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
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
Should Britain Join the Euro
Should Britain Join the Euro? One of the primary arguments against joining is that there are severe structural differences between the members' economies. These may well undermine the success of the project, meaning Britain would do well to stay out. There is no guarantee that the Euro will be successful, and this is a key issue to consider when assessing whether or not Britain should join at this stage. Britain has already had her fingers burnt by the disastrous entry into the doomed European Exchange Rate Mechanism, the previous attempt to fix European currencies against each other which collapsed, plunging Britain into recession. Another key argument against entry is the loss of economic independence that would be seen from Euro membership. If Britain were to join the Euro, our interest rates, currently the tool used for control of inflation by the Bank of England, would be set by the European Central Bank (ECB). Since being given independence the Bank of England has been successful in controlling inflation in this way. Problems could well arise if Britain loses interest rates as a tool for its own economic objectives. The past few decades have shown we need all the measures we can to keep control of the economy! To illustrate this problem, let us suppose that there are inflationary fears in Germany and France, two influential member countries, but not in Britain. In
To what extent has the European Union been successful in "establishing" a coherent European identity
Introduction European identity, meaning unification or integration of Europe, is easily described as European residents have the ideas where they really belong to, Europe or just German, France or others. Nowadays, when Europe is talked about, people involuntarily associate it with the European Union. Perhaps the main reason is the enlargement of the European Union. Now the EU includes 27 countries, more than half the whole European countries and almost all the powerful countries have already joined the EU for years. Thus in some way we can say that the EU unifies the Europe. At this time, even though the EU cannot be regarded as a real nation, the EU also hopes a kind of patriotism existing in the whole Europe, and in the post-time Winston Churchill had already illustrated this view that "Why should there not be a European Group which could give a sense of enlarged patriotism?" (Wikipedia(a)) Under the uniform administration of the EU, the European identity seems to appear again after the Holy Roman Empire economically, politically and socially, but mainly in the economic aspect. What the EU has done? Economics "Karl Marx viewed economic change as a revolutionary process, and one which determined social and political structures." (Parker, E 2003) Thus the EU firstly chooses to take efforts to effectively manage the EU economy. Apart from the single currency and Economic
To what extent has the UK political system become more democratic in recent years
To what extent has the UK political system become more democratic in recent years In recent times the in the UK we have seen the more frequent use of referendums. These are votes where the electorate votes on a specific issue such as devolution. It is thought of as a good way of including elements of direct democracy in our representative system. Although this method does seem to infringe on the principal of parliamentary sovereign if in the UK our representatives our supposed to put forward the views of the electorate it cannot be seen as bad idea. However some critics of referendums argue that its frequent use in recent years has actually detracted from the democratic process. They argue that the questions used can be worded to influence voters, no matter how carefully they are phrased they will always have an element of bias to them. Also they argue referendums are expensive and disrupt the government. Others argue that because referendums are held at a time of the ruling party's choice, they have the biggest influence on the outcome of the vote. If these criticisms are true then obviously the use of referendums are actually degrading from the democratic process, however others disagree. Supporters of referendums argue that there use in our political system will re-connect voters, after having participated in this process they will take more notice of real issues, rather
The introduction of some form of proportional representation would give voters more choice and better representation than first past the post does, discuss.
The introduction of some form of PR would give voters more choice and better representation than FPTP does, discuss. Aimée Bremner First past the post (FPTP) is the system we in the UK use for our general elections. It is a system that elects the candidate who in the end has the highest number of votes but not necessarily the majority. It can be argued that FPTP is not a democratic system due to the fact that it is not always representative of the majority's choice as shown in the 2005 UK general election when Tony Blair won with merely 40.7% of the vote, not even half of the total votes cast. And now the remaining 59.3% of Britain were not represented. In cases such as these there is indeed need of some kind of new system that would represent more of the county, the majority of the country. However, for some FPTP is in fact a fair system because it means that the winning candidate did get more votes than any of the others and therefore a fair result. Some say that it is easier to understand as it only entails ticking or crossing the box beside the name of your choice and some might not know the four names that you would need to remember under the STV system or the two you would need under the Additional Member System (AMS). It can also be said that FPTP has, unlike either AMS or STV, been tried and tested over many years and has led to stable government. Therefore a new
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
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
