Liberalism

There is no such thing as a perfect electoral system’ The Idea of perfection Is Interpreted differently amongst everybody In the 0K. The word ‘Perfect’ Is defined as having all the necessary or typical characteristics required for a given situation. So everybody will have different thoughts on what really Is a perfect electoral system. Generally, a perfect electoral system is one which has the qualities of being simple, gives a varied choice to the electorate, is fair and proportional, gives a clear outcome and is microcosmic, it represents the people more.

Firstly, it could be argued that the more proportional electoral systems are the losest to a ‘perfect’ electoral system because they show what/who the people of the UK really voted for. One proportional system is the Single Transferrable Vote. This system operates by representatives being elected in large multi-member constituencies, the voting is preferential and also known as Voting Ordinal’ where the voters can vote as many times as they want. The candidates much receive a quota known as a droop quota to actually become elected and if they reach this quota any excess votes are redistributed on the basis ot 2nd preferences.

The calculation used to work out the quota Is (total valid which some eople argue Is too complicated for any elecuons In the 0K, If no candidate reaches the quota then the lowest places candidate Is eliminated and the second preferences of the people that voted for them are redistributed. This system Is used successfully in many UK elections, It’s used In Northern Ireland for elections such as in the Assembly, for local government elections and EU parliament elections. The Republic of Ireland and Scotland both use it for Local Elections However there are both many advantages and disadvantages of using this electoral system.

Firstly it delivers roportional outcomes and it also ensures that votes are largely of equal values. In addition, the threshold is quite high. A party or group of parties have to win over 50% of the popular vote to form a government, this is an advantage because the winning party reflects the majority of the populations wishes. On the other hand, the process Single Transferrable vote uses large multi-member constituencies, this weakens the link between individual MPs and their constituencies, so some people may not feel as involved as they could be throughout the electoral process. Also, STV is less accurate

In translating votes Into seats than other electoral systems such as list systems or some versions of additional member systems. In addition, If a coalition was to be formed under the STV electoral system, It can be argued that the government produced could be unstable and give a disproportional Influence to minor parties that hold the balance of power. Never the less, the voters can choose between a large range of candidates including dfferent candidates of the same party, this allows the public to really vote what they feel most strongly for because of the large range of available candidates.

Secondly, the electoral system Regional List is another proportional system. Again using this system, representatives are elected in large multi-member constituencies, however the political parties draw up a list of candidates in order in which they’ll be elected, the electors cast one single vote for a representing the same political party. The parties have greater control over the electoral process as they can put their favourite candidates at the top of the list. As it is a proportional system, the seats are allocated according to the proportion of votes won by each political party.

Regional list is another successful system which is used for elections to European Parliament in England, Scotland and Wales, the last European election was in 2009 where the amount of seats won were 72, the overall turnout was 1 5,625,823 and the electorate was 45,315,669. However, although it is a proportional system it still has its advantages and disadvantages. It is argued that we shouldn’t use this system because in closed list systems voters cannot chose between candidates from the same party.

Also the parties control the order in which candidates appear on the list and they can favour those who support the leadership. Never the less, Regional List delivers an extremely high degree of proportionality which is an argument for the I-JK using this system for more elections, because the amount of seats the winners of the election gain is proportional to the amount of people who voted for them which is fair isn’t it? In addition, not only does it reflect the voters’ choices, political parties use lists to increase the number of women and ethnic minority candidates in parliament.

However, Just like the Single Transferrable Vote, Regional List uses large multi-member constituencies which weakens the links etween representatives and constituents. Thirdly, it could be argued that Majoritarian/plurality systems are the next closest to being a perfect electoral system as they are very simple and produce a stable government. First Past the Post electoral system is the most common Majoritarian system as it is used for the General Elections in the I-JK.

First Past the Post is simple because the country is split into roughly even sized constituencies and in each constituency, people elect one representative, it is a single vote system and whoever wins the most votes in the constituency wins a seat in parliament. This system was last used in 2010 at the last general election where it lead to a hung parliament and the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats went into a coalition to run the country. The Conservatives gained 307 seats, Labour won 258 seats and the Liberal Democrats won 57 seats.

Never the less, it may seem straight forward and simple but it has a variety of advantages and disadvantages. The fact it’s simple is one of the advantages, not only is it simple to understand but the ballot paper is simple as you can only cast one vote. Also, it produces a quick and clear vote and it also produces a stable government as the inning party adds a bonus of seats and single party governments with a working majority have significant control over the legislative process, both of these factors contributing to the creation of a stable government.

However, despite these advantages the First Past the Post system produces disproportional outcomes, this is where the amount of seats won in the election doesn’t reflect the share of votes received. Also, it favours plurality rather than majority support, so the victorious candidates don’t need a majority to gain power. Not only this, but First Past the Post roduces votes of unequal value, the constituencies are roughly the same size, they’re not exactly the same size which means different constituencies have votes of different values, also most votes are wasted due to tactical voting so these votes don’t even help elect the MPs.

Never the less, First Past the Post produces a responsible governing party in office at the moment, and the potential alternative government. This system also produces effective representation, as the country is split into single- member constituencies, it shows a clear link between voters and the elected representative. There is only one MP responsible. On the other hand, First Past the Post only offers a limited choice to the voters. Only one candidate stands on behalf of the party, so the choice isn’t as diverse as the more proportional systems like Regional List.

To follow on from that point, many I-JK constituencies are known as ‘Safe Seats’ where the majority of people from that constituency will vote for a certain party whether they like their politics or not. For example, the constituency of Penrith is known as a safe seat for Conservatives. In addition, tactical voting is often used as way to obstruct a party to get into power, by voting for the party which is most likely to compete with the winning party and not by voting for their most preferred party. Fourthly, Supplementary vote is another form of a Majoritarian/plurality system.

The voter only has one vote to put down their top two candidates and if no candidate wins a majority then all but the top two are eliminated and the second preference votes of the eliminated candidates are added to the first preference candidates. After the elimination the candidate with the highest total is elected. This system is a ariant of the Alternative Vote. The Supplementary Vote system is used to elect the London Mayor and Mayors of other cities. The last election was in 2012 which was the London Mayoral election. Boris Johnson (conservative) won a second term in power by 3% beating his Labour Rival Ken Livingston.

Phung Huynh ENG 111 Out Class Essay #2 Final How to Pursue the American Dream For an immigrant, the American Dream is to achieve economic well-being and a good quality of life through hard work, entrepreneurship, and perseverance. It is the driving force behind most immigration, and its realization is the achievement dimension of the American Dream to reach to the fullest life. What is the American dream? And how can one pursue it? Does it still exist, or is it over? Carl Thomas’s article “ Is the American Dream Over? ” states that the American Dream is still around and people have to work hard to achieve it or to reclaim it. Thomas’s argument that the government is leading us to a path of economic downfall sheds light on Bob Herbert’s analysis of the recession in our country to recognize how much trouble we’re in. In particular, Thomas’s analysis of the causes, consequences, and solutions helps us understand Herbert’s essay more clearly on what the main roots to achieve a better economy and standard of living are. “For generations, parents have told their children about “the American dream. Basically it has meant building a life based on the foundational principles that created and have sustained America for more than 200 years”(568), Thomas starts off by describing how this life was supposed to be getting better and better as each new generation rose and succeeded past those of their ancestors, or that’s how it was explained in the American dream. But as of recently the recession has brought on a new style of the American dream, one that includes declining standards of living and over regulating government issues.

He blames the government is leading us to go a wrong way and we also, as a society have become too dependent on the leaders. He lists the reasons, in his own words, “ setting aside war, which was imposed on America, the eclipse of liberalism’s American dream has been largely caused by expanding, encroaching, over-taxing, over spending, and over-regulating government. This has produced a country of government addicts with an entitlement mentality” (569). Thomas does not hesitate to put direct blame about American’s failing dream on government’s policy to make people see as clear as the economy is in bad shape.

He believes people should not rely on the government too much, that we have to work for our own benefit. In contrast, Thomas goes on to say that he disagrees with Herbert’s claim that those who strive for the American Dream can still earn it. Herbert claims, “ we’ve become a hapless, can’t do society, and it’s. frankly embarrassing” (566), Thomas points out “ is it not the politicians who lead a people increasingly dependent on them who are responsible for this? The liberals among them and their policies are leading us down a path to economic and cultural insolvency” (569).

Thomas states what causes of our society is failing public schools, and produce graduates who are not up to par with other nations standards to Herbert’ claiming on economy. Herbert explains his view on how the American Dream is slowly become less and less reachable and what we need to focus on in order for the restoration of the dream. Herbert state, “ wherever you choose to look at the economy and jobs, the public schools, the budget deficits, the nonstop warfare overseas–you’ll see a country in sad shape” (564).

Not only does he state the factors which are slowly causing this dream to become less attainable, but he believes that the American people are doing nothing about it and everyone is in denial. Furthermore, Thomas strongly insists “ the creation of a government that is out of control, and thus out of touch robs every citizen, preventing fulfillment of the original American Dream” (569). His tones in this passage is disappointed on dysfunctional government that putting their faith in the wrong place. Allowing politicians to have such a strong influence on individual takes away one’s sense of self-reliance and initiative.

Cultural faith described as believing that politicians can improve personal life, he confirms that way can never lead one’s dream be fulfilled. The dream begins individuals taking responsibility for one own life, behavior and success. People should work hard and think smart to brings natural rewards. Individuals in America are free to choose what they want to do do with their lives. The American Dream is liberty. Moreover, Herbert says ,“ consider this startling information from the Pew Hipic Center: in the year following the official end of the Great Recession in June 2009, foreign-born workers in the U.

S. gained 656,000 jobs while native-born workers lost 1. 2 million. ” (565). He explains that American should not discriminate against these foreign-born workers, but the U. S. government needs to step up and provide everyone jobs that desire to live a comfortable lifestyle. The effects of the recession will be felt for many years due to the lack of ill-advised deficit program that has been in use for the last couple of years. Herbert claims that in order to recover from these troubled times that our country is facing, we need to step back and realize how much trouble we’re truly in.

He adds,“ the wreckage from the recession and the nation’s mindlessly destructive policies in the years leading up to the recession is all around us” (565). He reports the true nightmares that state and local governments have to face, and how they are reducing services, cutting work, and raising taxes and fees from American. One of the most important things back in the day was to educate the young, and it appears that America has forgotten that concept. Our school systems used to be considered the best in the world, and now that is not true.

However, Thomas asserts, “ the rules for achieving the American dream may no longer be taught in and supported by culture, but that doesn’t mean they don’t work” (570). His hope for reaching the American dream is that if people live with high morals and follow good conduct rules in society like studying hard, going to college and graduate degree, getting married on planning, saving and investing for retirements in right way, and being honest will end up fulfilling one’s living dream. He discusses that we need to return to the old methods of good old hard earned prosperity in other to be successful.

People need to work for good fortune; it is not just handed to one on a silver platter. Thomas supports Herbert’s claim that “ America will never get its act together until we recognize how much trouble we’re really in” (570). They both finally agree for one point that people have to acknowledge the obvious realistic life that we are in now. Thomas confirms one more time “ we must also understand what got us here and the path that lead upward. What got us here is unrestrained liberalism” (570). He does not forget to remind us that following on the high moral rules and not laying on the leader too much.

Thus, one way of resurrecting the American dream in Herbert’s opinion is to establish more jobs so that everyone can have a decent living. Herbert claims the New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s will only hurt the schools because of planning to eliminate the jobs of thousands of public school teachers over the next two years. He implies the way how government is acting to lead American people to follow in such a deep slide. He also points out that “ America will never get its act together until we recognize how much trouble we’re really in, and how much effort and shared sacrifice is needed to stop the decline.

Only then will we be able to begin resuscitating the dream” (567). Herbert suggests there should be a united among American people to work together to build up again the used-to-be number one strongest economy of the world – the America. As a consequence, the American Dream is something that humanity wonders about and the answers are vary. Despite of the bad conditions how today economy is, there’re abilities to rebuild it up not only how it was, but also is stronger than before. Both articles are showing to us very clear causes and consequences that presenting in our society, and how government issues is leading us down to path.

Both columnists also suggest American people must realize as soon as possible the big trouble that we are in, and action need to be taken now in order to once again pursue the American Dream. Government should invest and effort into economy and education, because that’s the only way to support our new generation. Many of immigrants sacrificed their jobs, their education levels and their languages at their homelands to start their new live in America and succeed in reaching their dream.

In my opinion, the American Dream embraces a sight of respective prosperity, personal safety and liberty. With America actually being seen as the land of assurances, the American Dream is an associated dream with the freedom and opportunity of recognition, power, triumph and contentment. On the other hand, American people also have to stay out of government’s control and stand on their own foot to achieve the comfortable living standard. The government should have rebuild the system to lead people getting a better life, to reach the American Dream.

Difference Between Socialism and Liberalism • Categorized under Ideology,Politics | Difference Between Socialism and Liberalism Socialism vs Liberalism The terms ‘socialism’ and liberalism’ are used a lot nowadays, and many people often mistake one for the other. In order to differentiate between these two terms, one must keep in mind the clear-cut differences by defining the prevailing ideology of each term. The tenets of socialism assert that the state should wield total economic power by manipulating prices of goods and wages of workers.

Furthermore, socialism requires people to submit to the rule of law. In return for their compliance, citizens are provided with resources rationed by the government. On the other hand, liberalism is more challenging to define since it is further divided into classical and modern liberalism. Classical liberalism states that the government should take control of an institution in order to ensure that it continues to be of service to the people, free of charge. Classical liberalism does not see any need for the government to enforce law and order and subjugate its citizens under the iron rule of law and order.

However, modern liberalism veers away from this ideology by adding a new twist. Modern liberalism asserts that aside from ensuring economic and political security, it is also the government’s job to interfere with people’s day-to-day affairs in order to maintain social security. Modern liberalism, in effect, can be compared to socialism, because both of them assert that the government can effectively uplift its citizens not only by seizing control of the economy or private institutions, but also by keeping a close watch on citizens to ensure that none of them become subversive.

Many modern-day politicians have been supporting modern liberalism because they believe that the government can solve all problems once it is granted total power. These politicians point out the inequality of different classes in society, and propose reforms that at first seem to favor the poor and marginalized, but in the end just grants the government reason to extend its powers to curtail private interests. And even though liberals seem to advocate reforms to improve government policy, they are still embracing the same old political structure to further their own ambitions.

The late U. S. President Franklin Roosevelt himself defined liberalism as the ‘saving grace for the far-sighted conservative,’ and also ‘reform what you want to preserve. ’ Capitalists and supporters of democracy believe that socialism and modern liberalism are detrimental to economic progress. Because prices of goods and wage of workers is controlled directly by the government, privately-owned companies and institutions cannot flourish under a socialist or modern liberalist government.

People who value freedom of speech and human rights likewise oppose socialism and modern liberalism, because they believe that such ideologies limit a citizen’s right to choose which products to buy, what job to take, what religious belief to espouse. Even though modern liberalism is more subtle and suave than socialism, it still ends up giving too much power to the government in the guise of economic, political, and social security. Summary 1. Socialism says that only by granting the state total economic and political power can economic progress and equality among citizens be attained. . Classical liberalism says that the state should only take over an institution to ensure that citizens can freely benefit from that particular institution’s services. Classical liberalism does not require the thorough enforcing of law and order to reach economic progress and equality. 3. Modern liberalism says that the state should interfere not only in economic or political affairs, but also in social affairs, such as day-to-day activities of its citizens. In effect, modern liberalism ceases to be associated with classical liberalism, and instead becomes similar to socialism.

To what extent have conservatives supported tradition and continuity? Traditional conservatives place an emphasis on tradition as they believe, according to Edmund Burke that traditional customs and practices in society is ‘God given’. Burke thus believed that society should was shaped by the ‘law of the Creator’, or what he called the ‘natural law’. If human beings tamper the world they are challenging the will of God. Burke further described tradition as a partnership between ‘those who are living, those who are dead and those who are to be born’.

Tradition is also revered as it could be argued to proven to work as it has been ‘tested by time’, and therefore be preserved for the benefit of the living and for generations to come. Tradition reflects a Darwinian belief that those institutions and customs that have survived have only done so because they have worked and been found to be of value. They have been endorsed by a process of ‘natural selection’ and demonstrated their fitness to survive. Conservatives also respect tradition because it generates, for both society and the individual, a sense of identity.

Similar article:

Established customs and practices are ones that individuals can recognize; they are familiar and reassuring. Tradition also generates social cohesion by linking people from the past and providing them with a collective sense of who they are. Change, is unknown and therefore it creates uncertainty and insecurity, and so endangers our happiness. Tradition, therefore, consists of rather more than political institutions that have stood the test of time. Some modern Conservatives have also valued tradition, these include, the ‘one nation’ conservatives and the Christian Democrats. One nation’ conservatism began in the 19th century when Disraeli coined the term. Disraeli wrote against the background of growing industrialization, economic inequality and, in continental Europe at least, revolutionary upheaval. He tried to draw attention to the danger of Britain being divided into ‘two nations: the Rich and the Poor’. In the best conservative tradition, Disraeli’s argument was based on a combination of prudence and principle. Alternatively, growing social inequality starts revolutions. People would not accept their misery and they would revolt, as Disraeli feared.

Revolutions broke out in Europe in 1830 and 1848 seemed to prove this belief. Reform was therefore needed for Britain to prevent the tide of the revolution arriving in Britain and it would protect the interests of the rich. In office, Disraeli was responsible for the Second Reform Act of 1867, which for the first time extended the right to vote to the working class, and for the social reforms that improved housing and hygiene. Disraeli’s idea’s had a considerable impact on conservatism and contributed to a radical and reforming tradition that appeals to both the pragmatic instincts of conservatives and their social duty.

Disraeli’s ideas formed the basis of ‘one-nation conservatism’. Randolph Churchill took up Disraeli’s ideas in the late 19th century and he stressed the need for traditional institutions, e. g. the monarchy, the House of Lords and the church-to enjoy a wider base of social support. One-nation tradition was revived and reached high points in the 1950-60’s, when conservative governments in the UK and elsewhere came to practice a version of Keynesian social democracy, working for full employment and enlarging welfare provision.

Harold Macmillan explained it in ‘The Middle Way’ and he promoted ‘planned capitalism’, which he described as ‘a mixed system which combines state ownership, regulation or control of certain aspects of economic activity with the drive and initiative of private enterprise’. The purpose of one-nationism is to consolidate hierarchy rather than to remove it, and its wish to improve conditions of the less well-off is limited to the desire to ensure that the poor no longer pose a threat to established order-tradition. The Christian Democrats are also examples of conservatives supporting tradition.

Christian democracy is a political ideology that seeks to apply Christian principles to public policy. It emerged in 19th century Europe under the influence of conservatism and Catholic social teaching. The new form of conservatism was committed to political democracy and was influenced by the paternalistic social traditions of Catholicism. There are Conservatives who have challenged tradition, namely, the New Right Recently, it has begun to have a much more complex ideological basis. The New Right was in the 1970s/1980s a movement personified by Ronald Reagan in the USA and Margaret Thatcher in Britain.

Its key threads are the free market economics of Milton Friedman and F. A. Hayek, a commitment to individualism and personal responsibility, and a staunchly authoritarian stance on crime and other moral issues. The New Right was, as its name suggests, a significant, distinct break with the conservative thinking that had gone before. It was a radical break with the post-war Keynesian ‘social democratic’ consensus on the economy, and this can be seen as challenging the old definition of Conservatism. The word ‘radical’ only applies if you consider a very limited timeframe, however.

The commitment to economic individualism likely came from the fact that, until recently, richer classes had to contribute very little tax. This neo-Conservative principle led to significant change: it has been applied more or less egalitarianly, reducing the tax burden of the poor too (that said, it helps the rich far more than the poor, who now have to pay an increased share of indirect taxes. ) The same can be said of many other core beliefs – not only Margaret Thatcher’s ‘Victorian values’ and the Reagan-Thatcher cutting of public spending, but the crackdown on trade unions and the new approach to economics developed by Friedman and Hayek.

Critics of Conservatism have pointed out that they invariably follow the traditional Conservative agenda, and have claimed that they are just an attempt to give Conservatism a new intellectual foundation. Libertarian Conservatism also counteracts the traditional conservative view on tradition. Liberal ideas have influenced conservatism, especially classical liberal ideas. The New Right has been seen to have usurped traditional conservative ideas in the interests of classical liberalism.

Economic liberalism whereby there is a belief in the free market as a self-regulating mechanism that tends naturally to deliver general prosperity and opportunities for all. Liberal conservatives believe that economic liberalism is compatible with traditional, conservative social philosophy based on ideas and values such as authority and duty. Edmund Burke, seen as the founder of traditional conservatism was also a keen supporter of the economic liberalism of Adam Smith. Burke believed the free market is efficient and fair, but it is also, as Burke believed, natural and necessary. The laws of the market are ‘natural laws’.

Burke further accepted that working conditions dictated by the market are, for many, ‘degrading, unseemly, unmanly and often most unwholesome’, but insisted that they would suffer further if the ‘natural course of things’ were disturbed. The capitalist free market could thus be defended on the grounds on tradition, just like the monarchy and the church. However, libertarian conservatives are not consistent liberals and they have a more pessimistic view of human nature, and hence, they support the traditional conservative view on tradition here. A strong state is required to maintain public order and ensure that authority is respected.

Some libertarian conservatives are attracted to free-market theories because they promise to maintain and secure social order. In conclusion, one could argue that overall conservatives do support tradition. Different strands of conservatives may find opportunities to disagree with aspects of traditional conservative ideology, however, it must be said that in every strand of conservatism, from traditional conservatives to the New Right to libertarian conservatives tradition is supported in some form, whilst it may not be wholly supported, it is still supported.

In the period 1896 – 1915, the condition of Italy was relatively in a terrible state in many ways with various political, economic and social problems that hindered the country’s progress. Italy’s Liberal Governments during this period were generally very unsuccessful in dealing with these inherited and growing problems clearly contributing to the end of Liberalism in Italy. More so, the Liberal Government under the rule of Giolitti saw Italy progressing in some circumstances regarding the socio-economic concerns. Nonetheless, it is very comprehensible that the Liberal Governments lacked solving the problems that they faced.

The Liberal Government’s major issue following unification was Italy’s economic progress due to various problems. The economic situation in Italy after Unification was lacking modern communications such as roads due to a limited degree of industrialisation. This was a huge problem for the Liberal’s to solve because it meant that Italy was industrially declined in comparison to most of Europe. As of this decline, the Liberal’s tried to put an end to the Economic backwardness by increasing industrial production. This occurred by essentially increasing the percentage of the workforce in industry.

Industrial giants such as Fiat and Pirelli employed more workers to help contribute to the increased percentage working in industry from 13% in 1871 to 23% in 1913. This proved successful for the Liberal’s in ways that they improved industrial output. However, the workforce for industry being 23% was still approximately half than that of the workforce for agriculture being 57%. Accordingly, the Liberal Government did not heavily improve industrialisation successfully. Moreover, this increase in industrial workforce did prove to widen the north-south divide socially because of industry situating mainly in the north of Italy.

To conclude, you would say that the Liberal Government failed to deal with this inherited problem although it did increase the industrial workforce but insignificantly achieving their aim. Thus, you would deduce that it left Italy with little preparation for war and accordingly the social problems that were caused. It appears to be that the Liberal Government had worsened the north-south divide caused by their merely achieved aim in improving industry. Heavy tariffs and taxes on Italian exports also enforced by the Liberals completely ended Italian export industries especially in silk trade.

Judging this, unemployment increased primarily in the south causing social unrest. The Government’s improved industrial development had also caused redistribution of the population all over Italy, densely populating the towns and cities that were not prepared for this overcrowding and influx. As of this, the enforced economic changes, Italy had an augmenting number of social problems combining with the Liberal Government’s inherited problems. Firstly, this was the great north-south divide that was very difficult to unite due to the south being extremely backward and poor and the north being more developed in every way.

This social inequality is clearly outlined in reasonable living standards in the north but widespread low living standards of the south. The government’s inherited social problem was also education. The north had improving education standards – with high literacy rates however, this was clearly inverse to the south’s high illiteracy rates figuring over 88% and low education levels. As a result, the Government dealt with this, by trying to improve education in the south and so by 1913, the percentage of illiteracy had decreased to 65. 3% proving a successful improvement.

One of Giolitti’s policies of reform was to make anti-malarial drugs free especially in poverty struck areas of the south. This policy had considerably improved the health for most people in the south of Italy. Furthermore, there was a more obvious inherited problem for the Liberal’s. This was the percentage of the population who spoke the Italian language, because only 2. 5% spoke it. This occurred due to the Italians speaking their regional languages in states like Venice and Rome. Prior to these inherited problems, we would conclude that the Government had hugely reduced adult illiteracy rates especially in the south from 88% to 65. %. The Liberals had also efficiently improved health services especially in the south by enforcing free anti-malaria drugs mainly in the southern areas of Italy. However, the Liberal’s had failed in solving all of the problems because of factors such as unemployment remaining high and the southern problem still remaining prevalent on a whole. Although, it is fair to judge that the Liberal Government was fairly successful in dealing with the various social problems it had faced causing significant improvements as stated before.

However, the outstanding social problems had led to an increase in the support of socialism and also leading to an increased fear of communism stressing political problems for the Liberal Governments to deal with. The Liberals had dominated politics generally for a long period of time. However the Liberal Government had lost out on support hugely by 1915 under Giolitionism. The Liberal Government’s general aims were to stabilise Italian politics, end the church state division and obviously gain support for Liberalism.

This is true in every way, because only 2% of the population (middle class/wealthy landowners) elected from the North of Italy. This clearly meant that the Liberal Government’s aim was to maximise their support for a sustained period of time. However, in some cases of Giolittionism, the Liberals have been too geared to the needs of the wealthy and have not met the needs of the poor. This meant that the Liberal’s had to try and work for the benefit of the poor and other groups including moderate socialists and Catholics to deal with this problem i. . Transformismo. However this proposed “fair government” did not solve the major political issue, which were the differences between these other groups and the Liberal Government that was clearly outstanding under Giolitti’s political system. This made it fairly easy for Giolitti to lose support when enforcing policies and so the Liberal Governments fell through fairly quickly on a whole. From what I can judge from the Liberal Political system, there were various threats posed against the Liberal Governments from the far left and far right.

This was because the working class solely turned their support to other groups who also wanted reform and revolt. As to this, the Liberal Government’s failed terribly in successfully dealing with political problems in the period 1896-1915. This was because of not being able to improve the political system for the benefit of other groups thus leaving politics stagnated outlining their failure. Overall, from what I can conclude, we can say that the Liberal Governments had not successfully dealt with the problems they faced in the period 1896-1915.

This had ranged from their control of society which, although experienced in some case a slight improvement but in every case failed terribly in improving the main north-south divide that outlined Italy’s divide in society. Their control over the economy had responded to some sort of improvement in terms of industrialisation, yet they still lacked in efficiently industrialising the country for a war or modernisation. Furthermore, we can deduce that the Liberal’s were ineffective in predominantly improving the political system for which lead to the end of Liberalism in Italian politics.

In this essay I am going to be looking at British policies that have taken place since the end of the Second World War. The government have used a mixture of private and public welfare up until today; I am going to be looking into what ideologies influence the policies that have been put into place. Also throughout the essay I will explain how ideologies and policies have an effect on certain social groups in society. The term ideology is the ideas and beliefs of an individual or a group about how the world should be.

There are lots of different political ideologies; the main two I will be looking into are Liberalism and social reformism. However both of these ideologies overlap with Marxist and conservative views which I will look at broadly. The first ideology I am going to look at is Social reformism also known as social democracy. This emerged from the late 1800’s and was set up from the trade unions and non conformist churches such as Methodist in Britain. This ideology has very strong values in helping and supporting people who are worse off than their selves.

They believe that the government has a duty to look after the worse off in society, and they try to do this through the welfare state. They believe that democratic change is the way forward to succeeding in society, this usually means voting will be used to determine what changes are made. Social reformism believes that the government should interfere with the running of society and that the large industries should all is state owned. Another one of their ideas is for everyone to have equal opportunities, also a part of this is the belief that if you have a big income that you should be taxed according to this.

Read also Analyze the Ways in Which British Imperial Policies

This means that the rich will be getting taxed more than the poor which will mean the money will be put into the state to help the worse off, to help everyone become more equal and have equal chances in life. The second ideology I am going to look at is Liberalism which is the philosophy of john Locke, Adam smith and John Stuart Mill. This ideology mainly started in the 1600’s as a movement against the power of the monarchy however became more dominant in the 1800’s. The Liberalists stand for freedom and protection of people’s rights and equality between everyone.

Liberalists believe that the government should have none or very little involvement with the running of society. This includes limiting the state owned businesses and government powers over industries. From a economics point of view Liberalism believes that we should have a free market and free enterprise over the world. They encourage free trade so much in order to move forward towards being a more successful capitalist society. Liberalism does not want the state involved in the economy ect, as they believe it works best without any political input from the government.

However as the liberalists believe in the protection of human rights they accept input in policing, courts, and the military as these are provided to protect individuals. The next ideology I’m going to look briefly at is Marxism also known as socialism. Marxism was first introduced by Karl Marx who believed in having a classless society in the 1600’s. Marxists believed that there were two main groups who were relevant in making the economic system worked. He called them the Bourgeoisie who are the owners of industry, and the proletariat who are the working class.

https://phdessay.com/ap-world-history-units-1-3-study-guide/

The Marxist idea is that the owners of industry exploit the working class to make as much profit out of them as possible. The Marxists notice this and have a view that a revolution should take place which would let the working class rise against the ruling class. Marxists believed that the state should be fully involved in society such as owning industries, and have control over health care, housing and a good welfare system to ensure everyone has equal opportunities at having a good life and a good standard of living.

The last ideology that was mainly used was conservatism which emerged at the time of the French revolution 1789. Conservatism has a very traditional approach and believes in maintaining the status quo or having very little slow change. This ideology believes that the class system in our society works. They believe that having an upper class, middle class and working class is a functional way to live. They believe that we should be able to help the poor but not too much that they get dependent on societies input into helping them.

In 1939 was the beginning of World War 2, where Britain took place in one of the toughest wars known to history. The war affected everyone in the country as individuals, businesses and families. Neville Chamberlain was the Prime minister of Britain at the beginning of World War 2, however in 1940 Chamberlain decided to resign and Winston Churchill became Prime Minister. Post war governments throughout 1945-1975 steered the economy and all the political parties to continue and to further support the welfare state.

This time is also known as the kaynesian and Beveridgian period. William Beveridge was a social reformist who was asked to carry out a a report which was released in 1942. He believed that the government should pay to provide basic welfare, and take responsibility for helping the unemployed and people in poverty. In his report he said that the government should be able to tackle the “5 evil giants” Which are Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. The Beveridge report is such an important part of history because the Beveridge report helped produce the welfare state.

Kaynes was an economist which argued that in times of recessions the government should invest into the economic system to help create jobs for people. This would be a good idea because as people now have jobs they will then be able to pay their money slowly back into the economy. However when the economy is booming the government should be able to have the power to be able to slow down the economy by introducing more taxes, this is so people don’t demand more goods as this may lead to inflation. Around the time just after the war there were a lot of social reformist approaches.

Firstly The National Health Service Act (1948) was introduced. This act was established to give people a right to a free health service and free medical treatment for everyone. However when this Act was first mentioned GP’s were not fond of the idea and didn’t want to join. However this Act has affected many people throughout Britain For years such as Working Class Families. This Act has given them the opportunity to have free health care where as they may not have been able to afford medical treatment before which means we as a country are saving more lives through the NHS.

The next Act i am going to look at is the National Insurance Act (1946). At this stage when the Act was first introduced everyone had to pay into it (employer, employee, and the government) which entitles you to sick pay and a pension. The next Act was the Children’s Act (1948), this gave the government responsibilities for looking after children in Britain and having the main power for the Childs Protection . Throughout 1946-1948 housing Acts were also introduced to help people get a better living standard. Between 1950-1975 we currently had nationalised industries.

This meant that the government owned most of the large industries such as Coal, gas and electric. Within this time period the government also decided to get rid of the Grammar schools which meant also scrapping the 11+ exam and introduce comprehensive schools, which was also a social reformist idea. However they did decide not to abolish private schools which meant this also had a sense of a conservative approach. This is because keeping the private schools is only keeping the class difference the same of if anything making the gap larger.

In the late 1970’s family income support was introduced. This policy was pretty much the same as working tax credits however this meant that your income was supplemented to a good living standard. This was introduced to try and not let people get into the poverty cycle, people went through a means testing processes which the government believed was done very fairly and reached out to help a lot more people who were struggling or maybe not entitled to the original benefit.

From 1979-1997 lots of changes were being made to society when the conservatives where in power. Margret Thatcher a conservative, re introduced a Liberalist approach into society. Even though Thatcher stood for the conservative party she introduced a lot of Liberalist ideas into the policies between 1979 and 1997. This idea of a new liberalist approach was known as The New Right. Thatcher believed that the state was being used too much and was too involved in people’s lives.

This era is known as the welfare break up, as Margret Thatcher was very Anti welfare state and in favour for lowering the income tax. Thatcher decided to start De nationalising industries because she believed they were inefficient and there were way too many people employed. The railway, coal, BT and parts of the NHS were a few industries which where effected who were put into the hands of the private sector rather than the government meaning a lot of people loosing their jobs which is also a Liberalist approach.

At this time the conservatives also tried to cut the welfare benefits; however did not successes with this due to the government worrying about riots because unemployment was at its highest at 4million which would leave a lot of people fending for them selves. However slight changes were made to the welfare system where they cut 16-18 year olds being able to get welfare benefits. This was because they wanted too push teenagers to go and get a job or go into education, this is where the government intruded the youth training system to help young people.

In 1997 Labour won the election by a landslide victory making Tony Blaire MP. In the 1980’s before Labour were elected socialists argued with social reformists within the labour party. This made some of the MP’s leave the labour party who chose to create a social democrat party, which has now formed into the Liberal democrat party. He also decided to change the name to ‘New Labour’ as apposed to ‘Old Labour’ as they had removed some of their socialist ideology. They came up with an idea of a ‘third way approach’, this meant that they were able to take bits of ideologies and put them together to win votes.

One example of this is labour not changing some of the privatisation of the NHS which would win over voters from more of a conservative background. Through 1997-2010 there were lots of policies introduced by the Labour government. Some of the policies took a very Liberalist approach and some took a Social reformism approach. I am firstly going to look at the policies which were introduced by social reformism under Labour government. The first Policy i am going to look at is the National Minimum wage. This was introduced so that people were able to only sell their labour for a good standard amount of money.

This is also to helps people (especially working class) not to fall into poverty as they will be guaranteed a ‘liveable’ wage. The minimum wage has changed since it was first brought in, as the minimum wage now stands at ?6. 08 for workers over the age of 21. Also to be re introduced was Working family tax credits, which Labour increased the amount of money people where able to get to supplement their income which reached out to working class families to help them have a better standard of living. The government were also very fond of trying to tackle child poverty.

They did this by injecting money in to schools in low income areas to help the children get a better education in that area, and also supplying children with after school clubs and breakfast clubs to help families struggling financially. Another major policy brought in by Labour is Job seekers allowance. This was introduced to help people get back into work and to support them financially whilst doing so. Most of these policies introduced by social reformism under Labour government are there to help families with low income living in low income areas.

Labour also had policies which were introduced by Liberalism. Firstly Labour continued to slowly de nationalise industries and introduce agencies to run the government department. Therefore this Liberalist view is mostly advantaging the Upper/middle class. This is because if Labour are still privatising parts of the welfare state for example social care the working class are going to be unable to pay for these services due to low income. Gordon Brown was elected for Labour in 2007 where Britain fell into a economical crisis.

He then went to nationalise the banks which meant the government had to buy shares or all parts of the banks to ensure they didn’t go under, which is a socialist idea. In 2010 the Coalition government came into power which consisted of the Liberal democrats and Conservatives. There aims for Britain are to be able to reduce government spending by cutting back on the welfare, education and local government services which is based on Liberalist Ideology. Up to the present day to day Britain is still struggling to get back on its feet after the recession however things are improving.

Realism makes four basic assumptions about international relations: * The state is the most important actor in international relations. This means that national governments are the most important player in the game of international politics–interest groups like Amnesty International or individual figures like the pope have no effect on how nations relate to one another. * The state is a unitary and rational actor. Unitary means that “the state speaks with one voice;” although members of a nation may have many different views on the best approach to a situation, only one approach will be enacted.

Rational means that the state is capable of “identifying goals and preferences and determining their relative importance. ” * International relations are essential conflictual because of anarchy. In this case, anarchy does not mean chaos–instead it refers to the absence of a higher authority to prevent aggression or arbitrate disputes. Just as men might run amok and attack one another without the government to punish them, nations will attack one another so long as they believe it in their best interest.

Anarchy also compels states to arm themseves in order to feel secure. The stockpiling of arms and the building of a military, however, are provocative actions which prompt neighbouring states to feel insecure and build up their own weapons. * Security and strategic issues, known as high politics, dominate the international agenda. This means that states’ paramount goal is to maximize their power in the international community, and that they are primarily concerned with military power.

An example of a nation operating according to this maxim is North Korea in the early 90s–the downfall of the Soviet Union left them without Communist allies, so they began a nuclear weapons development program and threw out UN observers. They believed that if their government gained nuclear power, it would survive in the international community because other countries would fear them. Liberalism * Liberal international relations theories are based on the idea that humans are PERFECTABLE. In contrast to the greedy man of realism or even he survival man of realism, liberal theories tend to see man as rational as well as learning, striving, and improving over time. Liberals believe in PROGRESS.

* Liberals believe that humans can learn to COOPERATE to improve their lives PEACE is seen as a preferred condition and therefore ways should be found to foster peace among states. This allows man to focus on the substantive things that make up the good life: food, art, culture, literature, farming, families. Everything but weapons and the fighting of war. Liberals believe that war stems from INADEQUATE INSTITUTIONS OR MISUNDERSTANDINGS, so we prevent war by crafting better institutions and eliminating the possibility of misunderstanding through education and discussion. * War stems from misery, POVERTY, INEQUALITY. * Liberal approaches often also see man as tied to fellow man by a COMMON HUMANITY.

Therefore, the limits imposed by state boundaries are artificial. This leads to ideas such as the pursuit of human rights violators across state boundaries, seeking to engage in development assistance. League of Nations and UN Charters have strains of this type of liberal idealism: making peaceful settlement of disputes a new norm. Overcome past international conflict through institutionalized collective security mechanisms. * Some influential liberal ideas today: INTERDEPENDENCE and the rise of NON-STATE ACTORS. * Interdependence: Economic linkages, communication technologies finally making possible one world with one common humanity. All linked together, can’t go to war without causing hardship to all.

This has been developed further in the 1990s to a school of thought which sees globalization as rendering war among major powers as impossible, would impoverish everyone, no one has an incentive to rock the globalization boat. * Rise of non-state actors: new non-state actors becoming more influential than the old states of realist international relations discourse: multinational companies many of which have greater annual turnover than developing countries’ GDPs, new cross-national issue groups: the Greens, Greenpeace, Amnesty International.

These corporations and organizations are breaking down the state, establishing common interests across borders. Generally, foster peace. * Also, recently re-in vogue in the liberal camp is the DEMOCRATIC PEACE THESIS, the idea that democracies do not fight one another. * Liberal approaches have fostered much of the growth of INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (neo-liberalism with emphasis on institutions). International organizations are seen as ways of mediating conflict among states, establishing bases of cooperation, establishing rational-legalistic codes of conduct under which all will be better off. Some liberal internationalists see the evolution of international organizations, the development of international law, the growth of cross-national civil society groups as evidence that the state is being transgressed, or at least having its capacity for war-generating action reduced. * ANALOGY TO DOMESTIC STATE at international level. As in the domestic state where the government provides some order to relations among citizens, so international organizations (while not a world government) can provide some stability, security, and predictability to inter-state interactions.

Can prevent states from being trapped in the SECURITY DILEMMA (need force to protect self, arms build up scares others into thinking you are going to attack, they build up their forces, they scare you, endless cycle of build-up ultimately leading to violence. By making self more secure through arms, make self less secure by compelling arms acquisition on neighbour/rival), can foster and build on areas where cooperation helpful to solve mutual interests, cooperation reinforcing.

States can learn through international organizations/cooperation and change their preferences and behaviors. * IRAQ WAR: Liberals would certainly see Saddam Hussein as a problem: authoritarian, had shown proclivity to invade others. Marxism Marxism is one of the basic theories of international relations. According to Marxists, both realism and liberalism/idealism are simply self-serving ideologies introduced by the economic elites to defend and justify global inequality.

Instead, Marxists argue, class is the fundamental unit of analysis of international relations, and the international system has been constructed by the upper classes and the wealthiest nations in order to protect and defend their interests. The various Marxist theories of international relations agree that the international state system was constructed by capitalists and therefore serves the interests of wealthy states and corporations, which seek to protect and expand their wealth.

According to Marxist theory the “First World” and “Third World” are merely components of a larger world system which originated in 16th-century European colonialism. Instead, these states actually make up the “core” and “periphery” of the world system — respectively, the central wealthy states which own and chiefly benefit from the mechanisms of production, and the impoverished “developing” countries which supply most of the human labour and natural resources exploited by the rich.

States which do not fit either class, but lie somewhere in the middle of the model, are referred to as “semi-peripheral. ” The core-periphery thesis of world-systems theory is based upon another body of work, dependency theory, which argues that the basis of international politics is the transfer of natural resources from peripheral developing countries to core wealthy states, mostly the Western industrialized democracies.

The poor countries of the world, like the poor classes of the world, are said to provide inexpensive human and natural capital, while the wealthy countries’ foreign policies are devoted to creating and maintaining this system of inequality. International economic law (such as the World Trade Organization) and other such systems are seen as means by which this is done.

To combat these systems of inequality, traditional Marxists and dependency theorists have argued that poor countries should adopt economic control policies that can break them out of the prison of international economic controls, such as import substitution (government assistance to domestic producers and barriers to wealthy international corporations attempting to flood the market with mass-produced imports) rather than the export-based models usually favoured by international economic organizations such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.