Insider groups, such as the Howard League Penal Reform, are less democratic than outsider groups because they concentrate solely on becoming closer with the government and do not have to campaign publicly. This is less democratic as they are not taking direct action to include the people, and could become 'Prisoner groups' where they would have to change or go by the government's rule; this prevents memberships of the pressure groups campaigning for their cause. As a result, these types of pressure groups would be pleasing the government instead, and wouldn't have a huge amount of media coverage because the government may not want the public to know that they are close to that pressure group.
Insider groups are more of a form of representative democracy (which is said to be less democratic), so these groups represent a group of people and their views, but many only campaign for them through their relationship with the government; the people that are part of that pressure group may not be able to campaign themselves. However this is isn't the case for all insider groups as members of the NUT a have striked protested in regards to their wages, working conditions, hours etc.
Sunday, 13 December 2015
Sunday, 6 December 2015
Why are some Pressure Groups more successful than others?
Firstly, some pressure groups (PGs) are more successful than others because of their relationship with the government. Insider groups, especially, are in close contact with senior civil servants and ministers, who are able to influence legislation. For example trade unions work closely with the Labour Party to support the working class and their jobs.
Outsider groups are less successful than insider groups, because these groups are completely independent from the government and they usually wish to cause disruption or inconvenience, such as striking and protesting, to have influence on the government.
Outsider groups are usually unsuccessful because of the violent methods they use, which cannot be associated with the government, so they have to rely on public support to try and gain legislation, for what they are campaigning for. For example, Anti Animal Testimg groups have indirectly influenced the government by harassing and intimidating staff at Huntingdon Life Sciences in Cambridge, to get their message across.
Another reason, on why some PGs are more successful than others, is because of their financial situation. PGs that recieve money from membership fees and donations, usually have a higher success rate because they can afford to advertise and employ professional lobbyists and scientists etc. More publicity for their campaigns, keeps the cause going and raises the attentions of the public. For example the pressure group called ASH, was successful at promoting the dangers of smoking, with lots of publicity and advertising, which resulted in the ban of smoking in public areas.
Some PGs are more successful than others, because of media coverage as it plays a significant role in manipulating the views of the public; portraying them as important or not important. Media is a wide source to advice people, as it is covered on the TV, the Internet and the radio etc. So almost everyone in the country will have seen, or heard something about a pressure group and how they are campaigning, by the media. An example includes the pressure group Live 8, which used the media to raise awareness of problems in Africa; without this, they would've been unsuccessful. A well known charismatic leader also contributes to influencing the success of a pressure group because people seem to listen more to famous figures; Bob Geldof and Bono also helped to promote problems in Africa.
Outsider groups are less successful than insider groups, because these groups are completely independent from the government and they usually wish to cause disruption or inconvenience, such as striking and protesting, to have influence on the government.
Outsider groups are usually unsuccessful because of the violent methods they use, which cannot be associated with the government, so they have to rely on public support to try and gain legislation, for what they are campaigning for. For example, Anti Animal Testimg groups have indirectly influenced the government by harassing and intimidating staff at Huntingdon Life Sciences in Cambridge, to get their message across.
Another reason, on why some PGs are more successful than others, is because of their financial situation. PGs that recieve money from membership fees and donations, usually have a higher success rate because they can afford to advertise and employ professional lobbyists and scientists etc. More publicity for their campaigns, keeps the cause going and raises the attentions of the public. For example the pressure group called ASH, was successful at promoting the dangers of smoking, with lots of publicity and advertising, which resulted in the ban of smoking in public areas.
Some PGs are more successful than others, because of media coverage as it plays a significant role in manipulating the views of the public; portraying them as important or not important. Media is a wide source to advice people, as it is covered on the TV, the Internet and the radio etc. So almost everyone in the country will have seen, or heard something about a pressure group and how they are campaigning, by the media. An example includes the pressure group Live 8, which used the media to raise awareness of problems in Africa; without this, they would've been unsuccessful. A well known charismatic leader also contributes to influencing the success of a pressure group because people seem to listen more to famous figures; Bob Geldof and Bono also helped to promote problems in Africa.
Sunday, 29 November 2015
The British Medical Association Pressure Group
The British Medical Association (BMA) is a trade union representing doctors in the UK and was founded in 1832 by Sir Charles Hastings. It has been recognised by NHS employers as sole contract negotiators for doctors, and currently have a membership of 156,000 doctors, along with 19,000 medical students, who have access to expert employment advice.
The BMA is a sectional pressure group as it represents the common interests of a particular section of society: doctors and medical students who are directly and personally concerned with the outcomes of their campaigns. It is also an insider group because the BMA has had political legitimacy with the government, and have had policy credibility.
The BMA has played a key role in the drafting and passing of the Medical Act 1858, which established the General Medical Council, and set out a standard for qualified and unqualified doctors and a system of professional regulation.
It also played a major role in future medical politics, campaigning on issues, such as Poor Law Medicine, quackery, public health, alternative and military medicine, and contract practice.
The BMA's 'Policy in Relation to Smoking' was published 1971, and recently they called for a ban on smoking in private vehicles to protect passengers, especially children. This was successful because in October 2015, the ban of smoking in cars with child passengers, was enforced. Despite this, the BMA have not stopped here as they want to extend this to banning smoking in cars completely.
In February 2014, the European Parliament approved the Tobacco Products Directive, aiming to make smoking less appealing to young people by putting health warnings on 2/3 on the cigarette pack, and banning small packs and flavoured cigarettes.
In the past two years, the BMA have had an input in the new contracts for junior doctors and are continuing to debate on this issue. They have also campaigned for the government to put a 20% tax on sugary drinks to combat obesity, and have recently put out a plea to stop helium being used to fill party balloons because they fear there will be soon none left for medical use (used for MRA scanning machines).
The BMA is a sectional pressure group as it represents the common interests of a particular section of society: doctors and medical students who are directly and personally concerned with the outcomes of their campaigns. It is also an insider group because the BMA has had political legitimacy with the government, and have had policy credibility.
The BMA has played a key role in the drafting and passing of the Medical Act 1858, which established the General Medical Council, and set out a standard for qualified and unqualified doctors and a system of professional regulation.
It also played a major role in future medical politics, campaigning on issues, such as Poor Law Medicine, quackery, public health, alternative and military medicine, and contract practice.
The BMA's 'Policy in Relation to Smoking' was published 1971, and recently they called for a ban on smoking in private vehicles to protect passengers, especially children. This was successful because in October 2015, the ban of smoking in cars with child passengers, was enforced. Despite this, the BMA have not stopped here as they want to extend this to banning smoking in cars completely.
In February 2014, the European Parliament approved the Tobacco Products Directive, aiming to make smoking less appealing to young people by putting health warnings on 2/3 on the cigarette pack, and banning small packs and flavoured cigarettes.
In the past two years, the BMA have had an input in the new contracts for junior doctors and are continuing to debate on this issue. They have also campaigned for the government to put a 20% tax on sugary drinks to combat obesity, and have recently put out a plea to stop helium being used to fill party balloons because they fear there will be soon none left for medical use (used for MRA scanning machines).
Sunday, 22 November 2015
What are the major similarities and differences within the Labour and Conservative Party?
The Conservative Party and Labour Party are very different, especially through their beliefs and ideologies. However, these two Parties are similar through their key pledges of the 2015 General Election.
The Conservative Party is different to the Labour Party because their ideologies are concerned with Thatcherism, and David Cameron, along with Osborne, believe in leading modernisers, and that a smaller state is ideologically desirable. Spending cuts rather than tax rises (Tori pledge) reflected this idea of a decreasing state, and the welfare cuts showed Thatcherism, as welfare creates a 'culture of dependency' which hampers the economy. Also, privatisation is opposite Labour's policies because Labour are more left wing, believing in the state helping the public, by owning its public services, whereas the Conservatives are more right wing. The 'big society philosophy' is Cameron's ideological flagship in 2010, which was the idea of the 'big society' seen as a way of resurrecting the core Thatcherite goal, of 'rolling back the state'. In comparison, when Ed Miliband became leader of the Labour Party, he was more Brownite wing, than Blairite wing, saying that 'New Labour is dead.' This is different to the Conservatives because their policies on welfare reform, is more Blairite wing, but Ed Miliband is the opposite. Also, the 'One Nation Labour' suggests that Labour, rather than the Conservatives, was the true heir of the One Nation tradition.
However, the Conservatives and the Labour Party have some similarities, through their key pledges. Both parties want to cut the deficit and provide extra funding for the NHS, despite the different amounts pledges by the two parties. Also Labour and Conservatives want to prevent EU migrants from claiming benefits for a certain amount of time. In the key pledges of 2015, of the two parties, the 'in/out' referendum on the EU, has been mentioned, to reduce the transferring powers from the UK to the EU.
The Conservative Party is different to the Labour Party because their ideologies are concerned with Thatcherism, and David Cameron, along with Osborne, believe in leading modernisers, and that a smaller state is ideologically desirable. Spending cuts rather than tax rises (Tori pledge) reflected this idea of a decreasing state, and the welfare cuts showed Thatcherism, as welfare creates a 'culture of dependency' which hampers the economy. Also, privatisation is opposite Labour's policies because Labour are more left wing, believing in the state helping the public, by owning its public services, whereas the Conservatives are more right wing. The 'big society philosophy' is Cameron's ideological flagship in 2010, which was the idea of the 'big society' seen as a way of resurrecting the core Thatcherite goal, of 'rolling back the state'. In comparison, when Ed Miliband became leader of the Labour Party, he was more Brownite wing, than Blairite wing, saying that 'New Labour is dead.' This is different to the Conservatives because their policies on welfare reform, is more Blairite wing, but Ed Miliband is the opposite. Also, the 'One Nation Labour' suggests that Labour, rather than the Conservatives, was the true heir of the One Nation tradition.
However, the Conservatives and the Labour Party have some similarities, through their key pledges. Both parties want to cut the deficit and provide extra funding for the NHS, despite the different amounts pledges by the two parties. Also Labour and Conservatives want to prevent EU migrants from claiming benefits for a certain amount of time. In the key pledges of 2015, of the two parties, the 'in/out' referendum on the EU, has been mentioned, to reduce the transferring powers from the UK to the EU.
Sunday, 15 November 2015
To what extent are the current Conservative and Labour party similar and different?
In many ways, the Conservative party and Labour party are very different. The Conservative MPs continue to hold right wing or Thatcherite views, where they believe in free market and self interest, where people earn for themselves. Whereas the Labour party are more left wing, with Old Labour ideas returning, where people look out for one another.
The Conservative party introduced further modernization, for example, Cameron and Osborne believe that a smaller state is ideologically desirable. The key pledges the Conservatives introduced in 2015 include:
The Conservative party introduced further modernization, for example, Cameron and Osborne believe that a smaller state is ideologically desirable. The key pledges the Conservatives introduced in 2015 include:
- To eliminate the deficit and achieve a budget surplus by 2018-19.
- Cut welfare spending by £12 billion.
- Cut the household benefit cap from £26,000 to £23,000 year.
- Increase NHS spending in England, by at least £8 billion.
- Raise the income tax personal allowance to £12,500.
- Extend the 'right to buy' scheme.
- Scrap the Human Rights Act, replacing it with a 'British bill of rights.'
- Prevent EU migrants from claiming certain benefits and social housing for 4 years.
- Hold an 'in/out' referendum on the UK's EU membership by the end of 2017.
The Labour party, under Ed Miliband's leadership, their key pledges for the May 2015 general election are:
- Cut the deficit every year in order to balance the books.
- No additional borrowing for new spending.
- Provide an extra £2.5 billion for the NHS, paid by a 'mansion tax.'
- Reintroduce the 50% top rate of income tax for those earning over £150,000.
- Raise the minimum wage to at least £8 an hour by 2019.
- Abolish the 'bedroom tax.'
- Introduce a 2 year wait before EU migrants can claim out of work benefits.
- No transfer of powers from the UK, to the EU without an 'in/out' referendum.
- Freeze energy bills until 2017.
Despite their differences, the Conservative and Labour party are similar, especially through their key pledges of the 2015 general election as although they aren't completely the same, both parties pledged to increase the NHS spending by £8 billion (Tories) or £2.5 billion (Labour). The two parties have also pledged, in their different ways, to prevent EU migrants from claiming benefits, and the 'in/out' referendum on the UK's EU membership has been mentioned by the Conservatives and Labour.
However, despite these similarities, the Conservatives and Labour remain on opposite ends of the political spectrum, meaning their ideologies clash with one another, and the two parties will always have to compete for the public's vote.
Sunday, 8 November 2015
Does Jeremy Corbyn align himself more with traditional socialism or is he a social democrat?
Jeremy Corbyn recently won the Labour leadership contest by a landslide of almost 60% of the votes. He is involved in the socialist campaign group, but is he a traditional socialist or a social democrat?
Socialism is an ideology that ranges from the revolutionary communism to reformist social democracy and believes that people are bound together by common humanity. Traditional socialists usually believe that capitalism should be abolished and to have equality for all. Whereas social democracy is an ideology that supports a broad balance between capitalism and state intervention.
Jeremy Corbyn has claimed that he prioritizes the needs of the people and protecting human rights. He is very left wing and believes that there is an alternative to the neo-liberal Thatcherite consensus, whilst having an anti-austerity message.
I believe Corbyn is aligned more with traditional socialism because he wants to re-nationalise Britain's railway services and energy companies. He is also a strong republican which means that he does not like the Monarchy, as he won't sing the National Anthem; he won't fight to get rid of the Royal Family because he knows he would lose. Corbyn also wants to introduce a National Education Service, modeled on the NHS, and to abolish Private Finance Initiative deals with the NHS, by using government funds to buy them out. This all shows a traditional socialist's values, as they believe that the state should own and run the economy and its services to help those most in need, such as the working class.
This portrays Jeremy Corbyn as a traditional socialism as he is more for protectionism and state intervention to get more money for the government, to fund more public services. He also wants to reduce the welfare benefits, to encourage more people to work instead of claiming benefits, by introducing a National Maximum living wage. Traditional socialists believes in equality for all, and Corbyn represents this as he has expressed that he wants equality for women, to make 50% of his cabinet female. Social democrats prefer a mixed economy, but Jeremy Corbyn prefers the state to own public services. He also has an austere, almost ascetic approach to life which means that he possesses self discipline and has a plain lifestyle.
Socialism is an ideology that ranges from the revolutionary communism to reformist social democracy and believes that people are bound together by common humanity. Traditional socialists usually believe that capitalism should be abolished and to have equality for all. Whereas social democracy is an ideology that supports a broad balance between capitalism and state intervention.
Jeremy Corbyn has claimed that he prioritizes the needs of the people and protecting human rights. He is very left wing and believes that there is an alternative to the neo-liberal Thatcherite consensus, whilst having an anti-austerity message.
I believe Corbyn is aligned more with traditional socialism because he wants to re-nationalise Britain's railway services and energy companies. He is also a strong republican which means that he does not like the Monarchy, as he won't sing the National Anthem; he won't fight to get rid of the Royal Family because he knows he would lose. Corbyn also wants to introduce a National Education Service, modeled on the NHS, and to abolish Private Finance Initiative deals with the NHS, by using government funds to buy them out. This all shows a traditional socialist's values, as they believe that the state should own and run the economy and its services to help those most in need, such as the working class.
This portrays Jeremy Corbyn as a traditional socialism as he is more for protectionism and state intervention to get more money for the government, to fund more public services. He also wants to reduce the welfare benefits, to encourage more people to work instead of claiming benefits, by introducing a National Maximum living wage. Traditional socialists believes in equality for all, and Corbyn represents this as he has expressed that he wants equality for women, to make 50% of his cabinet female. Social democrats prefer a mixed economy, but Jeremy Corbyn prefers the state to own public services. He also has an austere, almost ascetic approach to life which means that he possesses self discipline and has a plain lifestyle.
Sunday, 18 October 2015
Does Britain suffer from a democratic deficit?
Britain suffers from a democratic deficit resulting in a fall in political participation, undemocratic institutions and the insufficient increased centralization of power.
Britain suffers from a democratic deficit, through the House of Lords because they are unelected. The Lords are either hereditary, where they inherit their position, or are life peers where they are chosen in regards to their expertise in certain areas. This makes the country a democratic deficit, because these Lords are not elected by the British public, which is what they can do with MPs. This is unfair to the people, as the Lords are able to scrutinise new Bills, and as they are 'not toed to a party', the Lords can express their own opinion. This shows that the Lords only represent themselves or their expertise, not a constituency; British citizens do not have a say. The democratic renewal, is to get rid of the hereditary peers completely, because, although the 1958 and 1999 Acts saw some laws that stopped Lords inherit their position in the House, there are still 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Also to improve this democratic deficit, the life peers needs to be elected by the people which will be more fair and representative.
The current voting system, the First Past the Post system (FPTP), also suffers from a democratic deficit because it has caused a decrease in political participation. This voting system is not very democratic because it produces a disproportional result; not only do MPs get elected on small support, but the party that gets the most percentage of votes, wins the election. For example, in the 2015 General Election, the Conservatives won a majority vote of 36.9%, but 63.1% voted for other parties. This means that more electorates did not want the Conservatives to run Britain, but because of the FPTP system, they are running the country; how is this fair? The FPTP voting system also causes partisan dealignment and political apathy which leads to a decline in voter turnout and in party membership, but an increase in pressure groups and membership of smaller political parties. The democratic renewal would be to change the voting system to the Alternative Vote to produce a more fair and proportional result in general elections. To also improve the voter turnout, Britain could make voting compulsory, or even lower the voting age to also lead to an increase in political participation.
Even though Parliament is a form of true democracy, it is ineffective because the second chamber (House of Lords) is unelected and the scrutiny, of Bills that takes place in Government, by their selected standing committee, weakens the representative role of Parliament, as the people do not get a direct say in what happens to a Bill. Also the government pf the day usually has a majority control over the House of Commons, so a Bill introduced by them, will get a majority vote and will win. This is not fair to other parties who will represent different people in society because their opinions are not being heard in Parliament.
Britain suffers from a democratic deficit, through the House of Lords because they are unelected. The Lords are either hereditary, where they inherit their position, or are life peers where they are chosen in regards to their expertise in certain areas. This makes the country a democratic deficit, because these Lords are not elected by the British public, which is what they can do with MPs. This is unfair to the people, as the Lords are able to scrutinise new Bills, and as they are 'not toed to a party', the Lords can express their own opinion. This shows that the Lords only represent themselves or their expertise, not a constituency; British citizens do not have a say. The democratic renewal, is to get rid of the hereditary peers completely, because, although the 1958 and 1999 Acts saw some laws that stopped Lords inherit their position in the House, there are still 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Also to improve this democratic deficit, the life peers needs to be elected by the people which will be more fair and representative.
The current voting system, the First Past the Post system (FPTP), also suffers from a democratic deficit because it has caused a decrease in political participation. This voting system is not very democratic because it produces a disproportional result; not only do MPs get elected on small support, but the party that gets the most percentage of votes, wins the election. For example, in the 2015 General Election, the Conservatives won a majority vote of 36.9%, but 63.1% voted for other parties. This means that more electorates did not want the Conservatives to run Britain, but because of the FPTP system, they are running the country; how is this fair? The FPTP voting system also causes partisan dealignment and political apathy which leads to a decline in voter turnout and in party membership, but an increase in pressure groups and membership of smaller political parties. The democratic renewal would be to change the voting system to the Alternative Vote to produce a more fair and proportional result in general elections. To also improve the voter turnout, Britain could make voting compulsory, or even lower the voting age to also lead to an increase in political participation.
Even though Parliament is a form of true democracy, it is ineffective because the second chamber (House of Lords) is unelected and the scrutiny, of Bills that takes place in Government, by their selected standing committee, weakens the representative role of Parliament, as the people do not get a direct say in what happens to a Bill. Also the government pf the day usually has a majority control over the House of Commons, so a Bill introduced by them, will get a majority vote and will win. This is not fair to other parties who will represent different people in society because their opinions are not being heard in Parliament.
Sunday, 11 October 2015
Would a change in the voting system improve democracy in the UK?
Currently, the UK uses the First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system to elect the representative parties in the general elections, however people have questioned whether it is democratic or not.
This question has been practised in 2011, when a referendum was held to change the voting system to the Alternative Vote. The Alternative Vote is a preferential system, where the voter ranks the candidates in order of preference. For example, they put a number 1 next to their first choice etc, rather than putting an X next to one political party. British citizens showed that they did not want the voting system to be changed to the Alternative Vote because 67.9% voted No and, less than half voted Yes at 32.1%.
A change in the voting system would improve the UK's democracy, because it produces a fairer result and electors can vote for their first choice and last choice candidate without fear of wasting their vote. Also candidates are elected outright if they gain more than half the votes as first preferences. If not, the candidate that loses is eliminated. As a result, the political party that is not the most popular by the people, it will be eliminated.
However, the Alternative Vote may not improve the UK's democracy because the vote is not changed as the electorate votes for their preferred choice, which is almost exactly the same as the FPTP system. Also, the Alternative Vote does not give the electorate a more direct say in politics, as they are voting for the representative parties to represent their constituencies; their preferred and least choice is recognised, not their personal view which is shown through direct democracy and referendums. Also, this voting system can produce a more disproportionate result than FPTP and the least favoured party may be unpopular because of the influence of the media and different opinions.
The Alternative Vote is currently used in Britain to elect the leaders of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats which has proved a success. However, if the Alternative Vote is a better voting system than FPTP, why aren't we using it for the general elections?
This question has been practised in 2011, when a referendum was held to change the voting system to the Alternative Vote. The Alternative Vote is a preferential system, where the voter ranks the candidates in order of preference. For example, they put a number 1 next to their first choice etc, rather than putting an X next to one political party. British citizens showed that they did not want the voting system to be changed to the Alternative Vote because 67.9% voted No and, less than half voted Yes at 32.1%.
A change in the voting system would improve the UK's democracy, because it produces a fairer result and electors can vote for their first choice and last choice candidate without fear of wasting their vote. Also candidates are elected outright if they gain more than half the votes as first preferences. If not, the candidate that loses is eliminated. As a result, the political party that is not the most popular by the people, it will be eliminated.
However, the Alternative Vote may not improve the UK's democracy because the vote is not changed as the electorate votes for their preferred choice, which is almost exactly the same as the FPTP system. Also, the Alternative Vote does not give the electorate a more direct say in politics, as they are voting for the representative parties to represent their constituencies; their preferred and least choice is recognised, not their personal view which is shown through direct democracy and referendums. Also, this voting system can produce a more disproportionate result than FPTP and the least favoured party may be unpopular because of the influence of the media and different opinions.
The Alternative Vote is currently used in Britain to elect the leaders of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats which has proved a success. However, if the Alternative Vote is a better voting system than FPTP, why aren't we using it for the general elections?
Sunday, 27 September 2015
Should the UK use more referendums?
Referendums are a popular vote where the people are asked to determine the outcome of an important political or constitutional issue directly. The popular question that has been raised many times is whether the UK should use more referendums or not. I agree with having referendums to resolve issues, but I believe that the UK should not use more.
Referendums are a useful thing to have in the UK because they offer a more direct form of democracy by allowing citizens to have a real input into key decisions that matter to them; this leads to an increase in political participation. Referendums focus on, or renew the mandate on a particular issue or legitimising a major constitutional issue. This particularly becomes useful when Parliament cannot agree on a clear and final answer on issues. Referendums not only increases participation in democratic action, but it also educates and informs the public on particular issues. Referendums also checks on the power of the Government in between the General Elections; so each Government does not take too much power over the decision making as the public are given a voice.
All these elements of referendums are useful to the UK, however there are also some flaws of referendums that make them a disadvantage to Britain. For instance, referendums are inconsistent with representative democracy and undermines the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. This shows that, although referendums gives the public a voice and opinion of issues, they are only doing what the tax payer pays their MP to do; this makes MP's look weak as they can't resolve these issues themselves. Excessive use of referendums can possibly result in voter fatigue and a declining turnout because if they have to vote on every issue, they are going to get bored and will no longer see the point in voting. Also, referendums are not only expensive to hold, but different levels of funding and media influence could lead to a biased, unfair result. This is also seen when people vote on the popularity of the current Government more than the issue. For example, Nick Clegg was in favour of the Alternative Vote referendum, but as the voters began to dislike Clegg, they voted again the Alternative Vote. This shows that some people don't think about the question itself or what would happen under each outcome. Although referendums give people a voice, they don't actually have a choice what the topic of the referendum will be (politicians only have this power). How is this democratic and fair? Another disadvantage of referendums, is that they may result in a tyranny of the majority where the majority of the voters get what they want but the minority is left behind and left with a result they did not want! This also is not fair, but what democratic action is? This links with the next disadvantage: Referendums are also dangerous actions to take place because the future of important, controversial issues are in the hands of the people who may not be educated in the subject. Their choice may be based on what the newspapers think, which is usually not the best result.
To conclude, referendums are essential to the UK's democratic system as they give the public a voice now and again, in matters that matter to them. However, they shouldn't be used more because they give the public too much power (there's a reason why we have politicians who are educated in politics), to choose the outcome of controversial issues. I also don't see the point of referendums because the Government still has the right to make the final decision.
Referendums are a useful thing to have in the UK because they offer a more direct form of democracy by allowing citizens to have a real input into key decisions that matter to them; this leads to an increase in political participation. Referendums focus on, or renew the mandate on a particular issue or legitimising a major constitutional issue. This particularly becomes useful when Parliament cannot agree on a clear and final answer on issues. Referendums not only increases participation in democratic action, but it also educates and informs the public on particular issues. Referendums also checks on the power of the Government in between the General Elections; so each Government does not take too much power over the decision making as the public are given a voice.
All these elements of referendums are useful to the UK, however there are also some flaws of referendums that make them a disadvantage to Britain. For instance, referendums are inconsistent with representative democracy and undermines the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. This shows that, although referendums gives the public a voice and opinion of issues, they are only doing what the tax payer pays their MP to do; this makes MP's look weak as they can't resolve these issues themselves. Excessive use of referendums can possibly result in voter fatigue and a declining turnout because if they have to vote on every issue, they are going to get bored and will no longer see the point in voting. Also, referendums are not only expensive to hold, but different levels of funding and media influence could lead to a biased, unfair result. This is also seen when people vote on the popularity of the current Government more than the issue. For example, Nick Clegg was in favour of the Alternative Vote referendum, but as the voters began to dislike Clegg, they voted again the Alternative Vote. This shows that some people don't think about the question itself or what would happen under each outcome. Although referendums give people a voice, they don't actually have a choice what the topic of the referendum will be (politicians only have this power). How is this democratic and fair? Another disadvantage of referendums, is that they may result in a tyranny of the majority where the majority of the voters get what they want but the minority is left behind and left with a result they did not want! This also is not fair, but what democratic action is? This links with the next disadvantage: Referendums are also dangerous actions to take place because the future of important, controversial issues are in the hands of the people who may not be educated in the subject. Their choice may be based on what the newspapers think, which is usually not the best result.
To conclude, referendums are essential to the UK's democratic system as they give the public a voice now and again, in matters that matter to them. However, they shouldn't be used more because they give the public too much power (there's a reason why we have politicians who are educated in politics), to choose the outcome of controversial issues. I also don't see the point of referendums because the Government still has the right to make the final decision.
Sunday, 20 September 2015
Is the UK really a Democracy?
Democracy is a system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives. Britain is stated as a democracy but when you dig deep into the democratic system, is the UK a true democracy?
The UK is a democracy because everyone, in Britain, over the age of 18 are eligible to vote for the Party they want to run the country in General Elections and they don't have to vote; the choice is theirs. These elections are held every 5 years which makes sure there is a fixed term Parliament. This stops corruption and makes sure the Prime Minister does not have all the power as the people participate in politics. This shows true democracy as the British public also have power as they can join pressure groups, protest and sign petitions if they disagree with the Parties' proposals. They can use their vote to disagree also as they don't have to choose any of the Parties in the Election. The electorate has a voice as they can vote for the MP they want to represent their constituency in the House of Commons; so their views and opinions are being heard in Parliament when laws are made or changed. However the argument to this, is that the public cannot propose the laws and the petitions signed against the Acts are usually ignored by the so called 'interested' Prime Minister.
The UK is democratic as the public has the right to make their own decisions based on politics, as the government does not censor the media or press when it comes to politics (like North Korea does despite it calling itself a democracy). Some would say we aren't a democratic country as we have to pay taxes and obey the law which they would say is not freedom. They are right in a way as why should we have to pay taxes and obey the law if we are free? However, there are many British citizens who don't pay tax or obey the law and get away with it. Taxes help pay for our privileges, such as the NHS and education, and without the law, the country would be running riot.
The UK is not so democratic in situations like coalition governments because, although we can vote for the party to run the country, we don't have a say in who the Prime Minister teams up with, if they don't get an overall majority (remember when David Cameron teamed up with Nick Clegg...). 'Tyranny by the majority' quoted by John Stuart Mill meant that the majority of the country is protected but the minority is not. For example, the people that voted for the Conservatives are considered more than the people that voted for Labour, or the smaller Parties as fewer voted for them; nothing came out of their vote. If the UK wants to be more democratic, the voting system needs to change to be more fair for the smaller Parties. In addition, the UK is not very democratic in regard to referendums because, although people can vote in them, the government has the power to turn down the result, so the vote is a waste of time.
Despite the UK having its democratic flaws, it is far from a dictatorship as the general public of Britain have Human Rights and the freedom to elect who runs the country. If Britain was a dictatorship, we would not have these powers or rights. The UK is a democracy through freely elected representatives.
The UK is a democracy because everyone, in Britain, over the age of 18 are eligible to vote for the Party they want to run the country in General Elections and they don't have to vote; the choice is theirs. These elections are held every 5 years which makes sure there is a fixed term Parliament. This stops corruption and makes sure the Prime Minister does not have all the power as the people participate in politics. This shows true democracy as the British public also have power as they can join pressure groups, protest and sign petitions if they disagree with the Parties' proposals. They can use their vote to disagree also as they don't have to choose any of the Parties in the Election. The electorate has a voice as they can vote for the MP they want to represent their constituency in the House of Commons; so their views and opinions are being heard in Parliament when laws are made or changed. However the argument to this, is that the public cannot propose the laws and the petitions signed against the Acts are usually ignored by the so called 'interested' Prime Minister.
The UK is democratic as the public has the right to make their own decisions based on politics, as the government does not censor the media or press when it comes to politics (like North Korea does despite it calling itself a democracy). Some would say we aren't a democratic country as we have to pay taxes and obey the law which they would say is not freedom. They are right in a way as why should we have to pay taxes and obey the law if we are free? However, there are many British citizens who don't pay tax or obey the law and get away with it. Taxes help pay for our privileges, such as the NHS and education, and without the law, the country would be running riot.
The UK is not so democratic in situations like coalition governments because, although we can vote for the party to run the country, we don't have a say in who the Prime Minister teams up with, if they don't get an overall majority (remember when David Cameron teamed up with Nick Clegg...). 'Tyranny by the majority' quoted by John Stuart Mill meant that the majority of the country is protected but the minority is not. For example, the people that voted for the Conservatives are considered more than the people that voted for Labour, or the smaller Parties as fewer voted for them; nothing came out of their vote. If the UK wants to be more democratic, the voting system needs to change to be more fair for the smaller Parties. In addition, the UK is not very democratic in regard to referendums because, although people can vote in them, the government has the power to turn down the result, so the vote is a waste of time.
Despite the UK having its democratic flaws, it is far from a dictatorship as the general public of Britain have Human Rights and the freedom to elect who runs the country. If Britain was a dictatorship, we would not have these powers or rights. The UK is a democracy through freely elected representatives.
Sunday, 13 September 2015
The General Election 2015
As we now know the result of the General Election 2015 was a win for the Conservative Party placing David Cameron back into Number 10 for another five years. They won a 12 seat majority in the House of Commons. This was not the expected result as many forecasters predicted a slim Labour majority or a hung Parliament.
The Conservative Party gained 35 seats and lost 11 seats. They took the seats from the Liberal Democrats in the South West of the country. Many areas in the South of the country, excluding London, have become Conservative seats. Despite this strong showing, in Scotland they only managed to secure one seat. In total, the Conservatives have 331 seats in the House of Commons.
The Labour Party came second in the total number of seats in Parliament as they now have 232 seats; gaining 22 seats and losing 48 seats. In Scotland, usually there was a Labour strong hold however in this election, they gained 1 seat and lost 40 seats. Many traditional Labour voters switched their allegiance to the Scottish National Party (SNP). This was seen by many as the Scottish people believing the SNP a better protest against a Conservative Government. When viewed on a map, London in red (Labour) looks like an island isolated by a sea of blue Tory seats. Despite Ed Miliband kept his seat in Parliament, he resigned as leader of the Labour Party.
The recent General Election proved a disaster for the Liberal Democrat Party as they lost 49 seats; gaining nothing. In total, they have 56 seats in Parliament and in Scotland, they gained just 1 seat and lost 10 seats. The Liberal Democrats did not do very well because Nick Clegg had broken a promise he had made which concerned getting rid of the tuition fees in the 2010 election because he had to compromise in the coalition Government. As a result of his broken promise, the Lib Dems were crushed at the polls in the recent election. Nick Clegg resigned as leader the day after the 2015 General Election.
As previously stated, the SNP replaced Labour as the dominant Party in Scotland; gaining 50 seats. In the House of Commons, they have a total of 56 seats. Another Party of protest UKIP, failed to live up to expectation as they only have 1 seat. The leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage, resigned but he was told that they did not want him to resign. Currently, it is uncertain whether he is still leader of UKIP. The Green Party did not gain or lose seats in the House of Commons and its leader, Natalie Bennett remains leader. Plaid Cymru (the Welsh Party) did not gain any seats but lost a seat in the House of Commons. In Wales, the political map shows that all parties are represented. Sinn Fein (the Irish Republican Party) did not gain any seats and lost 1 seat. However, this is not significant as their MPs refuse to attend Parliament, thus preventing them from taking part and voting in debates. The Democratic Unionist Party gained 1 seat and lost 1 seat and have a total of 8 seats in Parliament. The Ulster Unionist Party gained their 2 seats in Parliament.
In May, the number of female MPs rose by 1/3: in the 2010 election, 23% of MPs were women but in the 2015 election there is now 29% of female MPs. The Labour Party have now got the most female MPs in Parliament (99 women).
As the Labour Party did worse than predicted, it can be seen as an indication, that the electorate was not prepared to vote for Ed Miliband as Prime Minster and much rather preferred David Cameron to stay as PM.
The Conservative Party gained 35 seats and lost 11 seats. They took the seats from the Liberal Democrats in the South West of the country. Many areas in the South of the country, excluding London, have become Conservative seats. Despite this strong showing, in Scotland they only managed to secure one seat. In total, the Conservatives have 331 seats in the House of Commons.
The Labour Party came second in the total number of seats in Parliament as they now have 232 seats; gaining 22 seats and losing 48 seats. In Scotland, usually there was a Labour strong hold however in this election, they gained 1 seat and lost 40 seats. Many traditional Labour voters switched their allegiance to the Scottish National Party (SNP). This was seen by many as the Scottish people believing the SNP a better protest against a Conservative Government. When viewed on a map, London in red (Labour) looks like an island isolated by a sea of blue Tory seats. Despite Ed Miliband kept his seat in Parliament, he resigned as leader of the Labour Party.
The recent General Election proved a disaster for the Liberal Democrat Party as they lost 49 seats; gaining nothing. In total, they have 56 seats in Parliament and in Scotland, they gained just 1 seat and lost 10 seats. The Liberal Democrats did not do very well because Nick Clegg had broken a promise he had made which concerned getting rid of the tuition fees in the 2010 election because he had to compromise in the coalition Government. As a result of his broken promise, the Lib Dems were crushed at the polls in the recent election. Nick Clegg resigned as leader the day after the 2015 General Election.
As previously stated, the SNP replaced Labour as the dominant Party in Scotland; gaining 50 seats. In the House of Commons, they have a total of 56 seats. Another Party of protest UKIP, failed to live up to expectation as they only have 1 seat. The leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage, resigned but he was told that they did not want him to resign. Currently, it is uncertain whether he is still leader of UKIP. The Green Party did not gain or lose seats in the House of Commons and its leader, Natalie Bennett remains leader. Plaid Cymru (the Welsh Party) did not gain any seats but lost a seat in the House of Commons. In Wales, the political map shows that all parties are represented. Sinn Fein (the Irish Republican Party) did not gain any seats and lost 1 seat. However, this is not significant as their MPs refuse to attend Parliament, thus preventing them from taking part and voting in debates. The Democratic Unionist Party gained 1 seat and lost 1 seat and have a total of 8 seats in Parliament. The Ulster Unionist Party gained their 2 seats in Parliament.
In May, the number of female MPs rose by 1/3: in the 2010 election, 23% of MPs were women but in the 2015 election there is now 29% of female MPs. The Labour Party have now got the most female MPs in Parliament (99 women).
As the Labour Party did worse than predicted, it can be seen as an indication, that the electorate was not prepared to vote for Ed Miliband as Prime Minster and much rather preferred David Cameron to stay as PM.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)