Money and Media dominate modern day politics " how far do you agree?
"Money and Media dominate modern day politics" - how far do you agree? It is widely claimed that the media, and the money available to dominate it, has a much wider grasp over the voting public than manifesto or policy. The majority of the worlds media sources hold some sort of partisan alignment, and its hold on the public means this bias is passed on to the electorate. How much it influences the electorate however, is different amongst many theories. The manipulative theory suggests that the media submerges real news in meaningless trivia in order to benefit itself. An example of this is Rupert Murdoch's support of Labour only once they'd dropped clause 4 of the constitution. The Hegemonic theory agrees with the accusation of the biased nature of the media but argues that it is less calculating. Any political stance it holds is the genuine opinion of the papers or broadcasters, and its publicising of these views is not in an attempt to manipulate the electorate. The pluralist theory argues that the customers choose the media, not the other way around, and their political views are reflected by their choice of newspaper or broadcaster, not changed by it. Though these theories have different ideas on the motives of the media, they all essentially say the same thing, the hard truth that the media is biased, and that its opinions are carried by its consumers. Another undeniable
Do We Have a Cabinet Government or Prime Ministerial Government?
DO WE HAVE CABINET GOVERNMENT OR PRIME MINISTERIAL GOVERNMENT? In society today people think that the most powerful person in the British government system is the Prime Minister, Tony Blair. However, to what extent does he have power and authority? The Prime Minister doesn't govern the country alone; the Cabinet as a whole discuss most matters. You could then say that we have Cabinet government- they do supposedly collectively make decisions on matters! The position however of power in one government may differ from that of another, Margaret Thatcher for example rarely used Cabinet at all, John Major on the other hand used it regularly and considered there opinions vital in the decision making process. But what type of government do we have at present and why? Cabinet government can operate in a number of ways, depending on the approach of the particular Prime Minister, the complexion of government, the nature of the policy issues under consideration and the prevailing political circumstances. The traditional view is that the Cabinet is the seat of power in terms of policy initiation and decision-making. Cabinet doesn't just decide all-important issues; it also controls government policy as a whole. Walter Bagehot regarded the Cabinet "as the crucial institution of government" describing it as the "efficient secret". The assumption behind the traditional view is that Cabinet
To what extent has the Labour Party today abandoned its core values?
To what extent has the Labour Party today abandoned its 'core values'? Introduction The rise of New Labour has been fraught with controversy, with regards to extensive policy change as well as ideological change. It is certain that Labour has shifted; hence this is not in question. What is in question however is how much Labour has changed and how far Labour has shifted, from its core Socialist roots. To answer this, one must initially take into account electability. During Labour's extensive time in the political wilderness, when Thatcher reigned supreme, a new group of reformers began to emerge within the Labour Party. They realised that in order to gain electoral support, they would have to leave the core socialistic values of 'old' Labour behind. This is because left-wing ideals at this time were hugely unpopular with the electorate. To achieve this electability, New Labour was less dogmatic than the old, socialist core of the Party. Many policies were toned down, especially economic ones. This general shift to the centre ground gained voters back, who had previously been Labour, but had voted Conservative recently. These reformers, were not against socialism however and previously, many were socialists, yet they saw the need for electability, rather than ideology. However, the account above is merely a brief outline, and hence, one must look specifically at major
To what extent does Parliament hold the executive to account?
Roz Cresswell To what extent does the parliament hold the executive to account? Parliament does not govern, but its role is to check or constrain the government of the day. Many therefore argue that parliament's most important function is to 'call the government to account'', there by forcing the members to explain their actions and justify their policies. There are three groups within the UK parliament, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the Monarchy. The HoC consists of 646 MP's and each MP is elected in a local constituency to gain a seat in parliament. The House of Lords consists of 721 peers, there are approximately 600 life peers where as there are only 92 hereditary peers. The Lords spiritual are the second smallest group of the Lords. They are bishops and archbishops of the Church of England, and now only 26 remain. Law lords are the final group to make up the House of Lords. There are only 12 of these, and they focus on judicial work, which is carried out through the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. The final group that can hold the government to account is the monarchy. The monarch is often ignored as part of parliament, which is understandable as the Queen is normally entirely ceremonial and symbolic. As a non-executive head of state, the monarchy symbolizes the authority of the crown. Parliament holds the government to account by scrutinising
To what extent does Parliament control executive power?
To what extent does Parliament control executive power? Although Parliament to some extent controls executive power, there are limitations to the extent of this control. Government usually has an overall majority. The electoral systems put in place by parliament as a whole usually guarantee this, with the exception of May 2010. In the circumstances of a small government majority, the effectiveness of parliament can be increased due to the fact that normal voting patterns and predictable outcomes for government votes may not apply, meaning that governments power is reduced. A majority can mean that to a certain extent, Government can pass any law it wants to. However, the fptp voting system can undermine representation in the commons because it can mean that certain parties are over represented. This means that Parliament's control over certain parties can be limited. The power of prime ministerial patronage renders many Mps excessively docile and loyal. This means that as opposed to the Burkean view which suggests that MPs use their own judgement in acting on behalf of their constituents. The doctrine of the mandate, by contrast, suggests that MPs serve their constituents by 'toeing a party line'. This can also affect debates such as adjournment debates. They allow for back benchers to examine and discuss government policy. This therefore reduces government power as it
Assess the arguments in favour of the greater use of Direct Democracy in the UK (25) :
Assess the arguments in favour of the greater use of Direct Democracy in the UK (25) : Direct Democracy is Government by the people, for the people; and allows citizens of a municipality or state to have a direct effect on both how they are governed, and the outcomes of certain issues; for example, in cases when a referendum is required. Referendums are a good example of Direct Democracy; voters can vote either 'Yes' or 'No' to express their opinions, and the majority wins. However, they rarely take place; normally only at a time of constitutional change, or when the issue is serious and based on public opinion. There hasn't been a UK wide referendum since 1975, though Scotland has had several since, for example to do with the dissolution of their Parliament. However, there are issues with this form of Democracy; as although it is direct, it is not necessarily fair, and this is the issue at hand. Referendums allow for 'tyranny of the majority' to occur, whereby the views of minority groups are insignificant, as the majority win despite issues with accurate representation in the results. On the other hand, the current elected Parliament is also misrepresentative of the populace; 51% of the population is female, but only 22% of the seats in the House of Commons are held by women, and only 21% in that of Lords. To decide whether I think there should be an increase in the use
to what extent have conservatives supported one nation principles?
To what extent have Conservatives supported 'one-nation' principles? The belief that governments should be committed to reforms that make people feel part of the nation is a defining feature of one nation conservatism. The various factions of the ideology consist of differing degrees of one nation principles; in one nation Conservatism, this is the defining principle, in traditional Conservatism it is a minor consideration, whilst the New Right holds views that are against this belief. You should also be aware that ONC includes striking a pragmatic balance between business and the needs of the people, the idea of the government taking noblesse oblige and the idea of making decisions to keep the 'ship' afloat as opposed to directing it. Perhaps most obviously, one nation principles are at the centre of one nation conservatism. The idea of Britain being viewed as a nation is of great importance to one-nation thinkers and this is why they are committed to reforms that make people feel part of the nation. This brings in ideas of social responsibility and the belief that social reform is essential in order to preserve a fragile society; in terms of strengthening existing bonds, reducing resentment and making people feel part of the nation. However, a pragmatism that places great importance on maintaining the balance between social reform and a lack of interference in the
How and to what extent has modern liberalism departed from the ideas of classical liberalism?
How and to what extent has modern liberalism departed from the ideas of classical liberalism? Modern liberalism has made several significant departures from classical liberalism, most significantly resulting from their different views on what exactly constitutes freedom. Whereas classical liberals such as Adam Smith and John Locke believed in negative freedom - the freedom of interference by others, modern liberals see freedom as positive - the right of accessing the opportunities and resources needed to fulfil ones potential. It is from this key ideological difference that other differences arise. Perhaps the most significant departure from classical liberalism that this has resulted in is the Modern liberals' perception of the state. Traditionally, Liberals have been very suspicious of the state as a body with the potential to limit personal freedom, and therefore something to be treated with caution. Locke famously stated that the state lay "within the realm of coercion", prompting Liberals to be wary of state interference and seeing its role as to protect the individual from having their freedom impinged upon by others, rather than to interfere with positive aims. The Modern Liberal view stands in contrast to this original perspective; they believe that they state should intervene for positive impact, for example, the provision of equal opportunities, as without the
To What Extent Is The UK Democratic?
To What Extent Is The UK Democratic? A democratic country aims to have an accountable government that serve the best interests of the people it is governing. The UK is a liberal democracy which ensures that citizens should be able to influence governmental decisions made. But how far is the UK democratic? An element of Britain's governmental system is that there is no written constitution. This means that, theoretically, the government are free to pass any legislation as long as they have the majority in parliament which could be easily achieved if the party has a large majority of seats. This means there is no safeguard for laws that can be altered or new ones that could be created. This is very undemocratic as the government therefore have too much power. The government is also in possession of other powers such as the royal prerogative that allows the prime minister to go to war without consent from parliament. An example of where this was used was the Iraq war in 2005 which was heavily resented by a large majority of the public. Even though this aspect of Britain's governmental system is undemocratic, parliament generally prevents government from taking too much power. Another way in which the UK is undemocratic is fairly similar to the reason above. As we do not have a written constitution, many of our rules are not entrenched. An example of this is the Human Rights
To what extent is there a democratic deficit in the UK?
To what extent is there a democratic deficit in the UK The democratic deficit states that there is a lack of democracy in the UK and the opinions of citizens has less power than before. Some may see that there has been a huge decline in democratic deficit, the developmental perspective would argue that this is a bad thing because for democracy to be sustainable it needs to engage citizens on an active basis this expresses citizenship and values informed and tolerant exchange between people. Another reason for why the UK could suffer from democratic deficit could be because of unelected institutions such as the House of Lords, some may argue that because the members of the House of Lords are not elected they do not represent the views of the public. Also the UK voting system could also be criticised, it can be seen as undemocratic because the UK uses a voting system called ‘FPTP’ (First past the post) this results in unequal value of votes, evidence of this is shown from recent votes where it takes 115,000 votes to be elected for a liberal democrat MP whereas for a labour or conservative only 35,000 votes is needed to become elected, this disadvantages small parties. The reason for this being undemocratic is because in a true democracy all minorities should be given an equal voice. Another effect of the FPTP is that it can lead to un-proportional seats in the House of
