Along with the rising number of back-bench rebellions and MPs defeating government’s proposals such as the Syria war in 2011, it can be seen that Parliament is performing well in making laws. However, although it has enormous power, Parliament is oftenly not expected to demonstrate that since by convention, government with the majority dominates and Parliament should support it. The whips system-a weekly outline sent to MPs with items underlined by 1,2 or 3 lines depending on how important the MPs attendance is- maintains party discipline and makes sure that rebellions are exceptional. Usually, MPs obey this system, therefore, Parliament in reality has not fulfilled this function. Parliament is believed to
The United Kingdom’s s uncodified constitution relies heavily on established conventions and trust in order to prevent widespread corruption. To some extent this type of constitution historically has served the UK well. However, due to increasing disillusion with politicians and their ethics. Which some claim to be the result of more transparency and a higher level of education. UK citizen are more informed and able to make analytical judgements in their best interest, this in turn, challenges the authority of the state to decide what is in our best interest.
They also have a number of hereditary peers (although there will no longer be any hereditary peers appointed. There have been many calls to make the House of Lords into an elected chamber as people say that the fact that it is unelected reduces the democracy of the United Kingdom and that it is unfair to have an unelected as the peers may not actually represent the views of the people. However, there are also many arguments as to why the House of Lords should remain unelected. The first and possibly most convincing argument is the fact that an elected second chamber would actually be completely pointless as it would be exactly the same and the House of Commons. This means that instead of making the House of Lords elected, it would probably be more practical just to get rid of it all together and just have the House of Commons.
Congress would start making laws that makes it more powerful, the President would use his power on the armed forces to gain influence and the supreme court would cut deals with congress by using its power to judge court cases (CEE, 2011) You might argue that no respectable politician would try unjustly gain more power, but this is not true; the politicians would easily justify this and since there would be no system in place to stop them they wouldn't be accountable. Even if only one part of government tried to give themselves more power there would be chaos. The other parts of government would be constantly in struggle to prevent the rightful powers from being infringed upon. This struggle would prevent the government from functioning properly. One law in the system of checks and balances is the law that allows citizens to challenge any law that they feel is unjust.
Do pressure groups strengthen or weaken democracy? It is extremely difficult to reach a conclusion on whether groups are good or otherwise for democracy but it is important to realise how they can be both beneficial and damaging to it. In debating the matter we face the difficulty that the group’s methods, aims and composition vary significantly and so they cannot all be thrown into the same group. So while we make comments on judgements they are only generalised and do not apply to all groups in all circumstances. Government’s aims are always to please the public, or do the best for the state and so these groups clearly show the government what a certain band of people wish to happen.
When Blair resigned, Brown was said to enjoy similar power, at least when he still enjoyed popularity. Cameron on the other hand would expect less of this as he had entered a coalition from the very beginning, which suggests that the cabinet is naturally divided. With different ideologies, it is inevitable that there will be times of disagreements, which suggests that he would not be able to dictate
I haven’t seen a film like this that criticizes the government only with facts and criticize what the government did wrong and should change. I really enjoyed watching the film but the one thing that bothered me was that it had too many opposing views against U.S.A. and President Bush. Every criticism did have good evidence behind it and made some sense but it looked as if the
This effectively allows the PM to make a decision by themselves, in a Presidential fashion. If there is a case where the Prime Minister has a large majority, they have increased power and are often able to get most legislation they want passed. E.g. from his appointment as PM in 1997, Tony Blair had not lost a single vote in the House of Commons until November 2005. A reason that in the past may have supported the view that the limits on the PM are too few and too ineffective, and arguably the most important power that the PM had at his/her’s disposal up until recently is the ability to set the date of a general election.
“Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut is a prime example of what happens when government tries to “control man” and make a, in the government’s opinion, utopian society. Throughout the progression of “Harrison Bergeron,” one can see that trying to achieve total equality by any means is not the ideal way to attain a utopian society. Although the members of the public, for the most part, went along with what was happening it was primarily do to the handicaps that they were forced to wear. In the story the handicapper general Diana Moon-Glampers, a representation of a president or authority figure, is the main enforcer behind everyone wearing handicaps. The handicaps include chains for those who are gifted athletically, masks for those who are beautiful, and earpieces for those who are intellectually above average.
While these issues become more and more a problem, people are beginning to speak up on each sides. From ordinary people, all the way to US senators, people are proposing new ideas that can impact the laws of gun control. Finding this perfect balance of gun control can be rather difficult, even though many people become outraged when laws are put against their side. Gun control is like many other controversial topics, exploring both sides and taking feedback as well as inputting that feedback to making new laws may be the only way a happy medium can be