Notwithstanding, the phenomenon of one party dominating the government has never changed even in the 2010 coalition government. It is true that the Conservatives had compromise to a great extent in the issue of civil liberties which they agreed to introduce a Freedom Bill instead of abolishing the Human Rights Act. But does it mean that the Conservatives are no longer dominating the government? The answer to this is an absolute “No”. Since David Cameron took over the leadership of the Conservative Party in 2005, he carried out a number of reform policies to “modernise” the Conservative Party.
The first main difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives in the mid-1860s is their beliefs. The Liberals led by William Gladstone, were general believers of Gladstonian Liberalism. This was essentially “peace reform and retrenchment”. Gladstone’s own financial policies that were based on balanced budgets, low taxes, and laissez-faire (self-help) were better suited to the developing capitalist society of Britain in the mid-1860s. The Liberals were not very big supporters of the Monarch and wanted the Monarchy out of the political area and it just to be solely the government.
Cameron in turn, should expect to enjoy less power as he had to form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, in order to achieve a majority. This would mean that the likes of the Prime Minister would in many situations have to be compromised. Another essential factor which would influence the degree of Prime Ministerial power is the unity of the ruling party or coalition. In Blair’s situation, he enjoyed an exceptionally united group, therefore being able to enjoy several years of complete domination. When Blair resigned, Brown was said to enjoy similar power, at least when he still enjoyed popularity.
What is really funny is that most people do not know that modern conservatists are actually classical liberalists and modern liberalists are actually classical conservatists. It is amazing where the government has come as of today. With this in mind one can see how the government itself has changed over time. Modern liberals have brought about programs such as social security, unemployment, medicare, and Medicaid just to name a few. The view that the government should be involved in helping individuals get past the harsh realities of life.
William Pitt came to power in December 1783, becoming the youngest prime minister in British history. Pitt’s authoritative nature right from the outset served him in good stead, and he exercised a dominance over both parliament and his monarch which very few subsequent Prime Ministers have managed. Pitt also supported parliamentary reform right from the off, and he believed that parliament at that moment in time had become too resistant to reform and the King held too much power. He was a brave man, knowing that the King detested parliamentary reform, he submitted a general proposal for which it was easier to get support for than a specific scheme. He also wanted to increase the British electorate by 30%.
How successful was Bismarck in his attempts to control the political parties in Germany in the years 1871-90? • Bismarck’s attempts to control political parties from 1871-90 was moderately successful since he often did manage to pass legislature on his own terms by securing an alliance with the National Liberals with the 1871 Kulturkampf and the Conservative with the 1879 Tariff Reforms. Though his repressive policies of Kulturkampf and the 1878 Anti-Socialist laws actually strengthened the political parties of Catholic Centre Party and the SPD, I believe that Bismarck did successfully maintain control by forming new alliances as a result you would serve to distinguish any burgeoning threats. Yes, Bismarck was successful during his liberal era of 1871-78 • Bismarck was initially successful in his alliance with the National Liberals since he capitalised upon the nationalist elements of their party. • This meant they often backed his proposals – e.g.
Are the similarities between modern and classical liberalism greater than their differences? Liberalism is seen as one of the first modern ideologies that helped shape the world into what is it today. Liberalism was fueled by the ideas of the middle-classes whose interests conflicted with the already established powers of the feudal society. As time went on Liberalism became categorized into two different sections; Classical Liberalism, which emerged during the 19th century due to the industrial revolution and Modern Liberalism, which established as industrialization continued to spread around the UK. Even though there are clearly a lot of similarities and differences, many people wonder whether the similarities are greater than the differences.
I believe that the Conservative party under Cameron haven't adopted many One Nation policies for these reasons; On terms of economic and the deficit the Conservative party seem more right hinting at the thatcher heyday. David Cameron is clearly in favour of rolling back the state, which is also a major point of Thatcherism. A key point is how Cameron feels about education, he favours privatisation of education and has introduced Free Schools and Finally how the Tory's have in reforming the taxation system have rejected some one nation policies. However it could be argued that the Tory party not cutting the NHS fund and International aid funds is adopting one nation policies. In terms of
Sidney Smith reflected in a correspondence with William Huskisson (15 March 1826) that 'the most liberal policy has been carried into our foreign relations, darkness and intricacy have been banished from the finances. The laws are becoming less complex and the wisdom of the philosopher is adopted as the rules of the merchant'. Interestingly, Smith only uses the phrase 'liberal' in relation to Canning's foreign policy but he effectively highlights the so-called 'liberal Tory' policies of the rationalisation of finance, the penal system and the law. Further, Smith acknowledges the implementation of free trade and laissez faire as expounded in the doctrines of Ricardo and to a lesser extent Adam Smith, referring to the 'wisdom of the philosopher'. To the student of history, Canning's foreign policy, Peel's penal reforms and Huskisson's and Robinson's economic measures do show a drift by Lord Liverpool and his ministers to moderate, limited economic and social reforms.
However, this was not achieved through a policy of moderate reform, but instead it was the structure of the constitution itself which preserved the position of the ruling elites in the years leading up to war. Any reform that did occur during this period was mainly geared towards alleviating pressure from protectionist liberals and socialists, without passing anything that would threaten the political system too drastically. In this sense, reform was a tactic used to avoid large-scale discontent, the likes of which were seen in Russia in 1905. The Old Age and Invalidity Law amendment in 1899, which increased old age pensions and gave compulsory insurance to various work groups, and the Sickness Insurance Law amendment in 1903 could both be viewed as signs of generosity towards the working classes - a sign that some of the more vocal sections of the Reichstag were not being ignored. In fact, these moderate reforms were a means of keeping political order.