The Impact of the 1997 General Election
In 1997 there was an expected swing from Conservative to Labour
government. It resulted in Labour receiving 9.2% more votes, and 147
more MPs than in 1992; and with the Conservatives winning 11% less
votes, and 171 less MPs than in 1992 (the Liberal Democrats won 17% of
the votes about equalling the previous election, and gained 26 seats).
The outcome of the election was due to various factors which had
always been apparent yet commentators never predicted the severity of
Labour's win and the Conservative's loss.
Blatantly, the first reason for this landslide victory was the
weakness of the Conservatives. Broadly put, the reasons the electorate
DID NOT vote for the Conservative party were that they seemed, old,
tired, divided and sleazy. This can be seen in that the average age of
a Conservative MP was over 50 and 44% of over 65s voted for them,
their campaigning was limited, there was internal conflict over many
issues such as the Economy and Europe. The leader, John Major, was
also seen as weak and indecisive. The problems the Conservatives faced
during their term badly affected them when the voting came; and the
fact their support was spread through the country meant that they were
at a disadvantage due to FPTP (they failed to win constituencies).
These various weaknesses meant that people were reluctant to re-elect
the Conservatives, therefore much of the electorate were looking for
another party to vote for. For many that party was Labour.
Completely adverse to the Conservatives was the Labour Party. After
three terms of Conservative rule, the Labour Party was seen as young,
fresh...
... middle of paper ...
... shows a trend that in 1997 it was an Anti-Tory election, and in 2001
it was Anti-any party election. This may have been mainly due to party
de-alignment where they basically all have the same policies (Labour
are said to be as right as the Tories).
This election has shown the parties that less people are interested,
and so political participation has been high on the agenda. All
parties have also tried to distinguish themselves, and make promises
that will actually change people's lives (they say) for the better. It
has ended with more conflict in the House of Commons, and promise of
reform in the future (Euro still at Tony Blair's discrepancy).
Desperate to set his party apart, it could be possible that the PM
thinks a victory in Iraq will improve his standings and cause less
apathy with more support for his party.
Assess the Claim that the Labour Governments of 1924 and 1929-31 Were Unable to Achieve Anything
In conclusion, before David Cameron came into power, the Conservatives were in the right side of politics were Thatcher left them. He brought the party closer to the centre. He changed people’s perception about the Conservative party because he changes a lot of things leaving few things unchanged. David Cameron definitely moved the party to the centre of politics.
who had been seen by many Tories as a future leader of the party lost
The Significance of the Liberal Election Victory of 1906 “A quiet, but certain, revolution, as revolutions come in a constitutional country” was how Lloyd George hailed the election victory of 1906. The significance of the Liberal election victory of 1906 is that it laid down solid foundations to provide the welfare state we have today. It also saw the rise of the Labour Party, giving the working class its own political voice. The results of the 1906 election were literally a reversal of the 1900 election. The Liberals enjoyed the landslide victory that the conservatives had six years earlier.
The Liberal victory in General Election of 1906 has gone down in History for being one of the biggest landslides in modern UK politics, but it can be argued that it was more of a Conservative loss than a Liberal gain.
Tom Gatenby To what extent did the Conservatives lose the election rather than the Liberals win the election? “The election of 1906 was a significant watershed in the political history of Britain” Kenneth Owen Fox The election of 1906 was a landside victory for the Liberal Party. This is due to many factors, it could been influenced by the manifesto of the Liberal Party, or perhaps even more strongly the failure of the Conservative Party to unify on such reforms as the Tariff Reform. The lack of a strong unified Conservative government clearly had a large effect upon the outcome of the 1906 election, to what extent this is true will be explained in the essay.
The Liberal Election of 1906 and the Dissatisfaction with the Conservative Party The 1906 election was a landslide victory for the Liberal Party. It was a dramatic turn-around for the main contender to British Government that had been out of power for twenty years. The Liberals won 377 seats outright, and including the 27 Lib-Lab seats and around 80 Irish Home Rule seats they had made a dramatic defeat. The Conservative Party lost 245 seats since the 1900 election, in 1906 they had only 157.
The issue of electoral reform has become more important than ever in Canada in recent years as the general public has come to realize that our current first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system, formally known as single-member plurality (SMP) has produced majority governments of questionable legitimacy. Of the major democracies in the world, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom are the only countries that still have SMP systems in place. Interestingly enough, there has been enormous political tension and division in the last few years in these countries, culminating with the election results in Canada and the USA this year that polarized both countries. In the last year we have seen unprecedented progress towards electoral reform, with PEI establishing an electoral reform commissioner and New Brunswick appointing a nine-member Commission on Legislative Democracy in December 2003 to the groundbreaking decision by the British Columbia Citizen’s Assembly on October 24, 2004 that the province will have a referendum on May 17, 2005 to decide whether or not they will switch to a system of proportional representation. This kind of reform is only expected to continue, as Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty decided to take BC’s lead and form an independent Citizen’s Assembly with the power to determine whether or not Ontario will have a referendum regarding a change to a more proportional system. There is still much work to do however, and we will examine the inherent problems with Canada’s first-past-the-post system and why we should move into the 21st century and switch to a form of proportional representation.
The Presidential Election of 1992 In 1992, the incumbent president, George Bush, was seeking reelection. It was the general consensus that he would be the 'hands down, no contest winner'. When the smoke had cleared and the votes were tallied, many were shocked at the results. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton defeated the incumbent in a landslide!
Failure of the Campaign for Parliamentary Reform There were numerous reasons that accounted for why the campaign for Parliamentary reform failed in its objectives in the period 1780-1820, with arguably the most significant factor being that those in Parliament did not actually feel the need to reform the electoral system because of the lack of unified pressure from the British public. There was a substantial call for Parliamentary reform between 1780 and 1820, but the separate groups which were pressing for reform did not unite and failed to appeal to the wider regions of the population and therefore, reform was not at the top of the agenda between these decades. The representation of Britain in the House of Commons certainly did not reflect the composition of the country, as Cornwall sent 44 members to Parliament, which was only one fewer than the whole of Scotland combined. Large industrial towns such as Manchester and Birmingham, consisting of 320,000 people, did not send a single representative to the upper chamber of Parliament. Various rules and qualifications such as a minimum level of income and possessing a large enough fireplace were often required to vote in a General Election, rules which were being called into question by various groups in society such as the London Corresponding Society.
their vote, and a hole is punched into a ballot where the space for the
Sanders, D., Clarke, H., Stewart, M. and Whiteley, P. (2005) The 2005 General Election in Great Britain, [Online], Available: http://www.essex.ac.uk/bes/Papers/ec%20report%20final.pdf [Date Accessed: 25/01/2014].
The 1918 Ireland General Election At the 1917 Sinn Fein Party Conference, all the parties that opposed British rule in Ireland agreed on a common policy, to work for the establishment of an Irish Republic. Arthur Griffith stood down and De Valera was elected President of both Sinn Fein and later of The Irish Volunteers. Sinn Fein's opposition to compulsory conscription to The Great War greatly enhanced its popularity with the people. Compulsorary military conscription was, in fact, never introduced in Ireland. Sinn Fein promised that its elected members would not sit in the British Parliament, but would form their own government in Dublin in the forthcoming General Election in November 1918, after 'The First World War" had ended.
The British Electoral System In democratic states, electoral systems are of great importance. Elections give people the right to choose their government; ensure that governments represent the majority (or largest minority) of the people; ensure peaceful changes of government (stability); allow people with fresh ideas an opportunity to enter the political arena; confer legitimacy of government and allow the government to expect people to obey their rules. Unfortunately the British system, Simple Plurality, (also known as 'First Past The Post') has come under fire for its alleged discrimination against smaller parties and its tendency to allow the losing party the ability to rule. Therefore, this creates a question - is the British system fair and democratic, or is it in need of drastic change? There is no denying that the British system has its advantages.
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?