The unreformed British parliamentary system was undemocratic, it excluded the majority of the population from voting including all women most working class men, many middle class men and all the poor. Its distribution of seats was inadequately representative and excluded important towns. It included rotten boroughs, the occasional sale of seats, corruption, bribery, intimidation, violence and plural voting. The system was dominated by the aristocracy and gentry, and many seats were uncontested. Lang, (1999). The purpose of this essay is to identify the factors that led to the nineteenth century parliamentary reform and go on to assess the impact that the reform made.
Around the middle of the nineteenth century an extensive debate took place in Britain on the nature and desirability of ‘democracy.’ Who should be allowed to vote in general elections? Should the franchise be limited, as in the past, to those who had special qualifications, such as the ownership of property, which the rental value had to be at least at least 40 shillings per annum, and those who had an economic stake in the country? Property owners argued that the old system had worked in the past so surely it would continue to do so – and that the wealthy were naturally superior to the poor. Pearce, Stern, (1994).
Others believed that the franchise was restricted and haphazard and that the qualifications for voting were outdated and illogical in their view every man had the right to vote, all men had been created equally and therefore all were entitled to a say in the way they were governed.
A small but growing number also believed that women should have the vote on precisely the same terms as men.
The population of England and Wales doubled between 1801-1851 many parishes began to burst at the seams. Towns like Birmingham, Manchester, Bradford and Leeds were seeing large population increases due to industrial growth. Earl Grey proposed such towns needed representation in the House of Commons, this would lead to large increase in the voting population if the proposal was successful. On the other hand rotten boroughs were parliamentary constituencies that had over the years declined in size, but still had the right to elect members of the House of Commons. Most of the constituencies were under the control and influence of just one man, the patron. As there were only a few individuals with the vote and no fair voting method (secret ballot) which encouraged bribery and corruption as it was easy for potential candidates to buy their way to victory.
It could be argued that Gladstone’s failure to unite his party, during a time when their ultimate support and confidence in his leadership was crucial, was a significant tactical error that contributed heavily towards the failure of the 1886 Home Rule Bill. The results of the 1885 general election were to have a significant impact on the political landscape of Britain; despite winning the most seats, the Liberals did not have an overall majority.As Parnell and the Irish Parliamentry Party (IPP) held the balance...
In the 1906 election, the number of seats won by Liberals increased from 184 to 377, in contrast the numbers of seats lost by the Conservatives went from 402 seats won in 1900 to 157 seats lost in the 1906 election, this represented the lowest number of seats held by a Conservative government since 1832. This dramatic reversal of constituencies held, is due to a number of reasons. An argument is that, due to some poor decisions made by the Conservative governments, they in fact contributed largely to the landslide result in the 1906 election. ‘They were in effect the architects to the own downfall.’
During the 1750's, the most wealthy people in the town held the most property, meaning they obtained the most power and money. As time moved on, though, voting requiremen...
Voting in the colonies came to have strict requirements regarding who was allowed to vote. Only white, male Christians who owned land had the right to vote (Doc 2). If you strayed from even one of these requirements you were not allowed to vote. This left politics to one particular group of people. General Assemblies were established in which governors were elected, by those could vote, to run theses courts (Doc 3). The House of Burgess was established as well as the General Assemblies and it consisted of representatives who were elected by the people (Doc 6).
...le, Pennsylvania tried to keep voting rights limited to certain property requirements, but expanded it to any male taxpayer that has lived in the state for at least one year could vote. With each state drafting their own constitution, it was a spark for the newly independent colonies to start their own democracy and set of laws that the majority of Americans were happy with.
As the 19th century progressed, women were quite successful as they were able to get the civil rights such as to vote in local elections. However, some women wanted the right to vote in parliamentary elections. These women joined a campaign called the suffrage movement. I will explain all the factors of why women didn’t gain the right to vote before 1914 in this essay.
Those very same influences may lead to the exploitation of the poorer class, allowing outsiders with sufficient resources to assimilate into British society. Therefore, making the possession of immovable property a requirement for political participation supports the Grandees’ motives in making a society that is not easily influenced by those with prope... ... middle of paper ... ...having it either ignored or taken away is unfathomable. The ability of the Grandees to not only dictate what consent is relevant, but to prohibit political participation as well exemplifies how far the ideal of democracy has come. However, when looking at what England had suffered through, the actions of the Grandees showed that hard times call for drastic measures.
The founding fathers of the United States modeled the government on the principle of representative democracy, a form of government in which the people rule through elected government officials. However, they greatly distrusted the masses to sensibly vote for the leaders of the nation, and so they created the electoral college who directly voted for the president based on, But not limited to popular vote. Additionally, voting for the at the time was restricted to the land owning white males. In the early 1800’s, as states began to lift the voting restrictions, more and more people were permitted to vote. Simultaneously, around the 1820’s, Andrew Jackson, already a popular war hero of the battle of New Orleans,
It is essential to expand on this title, before I begin my response. The question is asking whether the Westminster System (in the traditional and historic sense of the term) is still an accurate descriptor of British politics - given the significant amount of political evolution that has occurred over the last two centuries. Perhaps the Westminster Model has become anachronistic in the internet age? Or, perhaps its core components can still be observed in contemporary British politics? Maybe an informed revision of the Westminster Model is what is needed? I will address all of these various possibilities in my essay, through a systematic analysis and comparison of the key features of the Westminster Model and their resemblance to the features
The House of Lords reform has been discussed for a very long time, it is more than a 100 years since the parliament act was passed. In 1910 the House of Lords vent to anger when Peers refused the Liberal government’s budget. According to the House of Lords reform Timeline, the first reform happened in 1911 and 1949 where acts were introduced that significantly diminished the House of Lords powers. The House of Lords second reform bill reading was on the 9th July 2012, 100 conservative MPs were unhappy with the bill. They said it was going to end up in making a greater friction between the modificated House of Lords and the commons. Reforming the House of Lords would solve some problems as well as it would cause problems.
Every state has its own distinct electoral system in choosing their government, Britain is not an exception. It is a well-established country, which also seeks an appropriate and effective legislature. This in turn involves fair and rational voting policy and distribution of seats. During periods it had different systems of election and the current one is First-Past-The-Post (FPTP here and after). However, recently British government started to investigate its drawbacks and benefits, rationality and fairness of elections and now they are considering replacing it by Proportional Representation (PR here and after). PR is the system of election where seats in parliament are almost in same proportion as votes cast, while FPTP is one of plurality/majority systems, where parties with most votes take all and represent the whole Parliament. (accessed on http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/) The following essay is going to analyze the benefits and drawbacks of PR and as a conclusion it will argue that this system can successfully replace FPTP in electing British Government.
One of the most influential and celebrated scholars of British consistutional law , Professor A.V Dicey, once declared parliamentary soverignity as “the dominant feature of our political insitutions” . This inital account of parliamentray soverginity involved two fundamental components, fistly :that the Queen-in-Parliament the “right to make or unmake any law whatever” and that secondly “no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.” . However this Diceyian notion though an established principle of our constitution now lies uneasy amongst a myriad of contemporary challenges such as our membership of the European Union, the Human Rights Act and a spread of law making authority known as ‘Devolution’. In this essay I shall set out to assess the impact of each of these challenges upon the immutability of the traditional concept of parliamentary sovereignty in the British constitution.
Taylor, H. (1910). The constitutional crisis in Great Britain: Bicameral system should be retained with House of Lords reorganized on an elective basis. Concord, N.H: Rumford Press. 6th edition
"In what ways and to what extent does the political system of the UK fit Lijphart’s models of democracy? How has this changed over recent decades?"
Industrial Countries all over the world have seen a steady decline in voter participation; Great Britain is a great example of this. The country has witness turnout in elections falling slowly as time pass. However, the election of 2001 dropped the country from their average of 76% voter turnout to just a 59.4% turnout. Comparatively, Australia, a former colony of Britain, has enjoyed high and steady voter participation since 1924 because of the implementation of compulsory voting. This system has proven to be not only effective in bring voters to the polls, but also effective in improving Australia’s democracy. By evaluating these two countries with similar political structure; one can see the difference in compulsory voting turnouts compared to voluntary voting turnout. Furthermore, if Britain were to follow Australia’s example, would the country see the same positive effects of compulsory voting in their democracy?