The delegate model of representation poses a threat to the form of representative democracy used on the UK as the public will have more say on issues which undermines the Burkean model. Likewise it undermines parliamentary sovereignty as parliament is already bypassed by the government, referendums only make it worse. An example of this is when Labour were voted in and in their manifesto contained a referendum on devolution however the result didn’t turn out in their favour in contradiction of the government, further undermining their power. Moreover the public may not be well advised/trusted to make decisions on issues such as capital punishment as the polls show a majority in favour of it, however MPs can see the faults in the use of the death penalty and vote against it. Also the public may not be educated on some of the deeper issues such as the role of central banks in relation to a single currency.
This leads on to another cause that led to the Chartism movement, the disappointment of the 1832 Reform Act. Leading up to the act, working classes had given massive support to the middle class led campaign for the act, with the hope of legislation to help them. Although it was passed by the Whigs, the working class were dissatisfied because it did not enfranchise them and they were still left without the vote. Whigs regarded the act as the final change in the electoral system, but Chartists labelled it just the beginning. Although we’ve only listed two causes in detail there were many more that led to the Chartist
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.
One reform that has been introduced is the House of Lords reform, which was first introduced in 1999 and then again in 2012 with the aim of making the House of Lords much more representative by getting rid of hereditary peers (people in the house of lords due to previous ties) and by allowing people to vote for who they want in the house. This reform has not gone far enough because as it is far from complete as legislation was proposed to create a partly or fully elected House of Lords but then were dropped by the Conservatives as they said no to a fully elected second chamber in 2012. However this reform has done a fair amount as now the House of Lords has far more legitimacy than it did before because 92 members of the house were removed as they were hereditary peers and so these 92 places were voted on clearly increasing legitimacy and to an extent representation as before this it was the only part of government that was fully unrepresentative going against the ideology of democracy. This shows that here progress is seemingly slow as while the reform is introduced is somewhat understated and not as full a reform as it could be, it is still a reform and shows changes in the government as now they are actually looking towards reform. Another reform that has been introduced is the human rights act, which was
However it created land ownership problems which with the redemption fee system created bitterness amongst peasants and became known as ‘the great disappointment’ . His other reforms such as changes to the legal system, military and education, also gave Russian’s a greater freedom, however he didn’t provide the extensive changes to autocracy and society that radicals hoped for. As the population got a taste of liberalisation opposition increased, threatening the tsarist regime, forcing Alexander II to use repression to maintain control. Some historians suggest this shift from reform to reaction was directly related to the first assassination attempt on his life. However, Jonathan Bromley argues that there was no conservative shift as just prior to his death he agreed in principal to a national assembly.
The police openly fired on the protestors, and the number of deaths is estimated to be anywhere between 200-1000 people. Although it was not the tsar that gave the order, many people held him accountable for the massacre which was the final break of trust that the people had for their ‘Little Father.’ He was no longer thought of as being on their side: he was the opposition. The above statement could be accurate, as the reformist groups provided the people with a lot of ideas which challenged the tsar and his ideals. In recent years there had been an uncontrolled increase in the populations of the working class. This led to overcrowded towns and cities resulting in poor working and living conditions.
During the period of 1830-1930, vast changes were made to our political system that brought about a working class party and eventually positioned them into power. However, it is hard to quantify the significance of the duration of time taken for these developments to occur; can this be considered as an extensive or even short phase of time? In 1830 the electoral system was tremendously obsolete and corrupt with only 5% of the population being able to vote. Parliament was dominated by the House of Lords making it hard for changes to occur in a short period of time. There were also very few organisations that represented the working class, and any early trade unions that were affiliated with workers did not often concern themselves in politics.
The American Revolution was very revolutionary by leading to change. The American Revolution led to political, economic, and social change. Before the American Revolution there was no government ruled by citizens. Instead the only governments that were formed were monarchies. The act of knocking down King George III statue represented a great political change between England and America (Doc.
Why was the Unreformed House of Commons able to Reform itself in 1832? The splintering of the Tory party into several different factions played a part the Reform bill being able to be passed through the House of Commons. It split between the Huskissonites, The Ultras and the Small group of Support Wellington and Peel had managed to maintain. In 1832 Wellington tried to make a new Cabinet at the behest of this king but this crumbled when Peel refused to become involved in a Government that would pass Reform. The strong leadership of Grey over the Whigs was also a vital part of the road to reform as Grey was determined to get a Reform bill passed through Parliament (Reform that you can preserve) because of growing pressure from the middle class businessmen in Large cities that had no representation such as Birmingham and Manchester.
England lost. Money is another reason Charles I was having problems with Parliament. On the coast people had to pay something called ship taxes for the country to build ships etc for war. But Charles was short for money. He introduced this tax to the whole country and misused it by not using it for ship money.