting in London reflected the shift in the organisation of the British state toward greater involvement in the everyday lives of its citizens during the interwar years.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Adrienne Scullion, &amp;quot;BBC Radio in Scotland, 1923-1939: Devolution, Regionalism and Centralisation.&amp;quot; ''Northern Scotland'' 1995 15: 63-93 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
====Competitive years====&lt;br /&gt;
Since the late 1970s the BBC, while exposed to high volumes and variable quality of competition, has remained popular with the British public and its cultural influence is still a major force. The BBC is considered the default choice by many when viewing major events such as breaking news or state occasions, even though competitors may be broadcasting the same content.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC has had enormous influence over British attitudes to not just politics but also comedy, [[multiculturalism]], travel, natural history, international culture, popular trends, fashion and even the way the British speak. Through its foreign broadcasts on the BBC World Service, it has also had significant cultural influence outside the UK.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Accusations of Bias==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC has a long history of being criticised for bias. As well as persistent criticisms of [[liberal bias]], it also receives accusations of cultural [[bias]], regional bias, [[political correctness]], bias towards multiculturalism and minority interests, as well as both pro- and anti-government bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC is often accused of right-wing bias by those on the left and of left-wing bias by those on the right. This is sometimes attributed to UK governments of either persuasion simply objecting to negative reporting of its policies. However, it is also common for opposition to the government to be critical of the BBC. In some cases, the BBC can be subject to criticism from both sides citing bias in favour of their opposition, as in its reporting of the war in Iraq.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the BBC had been accused of bias many times in its history, a liberal bias became prevalent during the reign of Prime Minster [[Margaret Thatcher]], likely as a direct result of her government's efforts to streamline the corporation and make it more efficient. Before her reign, the BBC's overall ideology had fluctuated quite often between being pro-Conservative and pro-Liberal, mostly depending on which party was in power. Since Thatcher's reign though, it has been guilty of a quite pro-Liberal stance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Bias against the US and Israel===&lt;br /&gt;
Although its charter requires it to be impartial, critics often accuse it of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]].  However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen.  Steven Sugar, a Jewish critic of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the High Court of England and Wales.  The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar.  Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007.  The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias.  Conservative MP David Davies commented: &amp;quot;An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinise governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers' money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible&amp;quot; and called the BBC's actions a &amp;quot;shameful hypocrisy&amp;quot;.  It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2003, Media Tenor, an independent, Bonn-based research group, conducted a study and found that the BBC’s Middle East coverage was 85 percent negative, 15 percent neutral, and 0 percent positive toward Israel.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;“Beeb Outdoes Itself”, Tzvi Fleischer, The Review, September 2003, p. 8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During a 2006 internal &amp;quot;impartiality summit&amp;quot;, BBC executives said they would happily broadcast an image of a [[Bible]] being thrown away, but would not do the same with a [[Koran]]. At the summit, the BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused the executives of being anti-American, saying they treated the nation with scorn and derision and no moral weight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 15, 2007, BBC drew criticism due to their apology over calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813036973&amp;amp;pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The incident is one of many examples of repeated and systematic anti-Israeli bias from the BBC over a number of years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the BBC was also criticised by some for refusing to show a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza following the fighting in the region in December 2008 - January 2009. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4789700/BBC-Trust-chairman-attacks-politicians-over-Gaza-appeal-pressure.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Liberal bias===&lt;br /&gt;
Details of the BBC's alleged bias were further tabled in an official report&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;'''Revoir, Paul''', ''BBC comes under fire for institutional Left-wing bias'' [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462679&amp;amp;in_page_id=1770&amp;amp;ct=5 Daily Mail] June 18, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml BBC report finds bias within corporation], Gary Cleland,''Telegraph'', June 18, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/node/13530 BBC Report: Network’s Bias Due to 'The Inherent Liberal Culture of its Staff’], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], June 17, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; - in preparation since 2005 - which found that the BBC:&lt;br /&gt;
*has an &amp;quot;institutional Left-wing bias&amp;quot; (its 'Play for Today' series in the 1960s/70s was known as the '[[Trotskyist|Trot]] Slot')&lt;br /&gt;
*has &amp;quot;a tendency to 'group think' with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
*promotes anti-Christian sentiment&lt;br /&gt;
*promotes anti-American sentiment&lt;br /&gt;
*allows schedules to be &amp;quot;hijacked by special interest groups promoting trendy issues&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
*over-represents homosexuals&lt;br /&gt;
*over-represents ethnic minorities&lt;br /&gt;
*fails to reflect the views of the [[British]] public on issues such as [[capital punishment]]&lt;br /&gt;
*fails to reflect the broader views of British people&lt;br /&gt;
*fails to reflect concerns about pornography and family-unfriendly broadcasting (1960s Director General Hugh Carleton-Greene notoriously refused ever to meet broadcasting standards campaigner [[Mary Whitehouse]] and would commonly refer to her in opprobrious terms)&lt;br /&gt;
*allows itself to be used by &amp;quot;sinister&amp;quot; campaign groups&lt;br /&gt;
*finds it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Antony Jay]], a former producer on Tonight, a nightly BBC current affairs television programme, said the BBC News and Current Affairs are part of the &amp;quot;liberal media consensus&amp;quot;. Jay also said his ex-colleagues &amp;quot;were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/node/14114 Former BBC Producer Explains Why Media Are Liberally Biased], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], July 15, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/nbeeb314.xml&amp;amp;page=1 Here is the news (as we want to report it)], [[Telegraph]], July 15, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;Paul Dacre, the editor of the British newspaper, the [[Daily Mail]], in his January 2007 Hugh Cudlipp Memorial Lecture, said that &amp;quot;the BBC is, in every corpuscle of its corporate body, against the values of conservatism, with a small 'c', which just happen to be the values held by millions of Britons.&amp;quot;  He also accused the BBC of being hostile to the &amp;quot;traditional Right, Britain's past and British values, America, Ulster Unionism, Euro-scepticism, capitalism and big business, the countryside, Christianity and family values.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A survey of BBC employees with profiles on the [[Facebook]] site showed that 11 times more of them class themselves as &amp;quot;[[liberal]]&amp;quot; than &amp;quot;[[conservative]]&amp;quot;.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/10/27/facebook-provides-fascinating-glimpse-society-media-demographics Facebook Provides Fascinating Glimpse Into Society, Media Demographics], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], October 27, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490047&amp;amp;in_page_id=1770&amp;amp;ito=1490 Facebook reveals the BBC as a liberal hotbed], Jane Merrick and Kirsty Walker, [[Daily Mail]], October 27, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Regional bias===&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC is based in [[London]], in the South East of England. It often faces accusations of being London-centric, with events in the North of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland having a reduced profile. A perceived disproportionately private school education is often claimed to be illustrated in the output, with a disproportionate emphasis on private school events and sports.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also argued that the BBC also systematically discriminates against [[Scots]] speakers. Although over 1.5 million&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/schule25.pdf Language Policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; people speak it there is no service in the language of those licence fee payers&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Trust_the_BBC%3F.html/translate/english Trust the BBC?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/departs/all/report/research/art_of_ulster_scots.rtf BBC NI less than generous]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Supporters of the BBC and some linguists argue that the large number of regional dialects of Scots makes it no more viable to programme for the language than it would be with English&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.eng.umu.se/city/Fredrik/city/scottish.htm Scottish Dialects and Accents]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  In September 2008, the BBC launched BBC Alba, a [[Gaelic]] service consisting of a digital TV channel, a radio station and an online portal&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bbc.co.uk/alba/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Other===&lt;br /&gt;
BBC employees have changed [[Wikipedia]] entries, including a derogatory word in the entry for [[George W. Bush]] and changing the word “[[Terrorism|terrorists]]” to &amp;quot;[[freedom fighter]]s&amp;quot;. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26669&amp;amp;only&amp;amp;rss Wikipedia EditGate: BBC Edits], [[LittleGreenFootballs]], August 15, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/node/11982 BBC Cancels TV Movie On Iraq War Hero As 'Too Positive,' Would 'Alienate' War Opponents], Lynn Davidson, [[NewsBusters]], April 11, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/08/wiraq308.xml Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC], Chris Hastings, [[Telegraph]], July 4, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC funded a [[Paintball|paintballing]] trip for men later accused of [[Islamic terrorism]] and didn't pass on information about the 21/7 [[Terrorism|bombers]] to [[police]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/12/06/paintball-terrorists-bbc-paid-islamic-radical Paintball for Terrorists? BBC Paid for Islamic Radicals' Amusement], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], December 6, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=499795&amp;amp;in_page_id=1770 BBC 'funded paintballing trip for Islamic terrorists and didn't pass on information about 21/7 bombers'], Daniel Bates, [[Daily Mail]], December 5, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pauline Neville Jones]], who is a member of [[United Kingdom|Britain's]] [[British_politics#Conservatives|Conservative party]], a former [[Espionage|spy]] chief and former BBC governor, accused the BBC of &amp;quot;parroting&amp;quot; [[Al Qaeda]] [[propaganda]] to [[children]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/09/29/bbc-still-blaming-u-s-9-11 BBC Still Blaming U.S. for 9/11], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], September 29, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484577&amp;amp;in_page_id=1770 BBC's Newsround fed youngsters Al Qaeda propaganda, claims ex-spy chief], James Chapman , [[Daily Mail]], September 29, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ BBCresistance - Campaigns against the television licence]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1942930.ece Bias at the Beeb - official], June 17, 2007, ''UK Times Online''.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]&lt;br /&gt;
==Bibliography==&lt;br /&gt;
* Briggs, Asa, and Peter Burke. '' A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Social-History-Media-Gutenberg-Internet/dp/0745623751/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1197415587&amp;amp;sr=1-10 excerpt and text search] &lt;br /&gt;
* Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom'' (Oxford University Press, 1961). &lt;br /&gt;
**  Briggs Asa. '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume I: The Birth of Broadcasting'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Birth/dp/0192129260/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1197415587&amp;amp;sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
**  Briggs Asa.  '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume II: The Golden Age of  Wireless,'' (1995)&lt;br /&gt;
**  Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume III: The War of Words'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Words/dp/0192129562/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1197415587&amp;amp;sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
**  Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Volume IV: Sound &amp;amp; Vision'' (1979)  &lt;br /&gt;
**  Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume V: Competition'' (1995) &lt;br /&gt;
* Crisell, Andrew ''An Introductory History of British Broadcasting.'' 2nd ed. London: Routledge. (2002) &lt;br /&gt;
*  Nicholas, Siân. ''The Echo of War: Home Front Propaganda and the Wartime BBC, 1939-45.'' (1996) 307p.&lt;br /&gt;
* Hickman, Tom. ''What Did You Do in the War, Auntie? The BBC at War, 1939-45.'' (1995) 224p. &lt;br /&gt;
* Scannell, Paddy, and Cardiff, David. ''A Social History of British Broadcasting, Volume One, 1922-1939'' (Basil Blackwell, 1991). &lt;br /&gt;
* Smith, Anthony, and Richard Paterson. ''Television: An International History'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Television-International-History-Anthony-Smith/dp/0198159285/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1197416369&amp;amp;sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Broadcasters]][[Category:Television]][[Category:Radio]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=British_Broadcasting_Corporation&amp;diff=876756</id>
		<title>British Broadcasting Corporation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=British_Broadcasting_Corporation&amp;diff=876756"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T01:47:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: add quote&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;''&amp;quot;The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias&amp;quot;''- Andrew Marr- BBC spokesman.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''British Broadcasting Corporation''' (BBC) is the major national public service broadcaster of the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the UK and is the largest broadcaster in the world by audience figures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BBC was given a royal charter in 1927 as a public body; it replaced a private, commercially run British Broadcasting Company, which began in 1922. The royal charter and license, constitute the BBC as a public corporation with a mandate to provide broadcasting as a public service.  BBC is funded by an annual license fee levied on all UK owning a television set. The BBC's monopoly on lasted from 1922 until 1973 and the introduction of commercial radio. It monopolised television from 1936 to 1954, when the Television Act allowed for the establishment of commercial stations financed by spot advertising. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC is often criticised for political bias, particularly [[liberal]], and for being overly [[politically correct]]. Analysts have accused the numerous extremist links to this BBC indicates a possible propaganda media network connection to [[Al Qaeda]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8472430/WikiLeaks-Leaked-files-accuse-BBC-of-being-part-of-a-possible-propaganda-media-network.html BBC part of 'possible propaganda media network', Telegraphe UK, April 25, 2011]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Broadcasting ==&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC operates eight national television channels (nine including the High-Definition service- BBC HD)[http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/] in the UK and ten national radio stations[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/]. Alongside these are its regional television services, which are variations of the national services, and separate regional radio stations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC produces many well-known television programmes, including ''The Ten O'Clock News'', ''Newsnight'', ''Question Time'', ''Eastenders'', ''Holby City'', ''Casualty'', ''Top Gear'', ''Match of the Day'', ''Have I Got News For You'' and ''Doctor Who''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its best known TV channels in the UK are BBC 1 and BBC 2. The other channels are broadcast as digital-only services and are available to owners of terrestrial digital receiving equipment. BBC 1 typically shows more mainstream programmes while BBC 2 has a reputation for more diversity and special interest content.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Outside the UK the best known service is the BBC World Service radio network which transmits in 33 languages to an estimated 163 million listeners a week[http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/05_may/21/global.shtml]. The BBC operates a number of commercially-funded international television channels including BBC World, the international news channel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Funding ==&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC is a Crown corporation supported by a licensing fee applied to television owners&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; of £135.50 (about $250 ) per year. All owners of TV receiving equipment are obliged to pay the fee whether they watch BBC content or not. As such the license fee is often criticised as being a tax.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BBC programming is free of commercial advertising.  However, it has some obligations to transmit statements by political parties and it advertises its own programmes. BBC channels transmitted in the UK are nevertheless free of commercial advertising - with the exception of sporting events, during which it is still permitted to display commercial advertising. Cricket matches were a previous source of contention as adverts projected onto the field of play are only visible to television viewers. This results in much greater non-advertising broadcasting time and uninterrupted broadcast of feature films. However, since the funding is determined by the government, the BBC can be slow to criticise those in power. This arrangement means the government has to do very little to apply pressure on the BBC and often the BBC will self regulate in favour of the government without any formal instruction being given.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbbc/50/5006.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This in turn leads to the government and the BBC being able to declare independence and neutrality officially, while in reality this is far from the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whilst there is a vocal campaign to have the BBC changed into a commercial company, this appears highly unlikely to happen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ownership ==&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC is an independent body which is held in trust for the British people. The BBC was most recently given a ten-year royal charter in 2006 that defines its purposes and allows it to act somewhat autonomously, free from commercial and government influence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Control rests with the 12-person BBC Trust, which replaced the Board of Governors in 2007. Trust members are paid and are appointed by the British prime minister and are supposed to represent the interests of a broad cross-section of the British listening and viewing public. Day-to-day management is handled by the board of management, headed by the director general; its members are appointed by the board of governors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==BBC News==&lt;br /&gt;
BBC News and Current Affairs is the largest news organisation in the world. It has at least 2,000 journalists and 44 news-gathering bureaus, three in the UK and 41 overseas. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/] It produces some 120 hours of news broadcasts daily.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
News programmes are produced for both TV and radio stations. Much of the TV news programming is delivered in a few major news bulletins throughout the day, the most recognised of which is the flagship Ten O'Clock News in the evening on BBC1. On BBC radio, news is delivered in mostly smaller segments on the hour or half hour. However, the Today programme on Radio 4 is broadcast from 7am to 9am and is often considered the most influential news broadcast in the UK.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
News produced by the BBC is made available and archived on the BBC news website.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Internet==&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC has a news and archive website, one of the top twenty most popular English language websites. Like its TV and radio broadcasting it is not allowed to show advertising if the site is viewed from within the UK. This has prompted some criticism from within the BBC as it means funds from the licensing fee used for the website are not available for TV and radio programming. However, some costs of the site are now, since late 2007, offset by advertising to non-UK based visitors to the site.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Competitors have also criticised the BBC website due to its ability to fund itself non-commercially without advertising to the detriment of its commercial competitors such as on-line versions of national newspapers and other news broadcasters such as Sky and ITN.&lt;br /&gt;
==History==&lt;br /&gt;
From its inception in 1922, J. C. W. Reith, the first director-general of the BBC, envisioned the organisation as an integral advocate of patriotism and the empire at home.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Second World War===&lt;br /&gt;
From June 1940 to March 1941, the writer J. B. Priestley (1894-1984), broadcast a widely popular series of Sunday-night radio talks, 'Postscripts to the News.' He became the best known, most gifted, and probably most popular BBC commentator, for he had caught the mood of the British people during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz.  His forced departure was controversial and harmful to the BBC. Priestley blamed Prime Minister Churchill's negative reaction to his left-wing views on postwar reconstruction. Actually his firing was mainly due to Ministry of Information and BBC reluctance to allow an extended forum to a 'demagogic' personality who might attract a personal following, as [[Father Coughlin]] had done in the United States in the 1930s. The upshot was employment of a wider range of speakers and careful avoidance of controversy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC played a major role in promoting the British Empire worldwide during [[World War II|The Second World War, 1939-45]]. The BBC became the voice of Britain, reflecting as well as constructing the nation's history, culture, and tradition. At first the BBC worked aggressively to deflect criticism and insure that the Empire appeared as a source of strength. It presented British imperialism as a benefit to both Britain and the colonised areas. However, as the war progressed and postwar objectives became a concern, the focus of the BBC expanded to include the importance of maintaining Britain as an imperial power.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Thomas Hajkowski, &amp;quot;The BBC, the Empire, and the Second World War, 1939-1945,&amp;quot; ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 2002 22(2): 135-155 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Special programs were directed to peoples controlled by the Nazis; listening to the short-wave broadcasts was illegal but widespread. The German-language Austrian Service was directed by Patrick Smith, who emphasised the 'separateness' of Austria from Germany and on 'freedom and independence' as the Austrian goal. As victory approached the BBC stressed the need for Austrians themselves to take part in their own liberation. There were interviews with Austrian prisoners of war held in Britain. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Until 1944, broadcasts by the BBC's Hungarian service avoided describing the plight of the Jews in Hungary for fear that it would create an anti-Semitic backlash against one of the few Jewish populations in Europe which, though persecuted, was still allowed to live. Shortly after the Nazi occupation of Hungary in March 1944 the rounding up and deporting of Jews to death camps began. For the next four months, until Hungarian regent Horthy suspended the deportations, the Hungarian service repeatedly broadcast news of the deportation of Jews and urged Hungarians to obstruct, delay, and hinder the deportations in the name of humanity and Hungarian patriotism. Altering BBC Hungarian service policies regarding the Final Solution would perhaps have done little to slow the [[Holocaust]] in Hungary.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Gabriel Milland, &amp;quot;The BBC Hungarian Service and the Final Solution in Hungary,&amp;quot; ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 1998 18(3): 353-373 online in [[EBSCO]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The BBC Home Service rarely mentioned the massacre of Jews for many reasons, including the restraints formally imposed by a government at war, the notions that such reports simply would not be believed (or, being incomprehensible, written off as propaganda) or might spur a latent anti-Semitism, and the fact that people were not interested in gloomy stories but wanted to hear about the war effort.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Jeremy D. Harris, &amp;quot;Broadcasting the Massacres: an Analysis of the BBC's Contemporary Coverage of the Holocaust.&amp;quot; ''Yad Vashem Studies'' 1996 25: 65-98 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Cultural Impact===&lt;br /&gt;
====Monopoly years====&lt;br /&gt;
As the only TV broadcaster until the mid 1950s and only radio broadcaster until the mid 1970s, the BBC had a monopoly hold on British electronic media. As such its content was highly influential. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Children's Hour', begun in the late 1920s, was intended as a medium for democracy and the production of exemplary citizens through the dissemination of idealised middle-class values. In time, this approach proved to be out of touch with the listening habits and working class context of many 'Children's Hour' listeners. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Music broadcasts for schools were begun in 1924, and did much to disseminate new ideas, especially through 'music and movement' programs and the enormously popular 'Singing Together' during the Second World War. However, the more formal programs, designed to teach the rudiments of music and notation, were less successful, and Sir Walford Davies's idea of tune building by children was abandoned in 1934. Radio's ability to teach music formally appeared severely limited, and serious doubts as to its precise function in relationship to music teachers were constantly voiced and never answered.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gordon Cox, &amp;quot;School Music Broadcasts and the BBC 1924-47,&amp;quot; ''History of Education'' 1996 25(4): 363-371 online in [[EBSCO]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scottish broadcasters forged a unique and specifically Scottish tradition of radio programming in the 1920s, led by the Aberdeen studies of the BBC. However its role was weakened by a policy of centralisation in London after 1932. Radio drama based on collaboration with local theatre companies was especially strong, included much original work, and made a major contribution to the development of professional theatre in Scotland. The centralisation of radio broadcasting in London reflected the shift in the organisation of the British state toward greater involvement in the everyday lives of its citizens during the interwar years.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Adrienne Scullion, &amp;quot;BBC Radio in Scotland, 1923-1939: Devolution, Regionalism and Centralisation.&amp;quot; ''Northern Scotland'' 1995 15: 63-93 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
====Competitive years====&lt;br /&gt;
Since the late 1970s the BBC, while exposed to high volumes and variable quality of competition, has remained popular with the British public and its cultural influence is still a major force. The BBC is considered the default choice by many when viewing major events such as breaking news or state occasions, even though competitors may be broadcasting the same content.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC has had enormous influence over British attitudes to not just politics but also comedy, [[multiculturalism]], travel, natural history, international culture, popular trends, fashion and even the way the British speak. Through its foreign broadcasts on the BBC World Service, it has also had significant cultural influence outside the UK.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Accusations of Bias==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC has a long history of being criticised for bias. As well as persistent criticisms of [[liberal bias]], it also receives accusations of cultural [[bias]], regional bias, [[political correctness]], bias towards multiculturalism and minority interests, as well as both pro- and anti-government bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC is often accused of right-wing bias by those on the left and of left-wing bias by those on the right. This is sometimes attributed to UK governments of either persuasion simply objecting to negative reporting of its policies. However, it is also common for opposition to the government to be critical of the BBC. In some cases, the BBC can be subject to criticism from both sides citing bias in favour of their opposition, as in its reporting of the war in Iraq.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the BBC had been accused of bias many times in its history, a liberal bias became prevalent during the reign of Prime Minster [[Margaret Thatcher]], likely as a direct result of her government's efforts to streamline the corporation and make it more efficient. Before her reign, the BBC's overall ideology had fluctuated quite often between being pro-Conservative and pro-Liberal, mostly depending on which party was in power. Since Thatcher's reign though, it has been guilty of a quite pro-Liberal stance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Bias against the US and Israel===&lt;br /&gt;
Although its charter requires it to be impartial, critics often accuse it of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]].  However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen.  Steven Sugar, a Jewish critic of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the High Court of England and Wales.  The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar.  Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007.  The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias.  Conservative MP David Davies commented: &amp;quot;An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinise governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers' money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible&amp;quot; and called the BBC's actions a &amp;quot;shameful hypocrisy&amp;quot;.  It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2003, Media Tenor, an independent, Bonn-based research group, conducted a study and found that the BBC’s Middle East coverage was 85 percent negative, 15 percent neutral, and 0 percent positive toward Israel.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;“Beeb Outdoes Itself”, Tzvi Fleischer, The Review, September 2003, p. 8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During a 2006 internal &amp;quot;impartiality summit&amp;quot;, BBC executives said they would happily broadcast an image of a [[Bible]] being thrown away, but would not do the same with a [[Koran]]. At the summit, the BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused the executives of being anti-American, saying they treated the nation with scorn and derision and no moral weight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 15, 2007, BBC drew criticism due to their apology over calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813036973&amp;amp;pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The incident is one of many examples of repeated and systematic anti-Israeli bias from the BBC over a number of years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the BBC was also criticised by some for refusing to show a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza following the fighting in the region in December 2008 - January 2009. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4789700/BBC-Trust-chairman-attacks-politicians-over-Gaza-appeal-pressure.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Liberal bias===&lt;br /&gt;
Details of the BBC's alleged bias were further tabled in an official report&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;'''Revoir, Paul''', ''BBC comes under fire for institutional Left-wing bias'' [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462679&amp;amp;in_page_id=1770&amp;amp;ct=5 Daily Mail] June 18, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml BBC report finds bias within corporation], Gary Cleland,''Telegraph'', June 18, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/node/13530 BBC Report: Network’s Bias Due to 'The Inherent Liberal Culture of its Staff’], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], June 17, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; - in preparation since 2005 - which found that the BBC:&lt;br /&gt;
*has an &amp;quot;institutional Left-wing bias&amp;quot; (its 'Play for Today' series in the 1960s/70s was known as the '[[Trotskyist|Trot]] Slot')&lt;br /&gt;
*has &amp;quot;a tendency to 'group think' with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
*promotes anti-Christian sentiment&lt;br /&gt;
*promotes anti-American sentiment&lt;br /&gt;
*allows schedules to be &amp;quot;hijacked by special interest groups promoting trendy issues&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
*over-represents homosexuals&lt;br /&gt;
*over-represents ethnic minorities&lt;br /&gt;
*fails to reflect the views of the [[British]] public on issues such as [[capital punishment]]&lt;br /&gt;
*fails to reflect the broader views of British people&lt;br /&gt;
*fails to reflect concerns about pornography and family-unfriendly broadcasting (1960s Director General Hugh Carleton-Greene notoriously refused ever to meet broadcasting standards campaigner [[Mary Whitehouse]] and would commonly refer to her in opprobrious terms)&lt;br /&gt;
*allows itself to be used by &amp;quot;sinister&amp;quot; campaign groups&lt;br /&gt;
*finds it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Antony Jay]], a former producer on Tonight, a nightly BBC current affairs television programme, said the BBC News and Current Affairs are part of the &amp;quot;liberal media consensus&amp;quot;. Jay also said his ex-colleagues &amp;quot;were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/node/14114 Former BBC Producer Explains Why Media Are Liberally Biased], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], July 15, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/nbeeb314.xml&amp;amp;page=1 Here is the news (as we want to report it)], [[Telegraph]], July 15, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;Paul Dacre, the editor of the British newspaper, the [[Daily Mail]], in his January 2007 Hugh Cudlipp Memorial Lecture, said that &amp;quot;the BBC is, in every corpuscle of its corporate body, against the values of conservatism, with a small 'c', which just happen to be the values held by millions of Britons.&amp;quot;  He also accused the BBC of being hostile to the &amp;quot;traditional Right, Britain's past and British values, America, Ulster Unionism, Euro-scepticism, capitalism and big business, the countryside, Christianity and family values.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A survey of BBC employees with profiles on the [[Facebook]] site showed that 11 times more of them class themselves as &amp;quot;[[liberal]]&amp;quot; than &amp;quot;[[conservative]]&amp;quot;.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/10/27/facebook-provides-fascinating-glimpse-society-media-demographics Facebook Provides Fascinating Glimpse Into Society, Media Demographics], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], October 27, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490047&amp;amp;in_page_id=1770&amp;amp;ito=1490 Facebook reveals the BBC as a liberal hotbed], Jane Merrick and Kirsty Walker, [[Daily Mail]], October 27, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Regional bias===&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC is based in [[London]], in the South East of England. It often faces accusations of being London-centric, with events in the North of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland having a reduced profile. A perceived disproportionately private school education is often claimed to be illustrated in the output, with a disproportionate emphasis on private school events and sports.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also argued that the BBC also systematically discriminates against [[Scots]] speakers. Although over 1.5 million&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/schule25.pdf Language Policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; people speak it there is no service in the language of those licence fee payers&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Trust_the_BBC%3F.html/translate/english Trust the BBC?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/departs/all/report/research/art_of_ulster_scots.rtf BBC NI less than generous]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Supporters of the BBC and some linguists argue that the large number of regional dialects of Scots makes it no more viable to programme for the language than it would be with English&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.eng.umu.se/city/Fredrik/city/scottish.htm Scottish Dialects and Accents]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  In September 2008, the BBC launched BBC Alba, a [[Gaelic]] service consisting of a digital TV channel, a radio station and an online portal&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bbc.co.uk/alba/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Other===&lt;br /&gt;
BBC employees have changed [[Wikipedia]] entries, including a derogatory word in the entry for [[George W. Bush]] and changing the word “[[Terrorism|terrorists]]” to &amp;quot;[[freedom fighter]]s&amp;quot;. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26669&amp;amp;only&amp;amp;rss Wikipedia EditGate: BBC Edits], [[LittleGreenFootballs]], August 15, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/node/11982 BBC Cancels TV Movie On Iraq War Hero As 'Too Positive,' Would 'Alienate' War Opponents], Lynn Davidson, [[NewsBusters]], April 11, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/08/wiraq308.xml Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC], Chris Hastings, [[Telegraph]], July 4, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The BBC funded a [[Paintball|paintballing]] trip for men later accused of [[Islamic terrorism]] and didn't pass on information about the 21/7 [[Terrorism|bombers]] to [[police]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/12/06/paintball-terrorists-bbc-paid-islamic-radical Paintball for Terrorists? BBC Paid for Islamic Radicals' Amusement], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], December 6, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=499795&amp;amp;in_page_id=1770 BBC 'funded paintballing trip for Islamic terrorists and didn't pass on information about 21/7 bombers'], Daniel Bates, [[Daily Mail]], December 5, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pauline Neville Jones]], who is a member of [[United Kingdom|Britain's]] [[British_politics#Conservatives|Conservative party]], a former [[Espionage|spy]] chief and former BBC governor, accused the BBC of &amp;quot;parroting&amp;quot; [[Al Qaeda]] [[propaganda]] to [[children]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/09/29/bbc-still-blaming-u-s-9-11 BBC Still Blaming U.S. for 9/11], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], September 29, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484577&amp;amp;in_page_id=1770 BBC's Newsround fed youngsters Al Qaeda propaganda, claims ex-spy chief], James Chapman , [[Daily Mail]], September 29, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ BBCresistance - Campaigns against the television licence]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1942930.ece Bias at the Beeb - official], June 17, 2007, ''UK Times Online''.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]&lt;br /&gt;
==Bibliography==&lt;br /&gt;
* Briggs, Asa, and Peter Burke. '' A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Social-History-Media-Gutenberg-Internet/dp/0745623751/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1197415587&amp;amp;sr=1-10 excerpt and text search] &lt;br /&gt;
* Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom'' (Oxford University Press, 1961). &lt;br /&gt;
**  Briggs Asa. '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume I: The Birth of Broadcasting'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Birth/dp/0192129260/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1197415587&amp;amp;sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
**  Briggs Asa.  '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume II: The Golden Age of  Wireless,'' (1995)&lt;br /&gt;
**  Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume III: The War of Words'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Words/dp/0192129562/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1197415587&amp;amp;sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
**  Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Volume IV: Sound &amp;amp; Vision'' (1979)  &lt;br /&gt;
**  Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume V: Competition'' (1995) &lt;br /&gt;
* Crisell, Andrew ''An Introductory History of British Broadcasting.'' 2nd ed. London: Routledge. (2002) &lt;br /&gt;
*  Nicholas, Siân. ''The Echo of War: Home Front Propaganda and the Wartime BBC, 1939-45.'' (1996) 307p.&lt;br /&gt;
* Hickman, Tom. ''What Did You Do in the War, Auntie? The BBC at War, 1939-45.'' (1995) 224p. &lt;br /&gt;
* Scannell, Paddy, and Cardiff, David. ''A Social History of British Broadcasting, Volume One, 1922-1939'' (Basil Blackwell, 1991). &lt;br /&gt;
* Smith, Anthony, and Richard Paterson. ''Television: An International History'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Television-International-History-Anthony-Smith/dp/0198159285/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1197416369&amp;amp;sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Broadcasters]][[Category:Television]][[Category:Radio]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:TomFowdy&amp;diff=876755</id>
		<title>User:TomFowdy</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:TomFowdy&amp;diff=876755"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T01:43:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: Created page with &amp;quot;[http://www.fowdy92.blogspot.com my blog]  I am an English Conservative and a Christian.  I am pro-life, I strongly oppose: gay marriage, the sexualisation of society, binge drin...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[http://www.fowdy92.blogspot.com my blog]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am an English Conservative and a Christian.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am pro-life, I strongly oppose: gay marriage, the sexualisation of society, binge drinking, liberal methods of education, big government, atheism, junk sciences, consumerism &amp;amp; secular morality.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative_Party_(UK)&amp;diff=876753</id>
		<title>Conservative Party (UK)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative_Party_(UK)&amp;diff=876753"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T01:36:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Conservatives.png|right|thumb|300px|The Conservative Party logo]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Conservative Party''' is the largest right-wing party in the [[United Kingdom]], and is one of that country's three major political parties. Its full official name is the ''Conservative and Unionist Party'', and it is commonly referred to as the ''Tory Party'' after its historical predecessor. Its current leader is [[David Cameron]]. Aside from Economic Conservatism or [[Thatcherism]] as known in the UK, there is little actually Conservative about the modern party, which has moved away from its traditional right-wing policies to more a [[liberal]] ground. Examples of such include the inclusion of its own [[LGBT]] group&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.lgbtory.co.uk/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and its embracing of other socially liberal &amp;quot;modern&amp;quot; policies. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==British conservatism==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
British conservatism has its own distinctive tradition, separate both from that of continental European conservatism and from that of American conservatism. Traditional British conservatism is rooted in pragmatism, practicality and concrete experience: this reflects a broader historical preference in British culture for the practical over the theoretical and for the concrete over the abstract. In continental Europe, many conservatives in past times, such as the Frenchman [[Joseph de Maistre]], were strongly ideological and defended causes such as absolute monarchy and Roman Catholicism. By contrast, the heroes of British conservatism (such as Sir [[Edmund Burke]] in the eighteenth century, Sir [[Robert Peel]] and [[Benjamin Disraeli]] in the nineteenth, and Sir [[Winston Churchill]] in the twentieth) were moderate, pragmatic and non-ideological. While a more ideological strand of conservatism was in the ascendant during the leadership of [[Margaret Thatcher|Lady Thatcher]] (1975-1990), the older, pragmatic trend has reasserted itself in more recent years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Conservative Party in recent years==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The modern British Conservative Party ran the United Kingdom for nearly 20 years, beginning with Margaret Thatcher's victory for the Party in 1979.  She came into office facing a British economy that had been crippled by industrial disputes, strikes, high unemployment, and collapsing public services, especially during the so-called 'Winter of Discontent' of 1978-9.  Mrs. Thatcher turned that around, broke the iron grip of the trade unions, and restored the British economy to a free enterprise system that has continued to this day.  She was succeeded by John Major in 1990, and, to the surprise of the media, Major won the general election in 1992 and extended the Conservative Party's power until 1997.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By 1997 the Labour Party had finally embraced the more conservative direction for the country and abandoned many of its socialist economic policies of the past. Economic difficulties, including a dispute over whether the UK should join the currency of the European Union, hurt the Conservative Party further. This was coupled with a perception that the party had become corrupt, with a number of high-profile members of the party being involved in financial and sexual scandals. The Labour Party won in a landslide in 1997 and held power until 2010. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Major was soon after replaced by [[William Hague]], whose election as party leader was seen as an affirmation that the party wanted to continue with its Thatcherite policies. Hague was the victim of smears and attacks by a media which became Labour-biased to an extent never before seen in British history, and any attempt he made to state his policies or attack the government was routinely ignored (the UK has media regulations similar to the [[Fairness Doctrine]], but does not regulate what the media are supposed to report, only how much time they allocate to each party). The 2001 election went little better than the previous for the Conservatives, for which Hague accepted responsibility and stepped down as leader. [[Iain Duncan Smith]] replaced Hague, seemingly getting elected for no reason other than the fact that he was endorsed by Thatcher, and made no real impact as party leader. After passing up chances to attack the government for their role in [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] (which had far less support in the UK than it did in the US), the party decided that enough was enough and Duncan Smith was removed as leader in late 2003. [[Michael Howard]] was seen by many as the only possible man to take the Conservatives forward, and was elected as the new party leader without opposition. A far more adept period of leadership saw a recovery at the 2005 election, halving Labour's majority in the House of Commons. A few weeks later, Howard announced that while the recovery of the Conservative Party had begun, he had done all he could as party leader, and so would step down once a successor had been elected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The modern Party==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--[[Image:Caroline Spelman.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Caroline Spelman, the Conservative Party Chairman]] --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Since the early 2000s, the Conservative Party leaders have softened its conservative stance on social and fiscal issues, and this has increased its popularity with the voters. Particularly since David Cameron - a self-declared &amp;quot;liberal conservative&amp;quot; (which in British English means &amp;quot;moderate conservative&amp;quot;) - became leader of the Conservative Party, their support in the country has risen dramatically, however this is also due to the media-perpetuated anti-war feeling within the United Kingdom following [[Tony Blair]]'s era, coupled with the unpopularity of [[Gordon Brown]]'s government&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://politics.guardian.co.uk/speeches/story/0,,1869970,00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and recent polls. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2007/Guardian%20-%20Jan/guardian-jan-2007.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,2016791,00.html &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cameron can be seen as a more moderate conservative than many previous leaders. His party policies have gravitated towards a more &amp;quot;green&amp;quot; outlook as the concern  about [[global warming]] has grown within the UK. He has also praised Britain's socialized healthcare system, the [[National Health Service|NHS]]; but has also considered privatisation of sections of the service in an attempt to decrease the deficit at which it currently operates. The party has also continued to support some traditional elements of Conservative policy, such as support for the family.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Cameron has established his own website. [http://www.webcameron.org.uk/]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[British politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[British conservatives]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[David Cameron]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Margaret Thatcher]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Conservative Party of New York State|Conservative Party of New York State (CPNYS)]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[American Conservative Party|American Conservative Party (ACP)]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.conservatives.com/ Conservative Party Official Website]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Manifesto.aspx Conservative Party Manefesto for the 2010 General Election]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:British Political Parties]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:British History]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative_Party_(UK)&amp;diff=876752</id>
		<title>Conservative Party (UK)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative_Party_(UK)&amp;diff=876752"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T01:35:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Conservatives.png|right|thumb|300px|The Conservative Party logo]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Conservative Party''' is the largest right-wing party in the [[United Kingdom]], and is one of that country's three major political parties. Its full official name is the ''Conservative and Unionist Party'', and it is commonly referred to as the ''Tory Party'' after its historical predecessor. Its current leader is [[David Cameron]]. Aside from [[Fiscal Conservatism]] there is little Conservative about the modern party, which has moved away from its right-wing policy to more a [[liberal]] ground. Examples of such include the inclusion of its own [[LGBT]] group&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.lgbtory.co.uk/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and its embracing of other socially liberal &amp;quot;modern&amp;quot; policies. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==British conservatism==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
British conservatism has its own distinctive tradition, separate both from that of continental European conservatism and from that of American conservatism. Traditional British conservatism is rooted in pragmatism, practicality and concrete experience: this reflects a broader historical preference in British culture for the practical over the theoretical and for the concrete over the abstract. In continental Europe, many conservatives in past times, such as the Frenchman [[Joseph de Maistre]], were strongly ideological and defended causes such as absolute monarchy and Roman Catholicism. By contrast, the heroes of British conservatism (such as Sir [[Edmund Burke]] in the eighteenth century, Sir [[Robert Peel]] and [[Benjamin Disraeli]] in the nineteenth, and Sir [[Winston Churchill]] in the twentieth) were moderate, pragmatic and non-ideological. While a more ideological strand of conservatism was in the ascendant during the leadership of [[Margaret Thatcher|Lady Thatcher]] (1975-1990), the older, pragmatic trend has reasserted itself in more recent years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Conservative Party in recent years==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The modern British Conservative Party ran the United Kingdom for nearly 20 years, beginning with Margaret Thatcher's victory for the Party in 1979.  She came into office facing a British economy that had been crippled by industrial disputes, strikes, high unemployment, and collapsing public services, especially during the so-called 'Winter of Discontent' of 1978-9.  Mrs. Thatcher turned that around, broke the iron grip of the trade unions, and restored the British economy to a free enterprise system that has continued to this day.  She was succeeded by John Major in 1990, and, to the surprise of the media, Major won the general election in 1992 and extended the Conservative Party's power until 1997.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By 1997 the Labour Party had finally embraced the more conservative direction for the country and abandoned many of its socialist economic policies of the past. Economic difficulties, including a dispute over whether the UK should join the currency of the European Union, hurt the Conservative Party further. This was coupled with a perception that the party had become corrupt, with a number of high-profile members of the party being involved in financial and sexual scandals. The Labour Party won in a landslide in 1997 and held power until 2010. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Major was soon after replaced by [[William Hague]], whose election as party leader was seen as an affirmation that the party wanted to continue with its Thatcherite policies. Hague was the victim of smears and attacks by a media which became Labour-biased to an extent never before seen in British history, and any attempt he made to state his policies or attack the government was routinely ignored (the UK has media regulations similar to the [[Fairness Doctrine]], but does not regulate what the media are supposed to report, only how much time they allocate to each party). The 2001 election went little better than the previous for the Conservatives, for which Hague accepted responsibility and stepped down as leader. [[Iain Duncan Smith]] replaced Hague, seemingly getting elected for no reason other than the fact that he was endorsed by Thatcher, and made no real impact as party leader. After passing up chances to attack the government for their role in [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] (which had far less support in the UK than it did in the US), the party decided that enough was enough and Duncan Smith was removed as leader in late 2003. [[Michael Howard]] was seen by many as the only possible man to take the Conservatives forward, and was elected as the new party leader without opposition. A far more adept period of leadership saw a recovery at the 2005 election, halving Labour's majority in the House of Commons. A few weeks later, Howard announced that while the recovery of the Conservative Party had begun, he had done all he could as party leader, and so would step down once a successor had been elected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The modern Party==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--[[Image:Caroline Spelman.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Caroline Spelman, the Conservative Party Chairman]] --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Since the early 2000s, the Conservative Party leaders have softened its conservative stance on social and fiscal issues, and this has increased its popularity with the voters. Particularly since David Cameron - a self-declared &amp;quot;liberal conservative&amp;quot; (which in British English means &amp;quot;moderate conservative&amp;quot;) - became leader of the Conservative Party, their support in the country has risen dramatically, however this is also due to the media-perpetuated anti-war feeling within the United Kingdom following [[Tony Blair]]'s era, coupled with the unpopularity of [[Gordon Brown]]'s government&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://politics.guardian.co.uk/speeches/story/0,,1869970,00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and recent polls. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2007/Guardian%20-%20Jan/guardian-jan-2007.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,2016791,00.html &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cameron can be seen as a more moderate conservative than many previous leaders. His party policies have gravitated towards a more &amp;quot;green&amp;quot; outlook as the concern  about [[global warming]] has grown within the UK. He has also praised Britain's socialized healthcare system, the [[National Health Service|NHS]]; but has also considered privatisation of sections of the service in an attempt to decrease the deficit at which it currently operates. The party has also continued to support some traditional elements of Conservative policy, such as support for the family.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Cameron has established his own website. [http://www.webcameron.org.uk/]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[British politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[British conservatives]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[David Cameron]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Margaret Thatcher]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Conservative Party of New York State|Conservative Party of New York State (CPNYS)]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[American Conservative Party|American Conservative Party (ACP)]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.conservatives.com/ Conservative Party Official Website]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Manifesto.aspx Conservative Party Manefesto for the 2010 General Election]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:British Political Parties]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:British History]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Labour_Party_(UK)&amp;diff=876749</id>
		<title>Labour Party (UK)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Labour_Party_(UK)&amp;diff=876749"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T01:30:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The '''Labour Party''' is a democratic party of the [[United Kingdom]] generally thought of as being on the [[left-wing|left]] of the political spectrum.  Economically was once a bastion of [[socialism]] but has largely abandoned this in practice and in rhetoric (although there still is vague mention in the platform).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; see [http://www.labour.org.uk/labour_policies &amp;quot;Labour's Policies&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Nowadays Party embraces all [[typical]] liberal values and in May 2011 officially alligned itself to a [[Pro-choice]] stance.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/25/labour-challenge-anti-abortion-group]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. At the same time it is exclusively pro-gay, pro-Islamic and pro-feminist organisation. Through the usage of talented spin doctors such as [[Peter Mandelson]], the modern Labour Party is an extremely deceptive PR machine; it is highly dishonest in its dealings with the public and media.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Labour Party was founded in 1900, and currently forms the [[Leader of the Opposition|Her Majesty's Opposition]], being the largest party in the UK not in currently in government. The current leader of the Labour Party is [[Ed Miliband]], who was elected by Labour party members on September 25th 2010, after their crushing defeat four months earlier in the UK's [[general election]]. [[Image:Labour logo.jpg|right|thumb|170px|The Labour Party's logo]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History==&lt;br /&gt;
===Origins===&lt;br /&gt;
The Labour Party was formed out of an alliance of several prominent left-wing and socialist movements that existed in Britain at the turn of the century. Chief amongst them the were the [[Trades Union Congress]], the [[Fabian Society]], and the [[Independent Labour Party]]. The group took the name [[Labour Representation Committee]], later adopting the name [[Labour Party]] after achieving seats in the [[House of Commons]] at the 1906 election.  Much of the intellectual energy came from the [[Fabian Socialism|Fabians, an informal group of intellectual socialists.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rise of Marxist socialism in the late 19th century in the Social Democratic Federation (SDF) (1881-1911) did not create a militantly atheistic and anti-religious force. From its beginnings, circa 1881, the SDF contained Christians, non-Christians, and anti-Christians. These groups generally coexisted in a state of compromise. The membership of the SDF was generally secularist and freethinking but religion was not a central issue. For all parties in the SDF, the central issue was commitment to socialism. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Labour1910.jpg|thumb|290px|Labour called for abolition of the [[House of Lords]] in 1910; when elected, they kept it and appointed their own favourites to peerages. Later posters dropped the violent imagery and called for peaceful change.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Interwar period===&lt;br /&gt;
In its early years the Labour Party benefited from an alliance with the other main left-wing party in Britain, the [[Liberal Party]]; from a growth in working class consciousness; and from dissatisfaction with both the Liberal and [[Conservative Party|Conservative]] parties in the wake of what were perceived to be their mistakes in the handling of the [[First World War]]. Winning growing numbers of seats at each election, the Labour Party was finally able to form a government in 1924 under the leadership of [[Ramsay MacDonald]]. However this was short-lived. The party did not have an outright majority, and in fact only had about one third of the total seats within the House. After just nine months the Party lost an important vote, and the government resigned.  Four days before the election the ''[[Daily Mail]]'' published the &amp;quot;[[Zinoviev Letter]]&amp;quot;, a forgery that seemed to indicate that the Communist Party of Great Britain was planning subversion or even a violent revolution in cooperation with Labour.  The letter was leaked by the Foreign Ministry. The Labour Party was badly defeated in the 1924 general election, even though its vote increased by one million. The Conservative vote was up by two million as the Liberal party was rapidly collapsing. Historians agree the Zinoviev Letter was a forgery but their consensus is that it made little difference in the election.  What is more important, after the election Labour leaders used it as an excuse for their failure; it became a roadblock to needed internal reforms in the Labour party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Labour1929.jpg|thumb|300px|Despite the deliberate appeal to middle class voters in this 1929 poster, most Labour voters were working class blokes who did not wear white collars and ties.]]&lt;br /&gt;
The Labour Party briefly formed a government again in 1929, but this did not survive the effects of the [[Great Depression]]. In a dispute over the best way to handle the economic consequences of the global financial crash, the Party leadership fractured. A new &amp;quot;National Government&amp;quot; drawn from all parties was formed, with [[Ramsay MacDonald]] still as Prime Minister. However this was dominated by the other parties, particularly the Conservatives, who went on to dominate the British political scene for the rest of the interwar period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Victory in 1945===&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Second World War]] saw a major shift in political attitudes within Britain, and led to a landslide victory for [[Clement Attlee]] in 1945.  The modest, unassuming intellectual Attlee named a cabinet that included all elements of the party. Of 37 ministers, eight were former coal miners, and eleven had been active trade unionists. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This government introduced sweeping reforms of industry and the creation of the [[welfare state]]. Attlee's government nationalised major industries, founded the [[National Health Service]], and developed the idea of welfare from cradle to grave paid for out of taxation and available to everyone free of charge. Much of the welfare state is still in force today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Labour government was fiercely anti-Communist, but the economy was so weak it had to relinquish a leadership role to the United States.  Atlee pushed President [[Harry Truman]] to take over Britain's historic roles, especially in Greece, and indeed helped push the U.S. into the [[Cold War]] against the [[Soviet Union]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After losing in 1951, the Labour Party spent the next 13 years out of office and achieved little during the governments of Wilson (1964-1970 and 1974-1976) and his successor James Callaghan (1976-79).  Their failures set the stage for the renewal of British energy and leadership under [[Margaret Thatcher]], beginning in 1979.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Socialism===&lt;br /&gt;
Despite its historic commitment to socialism, the British Labour Party has been flexible and reformist in its doctrine ever since it was founded in 1900. After the crisis of 1931, the party adopted a broadly social democratic program in which socialism was linked with the idea of economic planning and social welfare. The Attlee government of 1945-51 was very moderate in its commitment to socialism. The years of opposition saw violent arguments in the party between left-wing Bevanites and the center-right supporters of [[Hugh Gaitskell]]. But the main differences concerned foreign and defense policy. On domestic issues, the party was now broadly revisionist, committed to the mixed economy and social equality.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Atlee45.jpg|thumb|370px|Atlee defeats Churchill in 1945, and becomes bowler for the British cricket team; he faces difficult issues like housing and finance which are coming to bat.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==New Left==&lt;br /&gt;
Wilson, on becoming prime minister in 1964, tried to bypass old doctrinal arguments by harnessing nationalized industry to ideas of scientific modernization. But his government was a great failure, not least in its relations with the trade unions, the linchpin of the party since its founding. Wilson represented the older traditions of the Labour Party and never understood the emerging &amp;quot;New Left&amp;quot; with new social roots, new ideas and new styles of political behaviour in the late 1970s. Following the disillusion and demoralization of traditional Labour Party activists with Wilson's government, a more radical and well-educated local Labour leadership appeared at the local level. This bred much disillusionment and launched a new left-wing socialism in the 1970s. The Labour government of 1974-79 added to this division. The left-wing pressure reached its climax in the early 1980s when Thatcher was in power but resulted only in heavy defeats for Labour in 1983 and 1987. The general impression in 1989 is of a loss of political and intellectual confidence, with British socialism trapped between a cherished past and an uncertain future.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Kenneth O. Morgan, ''Britain since 1945: The People's Peace'' (2001)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Social issues===&lt;br /&gt;
The Labour Party has also been a strong proponent of social reform. Under [[Harold Wilson]] in the late 60s, abortion and homosexuality were decriminalizes, the death penalty abolished and divorce was made easier. Unease from a perceived large number of immigrants from Commonwealth countries also led to four Race Relations Acts, all of which were passed under Labour governments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Industrial Strife===&lt;br /&gt;
see [[Winter of Discontent]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Labour Party always prided itself on strong links with [[Labor union|trade unions]], but by the late 1960s there was growing industrial unrest. Inflation was becoming a growing problem and unemployment began to rise. Harold Wilson was elected for a third time in February 1974, taking over from Conservative [[Edward Heath]] whose government was brought to its knees by oil shortages and a crippling coal miners' strike in 1973. Throughout the late 1970s strikes were commonplace, tight controls on pay rises, known as incomes policy, was struggling to curb inflation which reached a high of 28%. A series of devastating strikes in the winter of 1978/79 which became known as the [[Winter of Discontent]] led to the government of [[James Callaghan]] being defeated in a vote of no confidence and a general election which was won by the Conservative Party led by [[Margaret Thatcher]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===A swing to the left===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Michael Foot]] became leader of the Labour Party in 1980 and took the party in a far left direction. The 1983 manifesto pledged to reverse all Thatcher's economic reforms; renationalise all privatised businesses, return taxes on the rich to the punitive level of the 1970s (98% in some cases), restore trade union powers, leave the European Economic Community, unilaterally surrender Britain's nuclear weapons and campaign for a united Ireland as a solution to the paramilitarism and terrorism that had beset the province of Northern Ireland throughout the 70s. The manifesto became known as the &amp;quot;longest suicide note in history&amp;quot; and was defeated by Thatcher's Conservatives in a landslide. Pro-EEC Labour Party members who formed their own party, the SDP, nearly polled more votes than the Labour Party. If not for the SDP's poorly thought-out electoral strategy (which gained plenty of votes, but almost no seats in the Commons), Labour could have been reduced to third party status in this election.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Foot was succeeded by [[Neil Kinnock]], who ditched much (but not all) of the far-left baggage from 1983. Under Kinnock, Labour was again defeated in a landslide in 1987 but, crucially, Labour came well ahead of the SDP (now in alliance with the Liberal Party).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Tony Blair and &amp;quot;New Labour&amp;quot;===&lt;br /&gt;
The term New Labour didn't come into being until [[Tony Blair]] became leader in 1994, but the reform of the Labour Party took place long before then. By 1992, it was clear that Thatcher's reforms had struck a chord with voters and the Labour party were no longer promising to renationalise industries or restore trade union powers. Only the top rate of income tax would be raised from 40 to 50%. Opinion polls during the election campaign predicted a very close result, but the Conservative party won a narrow victory of 23 seats after an unusually high turnout.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
John Smith became leader in 1992, but his sudden death in 1994 led to Tony Blair to become leader and the term &amp;quot;New Labour&amp;quot; was born. Blair started by reforming Clause IV. Clause IV dealt with the purpose of the Party and referred direct to its erstwhile desire for public ownership of the means of production; the current version instead calls for 'a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few'.&lt;br /&gt;
The revised version mentions &amp;quot;socialism&amp;quot; as a sop to the old timers:&lt;br /&gt;
:The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few.’&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Blair promised no increases in income tax and pledged to run a stable economy. He scored landslide victories in 1997, and again in 2001.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of Blair's most controversial decisions was to [[Iraq War|invade Iraq]] in 2003 alongside the Americans and other allies. Britain became the second largest contributor of armed forces to [[George W. Bush]]'s &amp;quot;Coalition of the Willing&amp;quot;, and Blair staunchly defended the position, and won supporting votes in parliament. Partly due to the war's unpopularity, and partly to a perception that the Government had raised taxes on business and individuals to unacceptable levels, the Labour party won a much smaller majority in 2005 and has seen key bills defeated by backbench revolts such as the plan to hold terrorist suspects for up to 90 days without charge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Blair had lost his momentum, so he retired in mid-2007 and was replaced per prior arrangement by his long-time Chancellor, [[Gordon Brown]]. The worldwide [[Recession of 2008]], continuing into 2009, hit Britain hard and has yet to bottom out. Labour took much of the blame, and its polling rates dropped to levels not seen since the early 1980s. Labour's popularity continued to decline in 2009, as the party made its worst electoral showing in a hundred years in the EU elections in June 2009. Brown, however, beat back his disunited critics, reorganized his cabinet, and stumbled onward. The Conservatives maintain a large lead for the next general election, which must be held by spring 2010.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sharia Infiltration==&lt;br /&gt;
There is evidence that the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) has created a party within the Labour party. The IFE seeks to make Britain and [[Europe]] an Islamic state. In covert investigations by the media it was determined that the IFE were expressing opposition to democracy, support for sharia law or mocking black people and organized meetings with extremists, including [[Taliban]] allies. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/7333420/Islamic-radicals-infiltrate-the-Labour-Party.html Islamic radicals 'infiltrate' the Labour Party, TelegraphUK, February 27, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote| [They are] placing people within the political parties, recruiting members to those political parties, trying to get individuals selected and elected so they can exercise political influence and power, whether it's at local government level or national level.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Prime Ministers==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Ramsay MacDonald]] (1924 and 1929-1935) [http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page136.asp]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Labour45.jpg|thumb|270px|Labour won an unexpected landslide in 1945]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Clement Attlee]] (1945-1951) [http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page133.asp]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Harold Wilson]] (1964-1970 and 1974-1976) [http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page129.asp]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James Callaghan]] (1976-1979) [http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page127.asp]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Tony Blair]] (1997-2007) [http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page4.asp]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Gordon Brown]] (2007-2010)&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Labour45b.jpg|thumb|275px|left|Iconic 1945 election poster]]&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fabian Society]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Industrial Democracy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Davies, Andrew. ''To Build a New Jerusalem: The British Labour Party from Keir Hardie to Tony Blair'' (1996)&lt;br /&gt;
* Favretto, Ilaria.&amp;quot;'Wilsonism' Reconsidered: Labour Party Revisionism, 1952-64.&amp;quot; ''Contemporary British History'' 2000 14(4): 54-80 in [[EBSCO]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Morgan, Austen.  ''Harold Wilson'' (1992), 625pp; negative appraisal&lt;br /&gt;
* Morgan, Kenneth O. ''Britain since 1945: The People's Peace'' (2001)&lt;br /&gt;
* Pimlott, Ben. ''Harold Wilson'' (1992). Pimlott tries to rehabilitate Wilson’s political reputation, revealing that he was the prisoner rather than the master of various domestic and international dilemmas. &lt;br /&gt;
* Swift, John. ''Labour in Crisis: Clement Attlee and the Labour Party in Opposition, 1931-1940'' (2001)&lt;br /&gt;
*  Worley, Matthew. ''Labour inside the Gate: A History of the British Labour Party between the Wars'' (2005),&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.labour.org.uk/home Official site]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:British Political Parties]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:British History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:British Politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Labor Unions]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:New Left]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:1960s]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bolshevik&amp;diff=876746</id>
		<title>Bolshevik</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bolshevik&amp;diff=876746"/>
		<updated>2011-06-08T01:22:40Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TomFowdy: correct date&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The '''Bolsheviks''' were a [[communist]] political faction and party in the [[Russian Empire]] that eventually successfully overthrew the [[Kerensky Provisional Government]] in the 1917 Russian [[October Revolution]] under the leadership of [[Vladimir Lenin]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bolsheviks arose from a 1903 factional schism in the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, resulting in disagreement between Lenin and Julius Martov about the future of the party.  Those who followed Lenin soon declared themselves the Bolsheviks (derived from the Russian for 'majority') while Martov's followers were termed [[Mensheviks]] ('minority').  In 1912, the Bolsheviks split entirely from the Mensheviks, forming their own political party, which became the driving force behind the 1917 [[Russian Revolution|revolution]]. Despite their name, the Bolsheviks were a much smaller and less influential party than the Mensheviks until the second half of 1917.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Joseph Stalin]] systematically executed most of the surviving Bolsheviks in 1937.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:Political Parties]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Communism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Russia]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Soviet Union]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TomFowdy</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>