Why did Lloyd George fall from power in 1922?
Why did Lloyd George fall from power in 1922? On the 19 October 1922, a two-to-one majority of Conservative members of Parliament, voted that the Conservatives where to resign their support of Lloyd George and fight as an independent party, this lead to the resignation of Lloyd George. However, this last straw with other factor such as Chanak, the honours scandal, and the Ireland situation also played a big part in his downfall. Lloyd Georges fate much depended on whether the Conservative MPs would continue to support him at the next general election which he intended to hold fairly soon. A full meeting of Conservative MPs was arranged at the Carlton Club on October 19. This meeting debated a proposal that the party should fight an election on an independent basis. Most of the backbenchers were ready to continue the coalition after the election provided the party's independence had been reasserted. However, instead of accepting this, Chamberlain the Leader of the Conservative party adopted a tough line, as a result forcing most to vote against Lloyd George. After the Carlton Club vote Chamberlain went straight to Number 10 Downing Street. "We must resign Lloyd George', he said". But Lloyd George already knew and lost no time in resigning his office. He acted as Prime Minister for four more days because Bonar Law refused to take office until he had been
'The history of socialism had been marked by a retreat from its traditional principles. Discuss.'
'The history of socialism had been marked by a retreat from its traditional principles. Discuss.' It could be argued that the history of socialism can be marked by a series of journeys away from it's traditional principles. To make itself compatible with changing economic and social conditions, socialism has had to employ a series of revisions if it's ideas in the interests of reaching its goal of a socialist society. Clearly an ideology which has developed from Marx's beliefs of violently overthrowing the exploitative bourgeoisie, to Blair's third way, which focuses on achieving equality through capitalism, has featured a number of key revisions. Marxists would be quick to distinguish between Marx's principles and the manipulation of them used by Stalin and Lenin. Lenin's use of a vanguard party would be questioned by traditional socialists and it could be argued that his belief in the necessity of an ordered and disciplined party showed that he did not faith in the socialist ideas of human nature, and that he rejected that human beings were naturally sociable and co-operative. Although early socialists supported the idea of a popular revolution, the rise of evolutionary socialist ideas in the early twentieth century can be seen as an early sign of socialism straying from it's traditional principles. With a multitude of institutions that worked in the interests of the
Analyse the similarities and differences between Classical and Modern Liberalism
Analyse the similarities and differences between Classical and Modern Liberalism Typically Liberalism can be categorised into two different strands, Classical and Modern (yet some thinkers advocate a third strand that is referred to as Neo-Liberalism), each characterised by their differing and to some extent unavoidably overlapping attitudes regarding the theory behind the ideology and how it should be put into practice. Prior to examining how these relate to one another and before making any comparisons, it is important to give a definition, as best as possible, of Liberalism as a concept. Liberalism is an ideology and due to the changing views of historical persons, who have each viewed themselves to be Liberals, is difficult to define precisely. There are five agreed defining tenants of Liberalism. The most important of these, percolating through the ideology, is the 'Importance of the Individual', and closely interlinked with this is 'Freedom', which leads on to the concept of 'Individual Freedom or liberty'. Liberals believe that humankind is a rational species, and thus 'Reason' is a third tenant. Furthermore Liberalism advocates that the principle of 'Justice' and Toleration' are fundamental in the well being of society and each of these aspects relates directly back to the quintessential first tenant. Liberalism, according to Habermas "emphasises individual freedom
How effective is the British Constitution in protecting the rights of its citizens?
How effective is the British Constitution in protecting the rights of its citizens? The British Constitution is uncodified. Our constitution is unlike any other in the world due to this one fact. Since it is uncodified amendments to it are made easily and without too many problems occurring. This is a contrast to the American constitution that is written and therefore has to be manually changed in order that a law may pass. In the American constitution's history more than 2000 amendments have been suggested; only eighteen of them have actually occurred. This kind of constitution leaves little room for flexibility and makes the introduction of laws much more difficult. Though some would argue that since it is written down all of the public can access it at any time, as opposed to the British constitutions limit to constitutional experts who know how to interpret it. Many will say that the British constitution does not exist, but it does in the form of statutes, court judgements, European treaties, and tradition and custom. The British constitution may not exist in a fully written out form but it takes its form through conventions, for example; parliament's maximum of a five year term is not a written rule but rather a tradition of parliament. Any amendment made to the British constitution is made in the same way; a new law must pass with a majority of supporters in both
"Explain And Discuss How The "Ideologies Of Welfare" Explored In This Module Can Be Used To Understand The Political Legitimation And Debate Within The UK Social Policy From 1979 To The Present Day".
"Explain And Discuss How The "Ideologies Of Welfare" Explored In This Module Can Be Used To Understand The Political Legitimation And Debate Within The UK Social Policy From 1979 To The Present Day". "The Economic Shift In UK Social Policy Since The Era Of Thatcherism" In this essay I aim to explain and discuss the ways in which 'ideologies of welfare' can be used to understand political legitimation and debate within UK social policy from 1979 to present day. I shall approach this question by initially offering an explanation of the concept of political legitimation and ideologies. Having expressed these definitions I shall move on to explain and discuss social policy surrounding the Conservatives party's moves to 'role back the welfare state' during Mrs. Thatcher's reign of the 1980's. In order to express an ideology of welfare thoroughly, my writings shall scope the economic structure of the British welfare state and the social policies surrounding it. I shall draw upon political and welfare ideologies that support and counter policies surrounding economic distribution during the 1980's. My writings shall also include reference to the changing political leaderships of the Conservative party from Margaret Thatcher to John Major in 1990 and the new labour government and leadership of Tony Blair in 1997, and their subsequent policies upon British economics in an attempt to
Evaluate the claim that the Senate is far more powerful than the House of Representatives within congress
Evaluate the claim that the senate is far for powerful than the House of Representatives within congress (30 marks) When the founding fathers set out the powers and limits of the House of Representatives and the Senate, they created a bicameral system with power shared between the two houses. Whilst it would be ideal for the 2 houses to have equal power and status, it is often argued that The Senate is more powerful than the House of Representatives. Is the Senate more prestigious and important in status and are Senators more powerful than Representatives? Some would argue not, The House of Representatives and Senate whilst each having exclusive powers, also have equal and concurrent powers in the passing of legislature, this makes the two houses equal unlike the bicameral legislative system in the UK. This equal sharing of power as set out by the Framers shows that Senate isn't more important than the House of Representatives in the passing of legislature. Another argument for the equality of the House of Representatives and The Senate is the parallelism of the powers each house has in the initiation of constitutional amendments. The process and weighting of the decision of each house is the same, meaning that the two Houses are equal with neither the Senate nor House of Representatives being more powerful. The House of Representatives and Senate are also equal in the
‘The main democratic deficit in the European Union is psychological, not institutional.’ Discuss.
'The main democratic deficit in the European Union is psychological, not institutional.' Discuss. The term 'democratic deficit' refers to the creation and development of the EU without the direct involvement of the citizens. This is a term spawned from the Western understanding of democracy and legitimacy, concepts that the EU is said to infringe. Democracy and legitimacy are contentious concepts themselves. Democracy is, according to Brigid Laffin (1999) 'a set of ideals about the exercise of political authority'. In Western society representative democracy is predominant. People are able to choose between different parties at elections, which compete on a near or equal basis, to form the next Government. This Government will govern in accordance with the people's wishes, remaining accountable to an elected assembly. The European Union is said to lack these features of choice, competition, elections and accountability which gives rise to the issue of a 'democratic deficit.' Legitimacy is defined simply as the right to govern. Western Governments are installed by means of elections, indicating public acceptance of their presence and a representation of their will. Dogan (1992) offered the following definition 'people hold the belief, that ... institutions are appropriate or morally proper'. The EU however, as I will explain later is indirectly elected and does not conform
To what extent has "new" Labour abandoned traditional socialist principles
To what extent has "new" Labour abandoned traditional socialist principles Many consider "New" Labour to be operating under a deceptive title due to the fact that the party has abandoned so many of the principles traditionally associated with Labour policies. The foundation of the long-established socialist principles, which formed the basis of "old" Labour policies, was clause IV of the 1918 Labour constitution. "Common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange" was the single socialist slogan which underpinned the ethos of old Labour; equality. The welfare state was a major component of old Labour's manifesto. Clement Attlee who won labour its first overall majority in 1945, was responsible for implementing the "cradle to grave" welfare system which aimed to ensure the poor had equal access to basic public services. It was as part of this system that benefits for the unemployed and the National Health Service were introduced. Since Old Labour was set up and funded by the trade unions, close relations with the trade unions were essential. Resultantly, the Labour party argued for policies which benefited the working class, such as better working conditions and the establishment of a minimum wage. Another policy supported by old labour and introduced by Attlee was nationalisation of the major industries such as iron, steel, gas and coal. This policy
How Similar was Thatcherism To Traditional Conservatism?
How Similar was Thatcherism To Traditional Conservatism? When Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, she didn't just inherit a country on the brink of economic and societal collapse, but more importantly, one that needed change, sustainable change to stabilise the problems of the 1970's and past governments. The change she ushered through was moulded around a distinct ideology set on principles and beliefs that stemmed from the values of Traditional Conservatism and Classical Liberalism, however fundamentally, it was a modern day progression of the values laid down by the original thinkers of Conservatism . Because of this it becomes inherently clear that 'Thatcherism' is merely a modern day equivalent of traditional social conservatism, and in fact not that different. The first major point when assessing the difference between the two variations of Conservatism is linked to economic principles, which is a pivotal contrast between the two. A major element of Thatcherism was Deregulation, which in essence was less state intervention within the economy and a process of privatisation of major industries. This was in reaction the heavily regulated economies of the past which arguably was a major factor in the economic crises of the late 70's as most major industries were heavily subsidised by the state and this led to great inefficiencies within the economy. Although this
Is war Inevitable?
What is war? Many people think of it as fighting for something and others think of it as a struggle. War is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as a quarrel usually between nations conducted by force. In my opinion war is never going to end, it is inevitable. If war comes to an end it will be from failure of human wisdom. As far as we know, war has always been part of our human history, and it probably occurred from time to time, in one form or another, even throughout our prehistory, that is, for as far back as humans existed. Why do people have war? My answer is so that they can accomplish political objectives, such as to move borders or move them back to acquire land or get it back, to acquire resources or get them back. Also they may join a war to protect an ally. I feel countries get involved in war for benefit for themselves. The reason why wars start is the exact same thing: where countries want other countries land, or resources. Or perhaps another country's government wronged them. There are also wars of religion. Then there are civil wars, usually occurring because the people are not happy with the government (not always though). Then there are people like Hitler, who have personal reasons. Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born politician and the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, also called the Nazi Party. He was the ruler of Germany from 1933
