Although we are currently in a coalition the government still has a majority through the combination of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. This therefore often renders opposition as a form of scrutiny meaningless and also means that it is difficult for the executive to be held to account. Party loyalty is also very strong. The power of prime ministerial patronage renders many MPs excessively docile and loyal, hence the term ‘lobby fodder’. With the rise in the professional politician many prefer to remain loyal in order to gain power and move up in the hierarchy as opposed to become a rebel who remains in the back benchers.
Of course changing and reforming the senate would not be an easy process it is a process that needs to happen for the betterment of the senate and the government of Canada. Canada’s government is a democracy and has always been a democracy. However in the government one important aspect of it is not democratic, the senators are appointed by the current in power Prime Minister. These senators that are appointed by the Prime Minister in power will always back the Prime Minister on every bill because he will only appoint senators from his own party. Every bill issued by the Prime Minister or party in charge will undoubtedly be passed by all of the senators appointed by him.
It is difficult for a Backbench MP to influence government policy if a government has a large majority in Parliament. The power of individual backbench MPs is reduced making it harder to challenge the government. Also, the PM has powers of patronage which demand loyalty; few MPs want to cause a general election by defeating the government. Thus accepting their fate as lobby
Some pay more attention than others, but they all have to consider the views of the folks back home. Congress is also organized primarily along party lines, so party membership is an important determinant of a member’s vote. Each party develops its own versions of many important bills, and party leaders actively pressure members to vote according to party views. It is not surprising that representatives and senators vote along party lines about three-fourths of the time. Finally, what if a representative or senator seriously disagrees with the views of his or her constituents on a particular issue?
This means that it is very important to choose a nominee who would be reflecting president’s political philosophy in the Court. However, if Senate decides that candidate is far too ‘extreme’ in their views or has been working with the president in the past, they might decide to strike the nominee down. For example Robert Bork’s critics regarded him as being both too conservative and too closely associated
There are many arguments that a lot of the laws being passed through the House of Commons don’t have approval of the people. The first reason for this is that government has a majority in the House of Commons. This means that if the government backbenchers and ministers vote with the party they will certainly pass the legislation through. The reason that the ministers are loyal to the party is something called “collective responsibility”. This is when a minister has to publically support the party’s policies and have to vote with the party or they get fired.
However it could be argued that Wilhelm II’s aims to crush socialism in response to Caprivi’s tolerance for Socialism in his years as chancellor disagree with this view as it suggests he is aiming for more of an autocratic state where he holds state control. Another notable factor which suggests Germany was a parliamentary democracy is Wilhelm II could ignore the views of the centre party; failed attempts to previously dismiss them such as the Kulturkampf were a failure because the party’s strong political views are extremely influential, and they have always had a substantial amount of seats in the party. This in turn meant the government was influenced by the parliament. However, there were many events which demonstrate the Kaiser
In order to limit the power of congress it is divided into an upper and lower house. As we see presently in our congress the Democrats control the Senate and the Republicans the house. This has two implications I’d like to point out, one negative and one positive. The negative being that it contributes to gridlock in Washington where not so much as a budget is able to be compromised on and passed. However, the positive side, neither party has a majority and are able to impose their will through legislation upon the
By doing this it would lead the democracy to a dictatorship. The separation of powers is another way to ensure that checks and balances are being enforced and followed through. Caplan brings the issue of the debate of the meaning of separation of powers, “…the separation of powers means that each branch has exclusive control of matters in its domain or whether the Constitution generally gives Congress and the president overlapping, or blended, powers, all of which are quite extensive but none of which obviously serves as an absolute trump to the other,” (Caplan 21-2) So the presidential power used in the issue of foreign policy has been somewhat validated by this statement
8/2/11 I think we need a bicameral legislature today because we wouldn’t want just one branch to make our law and be able to do want they want. We need to have that second opinion so we have an equal discussion on all matters in the United States. If we had only one branch they could make all kinds of laws and we would have to abide buy them even though they may not be fair to everyone. We need to keep it the way it is and elected new bleed into the system. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES A bicameral is two chambers; the Senate and the House of Representatives.