This letter was written 30 years before the reform bill had even passed and the MP does not moan about the fact he was elected in by just one voter. But then again, this source suggests that the election system was unfair. We can see this because of the fact, small pocket boroughs were often known as rotten boroughs. A rotten/pocket borough was small populated boroughs where the residents could easily be bribed and persuaded to vote a particular MP. This was very unfair on the people and on the other people up for election, so this source doe’s hint at the fact a reform should take place, but this particular MP does not want a reform because he is benefitting without it.
With the rise in the professional politician many prefer to remain loyal in order to gain power and move up in the hierarchy as opposed to become a rebel who remains in the back benchers. This can be seen after the vote on tuition fees and the liberal democrats. Despite the fact that they had campaigned for this cause endlessly only 26 (including a few Conservatives) chose to vote against the bill. Whips play an important part in removing efficiency from Parliament. By having whips who ensure that MPs behave in accordance to the decisions of the executive both Parliaments ability to scrutinise and hold the executive to account is diminished, but also their role as representatives of their individual constituency is also compromised.
Since World War II no other election has ever involved 65% or more registered voters. Elections for state and local elections are even lower. As we may all know the United States of America is a Democracy. In other words, the people will decide who will lead the country and what the country will do. Why do people still don’t vote and then later whine about who gets elected?
The Lords has also become more legitimate since the reforms because it’s influence has increased, the Lords are now looked to by the Commons to see what they think of what the government is doing more and more. They scrutinise the government’s decisions and make suggestions and changes to policy. More and more often the Lords reject or request changes to legislation from the Commons which most of the time the Commons agree with or work on – this highlights how effective and influential the Lords are. c) How successfully does Parliament perform its representative functions in modern Britain?
Clean Surplus does indeed allow the exact, identical development of book value (Owners’ Equity) for each and every company. Thus, the efficiency ratio, Return on Equity developed by Clean Surplus and only Clean Surplus can be used as a true, comparable equivalent. The accounting profession was aware that the traditional income statement didn’t provide for predictability and neither did the balance sheet. This is why Clean Surplus was developed. The problem is Clean Surplus has never been tested until now, and thus has not been used except by a very few, extremely successful people such as Warren Buffett.
Overall I disagree with this view because, even though some parts of domestic policy were successful for Henry VIII and Wolsey, most aspects of domestic policy failed. For example Wolsey used the Courts to get revenge on old enemies as well as giving justice to all people despite their status or wealth. Source 7 suggests that Wolsey was a useless chief minister and only survived because he knew how to please Henry. Source 8 agrees with source 7 but also says that he was successful in 'centralising English politics'. Source 9 was written by George Cavendish and gives a positive view of Wolsey's contribution to domestic policy.
How far do sources 1,2 and 3 agree as to the unfairness of the pre-1832 electoral system? The sources agree as they all talk about the dominance of the aristocracy, for instance, in source source B, it shows that all votes are going to a man called Sir Mark Wood, excluding one vote, which goes to his son. As he has the title Sir, it is probable that he was a member of the aristocracy, and when taken into account the fact that he had managed to obtain every vote, it is very likely that he managed to bribe, or have some kind of influence (by using his patronage) over the voters in his borough. This is exactly the same as source C, as it says it was taken from a diary by Sir Philip Francis. Again, it could be presumed that Sir Philip Francis is also a member of the aristocracy, it also says in the quote that after winning the election, Francis ‘had a dinner at the castle, and a famous ball in the evening.’ Although this isn’t conclusive proof that Francis was a member of the aristocracy, it shows that he was in a very good position, and certainly not an average civilian.
However, these favors were actually in return for their votes at the ballot box. The association’s leaders were supported by many of New York’s citizens whom they helped out personally or simply scared into voting their way. They were bashed by many other politicians and influential citizens deeming the Tammany Hall practices corrupt and undemocratic. For those involved in Tammany Hall’s reign over New York, they viewed their personal gains from the association to be “honest graft,” as George Washington Plunkitt explains. (http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5030/) (I know I need to work on this, I was having a hard time coming up with a good thesis..) Tammany Hall was originally the Tammany Association, which was formed in 1789 by William Mooney.
The levellers were radical groups active in London in the late 1646 which gained a lot of their support from the army. This group was very popular among men of “middling sort” who were unrewarded in seventeenth century English politics. The leaders of these groups were John Lilburn and Richard Overton. Their main aim was for religious toleration and to also replace the monarchy and the House of Lords with a single representative chamber elected by the male leads of the households. There manifesto was the agreement of people which favoured the ordinary citizens and wanted them to gain more rights than rich property owners.
Pre 1832 the electoral system was not of equal measure to population, the ruling classes were the only section of the social class structure that were deemed eligible for the vote. It is in my opinion that the split in the Tory party that was the paramount cause for reform being passed in 1832. The inequality in the parliamentary system is shown in document 2 of the wjec pack where John Croker, the inequality is very clear and shows that without action from the general public no change would occur in the parliamentary system as the majority of Mp’s being Tories and in effect not pro reform. The threat of revolution, which was caused by the middle and working classes, caused attention to be bought to reform and the unfairness there was in the electoral system. Although I believe there was a genuine threat of revolution I do not believe that this on its own can be regarded as a major risk to the stability of the country and thus forced reform to be passed.