Laissez Faire Economics and the Welfare State
Laissez Faire Economics and the Welfare State Simple poverty was for long at the heart of the development of the welfare state. There was much dispute and deliberation over who was responsible for the social welfare of the people of Britain and by how much state should intervene. State intervention however was not always as a result of humanitarianism, but of self-interest. The roots of the classic modern welfare state can be traced back as far as Elizabethan times with the Poor Law of 1603 being introduced as a means of social control with local parishes compelled to provide for those unable to work. (Birch, 1974) It wasn't until the 19th century however that the first calls for state intervention were made. The duties of 19th century governments extended little beyond diplomacy, defence and warfare. (Merriman, 1996) Taxes were raised to fight the frequent wars in which Britain was then engaged but the welfare of its citizens was a local and usually a parish responsibility. If indeed, there was any state involvement at all. By contrast, and against the general assumptions of laissez-faire ideology, Victorian Britain was a country of growing state intervention. Laissez-faire is a French term meaning 'leave to do' or 'leave alone'. Applied to social policy, it indicates minimal government involvement. Left to their own devices, according to this argument, people will
Which offered the greater challenge to Britain's military and political institutions: the Crimean war or the South African war?
Which offered the greater challenge to Britain's military and political institutions: the Crimean war or the South African war? To say that one of these wars was a greater challenge to the political and military institutions than the other is too simplistic. Although it was both the wars combined that had the greatest impact on all aspects of British government, the South African war highlighted both flaws in administration and the military that had remained since the Crimean war. This fact alone makes the South African war seem like it was the greater challenge as the flaws were not simply from one badly directed war they were from two. As the South African war seemed to prove little had been done to correct these flaws in the time of peace between. Although the Crimean war did have an effect on the military and political institutions, as Corelli Barnett argues, this is not what was most glaring about the war. He believes the war had most effect on the British people, as it was the first that was really accessible to the press. The South African war, however, was taking place at a time of election and meant that reforms to the military were simply necessary in winning the votes and indeed the war. When Britain went to war in the Crimea in 1853, the successes of Wellington and Waterloo meant that public opinion of the military institution was very high. However, with
Role of the House of Lords
Role of the House of Lords In general, the functions of the House of Lords are similar to those of the House of Commons in legislating, debating and questioning the executive. There are two important exceptions: members of the Lords do not represent constituencies, and are not involved in matters of taxation and finance. The role of the Lords is generally recognised to be complementary to that of the Commons and it acts as a revising chamber for many of the more important and controversial bills. All bills go through both Houses before becoming Acts, and may start in either House. Normally, the consent of the Lords is required before Acts of Parliament can be passed, and the Lords can amend all legislation, with the exception of bills to raise taxation, long seen as the responsibility of the Commons. Amendments have to be agreed to by both Houses. The House of Lords is as active as the Commons in amending bills, and spends two-thirds of its time revising legislation. Following the Lords' rejection of the Liberal Government's budget of 1909, the Parliament Act of 1911 ended their power to reject legislation. A power of delay was substituted, which was further curtailed by the Parliament Act of 1949. The House of Commons can present a bill (except one to prolong the life of Parliament) for Royal Assent after one year and in a new session even if the Lords have not given
Is a written constitution more democratic then an unwritten constitution
Is A Written Constitution More Democratic Then An Unwritten Constitution? A Constitution is a set of rules, laws and procedures that form the base for which government enforces them. Hood Phillips describes a constitution as 'the system of laws, customs and conventions which define the composition and powers of organs of the state, and regulate the relations of the various state organs to one another and to the private citizens.' (Hood Phillips 1987; 5)i The majority of democratic countries have written constitutions, which means the constitutions is written on 1 single document. Only three nations have unwritten constitutions: Israel, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. This essay will explore which type of constitution is more democratic: unwritten or written. By comparing and contrasting the United Kingdom's constitution with the United States of America's written constitution I hope to gather enough evidence to build a conclusion The United Kingdom is known as having an unwritten constitution but the majority of it is written in laws, statutes, legislation and more recently the European Union Law. To call the British constitution unwritten is not correct, it's unwritten in the sense that it is not all collected on one single document. The constitution is written just uncodified. Madgwick and Woodhouse argue that the British constitution 'was never invented or
To what extent was slavery the cause of the American Civil War?
To what extent was slavery the cause of the American Civil War? Slavery or issues related to slavery and its extension caused sectional conflict for decades preceding the Civil War, with the effect of galvanising the north against the south. Although there was a long history of sectional antagonism; compromise had been reached repeatedly from the Missouri Compromise, to the Nullification Controversy, and finally to the Compromise of 1850. Such compromise became harder to obtain during the 1850s, and in the end the sectional disputes of old were settled on the battlefield instead of being kept within political channels. Thus we must question, when searching for the cause of the civil war, what made these political channels ineffectual where previously they had sufficed. In order to do this we will evaluate the extent to which slavery caused the break up of the 'second party system'1 primarily as this turning point represents the first real break of the political process. We will also examine the causal role slavery played in the secession controversy as well as in the motivation for Lincoln's declaration of war. Without the use of such turning points in our evaluation, we would lose any dynamic view of the sequence of events precipitating the Civil War. Furthermore, slavery will be compared with dialectic materialism, political agitation and states rights in its importance in
To what extent did the Thatcher years coincide with a sea-change in the values of the British electorate?
To what extent did the Thatcher years coincide with a sea-change in the values of the British electorate? Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979 and with her brought a new approach to British politics and a break with traditional Conservatism. "By the late 1970s the conventional wisdom was that the February 1974 election had brought to an end a quarter century of stable, balanced two party politics and ushered in a new era of partisan dealignment....Many more voters were up for grabs".1 Thatcher took advantage of the end of consensus politics in a big way, she introduced populist policies to get her into power, such as strong policies on immigration, law and order and foreign policy. An example of this is Thatcher's keenness to start a debate on bringing back the death penalty, "(Thatcher's) preference for the ultimate deterrent of the death penalty is much more in tune with popular, grassroots opinion....Thatcher's populism may not have changed people's attitudes, but it may have changed their votes".2 Thatcher came into power with general attitudes in the electorate moving away from left wing views especially after the Winter of Discontent under Callaghan in the previous Labour government. Thatcher exploited this shift in attitudes with her right wing policies, she was keen on privatisation and free market principles as principles to run the economy and wanted a
Leaking: Who does it? Who benefits? At what cost?
José Fernando Pérez Politics and Mass Media Book Report #2 Leaking: Who does it? Who benefits? At what cost? February 24, 2003 "Leaking" is a book written by Elie Abel. In the book, Mr. Abel explores the relationship between sources and journalists in order to identify leakers, their motives, whose interest they serve and what role they play in keeping the public informed about government deals and decisions. Mr. Abel used secondary data through to demonstrate how the game is played, the motive of leakers, and the consequences of mishandled leaks by the press. He gives numerous examples of famous and not so famous leaks, especially from the Reagan and Nixon administrations. All the examples given help him get a point across and even if sometimes they are not easy to follow they are relevant with the point the author was trying to make when he introduced them. One of the main points of this book is the usefulness of leaks. Since they add a great understanding of government and make it more accountable. The author also states that sometimes leaks lead to some abuse. Government officials may pass false information to reporters and if they believe everything they receive they might in turn give the American public false accounts. Still, source and journalists share a blind faith and there is a heavy traffic of information coming in to the news. Mr. Abel also states that
What is Thatcherism and did it succeed?
What is Thatcherism? Did it Suceed? In 1979 Margaret Thatcher took over from James Callaghan as Prime Minister. On being appointed she appealled, in the words of Francis of Assisi for help in bringing harmony when there is discord. For the next eleven years Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister winning an incredible three general elections. During this time, though, her style was anything but harmonious. This style and the policies that came to be associated with them came to be known as Thatcherism. There are several identifiable aspects of Thatcherism which helped her and her government stay in power for so long and improve the United Kingdom so immeasurably. Throughout the 1970s Britain had been subjected to a series of damaging strikes and terrific inflation. The Tories 1979 manifesto pledged to encourage private enterprise, lower taxes and restore power to the individual. What Thatcherism was promising at the end of the Seventies was the formula for renewed economic success in Britain through reinvigoration of the supply side of the economy. The high inflation crisis in Britain's economy was gradually defeated under the Thatcher government. In 1978, domestic production in the U.K. only grew by 1% while consumer spending went up by 5%.An unacceptably high level of inflation resulted. In the early years, the Thatcher government committed itself to gradual reductions in
Why did the Provisional Government fail to consolidate its power in 1917?
Why did the Provisional Government fail to consolidate its power in 1917? In February 1917 the Tsarist system fell when the Tsar abdicated leaving no successor and therefore leaving Russia with no natural leader. The Duma moved in and took over the reigns of power forming the Provisional Government until elections could be held for an elected Government. It ruled for the next eight months until the October revolution when it was overthrown and replaced by the Soviets. There were many problems facing this new government and I intend to discuss which of them prevented them from consolidating its power. "Probably the biggest factor contributing to the fall of both the monarchy and the Provisional Government was the war against Germany and Austria. If the Provisional Government could have inherited the war it had inherited it might well have gained the strength to consolidate its position."1 At first there seemed no need for Russia to exit the war as the majority of concern over the war was for the men to have better conditions but in the next few months public opinion turned quickly. The Provisional Government found themselves stuck between a rock and an hard place; it was impossible for Russia to continue the war and for Russia to end the war would mean accepting harsh terms of surrender because defeated powers have no negotiating power. As it was they eventually lost
Explain all the stages a bill must go through before it becomes an act of parliament.
Explain all the stages a bill must go through before it becomes an act of parliament. In this essay I'm going to explain all the necessary stages a bill has to go through to become an act of parliament. The stages are very complex and time consuming for parliament. A bill may start in the houses of lords or commons and then pass all the necessary stages to become law. The Labour government in 1967 introduced the green paper. A green paper is a consultative document on the topic the government has an interest in. The government's views are put forward with proposals for law reform. Following this procedure the government will publish a white paper with its firm proposals for new law. The government introduces the majority of acts. Lawyers in the civil service draft these. The parliamentary counsel (what lawyers are also known as) is given instructions to what should be included, and the effect the proposed law might have on society. Between October and November a large number of bills become law, most of which are government bills. When the proposed act has been drafted, it is published, and at this very first stage it is called a bill. The bill will only become an act of parliament if it completes successfully all the necessary stages in parliament. At this early stage there can still be a lot of complications and difficulties. The bill has to represent the government's
