The Structure Of The Westminster Government

‘The main reason for conservative dominance in the years 1951 to 1964 was labour disunity’ Assess the validity of this view. (June 2011)

The reforms of Devolution where power was transferred from Westminster to different elected bodies around the country. This makes the UK more democratic as power is no longer centralised and areas such as parts of Scotland, Wales and Ireland will not be neglected. However England itself does not have its own assembly and the fact that we cannot vote on certain things in areas of the UK, but everyone can vote in policies in England could be seen to be undemocratic. Overall this reform however has made the UK more democratic as it means areas will not be forgotten about and countries and areas within the UK can get specific things that that area may want or need more then others.

This period of Labour rule is often marked down as a poor performance on behalf of the labour party, critically looked upon by many historians. There were many failings under the rule of this government however the circumstances they were placed in caused severe restraints in their options.

Throughout history there has always been revolutions, change, and reforms. In 1832, England experienced the death of George IV and accession of William IV in 1830 ,that resulted in a general parliamentary election in which the opposition political party, the Whigs, scored major gains with their platform calling for parliamentary reform. With the Tory party divided, the king asked the leader of the Whigs, Earl Grey, to form a government. Immediately, the Whigs introduced a major reform bill designed to increase the number of voters by 50 percent and to eliminate underpopulated electoral districts (“rotten boroughs”) and replace them with representatives for previously unrepresented manufacturing districts and cities, especially in the industrial

The Labour government in 1945-1951 achieved a high degree of activity and success, despite working within ‘the aftermath of war’ which inevitably ‘brings enormous difficulties’. The Labour government devoted their power to reconstructing a better nation, one that would be a ‘better place in which to be born, to grow up, and to live and even die’. On the other hand it is possible to criticise Labour due to their ‘irresponsible’ spending.

On September 14th, 2014, the people of Scotland had the chance ‘of a lifetime’ to vote on whether they wanted Scotland to be an independent country or to stay part of the United Kingdom. As the ballot papers were being counted, thousands stayed up late waiting nervously to see the outcome. The Scots voted against being separated from the union and soon after it caused riots in Glasgow’s city center. To this day, Scotland hasn’t been the same, and the once friendly nation is now split into unionists and nationalists. Even though the majority vote was no to independence, still the people of Scotland and its party leaders are hoping for another shot at independence. So the question is, did the people make the right choice, or would Scotland be a more prosperous nation by standing alone? Scotland should be given the chance to function on its own without the influence of other countries. With an independent Scotland’s wealth and if it is controlled by the right political party. It has great potential that could benefit the Scottish people massively.

The dispersion of power in the UK varies greatly, each country having a different seat on the level-pegging of power over one another - in particular, policy areas, due to the various referendums, including ones already mentioned. This is called an asymmetrical devolution system.

Whether or not there truly was a ‘post war consensus’ in British politics from 1951 to 1964 is a highly debatable topic of which historians can often appear to be in two minds about; on one hand, Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson infamously described the period as ‘Thirteen years wasted’, whereas historian Robert Blake (a supporter of the Conservatives’, regards it as a ‘Golden age of growth’. The likes of Kevin Jeffrey’s even argue that consensus had even started before the war. Overall, the central issue was the idea of a mixed economy.

The centrepiece of Labour 's programme of constitutional reform was undoubtedly devolution. This was achieved with remarkably few problems. There now seems no likelihood that the new arrangements could be reversed, even by a Conservative administration. The election on 6 May 1999 of a Parliament in Scotland, with extensive powers of primary legislation as well as tax-raising, and an Assembly in Wales, with powers of secondary legislation only, will have a profound impact on governance within the UK. In

Within the United Kingdom, a recurring issue has been raised regarding the political position of Scotland and how the Scottish Parliament could better govern the country. To establish whether the quality of life could be improved for the Scottish people, key events, devolution, and the Scottish Parliament must be evaluated and analysed. The argument for greater power in decision making and the ability to implement change for the citizens of Scotland, has been central to Scottish politics for some time.

When assessing the various intricate denouements of the late Victorian and Edwardian periods of the British political history, one must stop and wonder about the performance of the Conservative party as one of the protagonists of the parliamentary struggles and changing social and demographic scenarios. By engaging in such exploration, it is almost impossible to avoid one of the most formidable questions which might consequentially arise – was the Conservative party a deliberate and conscious derivative of the changing political climate or merely a spontaneous chain reaction driven by luck and circumstance? The answer to this question may be crucial for understanding the nature of the party’s success/failure. In order to explain why this very nature may be the crux of articulating Conservative politics during these two historical periods, we will use the analogy of Real vs. Nominal wages .

The condition of Glebeland’s power gaining process is similar to the condition of Scotland’s, which occupies 54 seats in the House of Commons. The legislative bargaining offers Scotland a chance to continuously earn more power under the asymmetric power devolution of the United Kingdom. Followed by the establishment of the Scottish parliament in 1977, the Scottish National Party (SNP) became one of the largest parties in the UK in 1999, and then held power in the Scottish general election in 2007. The power gaining process of Glebeland is parallel to the process of Scottish. Thus, similar to the Scottish government, Glebeland’s government is getting more prepared to lead an independent nation. It is true that one cannot eliminate the possibility that the second independence referendum would fail again. However, with the slippery slope of the power gaining process, this second referendum could still help Glebeland’s government bargain for more power with the central government even if it turns out to have a “No” result. Consequently, it could ensure Glebeland a higher degree of autonomous power.

Devolution is the transfer of powers from a central body to subordinate regional bodies. In Scotland, Devolution was set up to restore legitimacy to a system of government that reflected Scottish preferences. The reason behind the demand for Scottish self-government is that Scotland had the historic status of nationhood before the Union of 1707 and within the Union, has a different set of legal, educational and religious institutions that reinforce a Scottish identity.

As soon as the results of the referendum was called the value of the £ had decreased by the most to the rate it was at 1985, evidently causing one of the biggest economical loss in recent British history. Yet, MP’s have demonstrated immense hard work on trying to argue the cause against leaving the EU.

‘There was a widespread public expectation that devolution would bring greater policy innovation and divergence between Scotland, Wales and the UK state.’ This essay will assess the situation of divergence and convergence in Wales with a specific focus on the period after the devolution settlement. To fully answer the question the essay shall be divided into several sections. Firstly, before attempting to answer the question it will illustrate what convergence and divergence are and the distinct types of policy areas. It will then look at the choice and the reasons for use of the case study in this essay which is the health policies of Wales. When answering the question this essay will divide the question into two sections, the first part will