The Liberal Election of 1906 and the Dissatisfaction with the Conservative Party The 1906 election was a landslide victory for the Liberal Party. It was a dramatic turn-around for the main contender to British Government that had been out of power for twenty years. The Liberals won 377 seats outright, and including the 27 Lib-Lab seats and around 80 Irish Home Rule seats they had made a dramatic defeat. The Conservative Party lost 245 seats since the 1900 election, in 1906 they had only 157. However, this majority does not seem so great when looked at in percentage of votes. The Liberals won just over 50% of the vote, while the Conservatives were only slightly behind with 43%. This apparent anomaly is explained by the British Electoral system; the 'first past the post' policy where the M.P with the highest number of votes wins, regardless of whether other Parties have nearly the same number of votes. This sensational change in the British public's votes must have been a sign of the obvious change in mood over the Conservative's term. Was the electoral result a consequence of changing British values, or was it a result of Conservative blunders? There is no doubt that the various stratas of British society were all dissatisfied at some point with Conservative rule. The working classes in particular felt upset by the Conservatives over many issues. Chinese Slavery, the decision by the Conservative Government to send thousands of Chinese labourers to South Africa to work the goldmines to rebuild the economy after the Boer War angered many of the working class. To them this decision closed the chance of white emigration to South Africa... ... middle of paper ... ...Conservative rule. They stated they would repeal the Education and Licensing Acts and the Taff Vale case, thus attracting the Temperance movement, Nonconformists and working class. The Liberals guaranteed few reforms; they said they would try to do something about pensions but kept it vague so that the middle and upper classes would not be unduly worried enough to vote Conservative. The Lib-Lab pact served both Parties well, it allowed Liberals and Labour to get candidates into Parliament and did not separate anti-Conservative votes. In the 1906 election it was much clearer what the Liberals stood for, and perhaps England felt that at that particular time she was ready for a change, but without the constant blunders of Balfour's Government thought of change may have never entered any Englishman's consciousness.
This subject proved to be extremely effective because: firstly religious liberalism united the party more firmly then most other issues; as champions of the Established Church, the conservatives would be obliged to defend the institution; and lastly it was a relatively guaranteed reform because: only 12% of the Irish population was Anglican by religious belief; and the Liberal party still held a majority in the house of commons due to the 1865 election. The passing of there first reform in Gladstone’s first ministry meant a lot to the Liberal party and Gladstone himself saw it as an immense personal triumph. Two other reforms were passed involving Ireland, in 1970 the first Irish Land Act was passed this included the introduction of the three F’s: fair rent, free sale and fixity of tenure.
This essay will address whether New Labour contained policies with which it wished to pursue, or was solely developed in order to win elections. It is important to realise whether a political party that held office for approximately 13 years only possessed the goal of winning elections, or promoted policies which it wished to pursue. If a party that held no substance was governing for 13 years, it would be unfair to the people. New Labour was designed to win elections, but still contained policies which it wished to pursue. To adequately defend this thesis, one must look at the re-branding steps taken by New Labour and the new policies the party was going to pursue. Through analysis, it will be shown that New Labour promoted policies in regards
The Labor party has recently celebrated its centenary in 1991, making it Australia’s oldest party. Labor first became a Federal Party when the former colonies of Australia federated in 1901. Separate labour parties had been established in the colonies during the formative decade of the 1890s. These parties were sponsored by the trade union movement, to help get sympathetic politicians elected to colonial parliaments. In Western Australia, Tasmania and Victoria, there were no strong and coherent labour parties until after federation. However, by 1900 strong labour parties had emerged in Queensland and New South Wales, quickly taking up a prominent role in Parliamentary politics. Australia's first labour government took office in Queensland in 1899. It lasted seven days. Although these early labour parties were strongly influenced by the trade unions, they were never confined to union membership and interests. Their earliest programs and platforms show that they sought the support of farmers, small businessmen and non-union employees including clerical and other white-collar workers. The Australian Labor Party entered federal politics at the first Commonwealth elections of 1901, when 16 Labor members were elected to the House of Representatives and eight to the Senate. They met before the first sitting of Parliament on 8 May 1901 and agreed to form a Federal Labor Party. J.C. (Chris) Watson, a Sydney printer and a former member of the NSW Parliament, was elected the first Leader of the Party.
The 1900 election gave the Conservatives 402 seats to the Liberals 183 seats continuing the Conservative dominance, in the last twenty years the Liberals had only seen three years in government. The 1906 election result gave the Conservatives only 157 seats, former Conservative Prime Minister, Balfour, lost his Manchester seat. The Liberals won 401 seats; these included 24 Lib-Lab MPs; the Liberals would also have the support of 29 Labour members and 82 Irish Nationalists. This was an excellent result which gave the new Government a majority of 356. Although the Conservatives were overwhelmingly defeated, their proportion of the votes did not go down compared to the election in 1900.
Under this system, the MP for each constituency is the one who gained the most votes. Many claim that this wastes votes, and is unfair. For example, in the 2010 General Election, the Conservative Party gained 36% of the vote and gained 47% of the seats in the House of Commons. Simply put, this demonstrates a lack of democracy- with the representatives of the people not being those chosen by the electorate. Yet, it can also be argued that FPTP is a healthy aspect of the UK system, as it ensures that extremist parties are unlikely to gain power, and it tends to create strong, majority governments.
The Effects of American Reform Movements in the 1900s Living in the United States of America is all about opportunity. The opportunity to get a good job, make money, and lead a life of good quality; in other words, the opportunity to live, live, and live the Pursuit of Happiness. However, the opportunity for many people was not around throughout the 1800s. Certain groups of people did not hold the basic rights that were guaranteed by the Constitution. In fact, most of the people that had opportunity were the wealthy white men, and few other people ever had any chance to lead a good life.
To begin with, this era was more a victory for liberalism through many aspects one being politics. The first change progressives wanted in politics was the "initiative were voters could initiate laws instead of waiting for legislatures to do it. Another was the "referendum" were voters could vote proposed bills into law, once again taking power away from the legislatures and giving it to the people. Others included the recall, where voters could remove elected officials from power, the secret or "Australian Ballot" which allowed for more privacy when voting thus encouraging a more true vote and less intimidation at the polls. Also, Roosevelt, who at the beginning of his presidency may have been classified as conservatist, moved more towards progressivism as he pursued his "three C's ", (Control of corporations, Consumer protection, and Co...
One may be surprised to learn that the turnout rate of individuals voting in Canada's federal elections has never reached 80% (Elections Canada). In fact, it has been decreasing since the middle of the twentieth century, as shown by an increase in voter apathy. An electoral system is designed to provide those who live in democratic governments with the opportunity to vote – in an election – for the candidate whose platform coincides with their political beliefs. This can be achieved through a direct democracy, where citizens are directly involved in the decision-making process, or through an indirect democracy, where citizens elect a delegate to act on their behalf. In a direct democracy, all citizens would be present during governmental meetings and have the opportunity to give verbal input. As one may expect, this would be extremely difficult to coordinate with Canada's population of 34.88 billion (Statistics Canada). Canada uses an indirect democracy, which allows for two basic forms of electoral systems in which representatives are elected. In the simple plurality electoral system, the candidate who receives the greatest number of votes is elected, regardless of a majority or not. It is commonly known as the “first-past-the-post” system, which alludes to a horse race; the winner passes the post with the highest number of votes, and only need to garner more votes than their opponents. The successful candidate wins all the seats in their riding or constituency while the candidates who places second or third will receive no seats, regardless of how many votes they lose by. Proportional representation is the second form of electoral system used in Canada; the percentage of the votes received by a party is proportionate to the numb...
The election of 1896 was a race between William McKinley, the Republican, and William Jennings Bryan, the Democrat. McKinley was the governor of Ohio and Bryan was the an attorney from Lincoln, Nebraska. This election is seen as the start of a new era in American politics, also known as the “realignment” election. (“The Election of 1896”). This election was mostly the city against the country and their battle for dominance in American politics. In the 1800s, American presidential contests had been a vote on whether the country should be governed by agrarian or industrial interests. This election marked the end of trying to win the White House with agrarian votes and definitely shifted where the country was heading.
During the 1920’s Republicans had dominated the white house with the two presidents of the decade being Warren G. Harding, and Calvin Coolidge.The expansion of government activities during World War I was reversed during the 1920s. The Government had eliminated its efforts to break-up trust, and to regulate businesses. Instead, the government began to emphasize on partnerships between government and business. Politics during the 1920s played a major role in the culture of the decade and the leaders of the 1920s represented the beliefs and ideas of the people during the time.
middle of paper ... ... d therefore the smaller parties can be considered to have very little effect on the overall political situation. In conclusion, the UK can still best be described as a two party system, provided two considerations are taken into account. The first is that Conservative dominance victories between 1979-97 was not a suggestion of party dominance and that eventually, the swing of the political pendulum will be even for both sides. This can perhaps be seen today with Labour's two landslide victories in 1997 and 2001.
After the civil war, especially during the late 1800s, the US industrial economy has been thriving and booming which reflected on the numerous improvements that occurred in transportation through new railroad, in new markets for new invented goods and in the increased farm yield. However, most of this wealth has been captured by the capitalists, they looked down on the working poor class and expected them to submit to them. Also, they had control over the government seeking to maintain a system of monopoly to allow them to grow richer from others. Thus, they were controlling both political and economic conditions of the country.
Believe it or not, major events occurred in the 1870s. They did not go wild in their cowboy boots and hats riding along on their horses. The American people were expanding west and man was the controversy endless. Come on now, it’s drama, it can be dated back to the B.C. years. Of course the drama was all tied into politics. Politics in the 1870s consisted of changes, first time events, and two elections.
The electoral system in Canada has been utilized for over a century, and although it has various strengths which have helped preserve the current system, it also has glaringly obvious weaknesses. In recent years, citizens and experts alike have questioned whether Canada’s current electoral system, known as First Past the Post (FPTP) or plurality, is the most effective system. Although FPTP is a relatively simple and easy to understand electoral system, it has been criticized for not representing the popular vote and favouring regions which are supportive of a particular party. FPTP does have many strengths such as simplicity and easy formation of majority governments, however, its biggest drawback is that it does not proportionally represent
During the late 19th and early 20th century both the Populist Party and Progressive movement wanted to preserve some things, while also addressing the need for reform. Although many of the ideas and goals of these “Third parties” were initially not legislated and considered far-fetched, many of these ideas later became fundamental laws throughout American history. The Populists and Progressives were both grass roots movements, and addressed the needs of the poor and powerless, for the Populists it was farmers and for the Progressives it was urban lower and middle class workers. These two movements attempted to bring the powerless peoples issues to national politics. The Populists and Progressives wanted to preserve some American ideals of the past, such as a sense of community and the ability for farmers and workers to live happily without economic strains. Populists were more oriented to the plight of the farmer while the Progressives included women's rights, and protection of the consumer and labor.