How far does the power of the state explain the decline of Chartism by 1850?

Give three possible explanations always including the one in the question e.g. power of the state; social and economic divisions; and problems with Chartism itself.Introduce all three factors and your argument in the introduction.Stick to a PEA structure (point, evidence, analysis).Conclusion: outline all factors and refute the two you disagree with in order to strengthen your argument.
Example conclusion:In some ways, the power of the state does accurately explain the failure of the Chartist movement; in addition to the state’s demonstration of physical force, its removal of the repressive class legislation of the 1830s prevented the radicals from portraying the government as the enemy.In addition, the improved economic conditions of the period resulted in better social conditions for the majority of the working class, thus there was less urgency for reform.However, whilst both the power of the state and the economic context are undeniably important in explaining the reasons for the failure of Chartism, ultimately its collapse can be explained by the fundamental failures within the movement itself - even without successful government opposition and an improving economy, the Chartists never had a chance at achieving their aims due to the prominent divisions they faced over leadership, tactics, membership and regions, which consequently failed to form a coherent critique of Parliament. Therefore, the decline of Chartism by 1850 is most accurately explained by problems within Chartism itself.