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
Describe the key international institutions and their impact on UK public services:
1/11/10 Assignment 1 - International Institutions and Their Impact on UK Public Services P1 Describe the key international institutions and their impact on UK public services: The United Nations (UN) is an organisation that was established after the Second World War. Article one of The Charter of the UN states that UN has four main original purposes and principals. The first, is to maintain international peace and security, the second is to develop friendly relations among nations based on equality, the third is to achieve international cooperation in solving problems in economical, social, cultural or humanitarian issues and the fourth purpose is to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in accordance with the above stated purposes and principles (1948). The United Nations is an international organization made up of international institutions. UN includes their own Central system and specialized agencies. The World War II took place in 1945 and after the war finished the UN was founded to replace the League of Nations to provide a platform for dialogue and to stop wars happening between countries. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions. The United Nations supports the key role the UK public services have in the UN peacekeeping operations and military action. E.g. in Afghanistan and Iraq. The UN can utilise the armed and
The US system of checks and balances is ineffective, discuss.
The US system of checks and balances is ineffective, discuss. In the system set up by the U.S. Constitution, the national government is divided into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. These three branches are not independent of one another because the Constitution set up a system of checks and balances to help ensure that no one branch became too powerful. Each branch has powers that it can use to check and balance the operations and powers of the other two branches. The Legislative Branch is given the powers to make law however the legislature may also override presidential vetoes if they manage to gain a two thirds majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives. Although the Legislature can do this, it is realistically extremely unlikely that they will gain a 2/3rds majority as even if a single party does have a majority in one house, they may not in the other such as is the case currently where the Democrats have a majority in the Senate but not in the House of Representatives. They also have the power over the purse strings to actually fund any executive actions and so if they disagree with a government budget, they can interfere with this and stop it from going through. This was done to the Clinton government when he had lost both of his majorities and so had to ask the American people to support his budget. The removal of the president
