This essay plans to analyse and explain the extension of the franchise from 1830 and to asses whether Britain was fully democratic by 1918. Some historians believe that because of different anomalies in democracy such as plural votes and the power of the House of Lords made Britain fundamentally undemocratic even up to the 20th century, however other opinions are that Britain, having had changed so much, was almost fully democratic by this time. In order to judge how democratic Britain became, this essay will explain the changes in the different hallmarks of democracy and judge how democratic they became and will also analyse the vestiges of the past which held Britain back from achieving a full democratic system. Arguably, the most important trait of a democracy is the right to vote. Without this hallmark, ordinary people do not have a say in the way the country is run.
Due to the increasing presidential style of recent prime ministers and the party loyalty of the executive one can consider Parliament’s control of executive power minimal. However, due to the development of independent bodies surrounding Select Committees and the delaying of legislation by the House of Lords it can still be argued to be effective. The government usually has an overall majority. This is due to our voting system of FPTP which gives preference to the two main parties, normally giving them majorities (and increasingly large ones) as opposed to coalitions and minority governments which are produced through other voting systems such as AV in Scotland and Wales. Although we are currently in a coalition the government still has a majority through the combination of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
Scott martin – extended essay - liberal reforms Question – how successfully did the Liberal government (1906-14). Tackle the problem of poverty? Many historians argue the liberals effectively tackled the problem of poverty once elected in 1906 in their landslide victory. Once the party was elected however it was still very much in favour of its laissez-faire policy and social reform was not high in its parties priorities, it took significant time and pressure also some very notable individuals such as Lloyd George or Winston Churchill to change the course of Britain’s welfare system and unwittingly perhaps set up the foundations of the welfare state in the future. This essay will show how the liberals aimed to tackle the problem of
However it could be argued that Wilhelm II’s aims to crush socialism in response to Caprivi’s tolerance for Socialism in his years as chancellor disagree with this view as it suggests he is aiming for more of an autocratic state where he holds state control. Another notable factor which suggests Germany was a parliamentary democracy is Wilhelm II could ignore the views of the centre party; failed attempts to previously dismiss them such as the Kulturkampf were a failure because the party’s strong political views are extremely influential, and they have always had a substantial amount of seats in the party. This in turn meant the government was influenced by the parliament. However, there were many events which demonstrate the Kaiser
|Your Score |___ of 50 | There has been a majority of differences since the elections of the 1800’s. Some examples of things that have changed are political parties and after the war of 1812 the party for the federalist was terminated. After that no political parties were present, the only “ism” that was still alive was “sectionalism” and a lot of the time that would cause fights and disputes between people. There was only a certain “group” of people that could vote during the 1800’s, the only people that could were men, but the catch was that they had to own land to vote. This voting law that only allowed men with land to vote lowered the amount of people who could vote extremely.
He claimed it was time for the electorate to decide who runs the country, the democratically elected government or the trade unions? Unfortunately for Heath, Labour won the most seats with 301. This was not enough to give them an overall majority and so for the first time since 1929 there was a hung
Americans don’t believe there is a well marked working class in the United States, unlike Europe counting with the monarchy. But there is, the working class of today has shifted from what used to be the working class
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 French Revolution had an assembly of all the estates of France called the Estates General, where the 3 Estates were able to vote separately; however each estate only had one third of the vote. The problem with this voting practice was that 95% of the nation who made up the third estate could be easily outvoted by 5% of the population, the clergy and nobles, who always seemed to agree with one another. So even though every citizen (not including women) qualified as a voting member in society, those in the Third Estate really had no say in the government and endured many problems due to this unfair voting practice. “Each man should accept a ‘social contract’ or agreement in which he places himself and all of his power under ‘the supreme direction of the general will of all. Each man, in giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody; and as there is no associate over whom he does not acquire the same right as he yields others over himself…” (Jean-Jacques Rousseau) According to the excerpt from the Social Contract, the government should make laws that please the majority or general will, and to create laws that man will obey yet still have the same rights and freedom as before the law was made.
If a party gains a majority it will be offered the chance to form government by the Queen. The MP is then responsible for representing all constituents, even those who didn’t elect the member. For example in 2005 George Galloway received only 18.4% of his constituents but was still elected MP for Bethnal Green and Bow. [1] This high proportion of constituents who didn’t vote for Galloway is not a unique anomaly, during the 2005 election only three MPs secured more than 40% of their constituents votes. It may be argued that voter apathy has a large influence on this