(edexcel style A-level) To what extent was leadership the main reason for the failure of chartism during the years 1839 — 1849?

A failure or lack of cohesive and organised leadership of the Chartist movement during the years 1839 to 1849 has often been cited as one of the main reasons that Chartism failed. The movement was made up of several recognisable leaders: John Frost, Zepheniah Williams, William Jones, William Lovett and Feargus O’Connor. Although each of these men played a key role in chartism, the fact that there were at least five men in a leadership role resulted in a lack of coordination due to differing views, opinions and thus greatly hindered the efficiency of the movement to coherently organise itself. Differing approaches and ideas from these men therefore slowed down the success of chartism, and prevented the movement from reaching its man goals. As well as this, between them they often had disagreements on other aspects of government which were not on the charter, including the hours in the working day. For example, O’Connor was very closely linked to a more radical and physical approach of protest whereas Lovett believed that their goals could only be achieved through peaceful discussion in parliament. These contrasting approaches and views from the leadership created unstable foundations from which the movement would grow, rendering it unstable and largely ineffective. Furthermore, there were clear cases of poor communication between the leaders, most prominently during the 1839 Newport rising. A failure to effectively plan the point the three leaders involved and their troops were to meet and join forces led to Frost arriving at the Westgate hotel before the other two troops. This resulted in havoc due to the fact that strength in numbers was lost, since only around a third of the overall 5000 protesters were present at the hotel. This led to panic, and subsequently ineffective protest. The lack of communication and clear organisation between the leaders in this example led to 22 deaths, with Frost fleeing from the catastrophe, highlighting a lack of preparation for violence. Not only did the poor leadership lead to deaths and casualties, it also diminished support and belief in the movement as people were less willing to help their cause if it could be potentially dangerous and didn't seem to the having any positive effect in parliament anyway. Thus the poor standard of planning and communication, as well as the vast differences in ideas amongst the many leaders can be seen as the main reason why chartism wasn't successful during this time. 
However, it can be argued that the fact they failed to gain parliamentary support was a more significant reason for the failure of the chartists. Notably, the first charter got a large number of 1,280,000 signatures which was presented in the Commons by MP, Thomas Attwood. The fact the chartists had the support of an MP should have been a positive factor, however it clearly had very little impact on passing their ideas. On top of this Attwood had even played a role in the passing of the 1832 reform act, meaning the commons had listened to him in the past, suggesting that he was a respected MP. Despite this, when Attwood proposed the Chartists ideas the house laughed and did not pay any attention to the goals despite the number of signatures. This meant that success was not likely in the coming years since there was very little chance they would pass another reform bill so close after that of 1832. Without enough parliamentary support it was impossible for success to be obtained. Furthermore, the house widely saw the working class as too humble and not clever enough have such a big say in the government and to even understand how the petition worked or what it meant thus proving how parliament was very fixed in not giving every man the vote. The progressive nature of the chartist's ideas where therefore not heard or respected in parliament, which quashed the opportunity for chartism to succeed in the 1840s. This defeast ultimately lost them support since it was seemingly a lost cause, hindering chartism further in the coming decades. Nevertheless, this can be linked back to the poor leadership since if the leaders had been on the same line and approached the bill in the same way, they could have got more support and perhaps even have been taken more seriously by the member of parliament since Attwood would have had a better argument to present before them. ...
(Point 1 and 2 of a standard 20 marker. )