1992 is a year of change for England. The Norsefire party, lead by Adam Sutler, has come into power in the most recent election. With 87% of the votes this party beat the Conservative party and the Labour party by a landslide. Many believe that from this day forth, England will be a safer and a better place to live. During the Norsefire campaign, Sutler promised to “watch over the country so that it is free from danger.” This is one of the reasons why many people voted for him. “He is the only one who can save England from complete chaos. We don’t want to end up like America,” Grant Johnson, a supporter of Sutler, commented. Whether or not the Norsefire party will fulfill their promises is a different story, but for now we can only take their …show more content…
word for it. Lewis Prothero, the self proclaimed ‘mouth’ of the party, confessed, “I cannot reveal too much about our operations, but I can say that we are getting straight to work, ridding the country of it’s filth.” Since the spread of the St Mary’s disease exponentially increased the amount of votes Norsefire was receiving, there was no doubt that they had plans for that too. “We are in the late stages of testing for a cure and if it all goes smoothly, it should be available to the public by the end of the year. It is our number one priority,” Prothero shared. If all of this is true, then Norsefire should have no trouble staying in power. However, not everyone is on board with Sutler’s plans.
Activist, Caroline Hammond, said “I don’t trust that man to rule our country. We need to come together to defeat this problem, the last thing we need now is more hate.” The hate that Hammond is referring to may be Sutler openly planning to ban homosexuality and immigration, as well as his public dislike of minority races and religions. It seems as if the majority of the country does not share the same views as Sutler on these topics, so many are left wondering if this is the price to pay for safety. The Norsefire party was formed by Adam Sutler in late 1987, when he left the Conservative party to start his own political party. Other members, including Peter Creedy and Brian Etheridge, soon joined him. During the 1988 election, while the Conservative and Labour parties were battling it out to win the election, the Norsefire party was gaining members and gaining support in preparation for the 1992 election. Earning only 2% of the votes was expected for them at the time, but looking at the jump from 2% of the votes to 87% could make anyone suspicious of their success. Whether or not Chancellor Sutler and the Norsefire party will rid England of its problems is unknown, but no matter what happens, this day is the start of a new
England.
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
In the run up to the election therefore the Liberals won the working class support. It was perhaps the working class who had the biggest effect on the result of the election, this proved to be in favour of the Liberal Party.
There has been much speculation whether political parties have become too strong in American politics and if that is a good or bad thing. My belief is that political party power in the United States is just about right where I believe that there are some instances where political parties have been in situations where they have too much power and instances where it is moderate. First off, political parties are crucial to our democratic government because it is composed of a group of people that the constituents elect to represent their issues or achieve a common goal. Being part of a group that shares your common interests or goals is more powerful than tackling an issue by your self. It gives you more voice and power in government. Also, political
The breakdown of the second party system was also a reason for the outbreak of the Civil War. In the early 1850’s the Whig party disintegrated, the second party system collapsed and the Republican Party emerged to challenge the Democrats. Southern Revisionists have argued that the collapse of the Union had been preceded by the collapse of the 2nd party system and that the Whig disappeared only to re-emerge as the new Republican party in 1854 supported by nativist Know-Nothing votes. They have also argued that politicians created this tension on purpose to advance their careers, but by doing so they made the 2nd party system collapse. However recent historians, such as Hugh Tulloch, contradict this view by arguing that there is no one single
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.
Scottish devolution, with its advantages and disadvantages, is the best example of how great political and social changes can be achieved not through bloody revolution but with the patience, intelligence and hard work of a united country but is still a work in progress.
In 1997, Tony Blair of the labour party won the United Kingdom’s general election on the ideology, goals and a party manifesto of a ‘new labour’, a revision, an update and a reform of the old labour party, bringing new radical politics to the 20th century - although some believe that labour only won the election due to the British publics increasing hate for Thatcher and the conservatives. The term new labour was a reflection on how the labour party was trying to reform itself and depart from the ideas of ‘old labour’ that had failed to win an election since 1974 and take on new ideas and politics that seemed radical, new and progressive and that would regain trust from the British voters. ‘New labour, new for Britain’ was the slogan that first appeared on the party’s manifesto in 1996 and soon became the party’s main slogan for the campaign of the 1997 elections. But how exactly was new labour new? New labour was trying to become more progressive with its politics that reformed all of the key policy domains that the government were interested in. By attempting to reform the party’s manifesto as well as clause IV, new labour attempted to become a new party that could progress British politics rather than rely on traditional politics of old labour. New labour wanted to modernise the party’s by perusing their traditional goals which include job support, economic growth, investments in public services, welfare and redistribution but they also wanted new progressive politics that catered to the minority groups in terms of social justice, for example civil partnerships (King,2002). However, some argue that new labour was not particularly ‘new’ and instead that Blair’s government had betrayed the traditions of the labour party and inst...
But imagine what would have happened if snow had not challenged the consensus or if his challenges had not been furthered by others? I think that people would still believe in the miasma theory and disease would continue spreading and would kill millions and millions of people until someone else don’t think about the causes of the disease. What if following the precautionary principle, England had invested fortunes indoor elimination and not addressed water supplies? The miasma theory would be the best theory that they had. What would future generations think of them for not acted to clear the air? There would be many diseases because of the contaminated air. Now in retrospect, what would we have thought of them today for investing so many resources in pointless endeavors?
Andrew Crawley describes in his book (“England”), the English people as being profoundly conservative.The English men feel, instinctively, that the present is not only the creation of the contemporaries, but also the result of the work of many past generations. For them, everything is related to the past, which, thus, becomes the origin of the present. The English man’s being conservative is only a habit, derived from his deep understanding of reality. His practical sense, which has been widely acknowledged, must be attributed to this perception he has on reality. This leads to his native ability of adapting and assimilating the “new”. The English man is closely related to history and he permanently gains practical advice from it.
This essay will explain how party changes can affect the party system and hence how one can misinterpret the changes within the five-party system, to a change to the five-party system. The essay will firstly describe and explain what the five party system is and what changes have occurred within it, mentioning the ‘Other’ parties. Secondly, the essay will focus on the changes to political parties based on social cleavages and how they can affect the political system. The Scandinavian five-party system, as the name suggests, contains five main party groups. With the exception of Iceland which has a 4 party system (a 2 + 2) the following parties are within the remaining four countries: the Conservatives, the Liberal, the Agrarian, the Social Democrats and the Communist or ‘radical left-wing’ parties.... ...
An ideology has 3 elements; an account of the existing order, a desire for a “good society” and a political plan to bring about this desire. Derived from the word “ideal”, when the suffix “ology” is added (ology being defined as “the scientific study of something”) we are able to understand that the term “political ideology” means to have an ideal political method to achieve a good society based on significant research (Cambridge Dictionaries Online). New Zealand’s current parliament consists of 121 members of parliament from 8 different parties and 1 independent MP. Each party has their own political ideology meaning they have their own perspective of what direction New Zealand should be heading politically. In my essay I will discuss to what extent do political parties in New Zealand follow an ideology based on individual policies from National, Labour and the New Zealand First Party. The specific policies I will discuss are National’s asset sales policy (National Party Online, 2014), Labour’s Affordable and Healthy Homes Policy (Labour Party Online) and New Zealand First’s immigration policy (New Zealand First website). These policies demonstrate clearly how closely each respective party follows their own clear ideology.
UK has, politically speaking, many more issues in common with USA than with Europe in general, with whom he only share cultural and social past. Strategically, the British decision is consistent and not expected to change, so that the EU should begin to wonder if the UK is a great community asset for the future or whether, by contrast, is one of its major problems.
This is unacceptable. Are we are better off without them? The British public are not s...
The issue to be discussed, as to if the advantages of the UK having a
Devastation, destruction, vandalism and ravage are words that have filled the English media the last few weeks. In cities all around England, riots have caused chaos and have left both the government and general population grasping for answers. The big question is of course; why are rioters destroying their own cities? The answer to that question may come from a different angle. In an article from The Guardian website in 2011, the well-known comedian Russell Brand comments and discusses serious matters regarding the recent riots. The riots are the cause of a big political the debate and especially the solution and the blame of the riots are discussed intensively. Russell Brand argues that much of the blame lies with Cameron and his government,