This is amplified by the fact that the larger pressure groups can leave many smaller ones in their shadow. For example, the British Stammering Association is a small pressure group with a good cause but one that many people will not have heard of due to its lack of funds and support. Many say that pressure groups holding the government to account and challenging authority is a sign of a healthy democracy. After all, a democracy is a system of government where decisions are arrived at by majoritarian principles. If a certain group of people do not feel that they are being represented then a democracy has to be able to recognise them for anything to change.
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
Marx predicted that capitalism within a socioeconomic system would inevitably create internal tensions between social classes leading to its demise and replacement by a new system, communism. For Marx, the concept of class has always existed in society. Historically, a society has always been arranged into various orders of social rank. A defining characteristic of capitalism however, is that “it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat” (Marx and Engels 1848).
In this new capitalist period, the more simplified means of production as seen in feudalism, had developed into a “complex industrial state” as stated in Haralambos and Holborn (2008). Capitalism brought a new way to sustain humanity; industrial production. Marxism, as a sociological theory, focuses on the economics of Britain. Lee and Newby (1983) say that to “organize the production of its subsistence” is the most basic human instinct. The economy provides us with our means of survival and defines our society.
It is difficult for a Backbench MP to influence government policy if a government has a large majority in Parliament. The power of individual backbench MPs is reduced making it harder to challenge the government. Also, the PM has powers of patronage which demand loyalty; few MPs want to cause a general election by defeating the government. Thus accepting their fate as lobby
It would be hard for this program to work in a democracy since the people may not agree with it. Would’ve worked in Socrates time but not the present. People in present times are used to democracy, and wouldn’t agree with anything that didn’t have them directly picking their leaders. People in Socrates time may have been more open to
They also rejected many other bills of the Liberals for example the 1902 Education Act and the 1904 Licensing Act. Even with the Liberals winning a majority of votes they happened to be prevented of carrying out their policies that they needed to by the House of Lords who happened not to be elected by the people; democracy was being defined. This made the constitutional crisis even worse. The Lords had the real power as they were given it by heritage and not by the people like the Commons were. It was a competition of survival of the fittest and the diehards wanted to stay on top of their game.
The first issue was that of what people would be involved in the government. This problem was centered on the idea of different classes of people that were in the nation. By limiting the types of people in the government however, it would limit the types of personalities that would play a role in the government. Some argued that the private men, the working class individuals who represented the majority, had no business being involved in politics and government. Thomas Gordon argued against this because he thought that if anyone would know how the government worked, it would be the private men.
To what extent has the ‘new’ Labour abandoned traditional socialist principles? The Labour Party. We see them as Britain’s traditional left wing socialist party, fighting for the working class man and supporting the whole of society. Although Labour started out with left wing socialist intentions, do they still hold the same principals in today’s political climate? Old Labour, the traditional socialist representation of the labour party, presented many socialist views, such as cradle-to-grave welfare and social justice.