Globalisation and the Cold War

"We don't mistrust each other because we're armed - we're armed because we mistrust each other" - Ronald Reagan.

The Cold War (1946 - 1991) is seen as a war of politics, or more specifically, a war of ideologies. Throughout these years no actual fighting took place, more so a collection of proxy wars. Tensions between the USA and the USSR rose after the Bolshvik party took charge in 1917, and later both countries were deemed 'superpowers', a term used to describe a country or nation that has the ability to project dominating power and can influence anywhere in the world.
Similarly, globalisation is the process by which the world is becoming increasingly interconnected, mainly due to increased trade  and cultural exchange, The effects of globalisation can be seen through language, with 29% of the English language having a french origin, and even through cultural traditions, For example, Christmas Trees, which are as seen as very British, were brought over from Germany under Prince Albert in the late 1800's. Since then, globalisation has become more prominent and  ( mostly ) conducive for developing societies.

During the 45-ish year war, it wasn't rare for nations to form pacts with one another. This was to essentially gain allies, thus increasing protection. Throughout the Cold War, pacts and treaties such as the Baghdad pact (its success - debatable), the Warsaw pact, the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) and the North Atlantic Treaty (which established NATO ) were agreed upon. Such pacts highlighted the importance of socialisation and comprising differences to ensure their countries safety during potential war.  They encourage nations to communicate and discuss strategies, therefore becoming interconnected over similar agreements, leading to even slight globalisation.

Though no actual fighting occurred during the Cold War, it is seen as a war of ideologies - the capitalist west versus the socialist east. Socialism began to spread, with the help of the red army, across eastern Europe to countries such as Poland, Romania, Lithuania and Estonia. These countries, along with others, became known as the 'Eastern Bloc', leading to the the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1939) . This was a pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany which divided these Eastern Bloc counties into spheres of either German or Soviet influence. This showed a clear spread of socialism, with it popping up in China in 1949 with the leadership of Mao. The countries following and adopting socialist ideals is an example of globalisation, as different nations are becoming connected through the same ideology. If it wasn't for the globalisation of socialism, the results of the Cold War would of certainty been far more different.

Finally, USA and the USSR faced direct competition in the arms race as well as the space race. As tensions continued to grow, both sides began to develop their military supplies in fear of an all out war. As one side built a bomb, the other would make a bomb 10 times as powerful, then the other would create one 100 times more destructive, and this would continue, along with the growing likelihood  of Mutual Assured Destruction (M.A.D.), This basically insured that in the event of a nuclear attack, both sides would be totally annihilated
By the end of the 60's, both sides developed the Anti-Ballistic Missile System (ABM) to counter the threat of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), first tested by the USA in 1957.This race went on to directly affect the civilians of both sides, as military employment opportunities grew to match the growing demand fore weapons.
This fierce and direct struggle for supreme power passed into the days of the space race, where this time both nations aimed to send the first man into space. This race produced huge scientific advancements for mankind, including missions such as Spuntik 2, the formation of the National Areonantics and Space Administration (NASA), Luna 10 and then Apollo 11. If it wasn't for the tensions between the USA and USSR, such rapid progress on space exploration may not have been achieved.
In both these races, 2 nations shared a goal after being influenced by one another. Although the countries were working more against each other instead of with each other, the 2 races showed slight themes of globalisation; the countries would develop technology similar to their competitor, and then work on a new piece of machinery in response to the other.
Nonetheless, despite a lack of human communication, it can be seen that the 2 nations  could be communicating through their space missions and weapons: the USA and USSR were interconnected through the face that they were essentially competitors.

To conclude, globalisation is the reason socialism spread across Eastern Europe so much, leading to tensions between the east and the west. Therefore, globalisation lead to the popularity of both capitalism and socialism across the world, and it could be seen that the USA and USSR were connected throughout the whole war because they had directly conflicting ideologies. Marx predicted that Socialism will eventually face capitalism, and that such a confrontation is necessary for the world to progress - some even saw the Cold War as the end of history.




.

Constitutional Reform under the current Government

Constitutional Reform under the Government

Considering the current Government have been in power for less than a year thus is gonna be a tricky one, great.

The Conservative agenda for their 5 year term had a few issues concerning constitutional reform, but will they stick to their promises or recreate the infamous 'I'm sorry' video? (Ha, imagine the Torys taking responsibility for their actions...i can dream.) 

One of the most noticeable issues was devolution to Scotland and Wales. After Scotland rejected Independence following the referendum in 2014, Cameron immediately gave them more power (a more 'thanks for staying!' present.)

However, that was under the coalition, and since then, nothing much else has really happened.

The strong presence of the Scottish Nationalist Party with their 56 seats may pressure Cameron in Parliament to announcer further devolution, or may even want another referendum in a few years time.  

Again, since the referendum, nothing much has really happened. but it will happen - well, probably. 

Things have been stirring up in Wales, too. In the St. Davids Day declaration the coalition announced devolution of income tax powers to Wales, which could be introduced via a referendum, (Chill with the referendums m8) 

However, after this was put forward, this offer was swiftly denounced by the Welsh first Minsiter, Cavwyn Jones, who condemned the proposals as lacking fair funding, pressing an unnecessary referendum, and failing to match Scotland in powers offered (salty.) 

The Conservatives seem to pe pretty sold on legislation on further welsh devotion, though. But it will take a while to sort a few things out, especially the funding, as we have our own money problems.

The next pretty big thing mentioned was 'English votes on English Laws' - its been  said so many times that its got itself a nice acronym for itself - EVEL, (looks a bit like evil but...thats surely a coincidence.) 

EVEL has been present in the Tory policy since 2001, but made no real special appearances during the coalition, likely due to the Lib Dem resistance. 

Since the election, EVEL has been mentioned various times in Parliament, More recently in January of this year it was said that 'English Votes for English Laws' rules were implemented in the Commons for the first time. 

Nonetheless, this seemed to of gone out the window when the new Sunday Trading Laws was debated in the Commons. The bill was introduced by the Government planning to extend working hours in the UK, giving more opportunities for trade, as currently most shops operate from 10am to 4pm. 

When it came to the vote in the issue, SNP had their say - although the bill would of not changed their trading hours on Sunday, as they already have enough power to decide them for themselves. Cameron might have to implement this a bit harder next time, (When you try your best but you don't succeed...) 

Lastly, one of the most noticeable constitutional reforms is regarding Europe. The EU - you either love it or hate it really. 

The Conservatives manifesto promised a referendum on the UKs membership of the EU by 2017, which has now been confirmed for June later is year, 

The party has been known to be internally divided over the issue, with Boris campaigning to leave, whilst Cameron wants to stay. Therefore, its important that Cameron doesn't make his MPs 'toe the party line' in this one, as it will settle the divisions once and for all. 

The result of the referendum will directly affect the constitution and sovereignty. as a lot of the sources of the constitution are deprived from the EU, such as laws and treaties. Either way, its sure to be an interesting referendum, especially seeing both sides of the campaign, 

How would leaving the EU affect Sovereignty, & therefore the UKs' constitution?

How would leaving the EU affect Sovereignty, & therefore the U Ks' constitution?

Since the 'rise (and fall) of UKIP', ( which is also the title of another banterous blog-post i did like ages ago) the issue of the EU has been tense. Following 2015, the torys included in their manifesto to hold a referendum on the issue, which was predicted for 2017.
However, its been confirmed to be held on June 23th this year. One of the main reasons to leave the EU is that Britain will become sovereign again or will it?
Sovereignty is said to lie in the EU, as it has ultimate power. Although a fair amount of power does lie in Parliament, which allows laws to be made, if laws passed via Parliament conflicted with the EU, it would override Parliament.
Therefore, in theory, if the UK left the EU full sovereignty would return to Parliament..right?
Michael Fallon, the Defense Secretary, stated that the idea that Britain can be fully sovereign and self governing outside the European Union is "an illusion".
He also states that “Of course there are those who would like Britain to have – not simply the illusion, but the fact – of being a self-governing nation again, where our parliament and courts are absolutely supreme again,”
'“But the difficulty is this – if we got back to the ‘golden age’ where our parliament is absolutely sovereign, you would still have the European Union next door, taking decisions that affect our trade and businesses and our way of life.”
(Quotes from here ) 

A principle of the Uks constitution is EU Membership - but obviously if the referendum is accepted, this would have to change. This states 3 things - 
1) European Law is higher than statute law. This was first established in the Factorame case in 1991, when the European Court of Justice suppressed certain parts of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 because they conflicted with the Treaty of Rome.If the UK left the EU, it would have no higher law to abide to, So, in theory, Parliament would have no restrictions, not even being binded by its successors. 

2) Some EU bodies, notably the European Commission, have supranational powers. 
This allows for EU bodies to impose their will on member states, being able to disregard their personal stance taken by national legislatures.
Again, if the UK left the EU, this wouldn't be able to happen. Pretty simple, really. 

3) The decline of the 'national veto'. The national veto has been seen to protect the presence of sovereignty in Parliament, by allowing any members to block European courts/ European Union measures that threatened the vital national interest, 
(Last time saying this i promise) So, if the UK left the EU, this national veto would not be necessary as EU measures would no longer apply to the UK.

In general, if the UK was to leave the EU, Sovereignty wouldn't really return to the UK and the principles of the constitution would have to be altered quite a bit. 

Where does Sovereignty lie in the UK?

Where does Sovereignty lie in the UK? 

Sovereignty is basically supreme power- in fancy terms, it means 'the legitimate and exclusive rights to exercise power in a given area.' 

The phrase 'Parliament is sovereign' if often use in politics and such - saying their Parliament has supreme power - a pretty simple concept to grasp. But again, this is politics, and nothing is ever that simple. 

There are different types of sovereignty in the UK too. Legal sovereignty is where supreme power lies according to the law, political sovereignty is where supreme power lies in reality, whilst pooled sovereignty is just in the EU. 

Back to Parliamentary Sovereignty though. Its pretty important as its seen as the main principle of the UK Constitution (remember that weird document that exists but isn't really there - kind of like my motivation as this point) - so again, Parliament holds supreme authority in the UK, which enables them to make laws and  argue and stuff. (That part is pretty important, so there is  a reason its repeated a lot- nothing to do with the fact that im trying to reach the minimum word count on this or whatever.) 

AV Dicey, said that '(Parliament)has under the British Constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever, and further, that no person or body is regonised by the law of England of having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.' 

The sovereignty of Parliament can be observed in a number of ways. Government can gain that sovereignty through elections, as if they have the legitimacy of the people, they have the right to rule, and therefore the right to access this supreme power that lies in Parliament. (A pretty good job perk to be honest.)  However, there are a few rules that must be followed with this power. Although it looks like the PM can do as they please, when making important decisions, such as airstrikes on Syria,  they must gain the popular vote in the Commons. Bu if it comes down to something in their manifesto and they gain a strong majority in the Commons, the Lords cannot veto it, such as the EU Referendum to occur in June. 

A previously mentioned, the fact that Parliament can make and amend laws shows their sovereignty - this would be impossible unless it had access to the ultimate power that lies in Parliament. 

Parliament cannot bind, or be binded by its successors. However, the fact that the UK constitution is not entrenched kind of defies this point - for example, if the next Government come in with a strong majority, nothing is stopping them from abolishing the fixed Term Parliament Act passed in 2011. So, does this 'ultimate power' really have an extent..? (leaves on a cliffhanger as i don't want to go into this with too much detail because our next post might have to be on this topic.) 

What are the sources and principles of the UK Constitution?

What are the sources and principles of the UK Constitution?

I don't know how many times I've mentioned that the UK has a number of sources on here, but i know i have - a lot. Its a pretty important feature of the UK constitution though, so its good to get that point in your head. 

(I'm running off 2 hours sleep so this isn't as banters as usual im sorry) 

This basically means that the UK constitution is made up of bits and bobs from other important stuff - you can find bits of it  in statute law, common law, conventions and EU laws and treaties. 

Statute law is law made by Parliament, aka Acts of Parliament or primary legislation - when those people all shout out each other in the HOC. It outranks all  other sources of the  constitution; if a statute was to conflict with, a convention or common law for example, the statute will always prevail. Some acts that hare included in the constitution are the Parliament Acts of 1911 & 1949, Scotland Act, 1998, Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011. 

Common law is based on tradition, custom and precedent- so whilst statute law is seen as being made by politicians, Common law is sometimes seen as 'judge-made law.' The Royal Prerogative and Traditional Rights and freedoms are included within common law.  

Conventions, therefore, are the key unwritten element within the constitution (aka which makes our constitutions so weird) These are mainly seen as a rule of a conduct or behavior, which everyone just kinda follows and accepts.The exercise of crown power, The appointment of the PM, consulting parliament before going to war, using referendums to approve major constitutional changes and collective ministerial responsibility are all examples of conventions. 

(This is the point where i realized we only needed to discuss the principles of the UK Constitution, not the sources, but i dont have the heart to delete all my work.)

Anyway, moving onto the only important part of this post- the principles!! 

The core principles of the UK constitution are the rule of law, Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliamentary Government, and a  constitutional monarchy.

Starting with the easiest one, the rule of law. This basically means that Government is subject to legal checks and constraints, so the Government is not 'above the law. (So even David Cameron could be arrested for bestiality) 

Parliamentary sovereignty refers to the absolute and unlimited legal authority of Parliament, as it can make, amend, or repeal any law it wishes- 'What Parliament doth, no power of earth can undo', as Blackstone said, the parliamentary authority. 

Parliamentary sovereignty is based om 4 conditions - the absence of a codified Constitution, the supremacy of statue law over other forms of law, the absence of rival legislatures and the fact that no Parliament can bind its successors. 

The UK is made up of a fusion of powers between the executive and Parliament, so Government and Parliament overlap, and our interlocking institutions - this is a parliamentary Government. They kind of come hand in hand, you can't get one without the other, peas in a pod. (almost like Doritos and the salsa dip.) Government, therefore, governs in and through Parliament. However, the closeness of these two institutions has caused tension, as it could easily lead to a situation where the executive could use the sovereign power of parliament for its own ends- the opportunity for an 'elective dictatorship' (Lord Hailsham, 1976) 

Lastly, the constitutional monarchy remains prominent in the UK constitution. 

Although during the 19th century, the majority of the monarchs remaining powers were transferred to the PM via prerogative powers, the monarch remains significant. It is argued that the role of the monarchy was to promote popular allegiance, to serve as a symbol of political unity above the general rough and tumble of politics. 

Bagehot states that the monarch as the right to be informed, be consulted, to warn and to encourage (I could do with an encouraging talk from the Queen to be honest.) 

Damn, thats inspirational Lizzie. 

Should the UK adopt a codified Constitution?

Should the UK adopt a codified Constitution? 

The UK currently has an uncodifed constitution, meaning that it has various sources, including statue law (law made by Parliament itself) common law (based on tradition, custom and precedent), conventions (a non-legal rule; a rule of conduct or behavior) and EU laws and treaties (such as the Treaty of Lisbon, 2009), whereas the US's codified constitution is enshrined in a single document - the differences between codified and uncodified constitutions are highlighted and explained on my previous post -  which is pretty amazing and well written if i do say so myself.

Adopting a codified constitution is a lot more than just stapling all those different pieces of paper together  and being all 'Woo! its codified now!' (well, you could do that. but good luck collecting all those documents) - but it has to be a lot more long and complex then that right? I mean, this is politics after all. 

One pretty big influencing factor is the flexibility of our uncodifed constitution: of course, as it sources from tradition and conventions, it evolves and shapes around our current society and norms - it goes without saying, but what was the tradition and norms in Victorian England are, and without going into too much detail, are a lot more unhygienic then they are today (thank god for the invention of sewers). 

The rigidness of the codified constitution is often argued that it is stuck in the past, as it has entrenched customs and traditions that may be considerably outdated today, and this is when the gun laws are often debated. Hundreds of years ago, 'the right to bear arms' continues and allows  US citizens to own a gun. Back then, his let farmers, for example, protect their land and livestock, when laws were weak. Nowadays though, do people really need guns? Due to its rigidness, their constitution cannot evolve and flourish with the people, and with Americans being extremely patriotic and proud of their constitution, it would be near impossible to change, or even amend; but this doesn't stop Obama from trying to currently make firearms safer. 

Although i just rugged that the codified constitution may be old and outdated, a some think that the uncodifed constitution itself is, well...old and outdated too. (Codified or not, some people just can't be pleased..) 

By a simple google search, its clear  most of the countries in the world have adopted a codified constitution- apart from a small few, including New Zealand, Israel and Saudi Arabia ( #TeamUncodified 4 lyfe)  therefore, codified is more of the 'norm' in politics- but we shouldn't give into peer pressure! 

However, uncodified constitutions are a lot weaker, due to the fact that they are more difficult to entrench. This means the government of the day could easily abolish any law, (considering that they're legitimate), and this could give the executive too much power, as there is no control on governmental power under an uncodified constitution. For example, in the US, there are significant checks and balances on  the leaders power. 

Nonetheless, if the government of the day is legitimate and they have been democratically elected by the people, surely they should have the right to rule, and the power to do whatever they want.   

Overall, i  think the UK should keep our uncodified constitution. It allows our society to grow, its flexible so can be easily altered in times of crisis (eg. following 9/11) and the people are pretty happy with how it is now- and it makes out country just that little bit weirder (not that our politicians are weird enough).

What is a constitution, and why is it important?

What is a constitution, and why is it important?

The constitution has a pretty important role is governing and controlling the country. It may just be a super old and dreary document in some countries, or just a load of separate pieces of paper in others, but it contains vital laws for protecting our rights, and was the very beginning for our democracy. 

Constitutions are such an important part of a countries culture, that if a country is ever faced with an undemocratic, elitist or extremist leader, that they will first aim to destroy or completely modify the constitution, as they often retain leaders power.

The first constitution was created under King Johns leadership, as he started to raise the taxes to fund his (unsuccessful) wars in France. The Barons therefore created the Magna Carta in 1215, to ensure monarchs do not has an extremely excessive amount of power, and to be subject to law. For a few years it 'vanished', until Edward Cook MP, challenged Charles the First as his own powers grew. 

Oliver Cromwell (being the jolly soul he is) chose to ignore the Magna Carta, until  Thomas Jefferson incorporated its decrees in the American Constitution. 

Since then, the Magna Carta has been the base for all constitutions around the world, enshrining our democracy. 

Constitutions can come in different forms - codified and uncodified.

A codified Constitution means that the constitution exists in a single document, such as France, USA, China and Norway. When a constitution becomes codifed, it normally always takes place after an event which calls for a codified constitution. For example, the USA codified their constitution after the independence of British Colonies, and Norway after the counties freedom from Danish rule.

In a codified constitution,the document itself is authoritative, in the sense that it constitutes 'higher' law. The constitution binds all political institutions, including those that make ordinary law. This gives rise to a two-tier legal system, in which the constitution stands above statute law make by the legislature.     

Identification is another benefit of a codified constitution. The Americans worship their Constitution, and the country even sells pocket sized editions of the constitution,  and when becoming the President, they have to take a pledge to protect it. 

However, codified constitutions are extremely hard to alter - since the USA introduced theirs, its only been modified 28 times - but this is so dictators cannot easily amend it. 

The opposite of a codified constitution is an uncodified constitution, as seen in the UK, Canada and New Zealand. This means that the constitution has many sources- in the UK, parts of the constitution can be found in statues, conventions, common law and traditions; because it has so many sources, the UK constitution can be easily amended, and with new laws being passed in the Commons and Lords very often, the UKs constitution can be changed every week. 

To summarize - King John was a bit of an idiot, but thanks to him we now have the super fancy 'magna carta', America loves their guns and the UK could be easily overthrown because of their uncodified constitution. Boom. 

What are the least democratic pressure groups and why?

What are the least democratic pressure groups and why?

Pressure groups are usually seen in a way in which they strongly promote democracy and pluralism. This is because pressure groups easily allow more people to participate in democracy, offering more ways to participate and be educated on politics. The existence of pressure groups therefore supports free-flowing ideologies, and that power is then shared amongst the groups. For example, pressure groups have the power to rally people together, the power to influence legislation and to raise millions of pounds.


However, some groups can easily resist these qualities, and can then be seen as undemocratic. This can be mainly identified in sectional pressure groups, as they aim to represent a group of people, and sometimes the group can be wrongly represented by the group.


In promotional groups, this may be seen by the leader changing the groups aim without the full support of the group, or taking action in a way which no one else agreed on.


Insider groups could hold too much influence over Government Ministers, which can be detrimental to those who wish to reduce the role of the state, and outsider groups usually take direct action, which can be illegal and undemocratic - for example, in the USA, pro-life campaigners have been known to send letter bombs to abortion clinics, and in the UK the animal liberation front have been known to promote illegal actions, such as removing animals from labs and farms and destroying facilities.

Lastly, the Animal Liberation Front can be seen as undemocratic, as they encourage illegal action.  hey have also been described as terrorists from critics.  This action can disrupt public services, just like the student protests did back in 2011. Therefore, strikes from trade unions can also be seen as undemocratic, as they can cause delays on public services, like the tube strikes and teacher strikes.

Why are some pressure groups more successful than others?

Why are some Pressure groups more successful than others?

The overall success of a pressure group is reliant on several factors such as finance, membership size, their status and impact. 

In general, a sectional pressure group would be considered successful if they were able to correctly represent their sector of society, such as being able to transfer the groups views and thoughts on policies when (and if) they are consulted by the Government. This especially applies to insider sectional groups, as they are consulted regularly, such as The Law Society, Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and The British Medical Association. 

These inside links with the Government can be displayed by a recent example concerning the BMA. The group planned to strike for 3 days in December of this year, but after negotiations with ACAS, the strike was postponed. 

For a promotional group to be successful means they were able to affect legislation to be in favor of their cause, for example the NSPCC having the power to ensure that laws ensuring children safety are protected, and introducing bills that would protect children even more. 

One factor that affects the success of pressure groups is finance. A group with supposedly more money would be more successful, as they can afford bigger campaigns to raise awareness. Some pressure groups do not accept financial support from the Government as they do not want to align themselves with a political party, so they operate through donations from the public. 

Secondly, a group with a large membership size are also likely to be more successful, as 

a large membership size means members can help more effectively with activities such as writing to the press, MPS and local councillors, and participating in demonstrations. The Government will therefore recognize the importance of large membership recognizing that such members are also voters who ultimately help to determine governments’ electoral fortunes while large membership and especially high membership density (the ratio of actual members to potential members) enhances pressure group representativeness and legitimacy and may help pressure groups to attain insider status. We should note also, however, that small local pressure groups concerned with small scale local issues such as hospital or school closures can be effective even with small membership and that the quality of membership may sometimes be as in important as the quantity. 

Insider pressure groups are generally more successful than outsider, as they have direct links to the Government and can easily influence the legislative process and can introduce bills easier (private member bills) through the support of MPs and Lords, 

However, some groups don't want to be identified as an insider group, and pride themselves on this fact. These are often groups that have extremist views or conduct illegal direct action, such as the Animal Liberation Front, whom publicly encourage illegal activity, such as removing animals from labs and farms and destroying facilities; critics have gone so far to classify the group as terrorists. 

However, it should be noted that particular groups don't particularly need insider status to promote their cause, as some may want to simply promote an idea or facts, such as the vegan society. 

Nonetheless, despite a pressure group having a large membership size and a good source of fiance, they still may be unsuccessful.

For example, the success of Fathers 4 Justice has been argued. They are a generally well-known group, regularly make the mass media headlines through their daring stunts and have a good size of support from the public. Despite this,  back in 2013 the Government proposed £220 million cuts to legal aid, which would make legal assistance difficult ( source).

To conclude, the membership size and status are generally the 2 biggest factors in determining a pressure groups success, but it is vital to consider that pressure groups do not need these 2 factors to be successful, and some groups may be unsuccessful for other reasons than low finance and high status. 

Pressure Group research - Countryside Alliance

Countryside Alliance

The Countryside Alliance is a pressure group promoting issues related to the countryside, such as farming, rural services, small businesses and country sports.
Their main aim is to 'Give rural Britain a voice', and has around 105,000 members.
As the public can become a member (for around £70 a year) they would be considered a promotional group, as they promote a cause, unlike interest or sectional groups, who's membership is only available to a few individuals (well, those few individuals who can afford £225 for a gold membership but whatever )


The group was formed in 1997 from the British Field Sports Society, the Countryside Business group and the Countryside Movement.
The group have participated in several movements and have a number of campaigns, one of the most prominent being their participation in the Hunting Act. Countryside Alliance was against the passing of the 2004 Hunting Ban and lobbied for its appeal, and continue to promote hunting on their website.


They also support and encourage customers and supermarkets to stock food from British farms, another one of their campaigns being 'Game to Eat', aiming to popularise game as a meat of choice. Other campaigns and issues they confront are against the closure of rural post offices, calling for better broadband connections in the countryside and supporting deer stalking across the British Isles.


The group also do some work in primary schools. They organise educational talks and trips to the countryside for  schoolchildren, run the 'Fishing4Schools' initiative, aiming to help children with special educational needs by taking them to angling and also try to popularise falconry for schools (because having birds of pray being handled by 5 year olds is totally safe.)


Some of the most prominent members of the administration team include Baroness Mallalieu QC, a labour peer who acts as the President, the chairman being Kate Hoey, the Labour MP for Vauxhall, Lord Mancroft, a convervative peer.

To what extent are the current ideas of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party similar and different?

To what extent are the current ideas of the Labour and Conservative parties different?

The Labour and Conservative parties have always been on separate ends of the spectrum, presenting (generally) conflicting and converse ideas to each other - Labour supporting socialism, the welfare state and representing the  working class, whereas the Conservatives supporting capitalism, promoting a free market, and representing the middle and upper classes. 

Nonetheless, in more recent years similar policies can be identified from the two parties, especially where Millibands Labour had, in a way, accepted capitalism, and the conservatives have modernized to appeal to the younger generation, so it could be argued that during this time a more of consensus politics materialized,  such as Conservatives proposition ensure those working 30 hours on the minimum wage to not have to pay income tax, Labour supporting that EU migrants not being able to claim benefits until they have lived in the UK for at least 2 years, and both parties supporting gay marriage, which was passed by the Conservatives in 2014, and is now legal across America as of 2015.

The final similarities can be identified through both parties stance on ISIS- and it isn't even just the 2 political parties who acknowledge this, countries such as Russia and China have agreed on such facts, possibly stemming from President Xi Jinpings' visit to the UK during the last week of October.
David Cameron also stated that the 'world is coming together' to fight agaisnt the Islamic State, following meetings this week. The french president,President Francois Hollande, will then go to Russia for similar talks with President Vladimir Putin

However, as Corbyn has been appointed to the head of the opposition, and as a keen supporter of socialism, the differences between the parties has grown. 

Firstly, Corbyn firmly believes in the abolishment of Trident, the UKs nuclear deterrent system, costing around £2 to £2.4 billion each year, which is around 5-6% of the defense budget, whereas Cameron continues to support Trident. 

Secondly, Cameron has accepted the divide within his party and the country with response to the proposition to leave the EU, and has therefore assured the country a referendum on such before 2020, whilst the labour party remains united against the decision to leave the European Union. 

A final difference between the two parties is their stances on taxation. The Conservatives want to raise personal allowance to £12,500 and 40% tax threshold to £50.000, increase inheritance tax threshold for married couples and civil partners to £1 million, and not to raise VAT or National Insurance contributions. 

Labour, on the other hand, plan to re-introduce the 50% top tax rate for people earning over £150,000, and the 10% starting rate. They also support no rise in VAT, but want to introduce a mansion tax for houses worth over £2 million. 

To conclude, it can be argued that under Millibands Labour was the time when the two parties created more consensus politics then adversarial politics, but it is clear that as Corbyn continues to develop himself as the leader of the Labour party and leader of the opposition, the patties will again part ways and return to opposite ends of the spectrum,. 

Does Jeremy Corbyn align himself more with traditional socialism or is he a social democrat?

Does Jeremy Corbyn align himself more with traditional socialism or is he a social democrat? 

After the recent Labour leader elections, many are excited to see the new direction of which labour will now peruse, now Jeremy Corbyn is the new leader. 

Keen Labour supporters are relieved that labour is reconnecting with its old polices and stances, compared to the 'new labour' stance, developed by Tony Blair during the 1990's. Traditional socialism is built upon the fact that people are social creatures who are bound together by a common humanity. These values include - 

• Fraternity: brotherhood;bonds of sympathy and comradeship between people.
• Cooperation: a preference for people working together rather than competing 
• Equality:to abolish or to at least reduce social class. 

These fundamentals are clearly present in Corbyns values, such as ending austerity, removing any privatization of the NHS and aims for a Cabinet of 50% women. 

However, there are two types of socialism. One is the fundamental branch of socialism (Marxists and Communists) who strongly believe capitalism should be abolished and replaced with a system based on collective ownership and wealth. 

The other branch are the revolutionist socialists,(social democrats) who believe capitalism should be reformed through social and economic intervention, 

Nonetheless, it is extremely hard to align ones self and identify with the fundamental side of socialism, as it has been proven to fail due to humanity's natural and selfish nature.

This is the main reason i think Corbyn aligns himself wit the social democrat side of socialism - his policies require  basic capitalistic fundamentals for them to be enforced, However, Corbyn may begin to identity with the more extreme side of Communism when he starts to feel more comfortable in Parliament, but he has certainly brought a new breath of \fresh air into the labour party. 

Does Britain Suffer from a Democratic Deficit?

Does Britain Suffer from a Democratic Deficit? 

A democratic deficit occurs when key institutions of the country (such as Parliament, The House of Lords, the House of Commons) fail to apprehend and uphold key features of democracy, which can include representation, free, fair and regular elections, civil liberties and an independent judiciary.  

The most obvious presence of a democratic deficit lies in the low voter turnout during elections - with a low turnout, means a strong majority is rarely formed, so the house may find it difficult to pass bills and laws. This was seen during the Liberal Democratic and Conservative coalition, as each party continued to turn down the other parties bills when introduced into the house, and this may not of been just due to ideology conflict, as there was conflict between the 2 parties during these 5 years. 

Democracy also calls for representation of the people, and its impossible to represent people who do not show their political preferences through the general election, therefore these peoples views cannot be shown in Parliament, and pure democracy cannot occur.

Another factor of democracy is the presence of an opposition party, known for scrutinizing the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Questions every week. Again, a strong opposition cannot be formed  if the turnout is low, therefore the opposition may not be representing the minority of the people.

However, it isn't right to assume that just because minorities are not represented directly in the Commons, is doesn't mean there are other ways in which they are represented. Pressure groups play a huge part in politics and legislation, as they are often consulted during the legislative process due to their expertise in such fields. For example, the National Farmers Union was consulted during the discussion of the Badger Cull and the use of pesticides. The use of pressure groups therefore promotes a pluralist democracy, as various views are heard and considered during legislation, and the fact that pressure group membership is increasing disregards the fact of a Democratic deficit in the UK. 

Nonetheless, some pressure groups may not have the chance to express their views due to their lack in size, financial support, and may not have the opportunity to affect legislation. This can be seen in the insider and outsider status in which pressure groups possess. 

Some groups, such as the Katie Piper Foundation have been unsuccessful in their cause - funding to plastic surgery and rehabilitation for  burn victims has not increased since the establishment of the group. 

Therefore, this contributes to the fact that a democratic deficit may be present in the UK.

An independent Judiciary is vital in a democracy, as if judges were politically bias it would affect their law making choices, This independence was emptheszised in 2009, when the Law Lords were moved from the House of Lords to a separate institution across the road from Parliament. There has been issues with Judges being aligned with political parties in the past such as  having relations to members of Liberty, and the case having to be resat with a different judge. 

Lastly, a media bias overrides democracy, as the media can affect peoples views, even if the facts may not be true. This can be seen as newspapers are directly associated with political ideologies - for example, the Daily Telegraph and The Times are associated with the right side of the spectrum , especially the conservative party, whilst the Observer and The Guardian are known for agreeing with the left side, such as Labour and the Green Party.

Ths again supports the fact that their is a democratic deficit in the UK, as as presence of bais media means there cannot be a true democracy.  

To conclude, there are strong arguments to support the fact that there is a democratic deficit in the UK, but it is important to include factors which argue this. 

Would a change in voting system improve democracy?

Would a change in voting system improve democracy?

People often blame the lack of political interest regarding general elections on the fact that our current voting system for the Prime Ministerial elections doesn't often produce the most representative results- as seen in this years general election, in which the UK Independence party received over 3,000.000 votes and gained 1 seat, whereas the Liberal Democrats got just over 2,400.000 votes and revived 8 seats in return. 

This happened because of the way our voting system is established. In First Past to Post (FPTP), the country is split into 650 'consistences' with a single member of Parliament (MP) representing each one on the House of Commons in Westminster.   MP elections are held every first Thursday of May every 5 years, due to the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011.  Individuals then stand to represent a party, and the candidate with the most votes get the seat in the Commons and becomes an MP. 

Nonetheless, the successful candidate just needs the most votes in FPTP,  and not to receive 50% or more of the votes. For example, a liberal Democrat MP in the 2010 general election won with just 28% of the vote, despite 72% voting for other candidates, or against them.

Another example of this is the 2015 General Election. Overall, the Conservatives won, with more than 11,000,00 votes, which translates to 36.9% of the votes. Again, this means that 63.1% of the votes were against them - however, out of all the parties they received the most votes, so in a way they had a legitimate rule.

Therefore, due to this unrepresentative system, some may feel discouraged to participate in general elections, as they feel their vote won't count or make a difference. Nonetheless, there is still high political participation regarding pressure groups, smaller party membership and petitions, so the voting system of the general election must be considered a factor to the declined voter turnout. 

Alternative voting systems can include the alternative vote (AV), single transferable vote (STV), additional member system and Party List PR. Theses are either stemmed from Proportional representation, a majoritarian system, or a mix of the both. 

However, some argue that a change in voting system would not improve democracy at all, as during the Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition of 2010-2015, alternative vote was offered as a substitute to FPTP via a referendum, but this was voted down by the public. People yet again argue that it was only voted against due to the overpowering Conservative party, and that people were frustrated towards the liberal democrat party due to breaking their promise regarding rising tuition fees, so people voted down their proposition in anger. 

More information of the other voting systems can be found here - http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems

Should the UK use more Referendums?

Should the UK use more referendums? 

 Referendums provide a way for the public to have a direct influence on the legislative process. They are a perfect example of direct democracy in modern society, as citizens of the UK vote on the issue, instead of the Members of Parliament (MP's) who are elected by their constituencies.

In the past, Referendums have faced issues such as Scotland's Independence, the use of alternative voting for general elections in the UK and whether there should be a Mayor of London of Greater London Authority.
Unsurprisingly,the large majority of the population are all for the more common use of referendums - people love having their voice heard and being able to get directly involved in politics, which can also be seen by the increase of pressure group membership and the increase in smaller party membership. 
Nonetheless, others should find the regular use of referendums tedious and platitudinous, especially if used every week. This also arises the issue of, of the UK was to have more referendums, how would the country decide what to have a referendum on?
 Would we have a referendum to decide what to have a referendum on? Would we have a referendum to have a referendum to decide whether or not we want a referendum? 

Furthermore, general elections in the UK result in a pretty disappointing turnout, with around 65% in the most recent elections, so how can we assume that referendums would have the same or even lower, turnout? Either way, this isn't representative of the citizens, so decisions may be made as a result of a referendum, but this result does not reflect how the people feel about the issue. 
However, with an increased use of referendums, it may also educate the public and motivate them to become more familiar with the UK Political system and politics in general, so this way actually increase voter turnout. 

As seen with the Scottish Referendum, both sides of the campaign were huge, especially the 'Better Together' campaign. The referendum took around £13.3m to be held, and nonetheless, nothing changed as a result of it. Therefore, this may be seen as a huge waste of money, as nothing changed, despite  £13.3m being spent. 

Referendums can also help make a decision when there is a division in Government, for example, the Conservative Party are internally divided on the issue of EU Membership, so by holding a referendum, it settles inter party disputes.   However, some may see this as Politicians avoiding having to decide on difficult decisions, and avoiding taking responsibility fort them. Nonetheless, no matter the results of a referendum (of which isn't binding) the Government doesn't have to go through with the decision, so ultimately the PM still has to make a decision on the issue on hand.

Words and language of the question may also be biased in a referendum, so the question has to go through many checks to reduce bias as much as possible. The media may also be bias, and attempt to change the public's personal opinion on the topic through 'propaganda' of such. The result of the referendum may also be affected by the party in Government at the time - for example, many blamed that the unsuccessful result of the AV referendum was down to the Liberal Democrats being unpopular, and the Conservatives being too dominate in Parliament. 

Lastly, a constant use of referendums would strengthen our democracy, by allowing the public to speak for themselves, instead of through a single MP.  This highlights the fact that Government should be 'by the people', as well as 'for the people' and 'of the people.' 

To conclude, a use of referendums would continue to strengthen our democracy by including more direct democracy, and may even increase political turnout and interest, but a remaining issue would be how to decide on what issues to have a referendum on, and an increased use of referendums may also increase political apathy. 

Useful Links

I'l be posting some links here that will be helpful for examples and references for our AS Politics Exam


BBC Election Coverage, focusing on Young People in Politics

What Young People care about in Politics

Political participation

In  1987, 64% of people agreed that 'parties are only interested in votes.'

This rose to 75% in 2011. 

In 1983. 85% of those in their 20's/early 30's identified with a particular political party.

In 2012, this had fallen to 66% of the same age group.

Although people are becoming less interested in politics, they are involving themselves in political issues in different ways.

In 1983, only 29% of people reported having signed a petition, compared to 37% now.

Only 10% of people had contacted an MP in 1983, whilst 16% have done so now. 

Age 18-24

45%  said they voted in the last election

61% said they identify with a political party 

45% said its a persons duty to vote 

32% have a great deal / quite a lot of interest in politics 

Age 25-34

48%  said they voted in the last election

65% said they identify with a political party 

57% said its a persons duty to vote 

24% have a great deal / quite a lot of interest in politics 

Age 35-44

67%  said they voted in the last election

71% said they identify with a political party 

57% said its a persons duty to vote 

30% have a great deal / quite a lot of interest in politics 

Age 45 - 54 

75%  said they voted in the last election

68% said they identify with a political party 

61% said its a persons duty to vote 

34% have a great deal / quite a lot of interest in politics 

Age 55-64

84%  said they voted in the last election

73% said they identify with a political party 

70% said its a persons duty to vote 

44% have a great deal / quite a lot of interest in politics 

Age 65+

88%  said they voted in the last election

83% said they identify with a political party 

73% said its a persons duty to vote 

49% have a great deal / quite a lot of interest in politics 

Is the UK truly Democratic? - UK Democracy

Is the UK truly Democratic? - UK Democracy 

Democracy - 'Government of the people, Government by the people and Government for the people,'  is how Abraham Lincoln would define democracy. 

Compared to dictatorships or anarchy, or whatever North Korea is,  a democracy would be the fairest and most logical way in which to run a country - people vote for who they want to take power, and then the person or organisation with the most votes takes power, leading the country and deciding on major decisions - everyone's'  happy! - or so it seems. *Cue dramatic music.* 

If the UK was purely democratic, why do people protest? Why are pressure groups established to affect legislation? Why isn't there 100% turnout at elections? Why are there votes of no confidence in the House of Commons? Why doesn't Ed Milliband like bacon sandwiches? Who knows. 

(Actually, the answers are kind of obvious.) 

On one side, some would say the UK is no where near achieving true democracy. 

Firstly, a true democracy can only be achieved via 100% turnout in the general elections, referendums and initiatives. Our most recent election had a turnout of around 65% - which is obviously not 100%. However, the UK has never had 100% turnout for any political vote, so in a way the UK has never been truly democratic. 

Some countries, such as Australia, have compulsory voting, where everyone, who can vote, must vote in general elections, thus achieving an 100% turnout. However, does this mean Australia is a truly democratic country? Ha! if only it was that easy...

Another important factor of pure democracy is representation - the way the votes are spread out in the election are how the votes should be spread out in Parliament. So, for example, if the Liberal Democrats got 23% of the votes, they should get 23% of the seats - but again, nothing is ever that easy. 

The Lib Dems actually did get 23% of the votes in the 2010 election, but but only actually received around 8% of the seats on the house of Commons, but that's how our First Past to Post system works - oops. 

On the other hand, others would support the fact that the Uk is democratic. 

Firstly, pressure groups are active in our society. Anyone can see this through their protests, petitions and even TV adverts. Pressure groups are vital in a democracy as its other way that the public can have their say, and participate in politics. Pressure groups also allow a disperse of power, as they can easily affect Government legislation, through Insider and Outsider status. 

Secondly, in ways, the first past to post system is representative - the party with the most votes takes power, and its never been a result in which the winning party did not have the majority of the votes. Furthermore, FPTP can produce coalitions, such as 2010 - this, in a way, represented what the people voted for, as no party had a majority, so a coalition was the only choice. ( Well, a minority Government would of been established but they're likely to be unsuccessful.) 

Overall, the UK currently shows strong factors of a democracy in our current society - we vote, the majority party takes power and we protest, However, we're still quite a way away from achieving pure democracy, due to the unrepresentive voting system and the low turnout at elections. 

 Labour red, Conservatives blue, Lid Dems who? - The Election of 5th 2015 

The Liberal Democrats place themselves in the middle of the political spectrum, thus many see as a 'wishy-washy' political party whose ideals won't really change and affect the country much - if they ever came into power. 

Before the Labour party started gaining popularity after being formed in the early 1900's, the Liberal Democrats used to be considered as one of the main political parties, holding power in 1905 to 1922. Since then, although they do play a big part in UK politics, its clear to say that their political influence and power has been declining,  

Nonetheless, Nick Clegg managed to agree to a coalition with David Cameron after the election of 2010 showed no clear majority, The Lib Dems then saw this as a golden opportunity to implement some of their policies they promised in the 2010 election to try and gain some popularity for their party again, one of the main key issues being tuition fees. 

Before the election, they targeted votes towards students and the younger voting generation, winning them over by promising to lower £6,000 a year tuition fees. 

However, later during the term tuition fees were raised to £9,000 a year. 

Many felt that Clegg had lied to them, and although he published an apology video for breaking his promised, it has been remixed into a sort of song, and the Labour Party focused their 2015 political broadcast around 'the incredible shrinking man' showing Nick Clegg physically shrinking during the 5 year coalition,. 

Since then, the Liberal Democrats went from 57 seats to 8 seats in 2015, and Nick Clegg resigning as the leader of the party. Like UKIP, will they ever be able to make a comeback in 2020? 

Ed Milliband predicted to win - The Election of May 5th 2015 

Leading up to the UK general election, the Conservatives and the Labour parties were extremely close in the popularity polls, with Labour reaching forward during the last few days before May 5th, so many newspapers assuming that Ed Milliband would be the next Prime Minister. Following the 'failure' (as some may view it) of the Tori and Lib Dems coalition,this was to be the case, and hypothetically, it was time for Labour to come into power, as the UK often switches between the two leading parties for the seat of Prime Minister. 

Nonetheless, the Conservatives remained victorious, winning a slight majority thus the need for coalition was no more. 

But despite all the predictions of a Labour victory, why did they lose? 

The obvious answer would be they simply did not win enough seats. Following 2005, the Labour party won 349 seats, a clear majority considering they only needed 326 to take the seat of Prime Minster-without the need for a coalition. However, they lost 91 seats in 2010, leaving them with 258. 

A contributing factor would be how Milliband is portrayed in the media. He is often compared to Wallace from Wallace and Gromit, and the media emphasize the fact that he has never been seen eating a sandwich in public (in which he looks like he's actually enjoying it - e.g Ed Milliband and the bacon sandwich pictures.)
However, would you not vote for a party just because their leader hugely resembles a character made of clay? Hopefully not.
The most obvious factor in Labours loss this year is the sudden popularity of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) in Scotland. In previous elections, Labour would usually win the majority of the 59 seats in Scotland, however, this year SNP triumphed 56 of the 59 available seats in Scotland.
If we say Labour did win all the seats in Scotland, it would bring their grand total of seats this year to 291, which is still quite a way off of a majority. Maybe the inability to eat a sandwich in the public eye contributes more to a majority after all. 

'The rise (and fall) of UKIP.' - The Election of May 2015

With  the increased membership of Nigel Farages UK Independence Party, and some hoping for a UKIP and Tory coalition,  a strong Conservative win was not expected. However, on May 6th, it was confirmed that David Cameron would continue to reside in 10 Downing Street for another 5 years.

During early 2015, the supposed 'rise of UKIP' proved a threat to the surrounding parties, Although UKIP only held 1 seat in Clacton, by Douglass Carswell, Converstive and Labour had to ensure their party ties were strong to not lose any seats to the UK Independence Party. Nigel Farage attempted to concentrate his party in certain constituencies, to avoid a large number of votes spread across the county but a low number of seats - which is, ironically what exactly happened when the figures of the election were published the following day. 

Despite over 3,000,000 votes, more than the SNP and Liberal Democrats combined, UKIP dismally only won and held the seat in Clacton. 

 Since then, Mr. Farage publicly announced that hw would be stepping down as the parties leader, just like other party leaders did the following days of the election. However, his application to step down was declined, so now, with no choice of his own, Nigel Farage continues to lead the party- however, will they make a dramatic comeback in 2020?