Many believe they should have devoted scarce resources on industrial recovery rather spending them on the National Health Service. Focusing on post-war times by investing into modernization would have greatly changed Britain, it would have created more efficient production methods which would have satisfied the rising consumerism of the British public. Failing to modernize meant that Britain wasnt growing industrially. Secondly, the Attlee government failed to make attempts to move towards the EU which was beginning to spread across the English Channel. The labour party even declined invitations into the European Union.
When the Labour government implemented these laws they protected traditional parliamentary sovereignty. Unlike Germany or the USA where judges can annul legislations that are found to be in breach of the human rights act. In the UK however judges can only issue a declaration of incompatibility which sends the legislation back to parliament so that they can make changes to suit the HRA. It is difficult to declare on this subject whether or not there have been enough reforms on the Human Rights Act as through one viewpoint it is important to sometimes evade Human Rights to catch potential terrorists on the other hand millions of people have had to sacrifice their right to private life as has been found with the major scandal of NSA spying on internet records. Some people may argue that if you have nothing to hide you should not fear however people still should be able to have
This contradicts a democratic society and is seen as a dictatorship because elections are the cornerstone of a democracy. So if two out of three powers that are running the UK are not elected, this itself questions whether or not we are living in a democracy. Furthermore, having a monarchy is very important yet traditional but not in the same aspects of Parliament, as they have more authority over
A voter could switch from voting for the Conservatives to vote for the Labour Party at the next election because they decide according to single issues. In general the public today is not really aligned to parties anymore. I would say that party allegiance is something which is nearly vanished in Britain’s voting behavior. There are still groups which are strongly related to one or the other party but that is not as common as was in the 50s and 60s. The important things today are which party has at the moment the right promises for the single voter and which party is better in delivering policy goals.
The current UK constitution has so many strengths that reform is unnecessary. Do you agree with this statement? In the UK we have an uncodified constitution, which means we have many different sources of the constitution rather than have a single authoritative document, which would be a codified constitution. The most significant source of the constitution is legislation which consists of both Acts of Parliament and lesser legislation like Orders in Council, and rules and regulation made by ministers under statutory authority. Common law, which has developed over many years becoming accepted due to court judgements.
The monarch also decided what Parliament discussed. When looking at Parliaments authority in the years 1485 – 1603 there are several important factors which can help to determine whether or not Parliament’s role and influence increased. The number of times the Parliament was called during each reign and used to pass legislation is important and can be used to explain how much influence Parliament had because the monarch was under no obligation to summon the body. However when looking at these factors they differ from reign to reign so it can be argued that the role and influence of Parliament did not increase smoothly and steadily as it depended on the monarch. The historian Chrimes describes Henry VII’s use of Parliament as ‘Little or nothing of much significance occurred in the history of Parliament in the reign of Henry VII’ However at the beginning of Henry VII’s reign the first Parliamentary session was of great importance to him as it acknowledged his claim to the throne.
The reform act on 1832 was an act passed by Parliament in order to change the way in which the electoral system in the country worked, as it had been virtually unchanged for around 200 years. The act was not new to parliament as the idea of the bill was in fact presented to the government by radical movements wanting change. The fact that the reform act had not been passed earlier even with the pressure of radical movements begs the question as to what changed for the act to be passed later in 1832? What new factors helped in gaining the reform? The problems with the way in which the electoral system worked, meant that the majority people wanted change and therefore pushed for electoral reform.
The Effects of a Government Shutdown Government shutdowns have been around for what seems like a long time but really, quite hasn’t been. They can come in many different lengths and severities. In this paper I will be researching the causes, effects, and the processes uses to resolve a government shutdown. Causes of a government shutdown may vary slightly but every previous shutdown have been caused by a spending bill or funding issue (Matthews). However, for the most part main causes of shutdowns are quite balanced between a presidents refusing to sign a bill or vetoing a bill and congress failing to approve a budget to propose to the president to sign (Longley).
University of London Common Law Reasoning and Institutions Essay Title: Human Rights Act 1998 Candidate #:L1458 Student Registration #:101006174 Q. 'The HRA 1998 has had a little impact upon protecting the basic liberties of British subjects and could be repealed without any consequence'. Discuss. The UK does not have a written constitution as part of its national law. People there had long enjoyed a strong tradition of individual liberties but it has not always been easy to say precisely what to do when unwritten liberties conflict with other laws.
Firstly, a codified constitution would clarify the nature of the political system to citizens of the state. Most British citizens do not understand the concept of the constitution, nor what the UK constitution entails. It is therefore an argument that having a codified constitution would raise public awareness and support for the government would grow. It would also enable the public and people in government to view the constitution whenever necessary for matters such as court cases, etc. This would encourage public involvement in politics and act as an improvement to our democratic society.