Is the Labour party still socialist?
Is the Labour party still socialist? Clause 4 in the Labour party constitution is a clear commitment to socialism. It states the encouragement of redistribution of wealth and common ownership. However in recent years, the Labour party has seemed to take a new direction and some may suggest that the party has lost its socialist traditions. One of the major arguments that support this suggestion is the fact that in 1995, the Labour party under Tony Blair rewrote Clause 4 to modernise the party and broaden its appeal to the public. The clause turned into something that describes the party as 'socialist democrats' but it moves away from the nationalisation principals that was deeply unpopular during the Thatcher era. New Labour seemed to accept the Thatcherite economic policies of free deregulated markets and privatisation of industries. When they were recently in power, the party even welcomed private funds into national institutions such as hospitals and schools. This shows that labour no longer follows the former left wing ideologies on the economy but instead they are taking a more central position of state controlled capitalism. There is also a change in views over European policy with new Labour. The socialists were anti-Europe and they wanted Britain to be free to protect their own domestic industries from foreign competition. Conversely, new Labour believes that
How can Coalition government affect the traditions of the Cabinet system?
How can Coalition government affect traditions of the Cabinet system? "Yes! I know what I have to face. I have to face a coalition. The combination may be successful. Coalitions, although successful, have always found this, that their triumph has been brief. This too I know that England does not love coalitions." Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881) This is a quotation of famous statesman B. Disraeli taken from the speech in House of Commons in 1851. It mainly states that coalitions between parties can be successful but for a short-term as it leads to significant changes. Historically, the Cabinet is the most powerful decision-making body of the United Kingdom and has certain rules and traditions. Since the last general election provided a Coalition Government, two-party government, which is quite unusual for Britain, there have been made a range of reforms and changes in order to adapt new government to habitual style. This essay will outline in what way and how the coalition government has affected the Cabinet, by analysing and discussing the main features of Coalition government, the Prime Minister's power, Cabinet and its' traditions (Lowe, C., Owen, V. et al., 2010). In order to do this it is useful to define what a Coalition government is. Coalition government or in other words "hung parliament" is known as a balanced parliament formed due to a minority government after
How democratic is the Labour party's organisation? & Does it matter?
How Democratic is the Labour Party Organisation & Does it Matter? The organisation of the Labour party today is very different from what it used to be like as 'old labour'. In this day and age the party is structured so that it seemly is very democratic and that everyone gets a chance to have a say in the decisions its makes. However as Diane Abbott said "the forums are a smoke screen for autocratic decision making". In other words the system is less democratic then the masses are lead to believe. This is thanks to the system that was set up by Blair specifically made so that all decisions would be made by the elite. This is known as an elitist system. This can be seen with the example of the conference. In times past a conference was were the policies could be debated, discussed and fought over, however the story couldn't be more different today. The conference is little more now than a media focused event in which everyone agrees because they have already had their say. Whether it has been listen to or not is a completely different matter. The policies are created by the NPF (Who is headed by the party leader) they then go through a number of layers of the party system each policy being deliberated at each layer until finally the revised policies are sent back to the NPF for consideration. It is at this point that it is Questionable on the level of democracy in the
What does it take to change the United Kingdoms constitution?
What does it take to change the United Kingdom's constitution? There are two main sections in regard to how the constitution could be modified. It could be a tangible or intangible change. The tangible change is changing the United Kingdom's unwritten constitution to a written one with clearly set out rules. The intangible change is to modify the conventions that are followed. This is done through adaptation overtime because of procedural change or the crystallisation of conventions. The UK is in the process of writing a constitution, many of UKs ex colonies have written constitutions. There are pros and cons of whether the UK should be attempting this. This can be perceived as an opportunity to reduce the vagueness within the law; it will make the job of the judges interpreting statutes considerably easier and less ambiguous. Furthermore, it will reduce the number of different sources one must look at. It would all be clearly set out for everyone to access. Furthermore, the UK has been increasing the number of written rules for codes of conduct for government officials; it is not as unwritten as previously, an example of this is the Ministerial Code. In 1991 the Labour party produced a detailed Constitution for the UK and since then many constitutional character statutes have been published adding to the support. It appears that there has been a gradual shift
Discuss the case for and against a Written Constitution for the UK.
Discuss the case for and against a 'Written Constitution' for the UK. A Constitution, according to Professor KC Wheare is "the whole system of government of a country, a collection of rules which establish and regulate or govern the government" (1966). In lay terms, it is a set of rules governing a country. There are various types of constitutions; however the written and unwritten constitutions will be critically examined. A written constitution is one contained within a single document or a series of documents, whereas an unwritten/uncodified constitution is not set out in one particular/said document (Barnett 2006). The United Kingdom is said to have an unwritten constitution, but is best described as wholly uncodified (Budge et al, 1998). Their laws are accessible from law reports and statutes. The US is a prime example of having a written constitution. In subsequent paragraphs a critical examination of the pros and cons of a written constitution to be adopted by the United Kingdom will be examined thoroughly. The United Kingdom has an unwritten constitution which is a product of the history of the country. It has not been thought necessary to frame a single document which would deal with matters relating to the constitution. This has been due to the gradual development of the UK constitution and the absence of an event requiring an abrupt change in the constitution,
To what extent does the prime minister dominate the UK political system?
To what extend does the Prime Minister dominate the UK Political System? The Prime Minister is the head of Government in the UK. They are appointed to this role because they are the leader of the party with a majority, or as in David Cameron's case, the leader of a coalition. The Prime Minister is a very powerful figure - he appoints and dismisses members of the cabinet, and choose what jobs they will do. In addition to this the PM chairs cabinet meetings, decides on Government structure (people and responsibilities) and determines the size of Government departments, sorting out who is in charge for different aspects of policy. The PM also sets up cabinet committees to relieve the burden on the cabinet. The Prime Minister does not just appoint the members of his cabinet, he also appoints people into non Government roles, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury and the CEO's of nationalised industries such as Royal Mail. Many people in receipt of knighthoods or O/M/CBE's are actually decided by the Prime Minister as well. The Prime Minister uses this power of patronage (appointment and dismissal) in order to get their own way, by filling the cabinet with political allies and removing those who disagree. Under Thatcher, key Government jobs were given to her supporters (Thatcherites) whereas the one nation Tories lost out - they were sacked or simply not promoted. Thatcher
During this project, I hope to test out my hypothesis that the BBC War reporting undermined the security of the British troops during the Falklands of 1982, potentially breaking the Treason Act, 1940.
The BBC, the tactless undermining of the British Forces Security and the necessity of news regulation: A Case Study of the Battle of Goose Green, 1982. During this project, I hope to test out my hypothesis that the BBC War reporting undermined the security of the British troops during the Falklands of 1982, potentially breaking the Treason Act, 1940. The debate for and against censorship of information in media coverage is a controversial issue, especially in relation to war reporting as it can be understood that the primary purpose of the media is to provide information to the public and is therefore a public service to provide news on the country's affairs. Free Press enables the audience to be equipped with knowledge to form opinions of their own, independent of the agenda of those in political power. However, it must be highlighted that regulations of media censorship are necessary, purely in the interests of security for those in threatening situations. It can be argued that broadcasting information that defy military censorship, endangering the life of the majesty's forces, is officially breaking the Treachery Act 1940. My objective throughout this project is to convey the BBC as potentially having a detrimental effect to particular individuals they report and therefore must be regulated within strict guidelines in particular circumstances. I will structure this
Should the UK have a codified constitution?
Should the UK have a codified constitution? A constitution is a set of rules that establishes how political power should be distributed, the relationship between political institutions, the limits to government, the rights of citizens and how the constitution can be changed. In the UK, we have an un-codified constitution; this means that it is not written down on one single document. However, recently more and more people have become in favour of codifying the constitution. There are many arguments justifying the employment of a codified constitution in the UK, but the most important are to limit the executive and legislative powers, entrench the constitution to protect the people and to modernize the UK politically compared to all other modern democracies that have a codified constitution. In the 21st century, most democracies have a codified constitution with the exception of the UK, New Zealand, Israel and Saudi Arabia. This brings in to question how relevant and up to date the UK's political system is. Currently, the constitution has evolved through conventions and changes to the law by parliament. Supporters of an un-codified constitution argue that the system works well using the current system which has been used for centuries, causing no problems. Another argument is the difficulties of codifying the British constitution, some of the problems that may incur may
How might the House of Lords be reformed to make it more effective?
How might the House of Lords be reformed to make it more effective? (25) Lords sat by reason of inheriting their titles and archbishops and bishops by reason of their rank in the church. Calls for reform of this distinctive chamber have previously been made, especially since the expansion of the franchise in the 19th century, producing a first chamber able to claim legitimacy through popular election. In 1884, after the Lords refused to pass the Franchise Bill, John Morley declared that the Lords should be 'mended or ended'. Lord Bryce declared that 'the House cannot go on as it is'. In the event, reform came in the twentieth century but demands for further change have continued. Before looking at we could reform the House of Lords, to make it more effective, we must first understand some of their weaknesses. Firstly, the lords lack democratic legitimacy and their powers are limited by law. They have no power over financial matters, cannot veto legislation and their proposed amendments can be overturned by the House of Commons. A reform would effectively make the House of Lords become more legitimate via the removal of certain peers. The House of Lords should have a complete overhaul and like the House of Commons, should be elected. This would make the peers in the House of Lords more powerful which would mean that they would be more effective within their role,
Functions of the House of Commons and how it makes Government accountable.
a) one function of the house of commons would be making government accountable. This is done in ministerial or prime ministerial question time, where the opposition questions the running of the country and new laws or mandates made by the government. This happens roughly once a month. Another function of the house of commons is scrutinizing the work og government. This is done by a specialist committee called select comittees. These usually have 12-14 members, done by representation in parliament. However these comittees cannot stop the government doing what they want to do as they do not have the power or authority to do so, they are just there to say if it is right or wrong. It is also the only section of parlament which can bring in outside experts to help scrutinize subjects of matter. b) One method in which the House of Commons can control the power of Government is through Prime Ministerial Question Time. What this does is subject him to examination and critisicm from the opposition. This controls the power of the Government as it means the Prime minister has got to justify every mandate or law that he wants to put through, as well as debating questions such as when to pass through the legal statements from the Hillsborough disaster. By doing this it controls the power of Government as representation from other parties apart from the ones in power are able to get
