Women were another vulnerable group because they were always paid at a lower rate than men. There was no safety net for people who fell into poverty other than resorting to the ‘workhouse’ which had been established to deal with cases of extreme poverty in Trade unions had little power as the Taff Vale Incident of 1901 showed and Friendly Societies could only provide a limited amount of help. Attitudes to poverty in the early 20th century were quite unsympathetic many politicians from both the Liberal and Conservative party felt that poverty came from personal laziness. Both parties had an attitude of “laissez-faire” i.e. non interference from the government.
|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.
Furthermore, the actual turnout was only 61.4%, so they were only representing around a third of the population. In this sense, representative democracy does not operate effectively in the UK as most of the population did not vote for the winning party. Britain follows a representative system because we are all represented by MPs in Parliament who will take care of local problems and take important grievances to the government. When we vote for these MPs, we give them the legitimacy to make decisions for the constituency but expect them to take the majority
For a country to be democratic there should be universal suffrage – all adults should have the right to vote. Britain was not very democratic in this respect in 1851, since only 1 in 7 men had the right to vote and no women could vote. However, a number of pieces of legislation were passed to extend the franchise. The 1867 Second Reform Act granted the vote to some working class men for the first time and meant that 1 in 3 men could vote. The 1884 Third Reform Act gave more respectable working class men the vote and meant that 2 out of every 3 were enfranchised.
As Strayer, Gatzke, and Harbison state in their textbook The Course of Civilization states “The basic trouble was that very few inhabitants of the empire believed that the old civilization was worth saving… the overwhelming majority of the population had been systematically excluded from political responsibilities. They could not organize to protect themselves; they could not serve in the army… Their economic plight was hopeless. Most of them were serfs bound to the soil, and the small urban groups saw their cities slipping into an economic decline.”(DBQ 2, Doc 1) What these men mean is the majority of the people (which were poor serfs) were excluded from political responsibilities. In addition, they could not protect themselves or serve in the army mainly because they were too poor (in order to be in the army, the people had to be wealthy) and the urban patricians saw their city fall into an economic downfall. What also led the downfall of the Western Roman Empire were the rise of Christianity and the large size
But was this really a success that the Liberals stayed in power? After the Liberal landslide in 1906 the Conservatives were weak and powerless in the House of Commons, with little than a quarter seats. Therefore Balfour and Lord Lansdowne decided to use their permanent Conservative majority in the House of Lords to block new policies of the Liberal Government. The Lords vetoed their first budget in November 1909 on Lloyd George’s Peoples Budget. The Liberals needed to find £15million of extra revenue to provide for the new social services and for the construction of naval warships.
This was not fair as the peasants didn’t have enough money as it was, before they had to pay money to the Church and Nobles. By the time the peasants had paid all of their taxes, they just about had enough money to feed themselves and their families, which meant no luxuries. They were working so hard and yet they didn’t get the money they deserved for doing it. The Revolution changed this. Peasants no longer had to pay taxes to the Church and Nobles, which meant that they didn’t have to just scrape by life, they could enjoy it.
The British could stay there because the United States didn't have an army because the government didn't have any money. Even though these outpost were in direct violation with the treaty of Paris the British kind of said what are you going to do about it and then just stayed. Because of the economic instability states began to go through a period of mass inflation and debt. Because of this the debt of individuals increased causing events like Shay's rebellion. In which a group of farmers led a armed assault on the national government and because there was no army so a local militia had to stop this rebellion.
This was a serious problem because Romans laws were good and fair but political leader were not willing to enforce the laws. Also when the people were penalized the wealthy people could avoid the them but as to the poor people they could not avoid them; they would pay in prison terms. However the government leaders were struggling too. They were in Corrupt also. With the high taxes they were asking for no one was paying so no money was used to help the empire with extra
Firstly there was lack of mass support since the Frankfurt Parliament was mostly made out of middle class people, with only one peasant and no workers. Therefore this overwhelming majority did not represent the people who were about 70% peasants. According thus to the demographics a revolution would fail because it would lack manpower, and instead of asking help from the peasants, the revolutionaries preferred to ask help from the rulers. Frankfurt Parliament has also been accused of wasting valuable time. Marxists argue that if the Parliamentarians, who were neither extreme nor violent, had taken faster action, Wilhelm IV and the other rulers would be unable to refuse the new state and its constitution.