Discuss the view that the cabinet is no longer an important part of the executive.
Discuss the view that the cabinet is no longer an important part of the executive The cabinet is supposedly the collective decision making body of the Government. It contains a group of people who are ranked high up in the political field. They typically represent the executive branch and include people such as the Secretary’s of States, the chancellor of the exchequer, the chancellor as well as of course the Prime Minister. Usually the cabinet is one of the most important parts of the executive however recently due to changes in power of the Prime Minister they may no longer be this. Over recent years it is definitely becoming apparent that Prime Ministers are gaining more leadership skills which allow them to operate more similarly to the style of The American Presidents. This type of leadership relies more on those higher up in the government and less of the general cabinet. Firstly Blair is an example of how the Prime Minister began to rely on a smaller amount of people, his so called ‘sofa government’. This was where he chose to make decisions among his people closer to him as opposed to using the whole cabinet. He was also blamed for relying on his SPADS which were his special advisors, so effectively here he was taking power from the cabinet. This can also be referred to as his subcommittee or the kitchen cabinet which he used to make decisions. This type of
Health Inequalities in UK
How effective have Government Policies been at reducing Health inequalities in the UK? Health inequalities are present throughout the UK. They are influenced by many factors but Lifestyle and Social Class play a very important role. Health inequalities start early in life and continue not only to old age but pass through subsequent generations. Tackling these inequalities in Health is a priority for the UK Government and it is focused on narrowing the Health Gap between disadvantaged groups, communities and the rest of the Country, but most importantly improving health as a whole. In my essay I will examine these policies into further detail and show how effective they have been in reducing these inequalities. It is thought that in 2004 nearly 1/3 of over 16's in Scotland smoked cigarettes; this is equivalent to 1.3million people, and it was also reported that around 13,500 deaths were caused from smoke-related illnesses. One of the main areas in which its clear the Government has began to tackle Health Inequalities influenced by people's lifestyle would be the Smoking ban. The ban was first introduced to Scotland on 26th March 2006. Also referred to as "Clearing the Air Scotland" - its aim was to ban people from smoking in enclosed public areas e.g. Public Houses, Restaurants and Hotels. A year on, evidence had shown that the ban was seen to be a success. From a study of
Analyse the main strengths and weaknesses of Marx's sociological thought.
Analyse the main strengths and weaknesses of Marx's sociological thought. "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" Marx and Engels (1967, p.67) Born in 1818, Karl Marx, using his philosophical and socialist ideas, attempted to show how conflict and struggle in social development were important in the development of a society. The works of Marx were influenced by three distinct intellectual traditions: German idealist philosophy, French socialism and British political economy. German idealist philosophy is an approach based on the thesis that only the mind and its content really exist. This philosophy maintains that it is through the advance of human reason that human beings progress. French socialism is a political doctrine that emerged during the French Revolution and emphasised social progress led by a new industrial class. British political economy was brought about by the social analysis of early capitalism by writers such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo. (Bilton, Bonnett, Jones, 2002, p.476) Using these concepts as a base to his theories, Marx further argued against the capitalist regime and was a firm believer of the revolution of the workers which would one day bring about the destruction of capitalism. Marx was also influenced by the philosophical ideas of Georg W.F. Hegel. However, unlike Hegel who was an idealist Marx was
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 does the Conservative party still follow Thatcherite principals?
Thatcherism comprised a mixture of ideas and policies such as free markets, privatisation of industries, low taxation and little state involvement in people's lives. Some may argue that the Conservative party toady under David Cameron has drifted into a different direction from Thatcherite policies, however others say that Thatcher still has a huge influence on the modern Conservative party. One of Thatcher's main policies was the privatisation of national industries and businesses for example British Telecom in 1981. Privatising these industries was thought to encourage competition and force them to offer cheaper and better services. It can be said that modern conservatives also agree with this idea of privatisation. In fact it seems David Cameron is looking to take further steps and take away government power from sectors such as schools and policing and give the public to freedom to control the state at local level. Also, Thatcher believed that taxes should be kept low as it would create more wealth for people and businesses. Not only would the extra wealth help people buy a property or allow businesses to expand more, it would also reduce government spending on welfare benefits. The conservatives still believe in reducing tax when possible, however due to the economic recession in 2008 and the countries huge debt, tax cuts have been put on hold. Furthermore Cameron
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
Why is it sometimes difficult to distinguish between pressure groups and political parties (15 marks)
Why is it sometimes difficult to distinguish between pressure groups and political parties? (15 marks) One reason that it may be difficult to distinguish between a pressure group and a political party is because members of both parties and pressure groups can stand in elections. One example of this is when a doctor stood against the closure of his hospital and won the seat for one term and stood as an independent. Also it is made clear that one of the differences between a political party and a pressure group is that a pressure group seeks to influence the decision made by government, whereas a political party seeks to become elected into government. But pressure groups are able to put up candidates for election, although this is generally done to gain media attention it contradicts the idea that pressure groups are not interested in gaining political power as if their candidate wins they will have political power. Some pressure groups are also seen to be converting themselves into political parties. This was true of the labour party which was formed from trade unions, UKIP are also another example of a pressure group converting into a political party. Therefore it can be seen that although there are clear divisions between pressure groups and political parties the lines are blurring, as pressure groups are putting up candidates for elections and some are converting into
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 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
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
