To what extent can Ramsay MacDonald be considered a Traitor to the Labour Party?
To what extent can Ramsay MacDonald be considered a Traitor to the Labour Party? There is no doubt that MacDonald was a traitor to his party but he wasn't a traitor to the nation. He wanted to make what he considered the best decision in the long term for the good of the nation as a whole, the debate is more about why MacDonald betrayed his party than whether or not he did. There are two opposing theories on how MacDonald should be remembered, one that suggests that MacDonald was not a traitor due to his long standing devotion to the labour party. The differences he has made to it and it's profile over the years that he was leader, and that the policy that divided the labour party was 'the best solution in the circumstances', and the necessity for him to put nation over party left him little choice the view shared by Robert Pearce, Austen Morgan, Marquand and Kenneth O. Morgan. MacDonald had a bad end even though he did a lot for the labour party, he was unlucky to be involved at the time. Other historians such as AJP Taylor, dismiss his decision to follow the idea of unemployment benefit cuts as a betrayal of Socialist ideals, and believe he should have gone down fighting for Socialism, MacDonald put country over party leading to a rift within labour thus he betrayed them. This debate is about whether MacDonald should have put party over the needs
"The Main Difference Between the UK And US Constitution Is That One Is Flexible And The Other Is Not" Discuss.
"The Main Difference Between the UK And US Constitution Is That One Is Flexible And The Other Is Not" Discuss A Constitution is a set of rules and principles by which a state is governed and how power is distributed. It defines the power between government and the governed, between different section of government and between central and local government. The constitution is the centre and foundation of any democratic society. Hence, it is vitally important. The US has a written codified constitution that means, is all contained in one document, to which, amendments have been and can be made. The US constitution was written to last and thus, it is very difficult to alter. It requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate and House of Representatives, Presidential approval and three quarters approval of the state legislatures. When the constitution was set up it had the idea of Federalism at its heart. This was to determine the power of the state with power of the national government. The idea was to leave the states with as much power as possible but remove enough to create a national government. This is why three quarters of the state legislatures must agree with any amendments. There have been only 27 amendments, 10 of which were the Bill of Rights, which, guarantee an individuals political and civil liberties. The US constitution is very concerned with the separation of
Consider the view that the arguments for having an electoral college to elect the President are no longer valid
Consider the view that the arguments for having an electoral college to elect the President are no longer valid The United States' constitution was created in 1787 and, whilst creating the document, the Founding Fathers' opted on a method to indirectly elect the President. The "electoral college" system was born. The Founding Fathers believed that the electorate may, in the future, be easily taken in by the showmanship of extremists and so determined that the popular votes cast would only "influence" electors and not directly elect the President. Each state would have as many electors as they have congressmen (so 2 for each Senator and then so many for however many Representatives) who would cast their ballots in early January (after the national election in November) for a candidate, having been "influenced" by the results of the election day polls. In effect, this system both undermines the integrity of the voters and is undemocratic, effectively allowing the power to fall to a small number of people. Unsurprisingly, especially in the wake of the 2000 election, there have been calls for reform with many citing the Electoral College as a "no longer valid" method of electing the leader of the country. As I have already mentioned, the original reason for introducing the Electoral College system was to prevent against dictatorship and extremism. In theory, this sounds great
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
Examine the first five chapters of 1984 - Discuss how Orwell explores and introduces the theme of control.
BY NATHAN CHANG EXAMINE THE FIRST FIVE CHAPTERS OF 1984 DISCUSS HOW ORWELL EXPLORES AND INTRODUCES THE THEME OF CONTROL In the first five chapters of the novel we see different methods of control the parties uses to create the perfect totalitarian society. This as in '1984' a book that was actually based on real life London 1948. At this point in history Orwell gathered peoples fear of Nazi Germany, Russia, China and all their controversial communistic views. Orwell used the setting of war torn London and a Stalinism rule. Stalin used the condition of the people together with making himself a Godlike figure to keep the Russian's both inspired, focussed and under control especially through propaganda. The barrage of constant Party propaganda just as Stalin did is gradually getting rid of the ability to reason and independent thought, in effect causes you to rely more on The Party and Big Brother. This to the extent that citizens believe anything that the Party tells them, even while possessing information that runs counter to what they are being told, this is doublethink. An example of this is when Winston knew that, 'Oceania was at war with Eurasia and allied with Eastasia,' this is whereas now he remembers that 'it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and allied with Eurasia.' I believe he remembers as he is strong-minded and his mind isn't
Is the European Union a State?
Is the European Union a
‘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
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
Can the use of the First Past the Post electoral system be justified in a modern democracy?
Can the use of the First Past the Post electoral system be justified in a modern democracy? [50] The 'first past the post' electoral system is a simple majority system whereby the country is divided into single member constituencies and voters select a single candidate who only requires a simple plurality of votes to win the election. It is extremely difficult to define a modern democracy, but the core ideas would be that it allows the people to govern (in most cases through elected officials) and fair and equal representation for all. Thus, for the FPTP system to be justified it must meet this criteria, and whilst it does usually fulfil it's role of creating strong, single party government it unquestionably fails in encouraging participation and providing equal representation and therefore it is hard to justify. One of the main reasons why it can be seen as justified is the fact that it provides strong and single party government. The United Kingdom has always employed a first past the post system and for this reason there has only been six coalition governments in its history and only two since 1940. These consistently single party governments for many have been vital in allowing laws to be passed and that with a coalition government, very little would be able to passed. The theoretical argument is that single party government leads to strong government and this is what
Are supreme court justices politicians in disguise?
Are Supreme Court justices politicians in disguise? (60) The United States Supreme Court is argued to make both political and judicial decisions even though it is a judicial body. A Judicial Decision is a decision based on the law. Whether that law is right or wrong is of no concern to the judiciary because that is a political decision. A political decision is such that should the death penalty should be given for murder, whereas the judicial decision would have been whether the person was guilty of that crime. To some extent the inevitable answer is yes, the main reason being is judicial review. In the United Kingdom the powers of judicial review only extend to ultra vires, the power to say that the government has exceeded its powers given to it by law; what it cannot do is say the law is invalid. In the United States the Supreme Court can declare laws to be unconstitutional. This is because of the power as introduced by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury Vs Madison. Therefore it can strike down laws made by congress and also executive actions if it so chooses. The Supreme Court is the guardian of the constitution and, as such if it decides which laws are constitutional or not. This means it must have some political element since it is so to speak making law rather than just ruling on it (such as in Roe Vs Wade 1973). This however is not necessarily a negative thing.
