Chartism is a fairly dispersed movement, its large nature and appeal coupled with many different opposing viewpoints, make it really difficult to categorize, and equally difficult to find a defined origin. Chartism in its rawest definition was the world first working class movement, which by its definition would give it a huge backing politically. But why exactly did it come about in the around 1838? One of the main reasons would have to be the failure of the so-called “Great” reform act for most people. Effectively the act benefited the middle classes, who were now given an electoral voice in parliament, while the working classes were largely ignored, causing widespread anger and resentment for the act, and all those it benefited.
It is now widely accepted that if his plans to enhance royal power and revolutionise the government were not far-sighted, his political and administrative skills were essential to their success. However it can be argued that Cromwell’s plans in fact did not succeed in the way he wished. Cromwell set up a bureaucratic system of administration based on the ‘privy’ council. This was a body of advisors that were appointed by the King. If it was possible to choose these council members it would put the King in a very high position of power, backed by a large amount of support.
The Prime Minister also tends to avoid answering topical questions directly by quoting complicated statistics to confuse the MPs. The biggest disadvantage of PMQs would have to be the theatrical, over excited atmosphere. It often appears that it is not taken seriously enough and the rowdy ambiance gives it more of a pantomime feeling than political. Debates are another key way of holding the government to account and can be said to make the House of Commons a very effective parliamentary chamber. There are a number of different types of debate, Emergency debates, are seen as the most useful and important ones.
When Blair resigned, Brown was said to enjoy similar power, at least when he still enjoyed popularity. Cameron on the other hand would expect less of this as he had entered a coalition from the very beginning, which suggests that the cabinet is naturally divided. With different ideologies, it is inevitable that there will be times of disagreements, which suggests that he would not be able to dictate
With industry and economy booming, one could say that Bismarck was relatively successful during 'foundation time', opposing the suggestion. Yet Bismarck was a pragmatist, and just as he had changed policies prior to 1870, so he continued to change his line of attack in the post-1870 period. Following the impact of the 'Great Depression' in Europe, the political basis upon which Bismarck had founded his power was undermined, and so Bismarck was forced to return to more protectionist policies. Added to the fact that in the Balkans there had been split alliances, the National Liberals and Bismarck were further split here. Not only did they oppose his rule of parliament, constitutional rule, but they were opposed to the policy of protectionism that Bismarck proposed, being in favour of free-trade.
At the time I did not believe the story or more likely I didn’t care what the U.S. government was doing but the film got me by shock with so much evidence it presented and how corrupt a government official could be for their own self-interest. I thought this film was great because it could inform people like myself who doesn’t have a lot of interest in politics and government policies and could make people start to have some interest in politics after watching the film. Film was fascinating in that it had many criticism about the Bush government that could have been sensitive for many government officials. The part where the war is used to make coalition was very impressive and asking congressman to make their children go into army was even more impressive since such sensitive topic could degrade their name values and can be libelous. I haven’t seen a film like this that criticizes the government only with facts and criticize what the government did wrong and should change.
In a political sense, it ‘got his foot in the door’, so to speak. It came about largely due to problems with Weimar democracy and weak decisions; there were serious miscalculations in the appointment of Hitler. Many of the elite, particularly Papen, became intrigued and willing to co-operate with Hitler (even settle for a Hitler government), as they wanted his huge support base to further their own power ambitions and counter the rise of communism. He had the support required to solve Germany’s parliamentary crisis, and crucially he had the reluctant backing of Hindenburg, a nationalistic president who also feared a Bolshevik revolution and believed the Nazis could protect Germany from this. Despite the efforts of many to encourage Hitler’s appointment, there was no intention of forming a permanent leadership with him; the elite groups around Hindenburg planned to use Hitler to gain his support base, then abandon him when he was no longer needed.
The 1867 Act has been allowed to languish. This is a pity: its passing raised important issues about contemporary perceptions of the nature of the mid-Victorian working class, and about the potential and actual threat its organisations posed to property and the established constitution; while its impact, taken in conjunction with the death of Palmerston in 1865 (which helped to make it possible) and the Ballot Act of 1872, might be argued to entail the remaking of the national political system, as the Conservatives and Liberals emerged as well-defined national parties, cornering the market in new voters and ushering in an era of alternating hegemonies and principled rivalry to replace the stagnant coalition-mongering of the 1850s and 1860s. What was not involved, in spite of contemporary fears, was the emergence of a distinct working-class party, based on the greatly-expanded electorates which male householder suffrage brought to the urban borough constituencies and aiming to advance working-class interests against those of the propertied nation. This was partly due to the Second Reform Act's redistribution of seats, which sought to isolate the urban from the rural, to perpetuate the small urban constituency in which Tory influence might still
Bismarck’s main reasoning for following Kulturkampf was to keep hold of his influence, which he felt was threatened by the Centre Party, and he felt that K would prevent any uprising. However it is the result of K that made it unsuccessful for Bismarck because the Anti-Catholic Stance endangered good foreign relations with Austria and spiritually the Catholic Church thrived, and there was a political increase in the representation of the Centre Party in the Reichstag- 1871: 58 seats 1890: 106 seats. This meant that Bismarck lost support, the National Liberal‘s seats in the Reichstag decreased from 125 se, whilst
Some even argue that the Reforms were introduced for politically selfish reasons as they believed that the Liberals felt threatened by the Labour party. The final factor that can be argued is that the emergence of New Liberals who believed in involvement and had radical ideas meant that it would be unlikely that major changes wouldn’t occur. All of this evidence show that genuine concern was a factor in causing the Liberal Social Reforms however there were other factors that contributed to introduction of these