Analyse the view that the Labour and Conservative parties are dominated by their respective leaders. In recent years there has been much debate as to whether party leaders have too much power over their parties. Many do believe that the two main party leaders in the UK do not dominate their parties as the structure of their party does not allow them to do so, but many more believe that party leaders have great authority over their parties and are fully committed to driving their parties policy with little delegation or use of their cabinet ministers. Historically the Conservative Party leader has been more powerful than the Labour Party leader. People believe this is down to the party’s history; the Labour Party originated from the trade union movement at the turn of the 20th century and originally had a chairman of the Labour MPs in the House of Commons, but no leader.
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. Pre 1832 the political system was unequal for representation to population as large cities such as Manchester and Birmingham were less represented than small wealthy boroughs. The electoral system was also very corrupt with bribery. The government in pre 1832 consisted of very few men who were pro reform as this would have effected there places of power, the lack of mps who were pro reform made it very difficult for the lower classes to gain the vote which they believed they deserved. This is shown in document 3 of the wjec pack.
From then on party leaders were erratic and kept changing, meaning there was little stability in the Conservative party, which made them vulnerable to attack. After Peel was beaten in the Corn Laws crisis, many strong leader figures left with him such as Gladstone. This meant the party was left with the back bench aristocracy who were not all that interested in the wellbeing of the party and let it deteriorate. This was not at all the only problem that the conservatives faced. The truth was that their policies simply did not appeal to the majority of the voting population any more.
A Virginia dollar could be worth more than a South Carolina dollar, or worth less than a New England gold coin. In the table showing the “Estimated Market Value of United States Exports to Great Britain” one can see that after the Revolution, there less trade with Great Britain, which also hindered the economic situation of the United States. Politically, the Articles of Confederation was unable to maintain order. They allowed each state one vote for equality; unfortunately, many members would often fail to attend Congress, more concerned about what was going on in their state, therefore, the vote was not cast. Also among the states there were many disputes, especially about boundary lines.
The fact that congress is an extensive forum of debate, scrutiny and opinion, as the founding fathers intended, is given far less coverage, and shows Congress not to be the broken branch. One reason congress is thought of as the broken branch is because of its incredibly low public approval ratings, which are far lower than that of the executive. Currently, approval ratings of congress are at 18% and in decline, whilst Obama’s approval ratings are at around 40%. Though both are below 50%, public approval of the exectutive is significantly higher, leading to the belief that congress is the more flawed branch of government. However, there is a great paradox here, for although public opinion of congress in general is low, the public’s opinion of
An extended republic would be insufficient in protecting the rights of citizens… a government which would not solve the problem of majority faction; but instead fall to corruption, and the mistrust of its citizens. I propose that state governments, which in themselves are small republics, have a greater influence in the governing of the country. In addition to state governments, an effective central government is required. This small, central government must be adept at the providing the bare necessities, such as regulation of money, taxation, call to arms,
There are numerous reasons of why people are not in favor of the Electoral College system to elect the president. As stated in document D “ At the most basic level, the Electoral College is unfair to voters”. The reason is because the winner-take-all system in each state. Which means candidates don’t spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning the election, focusing only on the tight races in the “swing states”. States in the “swing” obtain majority of attention.
Many Blacks doubt the political system has any value for them. They remain economically and socially disadvantaged. Voting has not changed that. Also many feel that the politicians have little interest in them. They feel the Democrats take their votes for granted and the Republicans are against them particularly as the majority are poor.
Furthermore, the built-in disadvantages which faced by third and fragmented minority parties under First-Past-The-Post in many cases make the party system move towards a party of the 'left' and also party of the 'right', taking turn in power. Third parties always wither away and practically never reach threshold of popular support where their national vote attains a comparable percentage of parliamentary
The failure of the Frankfurt parliament was precipitated by a number of factors, from its inability to make quick, vital decisions to the division between its members. The responsibility of founding a national constitution was left to an unrepresentative portion of society that made up the Frankfurt Parliament. Eighty percent of its members had university degrees and the rest was comprised of a few land owners, four craftsmen and one peasant .Of the 596 members, the vast majority were middle-class which meant that overall the parliament was moderately liberal in politics. However, the minority of extremist members of the Parliament, as well as the differing aims of its liberal and radical affiliates, proved fatal for the Frankfurt Parliament. Differences could not easily be resolved between these groups and so a majority decision was seldom reached.