Cathy Schlader
A Constitutional Revolution in Britain?
By: Donley t. Studlar
The article “A Constitutional Revolution in Britain”, written by Donley T. Studlar, explainshow the Labor party proposed constitutional reform led by Prime Minster Tony Blair.
In 1997 the Labor party had gained power in Parliament. One of the Labor’s main agenda items was constructional reform.They wanted the British public to become more involved with theoperationof the government instead of taking a backseat to it. The Labor party also wanted to distinguish themselves from the Conservatives because the two parties have similar social and economic polices. In this reform, the Labor party had six main items it wanted toaddress 1) give more power to Scotland and Wales, 2) have an elected major for London and other cites, 3) to remove the voting power of hereditary peers in the House of Lords, 4) incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, 5) a Freedom of Information Act, and 6) electoral reform including the system for Members of Parliament. However, the British constitution is hard to change because it is “unwritten”. This means there are a series of laws and practices that give authority to the state, as well as define relationships between the state and the citizen. To change any law Parliament only requires a simple majority in the House of Commons even if the House of Lordsdisapprove.
The article explainshow,and with what referendums the Labor party wants to reform the British constitution. It goes into detail about what changes they have made and how they want to continue to make changes. Some of the reforms may be hard to attain because of the long standing tradition of an “unwritten” constitution, however, that will not deter the Labor party from trying to pass referendums. In the end, the article points out opposing views from newspapers and politicians alike, but concludes that the Labor party has largely fulfilled its promises it made back in 1997.
Whitney Kippes
PLS 350
Langill
Capitalism and Democracy*
By Gabriel A. Almond
Almond discusses four viewpoints on the complex relationship between capitalism and democracy. Through several case studies, and expert analyst opinion Almond approaches the issue very pragmatically. Rather than presenting a clear view as his own, Almond presents each view clearly and with no sense of malice toward any of them. The four views involve the support of capitalism by democracy and vice versa, and the hindrance of capitalism by democracy and vice versa.
The first argument presented is that capitalism supports democracy. The argument basically goes that modern democracy rose alongside the expansion of capitalism. The fact that modern democracy exists primarily in economically privately owned institutions is clear. Almond uses several case studies and examples from history including references to the United States and Great Britain. However the opposite opinion, that capitalism subverts democracy, is equally well represented. The theory is that a point will be reached where too much ownership is placed in a select few, and democracies will no longer function as it was intended. Of course, Marx argued that capitalism in its very nature subverted democracy by creating a somewhat bourgeois democracy rather than a system of equality. The proposed solution to the problem would be further employee control of industry, a rather socialist principle. Almond never clearly states which view he favors, but rather presents both options and leaves the reader to make his own choice.
The third argument is that democracy subverts capitalism. Almond presents the idea that a democracy that accepts the welfare state will be the real threat to the relationship between democracy and capitalism. Almond references several professionals who believe that the encroachment on the private sector has been slowly changing our free democracy into a completely chaotic mess. The formation of dense networks which comes about through capitalism seems to subvert the very idea of democracy. On the contrary, Almond also analyzes the idea that democracy fosters capitalism. Rather than using a vast amount of opinions, Almond approaches this idea with many examples of case studies proving this to be true. However, Almond seems to doubt whether or not capitalism would have survived in a purely democratic state without any sort of welfare state.
Almond concludes that democracy and capitalism both support and subvert each other through their very nature. Democratic capitalism through the welfare state seems to encourage its survival and often even enhancement through these institutions. Through his presentation, Almond paints a clear picture of all the issues faced by the combination of capitalism and democracy. Almond doesn’t seem to offer any sort of solution, but rather a case by case study of the issues involved.
"Does New Labour Deserve a Third Term?"
Malcolm Leeman
______
The article consists of letters between Anthony Giddens (an ardent labour supporter) and David Marquand (once supporter turned critic). Essentially, the two spar it out on the rights and wrongs of Labour’s past two terms in power, their policies, reforms and changes. Of course, by now it is known Labour won a historic consecutive third term in power, but with a significantly reduced majority down to 66 seats from 167 in 2001.
Giddens (supporter) believes that New Labour has successfully transformed Britain from the Thatcherite society (more nationalist/ eroding public sector) into a more social democratic one. He argues it is on social justice issues that Labour has really delivered. Basically, his argument for Labour revolves around it’s strengthening of public institutions and the public domain by channeling funds raised from increased tax and the booming economy, into the NHS and education.
Marquand on the other hand believes that when Labour won a landslide victory in 1997, although initially welcoming it, he soon become disillusioned feeling all the rhetoric about sweeping modernization and this idea of Britain as a “young country” pointed to a clear lack of “ideological conviction”. He sees Labour as having eroded the “public domain” – the domain of citizenship, equity, service and professionalism, arguing Labour has shown total disdain for many public institutions and values, such as the rule of law and judicial independence.For instance, the Iraq war which he claims was illegal and in clear defiance of international law. For example, now in February of 2006, Blair was recently defeated when trying to introduce the highly controversial religious hatred bill which was seen by many as a clear attack on free speech. If enacted it would have outlawed open attacks of religion, such restrictions on free speech are suited more too fascist dictatorship. It is issues and values such as these, basic rights and freedoms which have been treated with utter contempt by New Labour.
Marquand argues that Britain’s recent economic upturn was inherited by the Labour party, following the successful tenureship of Tory chancellor Kenneth Clarke. However he does accept that Gordon Brown can be credited for advancing and stablising the now strong British economy. In actual fact however, in the run up to the 2005 election the Conservatives did not draw much attention to this, as it would have paid credence to Labour’s economic successes.
The Iraq war is another main point of argument. Marquand points to Blair’s behavior, how it undermined the authority of the U.N, split his own party and Britain’s relationship with the EU, and in the end, sacrificed his own credibility. He views it as a defining moment of Blair’s premiership, much like Suez for Eden, this too was in his eyes a complete disaster. Gidden’s response is to justify the war, by drawing attention to Saddam’s continual defiance of UN sanctions, and pointed to his inability to draw clear evidence there were no WMD in the buildup to war to defuse war. He points to the threat of terrorism, linking that to the dangers of complacency and backing out of war with Saddam.