Food and Politics in Britain - Coursework Example

Food in Britain During the First World War, Britain depended highly on imported food stuffs. With high a population living in Britain, approximately 45 million people, all of them had to get a share of food from outside. The First World War was a threat to British food because most of their supplies were hit by their opponents especially the Germans. This meant that British food was scarce because of being targeted frequently. Additionally, Britain had to supply their forces fighting outside the country with food stuffs. Little available food in the country with high population meant that food was really scarce and the prices started rising. The year 1917 marked the worst times for Britain because of scarcity of food brought by bad winter and attack of the food supplies by Germans U-boats. The British government started food rationing to mitigate the food crisis, meat, tea, butter, margarine, sugar were some of the food stuffs rationed by the government. Previously, before food rationing, people had to queue on long queues, which led to frustrations and rioting by the persons especially workers in munitions factories. However, food rationing only took a short time because local communities started taking control of the food supply. Government took control of prices of food supplied by the local community and this led to drops in price. Queues started disappearing and the population had enough food supply (Mason 2004). Mason (2004) explains that because of scarcity of food in Britain during the First World War, they had to depend mostly on the outside world. The author points out that the government depended mostly on the imports and their food is industrialised. The British government import raw and finished food products from other countries. Because of the wars in the early times of the 20th century most of the people in Britain did not care much of the food culture. Only a few of them knew about food culture, however, the currently food culture is viable and in most households food culture is practiced. A small percentage of the British population was fond of meat and potatoes. These combinations were served as meat and two veg. Meat and two veg according to British culture is meat, potatoes and other vegetables served all together. However, industrialization phased out food culture in the late 20th century. Foods such as roasted beef, fruit cake and minced pies were embraced as traditional food. British foods served were made in regard to food fashion, health standards and eating habits. Unlike French and Italian food, British foods are made in a detailed manner. The British population during 1950s seemed to have adopted the habit of conservatism because of food scarcity during the First World War. This can be explained from the facts that food stuffs served by most household at that time (1950s) were eaten without enjoyment. Foods were also prepared without any details because they had negative attitude towards it despite the fact that it is the most important necessity. However, things changed in the late 20th century, after the Second World War, when the British population started showing interest in the food during 1970s because of educational subjects regarding food. Journals and books on food seem to have improved the interest of food in Britain later after the Second World War. Furthermore, by the end of the 1980s the number of restaurants and advertisements in the media on food and cooking details seem to have led to liking of food by the population. This scenario was quite different from the previous one where people only ate because it was necessary but did not take time to prepare or pay attention on the details just like other cultures. Migrants and British travellers to other countries brought ideas and changes in eating habits. British food in the late 20th century were sourced from retail outlets or supermarkets because most women did have much time to prepare food therefore they considered readymade fresh food as the only option. This lead to changes in eating habit because before then, supermarkets started selling readymade food, people use to eat at the right time and eat only for satisfaction. Health concerns were raised during late centuries because of the safety standards of food consumed by the population. An analysis of the decades of 20th century showed much disparity as compared to the last decade of the 20th century. The facts are that foods were in small ratio and small varieties of food had to be chosen. However, the late 20th century is defined by an increased number of food varieties, thus the population had a lot to choose from. Furthermore, attention regarding eating habits has shifted to individuals, which is quite different from first three-quarters of the century. The British government was worried about the scarcity of food to the whole population. This view is different from current and the end of 20th century because the government is concerned more about individual eating habits. The fact is that there has been an increase in the number of disorders related to food consumption. The food culture of the 21st century is described by diverse features adopted in Britain by different nationals. Few individuals still embrace previous cultures of the 20th century where food was only eaten for satisfaction. Others have adopted the idea of consuming ready food available in most food outlets. According to Mason (2004), most supermarket sales have different arrays of food stuffs including vegetables, fruit and other food stuffs mostly imported from other countries. Some of the food products do not require to be prepared hence has made it the best method of obtaining food. The change has been associated with an increasing number of women working not able to get time to prepare food. Additionally, changes in the economy have also been the reason for change. Increase in disposable income has increasing the rate of spending on food in supermarkets by most British households (Mason 2004). Conclusion Based on the study it is clear that the British population did not pay much attention on food stuffs however they only took it as a necessity. Conservatism is the habit that most Britons considered because they got used to it during the times of war. Food culture is still considered by the British population; however, few of them value it because two changes are observed from the study that brought diversion from culture; conservatism and increase in the number of migrants that introduce other food culture. The study also points out that due to changes in the economy, the British population has started shifted their eating habits to package readymade food available in most outlets. Reference Mason, L 2004, Food Culture in Great Britain, Greenwood Publishing Group, USA. Politics in Britain Britain is not like many other countries which had impact of revolution because they did not have any colony. An invasion that most authors disregard it as an invasion is the civil war that took place 1642. This was a fight to bring down the monarchy that was in bad relationship with the parliament. The war only took 11 years before the restoration of another monarchy with a different political system. Britain, unlike other developed countries on the same level, has never had anyone invading or colonizing them. In fact the British were colonizers of many countries including the United States. French and America were faced with revolutions unlike Britain that was never even invaded during both the First and Second World Wars. Additionally, Britain emerged as the only country, apart from Israel and New Zealand without a written constitution. Wright (2003) explains that this has happened in Britain because they are not like the US which they had to struggle to be independent. The author argues that there is no legal reason for drafting of the constitution. However, Britain has a constitution but not a written constitution like other countries. The constitution is quite different from other states’ constitution because the laws can be changed by amending them just like any other rules. This shows that the British constitution is flexible. The following scenario can explain it; the government cannot be halted by the parliament based on the constitution. The British constitution is therefore described as too simple to change and irresponsive to any changes. The constitution also does not define normal institution of the state such as the judiciary, legislature, executive and other powers. However, the British constitution only responds to the existing institutions rather that establishing new ones (Wright 2003). Change of the political system after the civil war in 17th century saws changes of the political power. Parliament has been granted political power because they are close representative of the people. However, Britain’s political system is still ruled by the monarchy under Queen Elisabeth II. But, the Queen’s powers are ceremonial. The only pragmatic power that the Queen has is calling of the Prime Minister to make a government. The choice depends only on the votes of the parliament. This means that the results will determine the end of monarch role in choosing the member of the parliament to form a government. The queens calls the majority leader to form government, however in situation where there is no majority leader formed by more MPs from one party than other. The Queen calls for formation of the coalition government. The government formed consist Ministers from House of Commons or House of Lords. British government has been headed by single party for a long time unlike the current coalition government headed by Prime Minister David Cameron and the Deputy Prime ministers from Nick Clegg. The prime minister heading the government formed by a single party appoints 20 cabinet ministers. However, there are other Ministers that do not form part of the cabinet (Kopstein and Lichbach 2005). The throne of the British monarchy is inherited by the family member. Other arms of the state are judiciary, legislature and the executive. Judiciary consists of judges and courts to ensure that laws are obey. Legislature is the body that is obligated to pass the laws. While the executive is tasked to run the country and advise on new laws. British political system is quite different from other government especially United States. While other countries practice separation of powers, Britain does not take that into consideration, for example, British ministers can be members of legislature. A minister can be head of judiciary. Comparison of this with other countries is different. For example, French and United States considers separation of powers according to their constitution (Kopstein and Lichbach 2005). The current government headed by Prime Minister David Cameron and his deputy Nick Clegg is not a common situation. Lees (2011) argues that British government was not fond of coalition. However, the first coalition government was formed between 1852 and 1855. This was despite Britain perception that they were against the coalition government. The formation of Aberdeen Ministry consisting of Peelites and the Whigs changed the perception. Other coalitions were also formed apart from the current coalition government headed by David Cameroon. The earliest part of 20th century was marked by different coalition including Asquith and Lloyd George coalition, Chamberlain government and the Churchill coalition. Most of this coalition was formed before and after the Second World War. The fact is that coalition was formed during and after the war. Britain was affected financially by the Second World War and they plunged in depression. The perception of the formation of coalition government is still different by British. They still believe that they were only formed during the time of crisis such as wars and the time of depression. David Cameroon government changed this despite the British political few that coalition is meant for crisis. Analysis of other European countries shows that they embrace coalition governments. For example, Spain is ruled by coalition of nationalist and the regionalist party system (Lees 2011). Conclusion British government is different in terms of political system from other nations. First the analysis shows that it is one of the few countries in Europe that was not invaded or occupied by other nation. Other nations struggled for revolution but Britain did not. Another disparity that is clear from the study is the governorship of Britain. Britain is headed by the Prime Minister unlike other powerful nation like US headed by the president. While other nation has written constitution that governs the existing institution, Britain does not have written constitution. The difference with other nations do not end there, system of government is extraordinary. The study shows that despite the existence of three arms in the government, legislature, judiciary and the executive. Minister from executive can be head of judiciary. The study also shows that political system of Britain did not embrace coalition government despite its existence during World War II and currently. Reference Kopstein, J & Lichbach, M, I 2005, Comparative Politics: Interests, Identities, and Institutions in a Changing Global Order, Cambridge University Press, New York. Lees, C 2011, ‘How Unusual is the United Kingdom Coalition (and what are the Chances of It Happening Again)?’, The Political Quarterly, Vol. 82, No. 2, pp. 279-292. Read More