Power in Britain
There are a variety of different views on power; who possesses it and
how it is exercised. The definition of power is when a person can make
someone do something that they would not otherwise necessarily do. The
Marxist, Pluralist and Elitist views on power are the ones which have
had greatest influence.
Marxists argued that power is held by one particular group. In this
case that group is a class; the middle class. They are also known as
the ‘Capitalist’ ruling class or Bourgeoisie, who dominate or have
power over the working class who are otherwise known as the
Proletariats. Marxists argued that political power comes from economic
power, i.e. those with a lot of money have power over those without.
The middle classes are argued to be the ‘owners’ and the working
classes argued to be the ‘doers’. The working create the base of the
capitalist system, they are the relations and means of production. The
raw materials, factories, land and machines create this base. The
‘petty’ Bourgeoisie are seen as being in between the middle class and
the working class. They are those with very good jobs, but still
produce money for the Bourgeoisie.
According to the Marxist view, power resides in Britain with anyone
who is rich and can influence them, with their money, to do something.
The poorer people (working class) have no power, and as long as they
have no money they will have no power. However it is said that if the
working class realise that they are being exploited by the middle
class, then there could be a revolution, where the proletariats have
power over the bourgeoisie. Although there are fewer capitalists than
workers, the majority of wealth and power is held by them. This is
argued to be the cause of inequalities in British society and the
unevenness of the distribution of power. This is why Marxists are
very critical of the British political system.
The Elitist view on power is that it resides in a few competing elites
In recent times the in the UK we have seen the more frequent use of
and instead calmly accept the fact of their own powerlessness before fate. The only thing
Our Constitution establishes three branches of government and defines their very existence. The reason for the three branches is to separate the powers. The phrase “separation of powers” isn’t in the constitution, but it best explains the intention of the Constitution. It is essential that the assignment of lawmaking, enforcing and interpreting be spread out among the separated powers to ensure that all power doesn’t fall into the lap of one group, or even a power-hungry individual. The powers of which I’m speaking that were intentionally separated by way of the Constitution are the Legislative Branch, Executive Branch and finally, the Judicial Branch.
Tony Blair's Approach to Power Since Labour came into power in 1997 Tony Blair has been criticised by some for being the 'son of Thatcher'. Many say that labour is now following the values and policies similar to that of a Tory government and in particular a Tory government lead by Margaret Thatcher. Before the time of Tony Blair and New Labour, the left wing party stood firm on one value and that was socialism. More on Labours old Values and policies The conservatives on the other hand have very different policies or not so different as some may argue. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher lead the conservative government from 1979-1990 and she made some very radical changes that have stuck.
Contrary to what I believed in the past, the United States federal government retained and expanded their power and authority during the years of the Civil war along with the period of Reconstruction. Through drafts and monitored elections, they exercised this power during the Civil War. Then, as Reconstruction began, they initiated other methods of increasing their authority over the citizens. Military was placed in Southern states, by the federal government, in order to keep control over the rebellious people. Not only that, but, the idea of putting the federal government in charge of Reconstruction and rebuilding an entire nation gave them an enormous amount of power. Finally, the creation of the 14th and 15th Amendment were two more big achievements on the part of the government.
without the lottery or depleted crops. They fear if they if they disband from the
are forced to live off of. What happens if there is not enough to go
When a person has enough power in a society, it gives them a lot of control over certain things. When they have this control, they can have ownership over a person or a thing. By naming someone, or something, a person gains an unspoken ownership over him or her, they are now in control of him or her and it has created a new identity for them and erased their old identity. Power, naming and un-naming, control and ownership and identity are very important elements in “Mary” and “No Name Woman”. Both essays deal with power, identity, control and ownership, while “Mary” focuses more on naming and “No Name Woman” focuses on un-naming.
...ble to achieve prosperity, let alone sustain it when they have so much to overcome.
2. Economically they are at a high risk of losing what little they already have.
Whether or not the people are empowered does not matter, it is irrelevant. It only matters that the
Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic structural analyses and agency-centred traditions. According to this, people are free to act, but they must also use and replicate fundamental structures of power by and through their own actions. Power is wielded and maintained by how one ‘makes a difference’ and based on their decisions and actions, if one fails to exercise power, that is to ‘make a difference’ then power is lost. (Giddens: 1984: 14) However, more recent theorists have revisited older conceptions including the power one has over another and within the decision-making processes, and power, as the ability to set specific, wanted agendas. To put it simply, power is the ability to get others to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. In the political arena, therefore, power is the ability to make or influence decisions that other people are bound by.
through fear of god and so now we can abolish them as this fear is no
Power of the Prime Minister In the last twenty five years England has had three Prime Ministers. The first was Margaret Thatcher, who came into power in 1979, and resigned in 1990. Then came John Major in 1990, and lost the vote in 1997. Tony Blair became Prime Minster in this year and has successfully stayed in power for two full terms so far.
It is well known that the British political system is one of the oldest political systems in the world. Obviously, it was formed within the time. The United Kingdom of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the constitutional monarchy, providing stability, continuity and national focus. The monarch is the head of state, but only Parliament has the right to create and undertake the legislation. The basis of the United Kingdom’s political system is a parliamentary democracy. Therefore, people think the role of the Queen as worthless and mainly unnecessarily demanding for funding, but is it like that?