Pre 1832 the electoral system was not of equal measure to population, the ruling classes were the only section of the social class structure that were deemed eligible for the vote. It is in my opinion that the split in the Tory party that was the paramount cause for reform being passed in 1832. The inequality in the parliamentary system is shown in document 2 of the wjec pack where John Croker, the inequality is very clear and shows that without action from the general public no change would occur in the parliamentary system as the majority of Mp’s being Tories and in effect not pro reform. The threat of revolution, which was caused by the middle and working classes, caused attention to be bought to reform and the unfairness there was in the electoral system. 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.
The two party system is maintained by FPTP, so this new electoral system means two-partyism is harder to get. But this system is very rarely used across the UK and isn’t used in the general election. This means that when it comes to electing a prime minister, the UK continues to use a two party system. New issues, which have presented themselves, have also made a difference to the UK party system. These issues, such as war, the environment and Europe cut across traditional party-political
But there are other courses of the break out of the armed conflict not just polices of the British Government that are the colonies as not all of the polices where unreasonable. The reaction of the Americans to the British was also could be a reason for the outbreak. Also some events affected the break out too. In 1763 Britain started introducing some rigorous policy’s, that where made change in the colonies and this was change that the colonies didn’t really want... This was because for year they where use to being on their own and Britain taking no interest in what they do.
A question put forward by the government to be decided by the public with either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ verdict cannot be tampered with or imply any confusion to the people/public deciding on the question. For instance, there was a referendum held in the North East in 2004 proposing setting up more assemblies in the region. The majority vote was ‘no’, winning by over three quarters of the population that participated - because the winning vote was from the majority, it represented a true manifestation of the peoples needs. A disadvantage of using referendums is a reverse argument of the first advantage. Some issues put forward by the government may be too complicated for the people to understand, which means they may have difficulty deciding on their opinion due to lack of knowledge.
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.
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.
Haylie Stickel Civics Frickman Should the constitution be ratified or should it be tossed? The Articles of Confederation established America’s first national government but it was a weak one because it was a free government. This became apparent after Shay’s Rebellion; the government couldn’t regulate the economy or apply a foreign policy. We needed to change the Articles of Confederation thus a meeting was called to the Annapolis Convention. There were plenty of arguments over what to add or take out so some delegates came up with the idea to abandon the Articles of Confederation and establish a new constitution.
A government was established in which people were elected into upper house and lower house, however the governors rarely made an appearance. Their independance meant that they had a wider franchise so they could pass useful acts to benefit themselves. Lack of communication was a major issue between the two, as Britain was over 3000 miles away. This meant that it was extremely difficult for Britain to have any involvement with the colonies, which resulted to salutary neglect. It could be argued that salutary neglect weakened the relationship, however the colonist's may have enjoyed this freedom to do what they wanted and make there own decisions.
However the source goes on to criticise the statement saying that it isn’t good for “widowed mother with children, the chronic sick, 400,000 unemployed and millions of pensioners without pensions.” Therefore I can infer that the source doesn’t agree with the statement as it states that there is a clear majority of people who don’t benefit within this time period, mainly the people who are benefitting are from the upper classes. However this is obviously biased as it’s from a labour party manifesto therefore isn’t totally reliable. Source 2 appears to also be against the statement because in the background signs of the source there is hints on how the benefits are for the richer people. For instance “set the TOP people free” showing that the conservatives only care about the upper classes and that at that period in time only they benefit. It also shows that it’s not actually Macmillan saying the speech but the Chancellor of the Exchequer which could represent that it’s him coming up with the ideas, they don’t like him or Macmillan is too afraid to do his own speeches.
This is demonstrated in documents 4, 5, and 6. Henry Haskell states that “The government undertook such far-reaching responsibility in affairs that the fiber of the citizens weakened” (Document 4) This shows that the decline of the empire was due to heavy taxation that couldn’t support the government. If the taxes couldn’t sustain the government then it wouldn’t be able to control the people. According to Montanelli “The military crisis was the result of… proud old aristocracy’s… shortage of children” (Document 5) This means that many children weren’t old enough to go into the military which caused the decrease of soldiers. With the lack of soldiers, it would be easier to invade Rome, which could’ve led to the decline of the Empire.