The final cause for the Brexit vote is likely to be the lack and failure of support for the Remain campaign. First, “Project Fear”, a strategy to convince the poorer areas of England, sparked backlash among British citizens, and also utilised by Leave campaigners as a way to demonstrate elite interest. The main message of Project Fear was that Britain would be economically worse off if it were to leave the EU. The campaigners who utilised this strategy were members of prestigious bureaucracy such as the OECD and the IMF. However their appeals were neither positive nor emotional, but in fact purely negative and economical, which were made unpopular by Leave campaigners who interpreted, and claimed it as an “arrogant, selfish, unaccountable ” elitist interest, rather than an interest for the whole of UK. …show more content…
(Zerk, n.d.) As these anti-elitist sentiments were evoked in order to rebut Project Fear with success, the Leave vote could be considered a populist movement. Furthermore, the Remain campaigners were not well presented by the mainstream media, as former Prime Minister David Cameron’s popularity fell, especially among Eurosceptic Conservative members, as he showed a somewhat hypocritical attitude towards negotiations with the EU. In terms of the Labour party, although there was a split between Leave and Remain, Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the party since 2015 did not hold a secure stance on which side he was on, as he showed some aspects of support, but also eurosceptic attitudes. (BBC, Eight reasons Leave won the UK's referendum on the EU, 2016). Therefore, it may be argued that the Remain campaign was in a disadvantageous situation, which played a key role in the victory of the Leave
It could be argued that Gladstone’s failure to unite his party, during a time when their ultimate support and confidence in his leadership was crucial, was a significant tactical error that contributed heavily towards the failure of the 1886 Home Rule Bill. The results of the 1885 general election were to have a significant impact on the political landscape of Britain; despite winning the most seats, the Liberals did not have an overall majority.As Parnell and the Irish Parliamentry Party (IPP) held the balance...
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.
There were substantial amount of people who despised the actions undertaken by the British government
Pauline Hanson’s view on migration is incorrect. Ceasing migration would not be good for Australia either culturally or economically. An intelligent and sophisticated immigration program, which focuses strongly on skilled and business migration, can have a beneficial impact on our economy.
”Examine the extent to which the benefits of UK membership in the European Union outweigh the costs”
In all the history of America one thing has been made clear, historians can’t agree on much. It is valid seeing as none of them can travel back in time to actually experience the important events and even distinguish what has value and what doesn’t. Therefore all historians must make a leap and interpret the facts as best they can. The populist movement does not escape this paradox. Two views are widely accepted yet vastly different, the views of Richard Hofstadter and Lawrence Goodwyn. They disagree on whether populists were “isolated and paranoid bigots” or “sophisticated, empathetic egalitarians”; whether their leaders were “opportunists who victimized them” or “visionary economic theorists who liberated them”; whether their beliefs were rooted in the free silver campaign of the 1890s or the cooperative movement of the 1880s; and finally whether their ideal society was in the “agrarian past” or “the promise of a cooperative future”. They could not agree on anything, over all Richard Hofstadter seems to have a better idea of the truth of populism.
middle of paper ... ... d therefore the smaller parties can be considered to have very little effect on the overall political situation. In conclusion, the UK can still best be described as a two party system, provided two considerations are taken into account. The first is that Conservative dominance victories between 1979-97 was not a suggestion of party dominance and that eventually, the swing of the political pendulum will be even for both sides. This can perhaps be seen today with Labour's two landslide victories in 1997 and 2001.
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.
Salisbury's leadership skills. His skills were also evident and beneficial in the Redistribution of Seats bill as it weakened the Whig element of the Liberals, and seeing as the Whigs joined the Conservatives when the Liberals split, strengthened the Conservatives. Another aspect of this redistribution act which showed Salisbury's strengths and leadership qualities was how it would mean the Conservatives would gain the support of the Middle Class. This shows Liberals weakness and the Conservatives strengths leading to the party's dominance. It can be argued therefore that the source is correct in saying that the reason the Conservatives were so dominant in British politics is because of Conservative strengths i.
This way, they argued, it would be possible to disassociate populism from its subjective, negative perception, and use the word in just discursive terms. Thus, allowing for making claims about politics in a very broad manner. In accordance with that statement is Francisco Panizza who argued that adjectival usage of populism aims at merely describing “relatively fluid practices of identification,” not at labeling specific parties or leaders. For Panizza, populism is a certain characteristic of politics as a whole, not a feature of particular people involved in
Consuelo Garcia English 103 Professor Leduc May 13, 2015 Discontent The process of doing something, typically to achieve a goal, represents individual’s own self-interest, and throughout The Winter of Our Discontent, Steinbeck examines how morals are undercut, as American’s become more concerned with material wealth, than the wellbeing of their loved ones. Steinbeck explores the negative aspects of American’s monetary gain and how in society the acquisition of wealth does not always lead to happiness. To initiate, morals are beliefs that a person or a society has concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
George, S. and Bache, I. 2001.Politics In the European Union. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Smith, P. (1999) „Political Communication in the UK: A Study of Pressure Group Behaviour‟, Politics, 19(1): 21-27
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?
Britain's Abandoning of Splendid Isolation Under the Conservatives From 1895 to 1900 Britain continued the policy of 'splendid isolation'. This policy was started by Lord Salisbury in his previous government of 1886-92; Salisbury was more concerned with affairs out of Europe then becoming entangled in the Bisamarkian alliance system. Britain could afford to follow the policy of 'splendid isolation' because of her naval supremacy. However 'splendid isolation' is a misleading term as it was not that Britain was deliberately refusing to have anything to do with the rest of the world as she signed the Mediterranean Agreements and negotiated boundary settlements in Africa. Yet in a sense Britain was isolated as Salisbury kept Britain aloof from binding alliances in case he committed her to military action.