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
Why are US presidential elections so long ?
Why is the US Presidential election such a long process (15m) The process of electing a president of the United States is certainly a long one. The formal process takes nearly a year but in reality starts before it's even begun. The first point to make is that of the importance of the campaign trail. Presidential elections take place in November but before this a significant countrywide election campaign is launched. The Presidential election specifically is as much about character and personality as it is politics, and so it is seen as vital that the chosen candidate of each party effectively "tours" the country fist hand to deliver their message in person. Naturally, The US having 50 states can make this process a long one, but not only does it add a personal aspect to each of the states votes, but also can act as a good test of stamina. The job of president can be long, gruelling and both physically and mentally demanding and the campaign trail can act as a final test before people cast their votes. For example in 2008 Barack Obama showed himself to not only be more in touch with the modern electorate but also to have more of a physical resilience for such as job, especially compared to 74 year old John McCain, who many commented looked especially tired and stressed throughout the final weeks of the campaign, not a good sign for a potential president. Before the final
'The history of socialism had been marked by a retreat from its traditional principles. Discuss.'
'The history of socialism had been marked by a retreat from its traditional principles. Discuss.' It could be argued that the history of socialism can be marked by a series of journeys away from it's traditional principles. To make itself compatible with changing economic and social conditions, socialism has had to employ a series of revisions if it's ideas in the interests of reaching its goal of a socialist society. Clearly an ideology which has developed from Marx's beliefs of violently overthrowing the exploitative bourgeoisie, to Blair's third way, which focuses on achieving equality through capitalism, has featured a number of key revisions. Marxists would be quick to distinguish between Marx's principles and the manipulation of them used by Stalin and Lenin. Lenin's use of a vanguard party would be questioned by traditional socialists and it could be argued that his belief in the necessity of an ordered and disciplined party showed that he did not faith in the socialist ideas of human nature, and that he rejected that human beings were naturally sociable and co-operative. Although early socialists supported the idea of a popular revolution, the rise of evolutionary socialist ideas in the early twentieth century can be seen as an early sign of socialism straying from it's traditional principles. With a multitude of institutions that worked in the interests of the
The ideology of the Democrats is liberal whilst that of the Republicans is Conservative. Discuss
The ideology of the Democrats is liberal whilst that of the Republicans is Conservative. Discuss 'Two glass jars with different labels, both empty'. This has been the traditional opinion of the differences between the parties ever since the federalist/anti-federalist issue was settled. However, in recent decades, we have seen the emergence of distinct ideological identities. That of liberalism - a belief that the federal government should have an active role in protecting the vulnerable & guaranteeing rights, and Conservatism - a belief that government should be restricted in order for the individual to achieve their potential. I will analyse to what extent the Democrats and Republicans adhere to these philosophies. Primarily, the Democrats have been associated with liberalism ever since FDR's New Deal of the 1930s. In this era, the government utilised Keynesian economics and expanded its reach nationally, helping the unemployed by providing jobs. Though these 'tax and spend' have become unfashionable in recent years, most Democrats would identify themselves as liberals. Recent policies would support this argument. In January 2009, a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress passed a 700 billion dollar economic stimulus package. This is clearly a liberal policy, affirming the state's role in the economy. Moreover, it was the same congress who passed the Patient
To what extent does the prime minister control the cabinet?
To what extent does the prime minister control the cabinet? The extent to way in which the prime minister controls cabinet varies, and can vary greatly, as Prime ministers have great amounts of scope in which they can manage and control the cabinet and the system surrounding it. The cabinet itself refers to the collective decision making process in British Politics. Cabinet fuses executive and legislative branches of government, as its members head government departments but are also drawn from Parliament and is the senior executive organ - which controls policy-making process and makes all major government decisions. Collective collegiality adds strength to the government as a whole and makes the governing party in parliament more united and therefore stronger. One of the key aspects of control over the cabinet stems from collective collegiality. The main reasons for the control the Prime Minister has over Cabinet are due to the powers he/she has over the Cabinet itself. The first is that the Prime Minister chairs cabinet meetings, and manages the agendas, as well as summing up the decisions at the end. This means that the PM has a great deal of control over the meetings, and can direct them in a course that suits what the PM wants. Combine this with the fact that the Prime Minister convenes cabinet meetings and decides when they are called and sets their length - it
Membership to the EU and Loss of Sovereignty
Shape of the Modern World (Political History) - Task 6 After previous vetoed applications in 1961 and 1967 to what was then known as the European Economic Community (ECC), Britain was finally allowed to join the European Union (EU) in 1973 after becoming a signatory to the Treaty of Rome, under Labour Prime Minister Edward Heath. Since this however, some critics have argued that membership to the EU has led to a significant loss of parliamentary sovereignty. The term sovereignty refers to the right of a state to pass laws within its own territory or as Hinsley (1966) described, "The idea that there is a final and absolute authority in the political community". In this case, it could be the belief of some people that too much power has been transferred from our government to the EU - an organisation made up of mainly appointed representatives as oppose to being elected. It is the case that EU law overrides national law when the two conflict. This alone could show a ceding of sovereignty and as a supranational organisation the EU is more focused on working towards greater integration than national interest. Despite this surrendering of power to a higher authority, the EU only becomes the supreme decision making body in specified areas, although areas of national law could be affected without intention. For example, EU environmental decisions may indirectly impact agricultural
