Modern British Politics Issues - Essay Example

Non Elected Actors Non elected actors play an increasing role in British politics today. Age, gender, and social are three factors that come into play as far as these actors are concerned. First, non elected actors often interact with British politics through the use of focus groups. Increasingly in Britain today the use of focus groups is becoming more and more common, not just by research institutions but by the government. A focus group is a small selection of people who represent the country, as there will be people present from all areas in Britain, all ages etc. The focus group is then asked questions to which it is to discuss and then to provide answers to the questions. More often than not these opinions are used simply to reassure the government, but more recently they have been used to form the new policies in areas that would have been otherwise neglected by the government. Those influencing the focus groups are usually influenced by their age, gender, and social class. Often times, these factors are represented in the focus groups that are found in the general areas of Britain. Individuals of different age groups are commonly looking for different things; the biggest division in the current economic situation is the fear of those ready to retire, and the fear of those that are just entering the job market. Therefore, focus groups have been influenced by these issues. Gender politics also comes into play, as many women are becoming more and more involved in politics and investing their voices in their political needs. Women are becoming more active in politics and the roles of political change. Some of this can be seen in the new laws revolving around divorce that have awarded women more monetary compensation, as in White vs. White. Women, because of their active status, are now winning around 50% of the assets in a marriage. Social class has always been an issue to consider as well, because social class has influenced the general needs of the various classes in Britain. The wealth of an individual can affect how he or she decides to vote, or what he or she decides to stand for. People who are in poverty will be more concerned about finding the various supports that they need, such as unemployment for those that have been recently laid off in the hard economic times. As far as age is concerned, older people tend to vote in the Labour part (around 60%) and younger individuals tend to vote for the Tories (around 65%). This can be seen from recent pollings. Since these age classes have distinct differences and needs, their needs affect how they tend to vote at the poles. Referenda are now also taking a larger role, with several being held in the last few years. It may not be long before all important decisions are taken by holding referenda such is the case in Switzerland. Is this democracy gone mad or a new wave of ultra democracy? The party most responsible for the introduction of focus groups into Britain is Labour. In future the government will be far better informed of public opinion and will be able to take care of the major issues more quickly and effectively. This will also lead to a government that is unlikely to make huge mistakes, such as poll tax and, in all honesty, the Millennium Dome. By having such a well informed government finance could be allocated to the right sectors, and money that would have been wasted e.g. the L650m for the Dome, could be spent on more worthy causes. The increased use of focus groups in British politics would have serious side effects, most importantly of all the reluctance of governments to make decisions that at first are unpopular with the public. This would make governments afraid of taking snap decisions, in times of crisis for example, without first consulting focus groups. It would also lead to them putting off major decisions for the next government to deal with, which would be potentially dangerous, and would turn parliament into a huge public relations exercise. Party politics would also die out because each party would only institute policies that are popular with the public. Ministers and civil servants The lawyers call for a Code of Good Administration remains undiminished. Moreover, it has since been supplemented by calls from past and present civil servants, Parliamentary Select Committees, ex-ministers, and Whitehall-watchers, all of whom want the principles underpinning public administration, on which such a Code is based and supported, to be agreed and provided with a degree of permanence. Their concern arises from the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s, which have transformed public administration. These have been motivated by the drive towards efficient government, by which is meant less government, both in functions and cost. The aim, wherever possible, is to transfer functions to the private sector, either permanently or under contract, where, it is argued, they will be performed more efficiently, offering better value for money and improved quality. This transfer serves the economic requirement to reduce public expenditure and the ideological commitment to reduce the role of the State. Where transfer to the private sector is not possible, at least in the immediate future, Next Steps executive agencies offer an alternative location. Such agencies are an extension of the Financial Management Initiative instigated in 1982 to improve efficiency. They remain within government departments and are staffed by civil servants. Thus they are protected, or more usually confined, by the convention of ministerial responsibility, being responsible first and foremost to the minister. However, they operate at a distance from the minister under framework agreements which set out their responsibilities and provide targets and performance indicators, and their organizational and management methods owe more to the private than the public sector. They are headed by chief executives, often appointed from outside the Civil Service, who are on fixed term contracts and performance-related pay and who have considerably more financial and operational autonomy than has previously been accorded civil servants. Agencies, like their parent departments, are governed by the Competing for Quality Programme, which was launched by the Government in November 1991. The Programme demonstrates the Governments commitment to the market and underlines its belief that competition is the best guarantee of quality and value for money. It introduced market testing, the purpose of which is to establish for activities where it is possible for them to be performed either by public servants or by the private sector, which alternative represents the best long-term value for money. Thus the public sector is required to compete with its private counterparts for the business of fulfilling public functions. However, in many cases in-house competition is excluded and services have been contracted out without the public sector being permitted to tender, despite, or perhaps because of, its overwhelming success when it does. This suggests that the ideological commitment to reduce the role of the State, or to change it from provider to enabler, may at times be more important than the economic requirement to reduce public spending. This seems to be borne out by Mr William Waldegrave, who, when Minister for the Public Service, stated that his aim was to relocate the activities of government so that less than 40 per cent of public services would be carried out by the public sector. Public administration has therefore developed a hybrid form. It may be undertaken by traditional civil servants within departments of government, by temporary civil servants, still within government departments but operating under the private-sector controls and incentives adopted by executive agencies, and by private sector contractors. Alternatively, it may be undertaken by quangos or nondepartmental public bodies, established to operate at arms length from the minister in a regulatory, advisory or executive capacity. The decision as to what type of organization fulfils a particular function depends on the assessment made by the Government, firstly, as to whether the job needs to be done at all; secondly, if it does, whether the Government needs to be responsible for it; thirdly, whether this means that the Government has to carry out the task itself, and, fourthly, if so, whether the organization is properly structured and focused on the job to be done. Thus the check-list runs through whether the function or service can be abolished, privatized, contracted out or market tested, fulfilled by a body outside the department, and, if none of these is appropriate, consigned to an executive agency with the necessary framework agreement and performance targets. Finally, if all else fails, then the function remains a departmental one. Future Election As general elections are usually only held once every 5 years, there are many issues which come to a head during that time which the public do not get their views heard. Referenda are a good solution to this because it provides an opportunity for the electorate to have their opinions made known. This can only be good for democracy as the majoritys verdict is always taken into account, something that has not happened in any general election since the war, as the winning party always gains around 40-45% of the popular vote. The use of referenda is also very useful concerning subjects that are very sensitive and are moral judgments rather than political ones, such as abortion, capital punishment and more recently in Wales, Sunday opening for pubs. These are subjects on which the government may be split, or on which they feel they are out of touch with public opinion. In such a situation a referendum would be the perfect solution, as it would take responsibility of such a precarious decision away from the government. Referenda concerning very important issues should also be used because the government does not really have the right to make such a huge decision that may affect everybodys lives, such as the Good Friday peace agreement for those living in Ireland. So far much of the evidence for using referenda has been concerned with delegating decision making to the public, it can, however be used to give the government a bigger mandate. If, for example, Labour decided now was the right time to join the Euro, there would undoubtedly be a big outcry from the sound-minded Conservative Party. Labour, instead of pushing through the necessary legislation with its grossly undemocratic majority in the Commons, could chose to hold a referendum on the issue. If the public voted yes to the Euro, (did I just see a pig flying?), then Labour would have a mandate for introducing such reforms if they voted no, as is likely, then Labour would probably withdraw its proposal. The resent scandal where Mr Mackay, the MP for Bracknell in Berskshire, lost his job, has hurt the prospects of the Labour government. Although Mackay has made heavy public apologies and admitted to his error in judgment, this scandal has hurt the Labour party’s bid for reelection. The MP scandal, therefore, has caused the Labour party to lose some of its hold on the government, and this is something that could bury them in the next election. Any scandal on any party’s hands heading into an election looks to harm it. Since these financial issues have appeared that the MPs involved were robbing the government and the taxpayers, there is a lot of disdain toward the Labour party as a result. This is not to say that the Labour party has not had its share of decent wins. The Glenthrothes by-election was a clear cut win for them, and they will have a decent amount of leadership as a result of that. The truth is, though, that Labour could still lose the general election by much and not lose Glenthrothes. The fact of the matter is that Labour needs to only lose 24 seats to completely lose its power at Westminster, and this is something that could happen quite easily to a government experiencing good times. However, because of the economic hardships, there loss is almost guaranteed. The real question here is whether the Tories will be able to win power outright or not; they will need to win more than 100 seats as well as securing around 42 percent of the vote. This is a very large task for them to attempt to accomplish, but they seem to have a large chance of doing this given the economic times. The political leader that is emerging during these struggling times is that of David Cameron. He has arisen in the public as a 41 year old political prodigy, and his rise to power has been quick and successful. It took him four years to become the leader of his party. Cameron has always presented himself with the esteem of one that has been in politics an entire lifetime. He has emerged as a great, natural politician, and has overtaken Blair and Brown in popularity. His popularity is making things look even more bleak for the Labour party. Labour’s own mishaps have caused some of the cusses Cameron has experienced. However, much of Cameron’s own talents have to be taken into account, and his success as well as his rising popularity promise that he is the right man for the job. Read More