The first and fore most undemocratic factor is how the senators are appointed to office. They are not elected, as they should be in a democratic government, but they are appointed this position by the Prime minister. Often he appoints his senators to gain a majority so his laws may be carried out and also he or she may give this position of power as a patronage to loyal supporters of their party. The second reason is the misrepresentation of the provinces and territories in the senate. The senate elects people for the amount of population in the area so both Quebec and Ontario have more representation than the rest of the country, especially compared to the Northwest territories and the Yukon who only have on each.
All payments went towards the king, this would've also made the Earls not feel powerful enough, especially Harold Godwin who was seen as the most powerful man in England, but theoretically he wasn’t. However the Economy was well governed because the trade increased, which encouraged both the growth of towns and foreign contacts, this demonstrates that England were still involved in trade, which was good for the economy. However the economy was not very well developed especially compared to the Byzantine Empire and Muslim world. Those economies were massive, especially when compared to England’s. Overall I believe that the economy for pre-Conquest England as well- governed to an extent as the King did have large control, he did control this well, but he may have been seen as too powerful where the government is concerned.
Oliver Cromwell rose to power by being a member of Parliament. Although he was merely a Gentleman farmer, he was wealthy enough to become an MP. He achieved a more important role when he was asked to help parliament fight the King. The main reasons for civil war braking out were King Charles I being stubborn and selfish. For example, he re-introduced Ship tax, and believed in Divine Right.
There were many factors throughout the election which had an impact which I will explain below. The first factor which determined the outcome of the 2008 presidential election was the fact that Obama was backed by the elites and the wealthy, the most notable elite being Warren Buffet. These elites gave as much money as the laws enabled them to but they also gave Obama their names, a strong PR move which gave Obama the edge as people who looked up to the endorsers would then side with them. These two factors also argue that elitism outweighs pluralism in America, and that elitism was so strong, that it determined the outcome with supporters of for example Warren Buffet voting for who he endorsed. However, there is also reason to suggest that this is not the case, and that pluralism determined the outcome of the 2008 election.
The south believed they had the right to lead their lives as they saw fit. In the South, instead of the church members being the boss, land owners were the dominant party. These land owners were the wealthiest and had control over the laws. Social Modernization was the key in the North and they were adamant modernization was the one for economy and the government. Railroads were being put down really fast, there were many inventions being invented, ideas were being inspired and they were moving away from the old traditional way of the Europeans.
Based upon social class and political power in public policy, the United States has proven to be a nation where the economy, society, and political system do not function in the same way for all of its citizens, and everybody works for the benefit of the few, and against the interest of the many. Professors Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson argued in their book, “Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer – and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class” (2010), that changing tax rates has been a major factor underlying growing inequality. They claim that the globalization and technological changes are not the causes of economic struggles of the middle and working classes in the United States. Instead they blame a long series of policy changes in government that significantly favored the very rich since the late 1970s. Those changes were the result of, well-financed and well-organized efforts by the corporate sector to push government policies to lean in favor of the very wealthy.
He also argues how NAFTA will expand the split of society more, which is making the private sectors richer and the poorer more poor. He stated how most people, even those who were in favor of NAFTA, agree that it will lower the incomes of the majority and benefit the private sectors, mainly the big corporations. He offers several analyses by many
This was because the Conservatives were seen to have better policies for wealthier people. Their taxation policies meant wealthy people kept as much of their money as possible. Labour, on the other hand, had strong links with the workers unions and had good policies for the poorer people, with more social security. In the 2005 election, however, only 21% of the A and B social classes voted conservative and only slightly more of the lower classes voted Labour. This shows how, in modern times, social class is not as important a factor as it was in the past.
“The rich get richer and the poor get prison”. Discuss. ‘Money makes the world go around’. This can almost pass as a fact, as how can anyone deny that our lives are revolved around money. You cannot do anything unless you have money; your lifestyle is determined by how much money you have and the most famous people in the world are by no coincidence the richest people in the world.
Oliver Cromwell became the most important general on the Parliamentarian side and Prince Rupert on the Royalist side. Oliver Cromwell was famous for his well thought out tactics and his well disciplined army, where as Rupert, the kings nephew, made decisions without thinking them through and was not always in full control of his men. Before the war, Oliver Cromwell was worrying whether or not his army would want to fight the king because in those days it was said that the king is Gods representative. The king also had much more money because he was supported by some very wealthy men, so he had more money. However, as the war went on, the king’s money dwindled away, and Parliament raised taxes, therefore they had more money than the king.