DOCSLIB.ORG

British Political System Part

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

EXECUTIVE ▪Monarch ▪Government X cabinet ▪ Cabinet ministers and their deputies ▪ Ministers outside cabinet and their deputies ▪ Secretaries of the ministries ▪ Whips ▪ Other important persons (i.e. academia) ▪ Growing complexity of state administration ▪ → council (curia regis) ▪ Major minister (Lord Chancellor) ▪ 1200s – the top royal officer and chief of the royal court ▪ Executive, judicial and advisory role ▪ 1500s – 1600s – Privy Council ▪ Specialization, about 50 members James I, Charles I and favorites in the Privy Council consultations with a small group of the council Charles II (1625-85) secret character of meetings →Cabinet Council or Cabinet ▪ Originally – King selected ministers ▪ Government ≠ collective body ▪ Glorious Revolution ▪ First PM Robert Walpole (1721–42) ▪ the First Lord of the Treasury ▪ Chancellor of the Exchequer ▪ George I (1714-27) ▪ Little knowledge of England, law and constitution ▪ → King‘s deputy necessary ▪ → CC: King no access to cabinet meetings ▪ 1784 George III – attempt at revival of monarch‘s power 1. Cabinet – from MPs → end of incompatibility of minister and MP 2. Cabinet rests on HC‘s support ▪ If it fails to get it, cabinet resigns 3. „Modern“ departure from politics 4. Downing street 10 ▪ Residence since 1730 ▪ George II ▪Cabinet members selected by the King ▪Cabinet responsible to the King ▪Tories and Whigs – loose groups ▪Ministers – responsible only for their resorts ▪PM‘s resignation ≠ resignation of ministers ▪ Industrial revolution (rise of capitalism) ▪ Rise of new classes, calling for political rights ▪ Electoral and parliamentary reform ▪ Rise of parties ▪ → consequences of cabinet: ▪ cabinet – much closer link to parties ▪ Ministers accepted collective responsibility ▪ Higher discipline of parties ▪ Evidence/analyses/expertise – based decision-making ▪Powers derived not from King, but from the people ▪Real power rested on ▪ Party support ▪ King‘s support ▪ + Personal charisma ▪1834 Robert Peel „Tamworth manifesto“ ▪ Conservative principles ▪„Prime Minister“ – unofficial title until 1905 ▪1917 „Prime Minister“ first formal usage ▪ The Chequers Estate Act ▪1937 constitutionalization ▪ Ministers of the Crown Act ▪PM originally from HL ▪1800s: HL or HC ▪ 1902 lord Salisbury ▪1900s: HC ▪ Break 1923 George V: lord Curzon vs. Stanley Baldwin ▪1940 Winston Churchill vs. lord Halifax ▪Lord Beaverbrook: "Chamberlain wanted Halifax. Labour wanted Halifax. Sinclair wanted Halifax. The Lords wanted Halifax. The King wanted Halifax. And Halifax wanted Halifax." ▪19.10. PM ▪23.10. disclaimed his earldom ▪2.11 – by election ▪ Kinross and West Perthshire ▪ After 1688 - ministers selected increasingly from HC ▪ King needed parliamentary support ▪ Today about 1/5 government members from HL ▪ Exceptionally - minister ≠ MP ▪ Consequences ▪ a small pool of potential ministers ▪ increased legitimacy of government ▪ First Lord of the Treasury ▪ First above unequals ▪ Premier-dominated model ▪ Leader of the largest parliamentary party ▪ De facto took over most of monarch‘s powers (CC) ▪ Mediator between government and monarch ▪The Night of the Long Knives ▪ 1962 ▪ 1989 NIGHT OF THE LONG KNIVES ▪1963 Richard Crossman – shift from cabinet government to prime ministerial government ▪ „if we mean by presidential government, government by an elective first maigstrate then we in England have a president as truly as the Americans“ „SOFA GOVERNMENT“ Policy made by PM and his special advisers rather than career civil servants Now Later Originally ▪ Countersignature ▪ Originally a mere formal act ▪ Later material responsibility too ▪ James III ▪ → 1216 principle „King can do no wrong“ ▪ Gradual shift of responsibility from the King to the council ▪ Originally – King the only decision maker ▪ However: sacrosanct ▪ → dispute between the King and parliament hard to solve ▪ Parliamentary dissolution ▪ Toppling the King (= anarchy) ▪ Solution: transfer of responsibility to the King‘s executive ▪ Judicial responsibility ▪ →impeachment + attainder ▪ since 1340 „audits“ of King‘s officials ▪ Edward IV (1461 – 70) ▪ Political responsibility ▪ Government appointed in line with the parliamentary majority ▪ Resignation of PM and government ▪ No-confidence vote ▪ Originally – the only way to control and punish executive ▪ Stuart Kings tried to rule more informally ▪ through cabinet, junta ▪ Parliament responded by reviving the power of impeachment ▪ king can do no wrong ▪ »» any wrongfulness attributed to the „evil counsel“ of his ministers ▪Major problem ▪ To ensure control over King‘s executive ▪The only tool: ▪ Impeachment (ex post) ▪ 1626 Charles I dissolved the parliament ▪ Controversial steps in raising money ▪ Parliament‘s reaction ▪ Petition of rights (1628) ▪ Grand Remonstrance (1641) ▪ purge of officials ▪ Expulsion of bishops ▪ a right of veto over Crown appointments ▪ 1688 dispute over composition of the cabinet solved in principle ▪ King still in charge of cabinet appointment ▪ Increasing power of parliament ▪ Impeachment replaced with a simple majority vote ▪ Less formal than impeachment but more efficient ▪ Gradual way to confidence principle 1. Government resignation 2. No confidence vote ▪ Resignation of PM ≠ resignation of government ▪ after 1742 resignation, if lost confidence of the HC ▪ after 1841 resignation, if HC rejects budget ▪ after 1868 resignation, if lost elections ▪ Legally NCV is not binding ▪ 1742 Robert Walpole ▪ 1782 lord North ▪ Whigs introduced a motion to end the war in America (234x215) ▪ = George III quit support for war ▪ = loss of confidence in the cabinet ▪ »»» North‘s resignation (+ all his ministers) ▪ 1783 George III appointed the government by James Fox+ Frederick North ▪ Dec. 1783 George recalled the government ▪ Defeated in the HL ▪ → new PM: William Pitt ▪ Pitt weak support in the HC → protest J.Fox + F. North ▪ 1784 HC motion: ▪ „…the Continuance of the present Ministers in their Offices is an Obstacle to the Formation of such an Administration as may enjoy the Confidence of this House…“ ▪ Pitt rejected to resign ▪ Supported by the King, HL, public ▪ Fragile opposition ▪ »» Pitt asked the King to dissolve the HC ▪ »»» repeatedly ignored ▪ 1800s: principle of guilt ▪ Wellington vs. Melbourne 1832 ▪ Derby vs. Russell 1852 ▪ Disraeli vs. Gladstone 1873 ▪ However: 1832-67 often no clear majority ▪ →difficult to apply ▪ 1841 cabinet Melbourne ▪ HC rejected its budget ▪ →Robert Peel proposal: ▪ If HC rejects budget, government has to resign ▪ »»» proposal accepted by 1 vote margin ▪ = consolidating no-confidence vote rules ▪ Only towards PM and cabinet as a whole ▪ Simple majority ▪ Voting takes priority over other motions ▪ Announced at least 1 day earlier ▪ A single MP may propose that No-confidence vote Confidence vote ▪ Initiated by opposition ▪ Initiated by the cabinet ▪ Goal: ▪ Goals: 1. topple the cabinet 1. Defense against „rebels“ 2. Early elections 2. Consolidation of government camp ▪ 1945-99 – 27 unsuccessful opposition initiatives 3. Boosting cabinet legitimacy ▪ After 1945: only 1 successful ▪ 1945-1999 - only 3x motion ▪ Negative parliamentarism ▪Different understandings 1. Government responsible to public 2. Government responsible to parliament 3. Government responsible for its policies ▪ most relevant from a constitutional perspective ▪ Individual responsibility ▪ Collective responsibility ▪ → if government loses support (no confidence vote, defeat of an important bill), government expected to resign 1. Minister must reply to MPs‘ questions 2. HC may force the minister to resign ▪ Minister resigns due to a serious mistake ▪ 1954 Thomas Dugdale (Crichel Down affair) ▪ 1982 lord Carrington (Falkland war) ▪ Resignation following a failure is rare ▪ E.g. 2003 Iraq (chemical weapons) ▪ Resignation following private scandals ▪ 1963 Profumo affair ▪ 1992 David Mellor ▪ 1994 Tim Yeo ▪ Constitutional theory ▪ Ministers must answer publicly for all decision in their department ▪ Political practice ▪ Ministries – large structures ▪ Multiple delegation of responsibility ▪ Fuzzy borders of responsibility (quangos) ▪ Quick and frequent reshuffles ▪ Party discipline (parties support ministers) ▪ American war of independence ▪ HC x lord North 1778-9 1. Secrecy – decision-making takes place in private 2. Unanimity – once the decision was taken, all ministers are obliged to support it 3. Confidence – cabinet must retain support of the HC ▪ Political practice ▪ Occasionally PMs undermine collective responsibility ▪ 1975 Harold Wilson : EC ▪ 2016 David Cameron: Brexit 1. FPTP: Westminster, local elections England and Wales 2. AMS: Wales, Scotland, London assembly 3. STV: Northern Ireland Assembly, deputy Speakers HC, local elections in Scotland, Northern Ireland and EP elections in Northern Ireland 4. Alternative Vote (AV) – Speaker (HC) and chairs of HC committees, by-elections for hereditary peers 5. Supplementary vote – mayors in London, England and Scotland 6. PR – EP outside Northern Ireland ▪ Elections = de facto „referendum“ on future PM ▪ Single chain of delegation of power ▪ Elections – parliament – government - administration ▪ Hailsham (1976): „elective dictatorship“ ▪ Parliament = only directly elected body ▪ Parliamentary sovereignty 1. One round 2. Each party: one candidate 3. Single-member districts 4. „winner-takes-all principle“ ❑ Favours largest parties ❑ Extreme parties penalized ❑ Small parties penalized ▪ Except for small parties with local bastions ❑ Clear choice between two government alternatives ❑ Conducive to bipartism ❑ Conducive to one-party
Recommended publications
  • Public Administration in Great Britain

    Public Administration in Great Britain

    Public Administration in Great Britain OMAR GUERRERO-OROZCO Whoever shall read the admirable treatise of Tacitus on the manners of the Germans, will find that it is from them the English have bor- rowed the idea of their political government. This beautiful system was invented first in the woods. Montesquieu, De l’espirit des lois, 1741 Translated by Margaret Schroeder Revised by the author Layout by Leticia Pérez Solís Table of Contents Prologue .................................... 11 Introduction ................................. 15 Part One THE BRITISH PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Chapter 1 THE BRITISH CULTURE ...................... 27 Cultural Diversity in Administration ............. 28 Neo-Latins and Anglo-Saxons .................. 30 Causes of the “decline” of the neo-latin peoples ............. 31 Looking to the future ................................ 35 Germanic Peoples in Britannia .................. 36 Roman Britannia .................................. 37 Germanic migration ................................ 43 Destruction of the Roman Civilization ................. 45 Halting National Unity ............................. 48 Chapter 2 THE CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE ... 51 Insularity and Territoriality ..................... 51 7 Omar Guerrero-Orozco The British ................................. 56 Politics ..................................... 63 The Language ............................... 67 Chapter 3 THE FORMATION OF THE BRITISH ADMINISTRATIVE STATE: INTERNAL FACTORS .................. 73 Causes of the Uniqueness of the British
  • Disraeli and the Early Victorian ‘History Wars’ – Daniel Laurie-Fletcher

    Disraeli and the Early Victorian ‘History Wars’ – Daniel Laurie-Fletcher

    Disraeli and the Early Victorian ‘History Wars’ – Daniel Laurie-Fletcher FJHP Volume 25 (2008 ) Disraeli and the Early Victorian ‘History Wars’ Daniel Laurie-Fletcher Flinders University The American historian, Gertrude Himmelfarb, once put the question: ‘Who now reads Macaulay?’ Her own reply to the rhetorical question was: Who, that is, except those who have a professional interest in him–and professional in a special sense: not historians who might be expected to take pride in one of their most illustrious ancestors, but only those who happen to be writing treatises about him. In fact, most professional historians have long since given up reading Macaulay, as they have given up writing the kind of history he wrote and thinking about it as he did. i The kind of history and thinking Himmelfarb was referring to is the ‘Whig interpretation of history’ which is one based on a grand narrative that demonstrated a path of inevitable political and economic progress, a view made famous by the Whig politician and historian Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800-1859). ii In his History of England: From the Accession of James II (1848-1860), Macaulay maintained that the development of political institutions of the nation had brought increased liberties accompanied by the growth of economic prosperity. Macaulay’s study was begun when the educated classes of early Victorian Britain held a widespread fear of a French-style revolution during a time of extensive social, economic and political change. Many, in order to cope with such changes, looked to British history to yield role models as well as cautionary tales of what to avoid in creating a better society.
  • Staging Power in Tudor and Stuart English History Plays: History, Political Thought, and the Redefinition of Sovereignity Kristin M.S

    Staging Power in Tudor and Stuart English History Plays: History, Political Thought, and the Redefinition of Sovereignity Kristin M.S

    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Bookshelf 2015 Staging Power in Tudor and Stuart English History Plays: History, Political Thought, and the Redefinition of Sovereignity Kristin M.S. Bezio University of Richmond, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/bookshelf Part of the Leadership Studies Commons Recommended Citation Bezio, Kristin M.S. Staging Power in Tudor and Stuart English History Plays: History, Political Thought, and the Redefinition of Sovereignty. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2015. NOTE: This PDF preview of Staging Power in Tudor and Stuart English History Plays: History, Political Thought, and the Redefinition of Sovereignity includes only the preface and/or introduction. To purchase the full text, please click here. This Book is brought to you for free and open access by UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bookshelf by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Staging Power in Tudor and Stuart English History Plays History, Political Thought, and the Redefinition of Sovereignty KRISTIN M.S. BEZIO University ofRichmond, USA LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND VIRGINIA 23173 ASHGATE Introduction Of Parliaments and Kings: The Origins of Monarchy and the Sovereign-Subject Compact in the English Middle Ages (to 1400) The purpose of this study is to examine the intersection between early modem political thought, the history that produced the late Tudor and early Stuart monarchies, and the critical interrogation of both taking place on the public theatrical stage. The plays I examine here are those which rely on chronicle histories for their source materials; are set in England, Scotland, or Wales; focus primarily on governance and sovereignty; and whose interest in history is didactic and actively political.

  • The Impossible Office? Anthony Seldon , Assisted by Jonathan Meakin , Illias Thoms Index More Information

    Cambridge University Press 978-1-316-51532-7 — The Impossible Office? Anthony Seldon , Assisted by Jonathan Meakin , Illias Thoms Index More Information Index 10 Downing Street, 6, 17, 45, 112, 127, 149, Alfred the Great, 26 166, 173, 189–90, 330–1, 338 Aliens Act (1905), 51 ‘Garden Suburb’, 118 Allen, Douglas, 300 14 Downing Street, 255 Althorp, John Charles Spencer, Lord 1922 Committee, 194 Althorp, 108, 285 1958 US–UK Defence Agreement, 35 American Civil War (1861–5), 107, 209, 263 2011 UK Census, 50 American colonies, 71, 72, 74, 75 7/7 terrorist attack, 44 American War of Independence (1775–83), 70 Whitehall, 166, 190 40, 76, 83, 210, 212, 227, 230, 251, 9/11 terrorist attack, 44, 211 254, 256 Amherst, Jeffrey, 253 Abdication crisis (1936), 121, 203, 240 Amiens, Treaty of (1802), 90, 96 Aberdeen, George Hamilton-Gordon, Lord Anderson, John, 295 Aberdeen, 30, 102, 104, 105, 106, 110, Andreotti, Giulio, 140 113, 173, 181, 212, 234, 262, 287, Andrew, Duke of York, 17 316, 319 Anglican Church. See Church of England Act of Settlement (1701), 12, 223, 251 Anglo French Naval Convention (1911), Act of Union (1707), 10, 12, 26, 38, 66, 265 156, 223 Anglo–Japanese Alliance (1902), 264 Act of Union (1800), 39, 89 Anne, Queen, 12, 14, 22, 64, 65, 93, 223, 251 Adams, John, 168, 227 Archbishop of Canterbury, 25 Adams, W. G. S., 118 Argyll, John Campbell, Duke of Argyll, Addington, Henry, 49, 90, 96, 268, 318, 337 23, 82 Adelaide, Queen, 231, 232 aristocracy, 48 Adenauer, Konrad, 140 Armstrong, William, 143, 144, 171, Admiralty, 26, 117, 155, 250,
  • HIST 385 Study Guide 3

    HIST 385 Study Guide 3

    HIST 385 Study Guide: Exam II I. Identification The second section will be listing and identification section. For identifications, be sure to explain completely who, what, when, where, why, how & significance for each item. Political Augustinianism Icon Controversy Charles Martel Poitiers Ethelred the Unraed Term “Viking” origins Partition of Verdun Wessex Immunitas Tacitus, Germania Charlemagne Hincmar of Rheims Paul the Deacon Alcuin of York Venerable Bede Alfred the Great Saracens Magyars Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Offa of Mercia Lindisfarne Louis the Pious Louis the German Charles the Bald Lothar II Hastings Carolingian capitularies Odo of Aquitaine March lords Theodulf of Orleans Glossaries Comites Placitum generale Saxons Song of Roland Bretwalda Alphabet of Middle Ages Rex Anglorum Saracens Hincmar of Rheims Libri Carolini Charlemagne’s coronation Missi dominici Carolingian miniscule Einhard Romanesque Gothic Oaths of Strasbourg Partition at Messen Synod of Whitby Celtic Renaissance Lindisfarne Gospels Otto the Great Henry the Fowler Charles the Simple Rollo the Norman Battle of Lechfeld Battle of Edington Monks of St. Philibert Burhs Fyrd Mansus Alfred the Great Guthrum the Dane Bosky Land Servus Polyptychs Danegeld Danelaw longship William the Conqueror filioque Iconoclast Controversy Transubstantiation Shire Moot Hundred Court Justicar Witan King Stephen The Anarchy Sheriff Chamberlain Chancellor & Chancery Jury of Presentment Assize of Clarendon Common Law Alfred’s Doom Book King’s Peace King’s Justice House of Commons Model Parliament House of Lords Curia Regis Earls Viking Age Henry I Beauclerc Battle of Dyle Circuit Courts Charles the Fat Henry II of England Edward I of England King’s Bench Court of Common Pleas Exchequer wapentake Treaty of Wedmore Felony Concept of a Jury II.
  • Norman Gash 1912–2009

    Norman Gash 1912–2009

    NORMAN GASH Norman Gash 1912–2009 BORN ON 16 JANUARY 1912 at Meerut, in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, Norman Gash was one of seven children, two of whom died in infancy; his mother Kate Hunt, a bootmaker’s daughter, had married his father Frederick Gash in 1902. From a family long established as agricultural labourers in Berkshire and Oxfordshire, Frederick was stationed in Meerut. Rising from private to regimental sergeant major in the Royal Berkshire Regiment, he retired from the army in 1921, and then worked for the Inland Revenue. So authoritarian was he that his son, even when a professor in his forties, would be summoned when needed with the cry ‘Boy! Boy!’ Yet Norman was deeply upset when his father died, and in 1982 asked a colleague, then about to visit India, to find the elderly Sikh ex-soldier who maintained the baptismal font in Meerut’s old Garrison Church, and ‘give him some annas from me’. The favourite children were (for Frederick) the eldest, Billy; and (for Kate) the youngest, Tim. So Norman’s childhood saw relative emotional deprivation. All the Gash children received a good education, however, and Norman attended two elementary schools in Reading, Wilson Road School and Palmer School, before winning a scholarship to Reading School, an ancient grammar school. There he excelled at Latin, French and English, canvassed for the Liberal Party, and published at seventeen in the school magazine a rather mannered but eloquent and learned essay on ‘Meredith’s and Hardy’s conception of Napoleon’. Yet in this somewhat cold, unpolished, and unintellectual family, scholarly achievement did not improve relations with his brothers; their uncomprehending reaction was more to jeer than tease.
  • Plantagenet Times to Sheffield Ca. 1800

    Plantagenet Times to Sheffield Ca. 1800

    Chapter 17 Plantagenet times to Sheffield ca. 1800 600 YEARS FROM THE PLANT NAME’S ORIGINS TO A PLANT’S YARD PLANT FAMILY October 1998. One of a series of Chapters by Dr. John S. Plant, Keele University, England, ST5 5BG. parse evidence for 13th century ‘origins’ to the Plant name yields hints of a Plantagenet influ- S ence. Powerful political controversies surrounding Plantagenet-related words may have led to our current need for caution when considering the contemporaneity of various evolving meanings of plant. Trade and war may have influenced both the advent of the Plant name in the north west of England and the Plants’ subsequent advances across the north Midlands, in their progress towards the clearer light that 17th century records bring. The later sections of this Chapter outline the progress of a particular line of Plants from 17th century Cheshire through north Derbyshire to 18th century Sheffield. Their apparent descent inter- sects an environment that includes some key industrial developments. 17.1 A smattering of medieval Plant records ¢¡¤£¦¥¨§ © ©©© !"#¤$&%'#()%'!*+, - ,!*.0/1#(,21 #(34).15!"687:9;<.)).)¨#= ().@?BAC5!¢2D%¢FEG!H, I%'!*.JE4%KL MONP %¢3) ¦ P,#0Q$R#TS¦U¤5J%'!*3 -2;%¢3),!¢ -"#= > R !*%'# -.4¢?VW!B$RX #(34).Y5)!8EG# -.!¢ I).)ZEL!¢[$!¢!* ,"\X5!*5) !").]68# 5 > ^ `_G# -.)-5) ! !* a$"5)!¢ !5!Z+a=b/c2Y<a#¦$d/Y)21=e#(3)).@?fA"5!W#5!¢ * $"5)<%-5 5)g)%'!c.)</c)-5!*.ihbj¨(3) !DS¦U+?S¦kI f5).l EL#(3)nm(©op/c+2J+n !*%'# -.)g).q$Rg#( 5!H#(35Ors<)%'#()54 !8%'#(¢ P #(3)4.]tu#(<.)/1!*sv3),C# -5]#=¨68# =e#(K]).OAC5!7T-5@? AC5)!*,!Q$R#;S¦U¤5O%'!*+3
  • From the King's Will to the Law of the Land

    From the King's Will to the Law of the Land

    FROM THE KING’S WILL TO THE LAW OF THE LAND: ENGLISH FOREST LITIGATION IN THE CURIA REGIS ROLLS, 1199-1243 A THESIS IN History Presented to the Faculty of the University of Missouri-Kansas City in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARTS by PAULA ANN HAYWARD B.A. with Honors, Missouri Western State University, 2018 Kansas City, Missouri 2020 © 2020 PAULA ANN HAYWARD ALL RIGHTS RESERVED FROM THE KING’S WILL TO THE LAW OF THE LAND: ENGLISH FOREST LITIGATION IN THE CURIA REGIS ROLLS, 1199-1243 Paula Ann Hayward, Candidate for the Master of Arts Degree University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2020 ABSTRACT While regulations governing the use of Medieval English land and game previously existed, William I implemented a distinct Anglo-Norman version of forest law after the Norman Conquest in 1066. Forests as a legal term, however, did not solely mean wooded lands. Forests covered many terrains, including pasture or meadow. Forest law evolved from regulations that changed with the king’s will to a bureaucratic system that became law of the land. That shift came slowly through the reigns of King John (r. 1199-1216) and Henry III (r. 1216-1272). While discord dominated John’s relationship with his barons, once his son Henry reached majority he responded favorably to critiques of his reign by the nobles. The forest cases in the Curia Regis Rolls, litigation records from the English central court, highlight the complex legal negotiations between the king, the elites, and those who operated in the forests. Nobles who had access to the king’s court confirmed or maintained their rights to land and its resources through these suits.
  • The Great Reform Act and the Modernization of British Politics: the Impact of Conservative Associations, 1835–1841

    The Great Reform Act and the Modernization of British Politics: the Impact of Conservative Associations, 1835–1841

    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by University of Hertfordshire Research Archive The Great Reform Act and the Modernization of British Politics: The Impact of Conservative Associations, 1835–1841 Matthew Cragoe hen did nationally based party alignments become significant at Wthe grassroots of British politics? The issue has divided historians. For some, the dramatic rise in contested elections following the Great Reform Act, and the unprecedented partisanship of the enlarged electorate, suggest a real modernization of British politics in the 1830s.1 John Philips, for example, has argued that the measure “helped orient popular politics more con- sistently around national issues,” and Frank O’Gorman and Philip Salmon have both pointed to the way in which the system of annual voter registration introduced in 1832 worked toward a similar end: not only did local parties develop new machinery to deal with registration, but their annual canvass of those eligible for the franchise, in Salmon’s words, “brought the agency of party into every elector’s home and . the politics of Westminster much closer to the electorate.”2 “By Matthew Cragoe is professor of modern history at the University of Hertfordshire. Having written widely on nineteenth-century electoral culture and the twentieth-century Conservative Party, he is currently leading a project that explores the cultural dimensions of parliamentary enclosure and landscape change in the English midlands, 1700–1900. The author would like to thank Paul Readman, Rohan MacWilliam, and the JBS’s anonymous referees for their constructive comments on an earlier draft of this article. 1 Derek Beales suggests that while the number of electors rose by 50 percent, the number of active voters increased by 200–500 percent (“The Electorate before and after 1832: The Right to Vote, and the Opportunity,” Parliamentary History 11, no.
  • Les Députés Du Parlement Russe Pensent-Ils?

    Les Députés Du Parlement Russe Pensent-Ils?

    Les députés du Parlement russe pensent-ils ? Rapport entre la synchronie et la diachronie dans l’analyse de certains termes de langues européennes liés au concept de ” parlement ” Sergueï Sakhno To cite this version: Sergueï Sakhno. Les députés du Parlement russe pensent-ils ? Rapport entre la synchronie et la diachronie dans l’analyse de certains termes de langues européennes liés au concept de ” parlement ”. J.J. Briu. Terminologie et analyse conceptuelle, P. Lang, pp.153-190, 2011. halshs-00999515 HAL Id: halshs-00999515 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00999515 Submitted on 6 Jun 2014 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. 1 Serguei Sakhno, U. Paris Ouest [email protected] Les députés du Parlement russe pensent-ils ? Rapport entre la synchronie et la diachronie dans l’analyse de certains termes de langues européennes liés au concept de « parlement » : la sémantique et la construction du sens - In : J.J. Briu (éd.) Terminologie et analyse conceptuelle, Berne etc. : P. Lang, 2011, pp. 153-190. À l’origine de la réflexion sur le rapport synchronie / diachronie en terminologie, et sur ses applications à l’analyse de la construction du sens dans nos langues (ce qui constitue l’objet de cet article) fut la situation pédagogique suivante : Il y a quelques années, dans le cadre d’un cours de russe pour étudiants non spécialistes, je voulais commenter le verbe russe dumat’ ‘penser, réfléchir’.
  • K Historii Parlamentní Demokracie a Parlamentarismu

    K Historii Parlamentní Demokracie a Parlamentarismu

    K historii parlamentní demokracie a parlamentarismu Typickým znakem a projevem zastupitelské demokracie je parlamentarismus. Jde o parlamentní demokracii, v moderní době se většinou opírající o demokratický systém nebo demokratickou metodu uskutečňování státní moci. Základním principem parlamentarismu je rozdělení zákonodárných a výkonných orgánů. Většinou však jde o součinnost tří orgánů, když další odpovědnou institucí je hlava státu, představovaná prezidentem nebo panovníkem (monarchou). Zákonodárnou moc v systémech parlamentní demokracie vykonává parlament, představovaný sborem zástupců těch příslušníků státního společenství, kteří mají právo volit své zástupce do zastupitelského orgánu státní moci. Státní systémy parlamentní demokracie se v soudobých podmínkách vyznačují třemi modelovými podobami jako: 1) parlamentní forma vlády (kde je nejvyšším orgánem uplatňování státní moci zastupitelský sbor, parlament, sněmovna), 2) prezidentská forma vlády (kde je nejvyšším orgánem hlava státu) a 3) vláda parlamentu (kde je nejvyšším orgánem vláda). Důležitým faktorem je samozřejmě i vertikální dělba moci mezi soustavou nejvyšších státních orgánů (hlavou státu, parlamentem i vládou) a soustavou místní správy, do níž lze zahrnout i systém správy zemské, krajské, v provinciích, vojvodstvích, župách, départementech, kantonech atp. Charakteristickým znakem tzv. kontinentálního systému je rozdělení místních správních orgánů na orgány státní správy a orgány státní samosprávy (poznámka L.P. – v České republice jde však v daných poměrech o systém velice nefunkční vzhledem k nerespektování principů historických tradic, regionální identity, účinné decentralizace pravomocí, racionálního rozdělení kompetencí, spádovosti území, subsidiarity, efektivnosti nakládání s veřejnými financemi i s daněmi poplatníků). Angloamerický typ místní správy neobsahuje rozdělení na státní správu a samosprávu. Nejprve si připomeňme tzv. Althing (z islandského slova znamenajícího „všeobecný sněm“ či „všeobecné národní shromáždění“), který je nejstarším parlamentem v Evropě.
  • Skotlands Selvstændighed - Søgen Efter Egen Stat Og Placering I EU

    Skotlands Selvstændighed - Søgen Efter Egen Stat Og Placering I EU

    Kandidatafhandling Skotlands Selvstændighed - Søgen efter egen stat og placering i EU Af Therese Lihn Thomsen Cand.ling.merc. Engelsk - Europæiske Studier Copenhagen Business School 2014 22. april 2014 Vejleder: Kathrine Ravn Jørgensen Department of International Business Communication 79,8 sider á 2275 typeenheder – i alt 181.613 typeenheder Skotlands Selvstændighed Indholdsfortegnelse ABSTRACT 3 DEL I INDLEDNING 5 1.1. PROBLEMFORMULERING 6 1.2. VALG AF METODE OG TEORI 7 1.3. AFGRÆNSNING 8 DEL II BEGREBSAFKLARING OG TEORI 9 2.1. BEGREBSAFKLARING: NATION, STAT, NATIONALSTAT, NATIONALISME OG NATIONAL IDENTITET 9 2.2. ANVENDTE TEORIER 10 2.2.1. KONSTRUKTIVISME - ELITENS ROLLE I SKABELSEN AF NATIONEN 10 2.2.2. ESSENTIALISME - SPROGET OG RELIGIONEN SOM NATIONENS KERNETRÆK 12 2.2.3. ETNOSYMBOLISME - BETYDNINGEN AF HISTORIEN OG KULTURELLE FÆLLESTRÆK 13 2.3. TEORETISK TILGANG TIL EUROPÆISK INTEGRATION 15 2.3.1. NEOFUNKTIONALISME - SUPRANATIONALE POLITISKE MAGTCENTRE 16 2.3.2. INTERGOVERNMENTALISME - DE SUVERÆNE STATERS EGENINTERESSER 18 2.3.3. MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE - MANGFOLDIGHEDEN AF POLITISKE AKTØRER 19 2.4. DISKUSSION AF ANVENDTE TEORIER OG HYPOTESE 21 DEL III: ANALYSE I – SKOTLANDS IDENTITET OG FORHOLDET TIL STATEN 24 3.1. SKOTLANDS HISTORIE 24 3.2. TILBLIVELSEN AF SKOTLAND 26 3.3. FAKTORER FOR SKOTSK NATIONAL IDENTITET 28 3.3.1. I KRIG MOD ’THE OTHER’ 28 3.3.2. MYTER OG NATIONALE KULTURSYMBOLER 29 3.3.3. THE TRINITY 31 3.3.3.1. LAD O' PAIRTS – EN SKOLE FOR ALLE 31 3.3.3.2. DEN FORENENDE KIRKE 32 3.3.3.3. SCOTS LAW – DET HYBRIDE RETSSYSTEM 33 3.4. FORNUFTSÆGTESKABET - SKABELSEN AF STORBRITANNIEN 34 3.5.