What is an ‘absolute majority’?
What is a ‘hung parliament’?
How many people are in the cabinet?
How many people are in the government?
Define collective responsibility
When was the last time that Britain had a minority government?
What is a coalition government?
Define cabinet government
Define prime ministerial government
Define individual ministerial responsibility
Identify two functions of the prime minister
Name two sources of Prime Ministerial authority
Define the concept of spatial leadership
Name two traditional differences between a President and a Prime Minister
Name 5 government departments
What does accountability mean?
Identify two differences between ministers and civil servants
What does Civil Service Neutrality mean?
Define Open Government
Monday, 30 January 2012
Friday, 27 January 2012
Mr Adcock's 45 mark essay on climate change. Done in timed conditions in class. Not saying it's perfect, feel free to critique using comments page.
In the field of climate change why is international cooperation so difficult to achieve?’ (45)
Climate change is often referred to as the archetypal example of the complexity of global co-operation, pitting short term national interest against long term collective good. This free rider problem is a central obstacle to the tackling of climate change, but other issues connected to the nature of the problem make a solution all the more elusive. Opinion is split, for instance, on whether nations can be held to account for the actions taken in the past, the developed and developing worlds struggle to agree on who should shoulder responsibility for the issue, while a rights’ based approach stresses the needs of people living in the global south. Meanwhile radical ecologists suggest that fundamental systemic change is required – something that few nations are willing to even contemplate. This essay will examine four obstacles to tackling climate change before suggesting that recent developments hint at progress in tackling this complex environmental problem.
Cooperation on climate change has proved problematic because it requires countries to collaborate in pursuit of the long term collective good, yet the whole fabric of national and international politics is geared towards sovereign states protecting their self interest. This tension is made worse by the democratic system followed in most rich countries which encourages governments to pursue short term populist policies, if only to increase their own chances of re-election. Thus we have a classic free-rider problem, whereby the rational stance for each nation is to shun international cooperation in the hope that others will rise to the challenge. Canada’s recent decision to opt out of the Kyoto protocol undermines cooperation and diminishes the trust required between nations to form a joint solution. Perhaps only a robust international government could, detached from the short-term demands of an electorate, could truly act in the long term interest of the global population.
International cooperation has been particularly elusive between developed and developing nations, with climate change exacerbating the so-called north/south divide (America/Europe v Africa/Asia). The league table of carbon emissions shows that China is the biggest emitter, yet introducing a per capita element to this calculation shows that America is still four times ahead of China. Furthermore, China’s emissions are caused mainly by manufacturing and with the fruits of this labour predominantly being shipped across to rich western nations, it seems harsh to penalise the Chinese for their carbon footprint. The issue of burden-sharing becomes even more problematic when we consider that from a historical perspective, western countries have contributed the most to climate change and have benefited the most from exploiting the environment. Just to add to the complexity, developing countries are the most at risk from environmental change and are the least able to deal with the problem (adaptation or mitigation). Recent shifts in the global world order have only exacerbated the tension between developed and developing nations, with China set to overtake USA in terms of the size of its economy in the next ten years.
Economists take a hard-headed approach to climate change and argue that historical contributions should be ignored (why should we pay the price for decision made by people who are long gone, and who didn’t know that what they were doing was damaging?). Thus if we focus on current emissions then developed and developing should be treated alike, not least because of the rapid growth of the BRICS and the stagnation of rich world. Against this pragmatic assessment there are those who view climate change as a rights-based issue, and if we are looking to protect the equal rights of all global citizens then we should favour the needs of countries which contain more citizens – i.e. those in the global south. The argument can be extended by pointing out that the poverty of the south makes their needs even more important compared with the rich north. Thus there are no clear economic solutions to the problem of cooperation on climate change.
The three issues above seek somehow to reconcile global development with climate change, but radical ecologists argue that climate change is a systemic problem, and therefore solutions require systemic changes. They argue that capitalism and environmental sustainability are incompatible: profit seeking businesses will always be drawn to cheap sources of energy and growth, just as petroleum companies have exploited the tar sands in Canada – extracting oil from sands at great environmental expense. Radical ecologists argue that g’reen capitalism’ is a contradiction in terms and that the prevailing materialist culture creates tension between mankind and nature. Thus climate change is difficult to tackle because it requires individuals to change their values, and this seems unlikely to happen any time soon.
To conclude, we should be careful to avoid a wholly gloomy judgement on the problem of cooperation over climate change. It is worth noting significant examples of cooperation, for example the 27 nations of the EU have acted in alliance for most of the last two decades, and even at the much-criticized Copenhagen summit more than 160 countries attended, with over 100 sending their head of state. At the more recent Durban conference binding agreements were made between developed and developing countries and the deal was signed off by USA, China and India. Thus there seems to be light at the end of a long and gloomy tunnel in which self interest has taken precedence over long term collective good. It should be no surprise however that cooperation has been so elusive. Climate change is a uniquely challenging issue, at odds with both the economist system that has come to dominate world affairs and the notion of state sovereignty which has guided international relations for the last few centuries. It has taken over a generation for any kind of collaboration to emerge, the question remains whether there is still time to act.
Climate change is often referred to as the archetypal example of the complexity of global co-operation, pitting short term national interest against long term collective good. This free rider problem is a central obstacle to the tackling of climate change, but other issues connected to the nature of the problem make a solution all the more elusive. Opinion is split, for instance, on whether nations can be held to account for the actions taken in the past, the developed and developing worlds struggle to agree on who should shoulder responsibility for the issue, while a rights’ based approach stresses the needs of people living in the global south. Meanwhile radical ecologists suggest that fundamental systemic change is required – something that few nations are willing to even contemplate. This essay will examine four obstacles to tackling climate change before suggesting that recent developments hint at progress in tackling this complex environmental problem.
Cooperation on climate change has proved problematic because it requires countries to collaborate in pursuit of the long term collective good, yet the whole fabric of national and international politics is geared towards sovereign states protecting their self interest. This tension is made worse by the democratic system followed in most rich countries which encourages governments to pursue short term populist policies, if only to increase their own chances of re-election. Thus we have a classic free-rider problem, whereby the rational stance for each nation is to shun international cooperation in the hope that others will rise to the challenge. Canada’s recent decision to opt out of the Kyoto protocol undermines cooperation and diminishes the trust required between nations to form a joint solution. Perhaps only a robust international government could, detached from the short-term demands of an electorate, could truly act in the long term interest of the global population.
International cooperation has been particularly elusive between developed and developing nations, with climate change exacerbating the so-called north/south divide (America/Europe v Africa/Asia). The league table of carbon emissions shows that China is the biggest emitter, yet introducing a per capita element to this calculation shows that America is still four times ahead of China. Furthermore, China’s emissions are caused mainly by manufacturing and with the fruits of this labour predominantly being shipped across to rich western nations, it seems harsh to penalise the Chinese for their carbon footprint. The issue of burden-sharing becomes even more problematic when we consider that from a historical perspective, western countries have contributed the most to climate change and have benefited the most from exploiting the environment. Just to add to the complexity, developing countries are the most at risk from environmental change and are the least able to deal with the problem (adaptation or mitigation). Recent shifts in the global world order have only exacerbated the tension between developed and developing nations, with China set to overtake USA in terms of the size of its economy in the next ten years.
Economists take a hard-headed approach to climate change and argue that historical contributions should be ignored (why should we pay the price for decision made by people who are long gone, and who didn’t know that what they were doing was damaging?). Thus if we focus on current emissions then developed and developing should be treated alike, not least because of the rapid growth of the BRICS and the stagnation of rich world. Against this pragmatic assessment there are those who view climate change as a rights-based issue, and if we are looking to protect the equal rights of all global citizens then we should favour the needs of countries which contain more citizens – i.e. those in the global south. The argument can be extended by pointing out that the poverty of the south makes their needs even more important compared with the rich north. Thus there are no clear economic solutions to the problem of cooperation on climate change.
The three issues above seek somehow to reconcile global development with climate change, but radical ecologists argue that climate change is a systemic problem, and therefore solutions require systemic changes. They argue that capitalism and environmental sustainability are incompatible: profit seeking businesses will always be drawn to cheap sources of energy and growth, just as petroleum companies have exploited the tar sands in Canada – extracting oil from sands at great environmental expense. Radical ecologists argue that g’reen capitalism’ is a contradiction in terms and that the prevailing materialist culture creates tension between mankind and nature. Thus climate change is difficult to tackle because it requires individuals to change their values, and this seems unlikely to happen any time soon.
To conclude, we should be careful to avoid a wholly gloomy judgement on the problem of cooperation over climate change. It is worth noting significant examples of cooperation, for example the 27 nations of the EU have acted in alliance for most of the last two decades, and even at the much-criticized Copenhagen summit more than 160 countries attended, with over 100 sending their head of state. At the more recent Durban conference binding agreements were made between developed and developing countries and the deal was signed off by USA, China and India. Thus there seems to be light at the end of a long and gloomy tunnel in which self interest has taken precedence over long term collective good. It should be no surprise however that cooperation has been so elusive. Climate change is a uniquely challenging issue, at odds with both the economist system that has come to dominate world affairs and the notion of state sovereignty which has guided international relations for the last few centuries. It has taken over a generation for any kind of collaboration to emerge, the question remains whether there is still time to act.
Sunday, 22 January 2012
12Ec, The Multiplier Effect. An answer to Sarah's question (hopefully)
On Friday we learnt about the Multiplier Effect - the fact that an increase in investment will lead to an even greater increase in national income. The example the book gave was of firms increasing spending on new factories by £100 million. This resulted in an increase in national income of £1000 million (multiplier = 10).
Sarah questioned how that £100 million is getting bigger - isn't it just being transferred around the economy? The answer is that it's not a simple transfer from firm A to firm B, because there's not just a flow of money - firm A is buying services in exchange for that money. And then of course firm B spends some of that £80m buying goods and services from C, etc. etc., and all the while the output of the economy is increased.
One way of looking at it is that the £100 million spent on factories adds in itself £100 million to national income. So any additional spending based on that £100 million (e.g. from Firm B to Firm C) will also be added to the national income.
I hope this helps. This video helps too.
Sarah questioned how that £100 million is getting bigger - isn't it just being transferred around the economy? The answer is that it's not a simple transfer from firm A to firm B, because there's not just a flow of money - firm A is buying services in exchange for that money. And then of course firm B spends some of that £80m buying goods and services from C, etc. etc., and all the while the output of the economy is increased.
One way of looking at it is that the £100 million spent on factories adds in itself £100 million to national income. So any additional spending based on that £100 million (e.g. from Firm B to Firm C) will also be added to the national income.
I hope this helps. This video helps too.
Friday, 20 January 2012
Thursday, 19 January 2012
Wednesday, 18 January 2012
12GP: Today's HW - What did you learn from The Iron Lady about the role of Prime Minister? 250 words with examples. Due Monday.
See below videos from today's lesson (resignation of three cabinet ministers). Might be worth thinking about why Theresa May survived the border check issue in November while Fox and Laws were unable to hold on to their jobs. The first video shows James Purnell who resigned from Gordon Brown's cabinet in the hope that other cabinet members would follow and that Gordon Brown would then be forced to quit.
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
GP13: My essay on the Spirit Level (40 minute timed-essay, i know it's not perfect but might be useful to look at)
With reference to liberalism, conservatism and socialism examine the claim that the government should try to make Britain a more equal society.
Britain is one of the most unequal societies in the world. It is nothing new to suggest that poor people would benefit from Britain being more equal, but The Spirit Level argues that all British people, not just the poor, would be better off in a more egalitarian society. Ignoring the practical problems of creating this society, this essay will examine this claim with reference to liberalism, conservatism and socialism.
Liberals believe in foundational equality, but beyond this notion that we are born equal they prioritise freedom over equality, especially when it comes to economic equality. Classical liberalism in particular advocates a small government which allows market forces to flourish. Nozick describes tax as ‘legalised theft’, for it involves the state imposing itself on citizens, thus restricting their liberty. Modern liberals such as Rawls take a more compassionate view towards the poor advocating a minimum level of wealth below which no one should be allowed to fall. Modern liberals propose equality of opportunity as a means of ensuring that everyone has access to wealth in society, while allowing for the fact that people are different and will inevitably end up with different levels of wealth. Thus, most liberals would resent the interference required if the government were to make society more equal.
Conservatism also contains differing views on equality, though for the most part equality is not a priority within conservatism. Commitment to tradition, property and free trade – key values for most conservatives – is incompatible with a commitment to equality. Thatcher and Reagan served as flag-bearers for atomism, where society is reduced to individuals and their families, the ties that bind us to others becoming obsolete. While conservatives are skeptical of radical ideas and grand plans, some one-nation conservatives such as Disraeli have shown a commitment to raising the living standards of the poor. David Cameron has also deviated from traditional values through his brand of compassionate conservatism and the ‘big society’. One of his first policies was to include happiness in the surveys carried out by the national audit office – suggesting a belief that wealth shouldn’t be pursued at all costs. Despite these slight anomalies, most conservatives are extremely comfortable with inequality and would therefore resist government attempts to challenge it.
While one of the pioneers of new labour - Peter Mandelson – described himself as ‘intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich’ most socialists support equality, though on a sliding scale. At one end of the spectrum are the Marxists who seek absolute equality – the poor have ‘nothing to lose but their chains’. This reflects the view that capitalism is wholly and inevitably exploitative, with the rich benefiting at the expense of the poor. At the other end of the spectrum are those socialists such as Ed Miliband who advocate equality of welfare, essentially providing a safety net for all members of society through a robust welfare state funded by progressive taxation. Between these points sits Tony Blair’s new labour, which justified business-friendly policies so long as all members of society were able to access wealth, for example through having a good local school. So most socialists do support government attempts to make society more equal, but recent ‘socialist’ governments have not pursued these policies with any vigour.
The evidence provided by the Spirit Level for government action to reduce inequality is compelling. Some of the criticisms of the book are valid. Income inequality is not the only key difference between UK/US and the Scandinavian countries for example; size and diversity of populations arguably count for more. The sheer range of data helps to deflect criticisms such as this however, and the differences between countries which are otherwise quite similar, such as Spain and Portugal, suggest that income inequality is influential, and that we would all benefit from government intervention to rectify this. The book concludes that the rich do more harm than good: "rather than adopting an attitude of gratitude towards the rich, we need to recognise what a damaging effect they have on the social fabric".
In conclusion, my view is that the vast majority of people would benefit from a more egalitarian society and thus redistributive policies should be pursued. It is difficult however for the government to do this without encroaching into our lives and liberty to an extent that most people would find intolerable. Thus it is my view that a more equal society can only emerge from within society, rather than being imposed by government.
Britain is one of the most unequal societies in the world. It is nothing new to suggest that poor people would benefit from Britain being more equal, but The Spirit Level argues that all British people, not just the poor, would be better off in a more egalitarian society. Ignoring the practical problems of creating this society, this essay will examine this claim with reference to liberalism, conservatism and socialism.
Liberals believe in foundational equality, but beyond this notion that we are born equal they prioritise freedom over equality, especially when it comes to economic equality. Classical liberalism in particular advocates a small government which allows market forces to flourish. Nozick describes tax as ‘legalised theft’, for it involves the state imposing itself on citizens, thus restricting their liberty. Modern liberals such as Rawls take a more compassionate view towards the poor advocating a minimum level of wealth below which no one should be allowed to fall. Modern liberals propose equality of opportunity as a means of ensuring that everyone has access to wealth in society, while allowing for the fact that people are different and will inevitably end up with different levels of wealth. Thus, most liberals would resent the interference required if the government were to make society more equal.
Conservatism also contains differing views on equality, though for the most part equality is not a priority within conservatism. Commitment to tradition, property and free trade – key values for most conservatives – is incompatible with a commitment to equality. Thatcher and Reagan served as flag-bearers for atomism, where society is reduced to individuals and their families, the ties that bind us to others becoming obsolete. While conservatives are skeptical of radical ideas and grand plans, some one-nation conservatives such as Disraeli have shown a commitment to raising the living standards of the poor. David Cameron has also deviated from traditional values through his brand of compassionate conservatism and the ‘big society’. One of his first policies was to include happiness in the surveys carried out by the national audit office – suggesting a belief that wealth shouldn’t be pursued at all costs. Despite these slight anomalies, most conservatives are extremely comfortable with inequality and would therefore resist government attempts to challenge it.
While one of the pioneers of new labour - Peter Mandelson – described himself as ‘intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich’ most socialists support equality, though on a sliding scale. At one end of the spectrum are the Marxists who seek absolute equality – the poor have ‘nothing to lose but their chains’. This reflects the view that capitalism is wholly and inevitably exploitative, with the rich benefiting at the expense of the poor. At the other end of the spectrum are those socialists such as Ed Miliband who advocate equality of welfare, essentially providing a safety net for all members of society through a robust welfare state funded by progressive taxation. Between these points sits Tony Blair’s new labour, which justified business-friendly policies so long as all members of society were able to access wealth, for example through having a good local school. So most socialists do support government attempts to make society more equal, but recent ‘socialist’ governments have not pursued these policies with any vigour.
The evidence provided by the Spirit Level for government action to reduce inequality is compelling. Some of the criticisms of the book are valid. Income inequality is not the only key difference between UK/US and the Scandinavian countries for example; size and diversity of populations arguably count for more. The sheer range of data helps to deflect criticisms such as this however, and the differences between countries which are otherwise quite similar, such as Spain and Portugal, suggest that income inequality is influential, and that we would all benefit from government intervention to rectify this. The book concludes that the rich do more harm than good: "rather than adopting an attitude of gratitude towards the rich, we need to recognise what a damaging effect they have on the social fabric".
In conclusion, my view is that the vast majority of people would benefit from a more egalitarian society and thus redistributive policies should be pursued. It is difficult however for the government to do this without encroaching into our lives and liberty to an extent that most people would find intolerable. Thus it is my view that a more equal society can only emerge from within society, rather than being imposed by government.
Sunday, 15 January 2012
Thursday, 12 January 2012
Wednesday, 11 January 2012
Tuesday, 10 January 2012
Monday, 9 January 2012
12GP: Homework Monday 9th January 2012, Due Wednesday 11th
Outline 3 qualities a PM would look for when choosing a cabinet minister. Justify each one (approx 75 words on each).
12GP (and anyone with an interest in politics): This 1-hour documentary on the formation of the coalition is essential viewing for the new topic
We watched it at the start of the year but i recommend it again:
Friday, 6 January 2012
Book of Week: The Spirit Level by Wilkinson & Pickett. Fascinating book arguing that everyone (not just the poor) would benefit from greater equality
In this short video the authors introduce their work:
12Ec (and anyone else with an interest in Econ): BBC Newsnight feature on the emerging BRIC economies, especially Brazil (video available until 12th)
Click HERE to watch this brilliant report on Brazil, followed by a discussion on whether the growth of the BRICs is sustainable (or just a temporary blip).
Thursday, 5 January 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)