How true is it to say that a fundamental change had taken place during the period 1825 to 1928 in the opportunities open to women in political rights?
How true is it to say that a fundamental change had taken place during the period 1825 to 1928 in the opportunities open to women in political rights? In 1815 women's rights were severely constrained. Their situation was mirrored by the fact that they had no political rights. The underpins behind the prohibition on female participation in politics was that females were seen mentally and physically inferior to males, and that this belief was governed by the divine nature, was widely accepted by both sexes. Women were seen best suited to a passive domestic sphere, rather than men's active political role. It would, however, be erroneous to perceive that women didn't participate in politics. In 1815 women from all social backgrounds engaged in politics, however the ways they contributed differed from men. Upper-class women acted in a supportive capacity, aiding men they favoured. For e.g. the wives of Disraeli and Palmerston, entertained sympathisers within their aristocratic clique, to bolster political allegiances. Well-to-do women had substantial political influence through men who were eligible to vote, and exercised this influence through patronage. Through these methods women's welfare were indirectly represented. By 1928 the situation had transformed through various parliamentary reformations, as all women became eligible to vote equally as men, at all levels, due to
Compare the role of the Cabinet Minister in Great Britain, France and Japan.
Compare the role of the Cabinet Minister in Great Britain, France and Japan. The role of the cabinet minister in Great Britain, France and Japan all vary in different ways. In this essay I will compare the cabinet ministers according to a common set of criteria. I will firstly examine how each minister gains the position, I will then show how it is lost. I shall then discuss how long each minister can expect to be in one position and how this affects their ability to govern. I will then compare the different levels of authority each minister has compared to the head of government in their system. I shall then finally discuss which minister has the greatest opportunity to make changes within their system. Cabinet government is a popular system throughout democracies. Essentially it means that the executive of the system is invested in a group of ministers who individually have responsibilities to specific policy areas but collectively are responsible for all government policy. They generally are separate from the other parts of the system although they may still hold their positions in the legislature. They consist of a chief spokesman (prime minister) who may do as little as chair meetings or may lead the cabinet to decisions: and usually between 15 and 25 Cabinet ministers whose responsibilities and abilities differ in each system. The first criteria is how a cabinet
The duties of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Christopher Stiff The Speaker of the House of Commons The duties of the Speaker of the House of Commons have evolved over the course of hundreds of years, since Parliament was instated. The principal duty of the Speaker has always been to chair the many debates that take place in the Commons. Today, the amount of direction and guidance the Speaker gives to the House of Commons places the Speakership right in the centre of the house's daily business. The Speaker is elected through a ballot of all members of the house. Once elected, the Speaker assumes chairpersonship of the house and must remain politically neutral, as will be illustrated later. The foremost functions of the Speaker of the House of Commons include: Organising Debates - i.e. When debates will take place over certain issues. Choosing people who are to speak in debates - During debates in the House, official spokespersons for both the government and opposition will take part. Also, representatives of minor parties, members who have constituency interests on the debated subject and specialists on the particular issue will all want to put their views into the debate. The Speaker has to recognise this, and therefore must balance everybody's requirements when working out who should speak next or 'be called', as the parliamentary term is. Members may inform the speaker, in advance of their wish to speak in
The consensus in British politics between 1945 and 1979 reflected confusion and compromise rather than a purposeful sense of direction
The consensus in British politics between 1945 and 1979 reflected confusion and compromise rather than a purposeful sense of direction. Discuss. In answering this question we must first decide what we mean by 'consensus' - for the idea is not uncontested1. A useful definition is suggested by David Dutton 'after 1945 the political parties operated within a given framework, a set of generally accepted parameters in which certain key assumptions were shared and in which policy options were consequently limited'2. These 'assumptions' were generally confined to three main policy areas namely Britain's global role, the role of the welfare state and the running of a mixed economy. Let us first consider the approach to foreign policy. During the leaderships of Atlee (1945-51) and Churchill (1951-50) there was a belief that Britain should align itself with the US, as opposed to Europe; that Britain should be the leader of a new multi-racial commonwealth of states and that Britain should remain a top military power with nuclear capability. Indeed under these two prime ministers a clear sense of direction can be identified with Churchill himself praising Labour for taking 'several most important decisions about our defence policy which... form the foundation on which we stand today'. However, only certain strands of this foreign policy approach were actively carried out throughout
Explore the powers of the Russian president by comparing it with other forms of presidential governments and examine the presidential-parliamentary government in Russia.
Vladimir Putin's victory on March 26th, 2000, in the presidential election was a victory for democracy in Russia. Russia adopted a presidential-parliamentary system of its own in 1993, with intent to ease the transition from communism to democracy. Putin, similarly to Boris Yeltsin before him, wants to be free to make fundamental political and economic reforms to make a more democratic Russia possible.1 This paper will argue that although president Putin's powers may be necessary for the democratic reforms in Russia, the Russian president does in fact posses too much power. Furthermore, Putin's effort to reassert the authority of the central government, over the entire country threatens the development of a greater degree of democracy in Russia. Finally, this paper will analyze the concepts of parliamentary and presidential democracies in discussing the current political situation in Russia. The political scene in Russia was highly volatile and fragmented in the early 1990's but has begun to settle. For the past decade Russia has been more or less a democracy, with a market economy and on civilized terms with its neighbours.2 This in fact is only the beginning for Russia if in fact they truly want to become a more democratic. As it is now the Russian president has an enormous amount of power over the country, far more than other presidential democracies. In Russia,
How successful has, Tony Blairs British government been at pursuing an 'ethical foreign policy'.
How successful has, Tony Blairs British government been at pursuing an 'ethical foreign policy'. In this essay, I intend to analyse the facts, about the British governments' success in following an ethical foreign policy from the period from 1997 to the present day. I appreciate their ethical policy covers a large area, so I am primarily going to focus on the way the government have chosen to deal with issue of arms trading and their handling of unethical states. On the 12th May 1997, Robin Cook the foreign Sectary declared British foreign policy must have an ethical dimension 'Few statements by British a Foreign Secretary have participated more controversy and perhaps more confusion, than Robin Cook's assertion'. (1) The question is where do you draw the line? Where is Robin Cook getting his moral ethical code from, it would appear from his statement that he is Eurocentric basing his values on western society, such as democracy and civil liberties. Cook declared: 'We will not permit the sale of arms to regimes that might use them for internal repression or international aggression. We shall spread the values of human rights, civil liberties and democracy which we demand for ourselves.' Human rights, he emphasised, would be at the 'heart of British foreign policy'. (2) This would seem to be a straight forward statement, But that has not been the case and in the last
New Right: Charles Murray and the 'underclass'.
New Right: Charles Murray and the 'underclass'. During the 1980's and 1990's New Right Thinkers influenced government political agenda's, particularly the Conservative party led by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980's. The New Right ideology stresses free market principles, self-reliance and individual responsibility. Thatcher's New Right government portrayed and practiced an anti-collectivist approach to welfare and was concerned with 'rolling back the frontiers of the state'. The New Right argue that the cost of state welfare interferes with economic growth and has created a 'dependency culture' that are reliant upon welfare benefits. Marsland (1989) argues that this is what led to the economic decline in Britain during the 1970's and 1980's. The New Right are primarily concerned with reducing welfare expenditure to free up the economy and encourage free enterprise and economic growth. The idea behind this was to create a 'trickle down' effect, as the growth of economy would lead to a rise in living standards, right down to those on the lowest incomes. The Thatcher administration was responsible for privatising national industries, public services and support services. For example, street cleaning and school meal provision were subject to contractual tender. The effect of de-nationalisation created disincentives that led to demoralisation as high taxation was
What were the main aims of the founding fathers in 1787 and how were they to be achieved?
What were the main aims of the founding fathers in 1787 and how were they to be achieved? The founding fathers declared their independence from George 3rd and the British Empire on 4th July 1776. They believed that the fusion of powers that had awarded George 3rd to such a degree that he had become tyrannical, and that he had ceased to prove for the ' the life liberty and persecute of happiness' of his subjects. He had broken the social contract and so had lost the legitimacy to govern. The founding fathers met at Philadelphia in 1787, in the hope of instating a new government which would specifically provide for firstly an effective government secondly the provision of tyranny and thirdly the protection of 'unalienable rights'. The new government was set up in 1787 following a series of historical developments. In America when the first migrants first came, the states were colonies of England and the people that had moved away from England were still British citizens. They had to pay taxes to the British government which they disagreed with has they were not represented and neither were there views in the houses of parliament. A phrase that was used was 'no taxation with representation' which meant that they did not want to be taxed without their views being put forward. The Americans protested against this in such high profile events such as the Boston tea party,
Explain the Differences In Power of the Prime Minister In European Countries.
EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCES IN POWER OF THE PRIME MINISTER IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. The latter half of the 20th century saw the integration of the countries of Europe on an unprecedented scale into what is now known as the European Union. The countries of the EU, however, whilst adhering to the principles of liberal democracy, have vastly different democratic systems. These differences can be seen in the hugely different roles that the Prime Minister has in different countries within the Union. This essay will compare and contrast the differences in power that can be observed in the Prime Ministers of France and Italy, together with the Chancellor in Germany. In the Italian political system the Council of Ministers is the government, headed by the prime minister. The Italian President has a non-executive role and is not expected, as in Germany, to intervene in politics on a day-to-day basis. This is left to the Prime Minister who is appointed by the President. The Prime Minister relies on the confidence of Parliament so the President has little freedom choosing his appointment because he must choose someone who has the backing of the members of Parliament. Unlike the German patronage system, the Italian prime minister does not appoint ministers - this is left to the party chiefs. Furthermore, compared to the German Chancellor's high level of job security the Italian Prime
Ageing Essay
In what ways and to what extent have government policies had to adapt to the changing demographics of Britain with particular reference to the impact of older people. Student ID 329897 School of Social Policy University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK Introduction and Background The influence of older people within 21st century society has increased dramatically due to circumstances which occurred post-World War Two. The two baby booms between 1948-1950 and between 1955-1962 meant that at the dawn of the 21st century the demographics for Britain hosted a 'top heavy' population with older people accounting for higher numbers than ever before (Scharf, 2002). Initial post war political trends meant that many older people were excluded, with Europe being characterised by high levels of acquiescence (Cumming and Henry 1961). For older people in particular, a method of disengagement meant that levels of participation were often kept to a minimum after the age of retirement. Thus retirement acted as a process by which older people were detached from society, losing sources of political consciousness and channels of representation (Walker 1999). Their passiveness was often highlighted as a popular trend and meant that their roles within society were very limited. The immediate aftermath of World War Two was a political benchmark for years to come with the
