The 1906 landslide victory Essay Example for Free

The 1906 landslide victory Essay To what extent is it fair to conclude that it was Conservative/Unionist failings that led to the 1906 landslide victory? Within the last 20 years being dominated by the conservative party, perhaps it is possible to assume that soon there would be a reverse in conservative fortunes. This could come from a liberal comeback or another party finding their feet in parliament. As we know it was the Liberals aiming their ascendancy again to win a landslide victory in 1906. However, external factors cannot entirely be attributed to the conservative downfall as it came in a landslide defeat. In answering this question I will look at the inefficiencies and limitations of the conservative party, whilst also considering the actions and decisions of the other parties. It is fair to say that the conservatives would have found it difficult to gain any more votes than they already had received form previous elections, and that their goals were mainly consolidation of their position. This landslide in 1906 shows that the conservative objections were failed to be adhered to. Therefore in answering this question the first aspect to look at is the conservative parties own limitations. Many of the problems that the conservatives had to face were them always seeming to have an ineffectual leader, Arthur Balfour. At first it would to be believed that he might become a good leader as he had brains, courage, vision and that he was also a well respected man in the commons. Balfour disliked democracies like his uncle Salisbury, yet in that he never took it seriously. Balfour became too cerebral and too uninvolved, and in his eyes, the Tories were an instrument for solving the nations problems. He saw that Britain was in a state of decline on the international front, with the economic growth saturating alongside productivity. Thus, defense of the empire was required in order to make Britain more competitive and Chamberlain was particularly devoted tot this. It has to be said that it was the combination of Chamberlains response and Balfour letting him enact his response that became a major reason behind the conservative defeat in the 1906 elections. The conservatives foreign policy was also very poor, as it was the Liberals in 1886 with the problems involving Irish home rule. Between the two men, the party collapsed from Salisburys secure and dominant party, to eventually ruins. Balfour was also costly about reform, and it was the poorly orchestrated social reform that seemed to lead to the dissatisfaction of certain social groups that had been formally enlightened by the conservatives. An example of this is the 1902 Education Act, which eventually ended up in a political disaster. In order to achieve national greatness and efficiency it was believed at the time that it was education that held the key, and that if education didnt become a prominent feature of party policies Britain would fall behind other major countries. Therefore no wonder that Balfour and Devonshire both co-operated to forward the education act of 1902. Embitterment reached its peaks in the summer of 1906 with Dr. Clifford, who started upon orchestrating a campaign against education reform. This became the beginning of the non-conformist revolt. Other reforms agitated the non-conformists groups, two years later with the enactment of the 1904 Licensing Act, which made provision for closure of republic houses but also compensated those who had lost trade by a levy on those remaining. With Balfours inability to reform he had two major instances in the public spotlight, which completely tarnished the partys reputation with hem showing complete insensitivity towards the public opinion. Balfour mistake on the domestic front with him totally comprehending the trade unions agitation that arose form a series of judgments in the late 1890s (Taff Vale). In contrast with Disraeli in the 1870s he made no effort to halt the pressure groups. Balfours main concerns were with the foreign policy and maintaining of the empire, which in effect would enhance Britains position. Another major mistake that Balfour made was the damage from the Boer War in South Africa. Alfred Miller concerned about the war asked for the importation of Chinese workers, these workers would work in the gold mines of the Rand. Initially Chamberlain who obviously recognized the importance of public opinion vetoed the request, however the board sanctioned the request later in 1903. This proved to be a mistake with a wave of protest all over Britain, mainly die to the people becoming more aware of human rights. The outcry came form the conscience as the Chinese workers had to work in poor conditions in the most small and dangerous areas. Balfour could have rejected the idea, however to him the plan was effective and practical. On the 15th May 1903, Birmingham, Chamberlain declared his faith in imperial preference as he proposed to abandon free trade which had become a way of British life for fifty years. He believed that a system of duties would tie the overall empire together, raise revenue for social reform and protect British industry. The war on the Tariffs had started with Chamberlain seeing this move a way of solving the nations problems whilst giving him individual gains, such as him being in the spotlight after fading with the climax of the Boer War. In July 1903 an outraged group of unionists began to set a Free Food League, and thus Balfour faced an extremely dangerous position. Bitter quarrels were beginning to form between those who endorsed free trade and those who were tariff reformers. Another massive blow to the conservative party under the controversies of tariff reform was the loss of Winston Churchill, who publicly showed the necks of the liberals, tariff reform became a rallying cry for conservatives and an electoral liability. The protection of men and women meant less food for the people, whilst the fre trade stood for prosperity and cheap food. Chamberlains reform, was admittedly unfortunate to coincide with economic revival, yet this fear of expensive food created a retaliation in the country and I believe this was the major mistake made by the party, which ultimately produced a swing against them of devastating proportion in what is know seen as the landslide victory of 1906. Chamberlain and Balfour both seemed to have the inabilities to appease all social groups and this was made worse with their ineffective social reform, inability to understand public opinion and their constant focus upon solving the nations problem. This all contributed to the declining conservative support. The views that I have just made are the conservatives mistakes that led to the landslide victory, yet the Liberal party after Gladstone was undertaking changes. These changes were apparent in their organization and ideology and thus by the early 1900s it was ready again to challenge the conservatives through the electoral system. The year 1902 was a decisive year for the liberals fortunes. Initially, the liberals looked set to divide further into factions as Roseberys ascendancy had culminated in him leading a pressure group within the party as a president of the new liberal league. The group name was Schism which included the prominent figures such as Grey, Fowler and Asquith. The group however began to fade away. The education Act set up by the conservatives gave the Liberals a chance to reform and unite and rally to the non-conformist cause. The Liberal politicians now had something to pick up on, and hostility to rate support fir church schools and the abolition of the non-conformist dominated school boards was a perfect issue. By-elections immediately swung against the Tories, as the Liberals won in Bury and Leeds by July. In 1903 Chamberlain had begun his infamous tariff reform campaign and presented the Liberals with an absolutely perfect issue in which they could protest against. The Liberal propaganda, machine had got in motion with the main liberal highlight big Liberal Loaf against the small Tory loaf. Asquith began to emerge as a leading protagonist in the issue, and was a thorn in Chamberlains side. Through the campaign the liberals were winning back votes form the working class as the liberals played upon the fact that the tariffs were being enacted at the expense of the masses who have to pay for them. This then led to more places falling under the Liberal grasp like Lancashire. Even new support groups were being encouraged, as the National League of Young Liberals was set up in 1903 and had 300 branches by 1906. Gladstones achievements as an organizer meant a fall in the number of unionist candidates. The splitting of the progressive vote had clearly rebounded to the unionist advantage, highlighted in the unionist dominance at Barnard castle in 1903. The eventual agreement was signed in September 1903 with the main gist being that Labour would get a free run in some forty to fifty unionist seats in return for backing the Liberals elsewhere. The results of the 1906 elections were paramount to the pact made by the two parties, as the benefits affected both. Indeed the LRC and the Liberals were able to concentrate upon capitalizing on the new upshot of working class consciousness, which was shown in essence at the retaliation against the war fought for the rich capitalists of the Rand, the money making schemes of Chamberlain, the contemptuous nature against Labour with the enslavement of Chinese workers and the refusal to reverse the Taff Vale judgment. The reform issue was the final fault of the conservatives for the Liberals to pose the question. The 1906 elections was a disaster for Unionists whereas the liberals consolidate their strongholds whilst gaining in Lancashire, London and the southeast. In conclusion I believe that it was mainly due to the conservative failings that led to the 1906 landslide elections. The Tory party was headed by two main figures, Balfour and Chamberlain who brought the party to ruins preceding the rise in liberal fortunes headed by Salisbury. The liberal propaganda machine helped to put the conservatives to rest whilst they continued their uprising. The Liberal united around the conservative failings and this proved to be a force for both non-conformity and the working class.

Assessing Crime Trends as a Security Specialist Essay -- Crime

Crime is known as an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. Depending on where one may reside, different punishments from certain crimes can depend on the governmental bodies. Also crimes can vary by the jurisdiction from state to state. For most crimes, after a completion of affirmative action one can be punished for the conduct. Many people have the assumption that crimes are the result of intentional conduct, when most of the time it is negligent conduct such as speeding. When there is a significant change in the nature of chosen crime types within a defined geographical region and stretch of time, is known as a crime trend. When crime trends in different areas are being assessed, various methods are used in order to collect the data that is needed. When first assessing crime one may ask, â€Å"What is the cause of crime.† Criminologists have looked at a ride range to explain the factors on why people tend to commit crimes. Many of these factors can be looked at through different societies, cultures, and families. These aspects can be brought on by certain emotions such as anger, greed, jealousy, and sometimes through getting a rush for carrying out such acts (for example stealing). In the article 10 Causes of Crime By Talidari, reveals 10 different causes on how crime commences: Weakness – regarding lack of faith and/or imbalance, Poor judgment – lack of proper education, Lack of love – living in a dysfunctional family, Poverty – poor families tend and unemployment, Deprived neighborhoods – Economically impecunious neighborhoods, TV violence, Being a victim in a chain of events – being in the wrong place at the wrong time and getting sucked in, Poor parenting... ...The report will also be more precise for the security specialist from the media taken and the reports. Just by looking off charts off of the internet that can be compared to the average in the U.S. without evidence can be sometimes cause disbelief. In order to be able to fully implement protection the different factors stated will make for safer living. Works Cited Careless, J. (2012). Video evidence. Retrieved from http://www.cba.org/CBA/practicelink/leadership_technology/video_evidence.aspx Crime and arrest reports. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/about/spotlight/crimeReport/ Dutelle, A. (2010, January). Documenting the crime scene. Retrieved from http://www.evidencemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=184 Talidari. (2012). Hub pages. Retrieved from http://talidari.hubpages.com/hub/10-causes-of-crime

The Difference Between Globalization and Regionalism

Ironically, as society drifts towards globalization, regionalism also seems to take place in almost every corner of the globe. In fact, most countries in the world, on all continents, are members of regional trade agreements through either customs unions, free trade areas, or other preferential arrangements. Over 200 regional trade agreements (RTAs) exists and have been notified to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and over 150 of those agreements are in force. Most of these agreements have been concluded in the past ten years and cover mainly trades in goods or services, or a combination of both. To further complicate the issue of RTAs, many countries are members of several agreements; oftentimes these multiple agreements have differing rules. Europe seems to be taking the lead in regards to RTAs with sixty percent of the notified RTAs in force at the end of 2000 whereas developing countries only account for about fifteen percent of the total RTAs in 2000. The question that arises is whether the growth of regional groups helps or hinders the development of multilateral trading systems. Many countries are trying to balance between global and regional trade organizations. To understand the relative advantages of regional versus global organizations you must consider why international organizations are created. According to Yale University†s Bruce Russett, some organizations have single or multiple purposes, however, according to Russett, all international trade organizations have these purposes or functions. First, to secure peace among their members; second, to provide for external security vis-a-vis other states; third, to carry out a variety of economic-related tasks, such as development, managing or promoting interdependence; fourth, to address problems of environmental protection, and lastly, to secure human rights. These purposes or functions are normally carried out by a wide range of international organizations, including international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs). Many scholars feel that the United Nations serves three distinct purposes, security against violence, economic security, and to promote human rights. It is the second purpose of the UN, economic security, which ties into regional and global economic organizations. The UNs economic security is, no doubt, a global and not a regional solution. It is the Bretton Woods institutions of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the WTO along with the UN Development Program that the UN uses to rebuild economies and develop poor and underdeveloped countries. These institutions have been concerned with promoting economic interdependence, reducing poverty, and stimulating economic development. Because of these functions, these global institutions have underpinned economic interdependence and have become major advocates for the spread of free markets. The problem is that as the UN and these aforementioned organizations propagate free trade and globalization, many regions feel they are losing there autonomy and are looking towards more regional agreements, hence the move towards regionalism in the 1990s. There are two basic schools of thought in regards to the relationship between multilateral (globalization) and regional trading arrangements. According to Bhagwati and Panagariya, those who advocate the total reliance on the multilateral economic process express three main concerns against regional economics. These reasons are: First, regional agreements divert trade by creating preferential treatment for member countries vis-a-vis nonmembers, the term for this used by anti regionalism critics is preferential trade agreements (PTAs). Second, critics argue that countries may lose interest in the multilateral system when they engage actively in regional initiatives; they feel that regionalism will stall and even threaten global trading. Third, regional trading agreements may contribute to political and even military clashes among nations, this though is the extreme. Still and all, contemporary critics of regionalism do worry that extensive and regional ties may lead to conflicts that range beyond economics to broader areas of international relations. The champions of regionalism address and counter each one of the aforementioned issues. C. Fred Bergsten nicely sums up the points that counter the critics of regionalism. Bergsten lists these three opposite views on the issues presented by the critics of regionalism: First, regional arrangements promote freer trade and multilateralism in at least two areas, trade creation has generally exceeded trade diversion and regionalism contribute to both internal and international dynamics that enhance rather than reduce the prospects for global liberalization. Second, regionalism oftentimes has important demonstration effects; that is to say, that regional initiatives can accustom officials, governments, and nations to the liberalization process and increase the probability that they will subsequently move on to similar multilateral actions. Lastly, regionalism has had positive rather then negative political effects; the European Union (EU), because of economic interdependence, is unlikely to see any serious conflicts between the member states. As the last two paragraphs show, it is impossible to decisively resolve the regionalism versus multilateralism issue. Most analysis of free trade agreements (FTAs) conclude that trade creation has dominated trade diversion but that conclusion is not without foolproof results and the future cannot guarantee that regional arrangements will have similarly benign results. However, most economic scholars agree that regional and global liberalization have proceeded together and have tended to reinforce each other; the US would be a good example of this, the US has continued to provide global leadership for multilateral liberalization while simultaneously pursuing it†s regional initiatives. In the end, the evidence suggests that the interactions have been largely positive but this conclusion is based on judgmental rather then definitive results. The only irrefutable conclusion is that the interrelationship between regionalism and globalism depends on the management of the process by the key countries involved. If those countries seek constructive synergism between regionalism and globalism, then the historical record shows that that synergism can be achieved. If those countries wish to pursue either regionalism or globalism at the expense of the other, then the outcome could be different. What has evolved is a term called â€Å"open regionalism,† open regionalism represents an effort to resolve one of the central problems of global trade policies; how to achieve compatibility between the explosion of regional trading agreements erupting around the world and the global trading system as embodied in the WTO. The â€Å"open regionalism† concept seeks to assure that regional agreements will in practice be building blocks for further global liberalization rather then stumbling blocks that deter progress. â€Å"Open regionalism† has been adopted by the three largest economies in the world, the United States (US), Japan, and China, when those economies established an international trade organization, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). According to Bergsten, APEC is the largest regional trade organization in the world and is potentially the most far-reaching trade agreement in history, therefore, APEC is a major factor in the world trading system and its embrace of â€Å"open regionalism† has propelled this concept into the global marketplace. The concept of â€Å"open regionalism† represents an effort to achieve the best of regionalism and globalism, the benefits of regional liberalization, of which even the critics acknowledge, without jeopardizing the continued vitality of the multilateral system. Proponents of open regionalism view it as a device through which regionalism can be employed to accelerate the progress towards global liberalization and rule making. Ross Garnaut gives five possible definitions of â€Å"open regionalism† and these can be implemented simultaneously as well as independently, the five definitions that Garnaut gives are: One, â€Å"open regionalism† has open membership in the regional arrangement. Any country that indicates a credible willingness to accept the rules of the institution would be invited to join. Second, the most favored nation (MFN) treatment concept would be utilized; trade liberalization would be extended unconditionally to all of the members† trading partners. Third, conditional MFNs would be instituted to counter the unconditional MFNs mentioned in the second definition. Outsiders would accept offers from regional trade organizations in order to avoid being discriminated against by countries that account for half the world†s economy. Fourth, regional organizations will continue reducing their barriers on a global basis while pursuing their regional goals. Continuing the practice of unilateral liberalization and multilateral negotiations in the WTO would do this; both approaches avoid creating a new discrimination and could be viewed as faithful renditions of â€Å"open regionalism. † Finally, trade facilitation through non-tariff and non-border reforms. Such initiatives would be narrowly focused, though still valuable in enhancing trade, such as customs harmonization and mutual recognition of product standards. Economic regionalism and globalism can co-exist, in fact, as can be seen with the US, a state can practice both and flourish. Most countries will accept the idea of â€Å"open regionalism† and will want to promote liberalization in both their region and globally, â€Å"open regionalism† allows those states to do this. These countries must indicate publicly both their regional liberalization program and their willingness to extend that liberalization to all members of global organizations, such as the WTO, on a reciprocal basis. Such a strategy is feasible, as noted earlier, over sixty percent of world trade already takes place within regional arrangements that have either achieved free trade, are getting close to that position, or have committed to do so. The advantage of overcoming current preferential discrimination offered to MFNs would be enticing enough to convince most countries to take the additional step of freeing trade with all partners rather then a selected few while still maintaining regional ties, this is exactly what â€Å"open regionalism† does.

Rumspring Analysis of the Hands-Off Parenting - 602 Words

Do I agree or disagree with the hands’ off ignore-the-behavior approach; Amish parents and leaders take with their children during rumspringa? Well that is simple, no I do not agree with it. There have been plenty of studies done to show that permissive parenting, (what they are doing during rumspringa) hurts the child in the long run. It causes them to have low impulse control that can lead to things like substance abuse (i.e. drugs and alcohol), and problems with the authorities. The permissive parenting style is also something that theses teens are completely unprepared for, seeing as up till the age of sixteen the parents practiced an authoritarian style of parenting which gave the children little to no freedoms at all and demanded absolute obedience to the ways of the family and church. The direct translation of rumspringa, (according to the documentary) means â€Å"running around†, and running around is exactly what theses teens are doing. While most of the teens still live at home during rumspringa it is not required. As a result you have sixteen year olds, typically boys, living without any supervision at all that cannot even find decent employment. Because children are made to drop out of school after eighth grade; due to the fact that the Amish culture believes it â€Å"leads to pride† these children are left in the world with less than a high school degree. The jobs they are normally able to have are very labor intensive and can be unsafe. Now you are left with children