British Political Direction Essay Example

there is agreement on political game regulations. However, in countries with more diversity, the left-right spectrum is less centralized, leading to distinct identity divides based on ethnicity, faith, or social standings. In such cultural settings, it would be challenging for a majority government to retain legitimacy. Hence, small margins would translate to significant government majorities.

Under a situation where vastly dissimilar interests hold power, the majority of the population would likely be disregarded, leading to disillusionment and loss of credibility. In such a diverse society, a system that allows for multiple parties to achieve consensus is preferable as a government that is unfairly skewed towards particular interests would lack justification. Consequently, proportional representation, which ensures that a range of interests are well-represented, is more fitting for consensus-based regimes. Although no one party holds a commanding position, the divides within society are reflected in the proportional representation of each individual interest group. Therefore, even if one party secures a plurality, it cannot dominate large minorities.

In order to establish policy direction, consensus among all parties is necessary. Inclusion, rather than exclusion, is the basis for legitimacy. Due to the significant differences between parties, distrust makes it difficult to have a loyal opposition in a majoritarian system. Therefore, power-sharing and compromise are the foundation of the consensus model.

Both political systems can function effectively if they align with the socio-cultural foundation. However, if the foundations become diverse and divisive, like in Britain, alterations may be necessary to re-establish legitimacy. In the 70's and 80's, significant changes in the socio-cultural identities of the British populace brought about the emergence of a strong third party that weakened support for the

Labour Party. These changes were particularly apparent in the socio-economic foundation, and signaled a breakdown in state nationalization schemes.

A&P (204) asserts that when the government owns ventures, political interference affects wage negotiations and investment decisions leading to a lack of economic growth. This is because nationalized ventures have no incentive to be profitable and competition does not exist. Consequently, due to inefficiencies in the public sector, government's inability to deliver economic growth, and general disapproval of state intervention, there was an agreement that the market should play a larger role in directing the government. Privatization emerged as a superior alternative for promoting economic growth and innovation stimulated by the rise of certain segments of middle class due to increasing wealth.

The need for intervention was no longer desired by professional business people who were not tied to the state sector. The prevailing belief now favored privatization as opposed to the post-WWII Labour government's socialist belief that the state promotes economic growth better than private enterprise. Privatization was justified for its economic efficiency in allowing the market to determine production, prices, and investment better than civil servants. It also represented a conservative political ideology for smaller government and acknowledged that private businesses are more consumer-oriented than nationalized management.

The government gained short-term financial profit from the sale of public assets through privatization, leading to a socio-economic divide. This cleavage holds particular significance as it is the only dimension where the main political parties differ consistently. This issue of socioeconomic stance resulted in many professional middle-class members leaving the Labour party to support privatization and market rule, leading to Thatcher's election in 1979. The Conservative government

began controlling wages in the early 70s to limit inflation and trigger this change.
(A;P, 204) (Lijphart, 8)

The coal mining strike caused a vote of no confidence in both major parties and led to a doubling of the Liberal vote. The cultural identity divisions within the British population also impacted the two party system, and support for a Scottish parliament increased as a result. Devolution became a more viable option.

The focus of country loyalty shifted from Britain as a whole towards individual nations, resulting in concentrated support for Nationalist parties in Wales and Scotland within certain constituencies. While the Liberal party enjoyed broad support across the country, national parties were strong regionally but not able to gain national power. This led to a loss of votes for both Labour and Conservative parties, particularly the latter. Despite this, the Conservatives appeared to have the potential to establish an electoral dictatorship with limited representation from not only the Labour party, but also a notable Liberal and Nationalist faction.

Due to the migration of conservative voters to rural areas and Labour voters to cities, the electoral system's disproportionate allocation of seats to the Conservative party was reinforced. This occurred despite their lower share of popular votes. The sociocultural shifts caused a decrease in support for the Labour party and an increase in support for the Liberal party. Consequently, with as little as 40% of the popular vote, this allowed the Conservatives to secure a majority of seats.

According to Lijphart, the stability of power for the Conservatives has declined due to winning four consecutive elections. Alternating majorities and minorities in government can reduce exclusion of minority groups. However,

third parties have emerged in British politics and weakened legitimacy by dividing opposition and allowing prolonged control by a single party. This issue would be less problematic if society had a more homogeneous culture, as policy differences between parties would be minimal.

With the Labour party moving leftward and society becoming more diverse, opposition groups are losing confidence in the majority's leadership. These minority groups within majoritarian systems refuse to be excluded from power. The societal changes occurring in Britain are increasingly conflicting with the existing political system. It is evident that reforms must be made to the British system, but deciding which reforms should be implemented and to what degree is a separate matter. I suggest three crucial modifications: introducing a bill of rights, restructuring the House of Commons, and revamping the electoral process for distributing power more equitably throughout the system.

Despite opposition to an individual bill of rights over concerns it could weaken parliamentary sovereignty, its objective is to safeguard fundamental rights against government infringement. The UK's loss of cases at the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg emphasizes the need for such protections in a nation where they are presently absent.

Facilitating and improving accessibility for British citizens is essential to uphold the democratic principle of consent and ensure that Parliament is held responsible for any breaches of fundamental individual liberties. Although there are concerns about granting appointed judges excessive authority over the elected representative body, it must be acknowledged that democracy relies on the approval of those governed. (Britain's Const., 64)

To give voluntary consent, it is necessary to protect fundamental rights. Currently, judges are not empowered to cancel laws that violate these rights.

To address concerns about unfair judgments, it may be wise to increase transparency in the selection process. However, without a written constitution that defines the responsibilities of Parliament and the judiciary, judges cannot nullify laws.

Implementing a bill of rights aims to limit government authority and enhance its legal and rational legitimacy. Although not the center of power, the House of Commons has become ineffective against ministers, cabinet, and executive. A few political leaders impose undemocratic policies that the British citizens are aware of. A survey reports that almost 75% believe Parliament doesn't have enough power to govern government actions.

Despite the fact that Britain's Constitution is 60 years old, the methods of debate utilized in the current system are no longer appropriate for addressing modern technical issues that require a practical understanding. While it is the opposition's responsibility to oppose, the Conservative and Labour parties now agree on many topics that previously divided them, rendering debates irrelevant. Therefore, approval of legislation should be conducted by select committees that consult with professionals and lawyers to ensure necessary amendments are made.

According to Britain's Constitution (61), promoting a more favorable environment for comprehending legislation while maintaining its customary duty of monitoring the executive would be beneficial. Currently, the House of Commons fosters public disrespect towards ministers and civil servants due to the rigid political party divisions. MPs should express their personal views instead of echoing party slogans. It's entirely plausible that MPs could hold greater influence over the executive than they currently do.

To revive nationwide discussions in the Commons, MPs need to change their biased mindset rather than focusing on amending the constitution. One of the major

reforms required in 1995 was addressing the issues caused by the first-past-the-post system, which affects third parties like the Liberal Democrats and allows for a parliamentary majority with only a minority of votes.

The representation of minority parties in Parliament is significantly disproportionate under the current First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system. Supporters of FPTP claim that it guarantees a reliable and efficient majority party. However, with shifts in voter demographics, this assertion is no longer entirely true. The system allows for regional seats that lack significant influence and instead take away vital seats from the majority.

As per page 69 of Britain's Constitution, legitimacy is undermined when Whitehall has a majority without even a plurality of the popular vote. However, it is important to note that MPs are required to approve any electoral reforms and may be hesitant due to job insecurity under a new voting system. Therefore, we must acknowledge the reluctance that comes with potentially voting oneself out of office.

As per The Economist, the House of Commons members' reluctance to alter the present system implies that minor amendments are more probable to receive approval. The additional member system (AMS) offers fair representation outcomes whereas the alternative vote (AV) has minimal effect. Meanwhile, the single transferable vote (STV) lies in between these alternatives.

The alternative vote is the preferred choice for reformers as it preserves crucial elements of the current system and hinders the transformation of minority votes into a majority of seats. Additionally, it is the only feasible option with a chance of success, though it is a step towards progress. This method also allows individual MPs to represent particular constituencies. (Taken from Britain's Const.)

, 70) Tony Blair's

New Labour Government is implementing decentralization measures that distribute power in various ways. Power is trickling down from Westminster through devolution, which created a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh. This move assists in resolving the issue of disproportional representation for National parties. Legitimacy becomes problematic for minority interests, as they remain forever excluded from government with no real influence. Scotland has gained control over many policy directives, but true autonomy in fiscal policy is yet to be achieved.

The SNP is expected to eventually achieve a majority and attempt to demonstrate that devolution is distinct from independence. It remains uncertain whether the Scottish populace will concur. Scotland's endeavor for self-determination depends on being part of the European Union, as standing alone would not be feasible without full membership. Consequently, Mr. Blair's devolution scheme is creating a foundation for the SNP to make a compelling case for becoming fully self-governing members of the EU.

With the fall of the empire, Scotland now has the chance to break away from England and form a new partnership with the EU (as mentioned in "Undoing Britain, 18"). Devolution was required to ensure that the Scottish, Welsh, and Irish minorities had a voice in government representation, and also to help New Labour gain a majority. The Conservatives aim to exploit any political edge they may gain from English discontent. As a result of devolution, internal nationalist groups may emerge and change the landscape of party politics. Mr.

According to "Undoing Britain" (11), Blair cannot have complete control over his party while also distancing them. Changes made to the central government at Westminster have impacted relations between England and the rest of Britain. Proposed

by Labour is a ban on Scottish votes for laws that affect England directly, potentially preventing a national majority government from passing English legislation. This poses a challenge for New Labour, as they rely heavily on Scottish votes. Additionally, there have been implementations of regional parliaments and efforts to establish an elected Senate.

The House of Lords seating arrangement has been improved by removing hereditary members. This move towards democracy enhances legitimacy and makes it an ideal candidate for reform. New Labour's reforms have shifted focus from left-right politics to Britain-Europe issues, leading to more decentralization in government. The socio-cultural changes have been mirrored by the spreading of power from Westminster through regional parliaments and the possibility of European Union involvement.

Undoubtedly, the process of achieving this will require a substantial amount of time and depend on certain unpredictable outcomes of reform efforts. Nevertheless, the emergence of stronger national and regional identities, coupled with the increasing significance of Strasbourg and Brussels as a reservoir of legislation, power and political legitimacy, will gradually shift British politics away from its traditional democratic framework. (Taken from Undoing Britain, 19)