Uk Essay, Research Paper
Pete Robinson
Does British and foreign experience support the position that the greater usage of focal point groups and referenda today are marks of a healthy democracy? Alternatively do they sabotage the function of parliament?
Increasingly in Britain today the usage of focal point groups is going more and more common, non merely by research establishments but by the authorities. A focal point group is a little choice of people who represent the state, as there will be people present from all countries in Britain, all ages etc. The focal point group is so asked inquiries to which it is to discourse and so to supply replies to the inquiries. More frequently than non these sentiments are used merely to reassure the authorities, but more late they have been used to organize the new policies in countries that would hold been otherwise neglected by the authorities. Referenda are now besides taking a larger function, with several being held in the last few old ages. It may non be long before all of import determinations are taken by keeping referenda such is the instance in Switzerland. Is this democracy gone huffy or a new moving ridge of extremist democracy?
The party most responsible for the debut of focal point groups into Britain is Labour. When Tony Blair took over as leader of Labour in 1994 after the decease of John Smith they were still seen as the left flying party of the 70 s and 80 s. Blair realised that their positions were outdated and that they would ne’er win the following election unless they changed the bulk of their policies. Labour used over 500 focal point groups between 94 and the election of 1997, in which they gained a really big bulk. The focal point groups provided them with a clear indicant of what the British public wanted and accordingly Labour changed their policies to suit in with this. Unsurprisingly the Labour Party of 1997 bore a immense resemblance to the Conservative Party, and it appears that the lone ground people voted for Labour was because they believed the propaganda poured upon them by Blair et Al, alteration for alterations sake, if you will. However the Labour triumph did highlight the function of focal point groups and the monolithic influence that they can hold on political parties. One can merely presume that in such instances this is good for democracy because it gives people the chance to show their positions and in a little manner have a bearing on how the state is run. There is besides a negative side towards the usage of focal point groups and that is that a authorities may utilize them excessively much and go far excessively reliant on them. An indicant of this overexploitation is the 5000 strong Peoples s Panel set up by Labour to give the public reaction to Labour/ authorities proposals. If the people on the panel respond negatively to an issue the authorities will likely non travel in front with it, for fright that they will fall out of favor with the electorate, even if the issue is of monolithic long-run importance. Equally as likely is the scenario that the authorities will present policies that are damaging to the state in the long tally but present them merely to derive support for approaching elections.
The continued usage of focal point groups by the authorities will hold many effects, some positive, but most significantly several cardinal negative points. In future the authorities will be far better informed of public sentiment and will be able to take attention of the major issues more rapidly and efficaciously. This will besides take to a authorities that is improbable to do immense errors, such as canvass revenue enhancement and, in all honestness, the Millennium Dome. By holding such a well informed authorities finance could be allocated to the right sectors, and money that would hold been wasted e.g. the 650m for the Dome, could be spent on more worthy causes.
The increased usage of focal point groups in British political relations would hold serious side effects, most significantly of all the reluctance of authoritiess to do determinations that at first are unpopular with the populace. This would do authoritiess afraid of taking snap determinations, in times of crisis for illustration, without first confer withing focal point groups. It would besides take to them seting off major determinations for the following authorities to cover with, which would be potentially unsafe, and would turn parliament into a immense public dealingss exercising. Party political relations would besides decease out because each party would merely establish policies that are popular with the populace. Therefore the parties one-year conferences would go disused, as would organic structures such as the NEC. If all the parties were basically the same democracy as a whole would endure because there would be no existent pick when it comes to an election. Pressure groups would besides endure, as there would no longer be a demand for them because if the populace
wanted alteration so they would likely acquire it. Finally political relations would go really flat or non-existent, as there would be no clang of basic political orientations because focal point groups or peoples panels take all of our determinations.
If thought of utilizing focal point groups was taken to the utmost so democracy would evidently hold gone excessively far, but every bit long as it is used in moderateness so it can merely better the function of our authorities.
Another factor that has crept into our lives of late is the referenda. A referendum allows portion, or the whole, of a state a ballot on a individual issue. Referenda are normally merely held on major issues, such as Scots and Welsh degeneration, but in the USA and Switzerland many issues are voted on.
As general elections are normally merely held one time every 5 old ages, there are many issues which come to a caput during that clip which the populace do non acquire their positions heard. Referenda are a good solution to this because it provides an chance for the electorate to hold their sentiments made known. This can merely be good for democracy as the bulk s finding of fact is ever taken into history, something that has non happened in any general election since the war, as the winning party ever additions around 40-45 % of the popular ballot.
The usage of referenda is besides really utile refering topics that are really sensitive and are moral opinions instead than political 1s, such as abortion, capital penalty and more late in Wales, Sunday opening for saloon. These are topics on which the authorities may be split, or on which they feel they are out of touch with public sentiment. In such a state of affairs a referendum would be the perfect solution, as it would take duty of such a unstable determination off from the authorities. Referenda refering really of import issues should besides be used because the authorities does non truly have the right to do such a immense determination that may impact everybody s lives, such as the Good Friday peace understanding for those populating in Ireland. So far much of the grounds for utilizing referenda has been concerned with deputing determination devising to the populace, it can, nevertheless be used to give the authorities a bigger authorization. If, for illustration, Labour decided now was the right clip to fall in the Euro, there would doubtless be a large call from the sound-minded Conservative Party. Labour, alternatively of forcing through the necessary statute law with its grossly undemocratic bulk in the Commons, could take to keep a referendum on the issue. If the populace voted yes to the Euro, ( did I merely see a hog winging? ) , so Labour would hold a authorization for presenting such reforms if they voted no, as is likely, so Labour would likely retreat it s proposal.
The concluding worthy ground for presenting a policy for regular referenda would be that it would affect the populace in local political relations. This would do them more knowing about their ain country and would renew involvement in how they are governed locally and hopefully nationally. An illustration of a local referendum would be the one refering grammar schools, and whether or non they should be replaced by a comprehensive system.
Of class there are besides many reasoned statements against the regular usage of referenda. There would be far excessively much influence given to the bulk, while the minorities are ignored, this could take to subjugation of the minorities and a strong motion to the far right. The increased usage of referenda could besides take to irresponsible vote, such as the slashing of revenue enhancement rates, whilst still anticipating to see a high quality of instruction, wellness attention etc. an about excessively obvious ground for non keeping regular referenda is that of cost. Each one cost in surplus of 10m ( 1984 ) , intending that there would either hold to be a rise in revenue enhancements or a cut in authorities disbursement in other countries. In the statement for referenda it suggests that electors will go more involved in political relations, this statement could besides swing the other manner, with electors non trouble oneselfing to vote, rendering the consequence meaningless. Referenda consequences are besides really volatile, if the Good Friday Peace Agreement had been voted on a twenty-four hours after a immense terrorist onslaught it is likely that the trade will be rejected, nevertheless if it had happened the twenty-four hours before so it may hold been accepted.
Referenda are much the same as focal point groups, if they are used in moderateness so they can turn out highly utile, nevertheless overuse can take to deformations of democracy. Of class referenda can merely be used for the right grounds and to utilize them to avoid duty is to weaken the place of authorities. A healthy democracy should hold focal point groups and referenda but merely if they are non over/misused.
