Due to the increasing presidential style of recent prime ministers and the party loyalty of the executive one can consider Parliament’s control of executive power minimal. However, due to the development of independent bodies surrounding Select Committees and the delaying of legislation by the House of Lords it can still be argued to be effective. The government usually has an overall majority. This is due to our voting system of FPTP which gives preference to the two main parties, normally giving them majorities (and increasingly large ones) as opposed to coalitions and minority governments which are produced through other voting systems such as AV in Scotland and Wales. Although we are currently in a coalition the government still has a majority through the combination of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
Some in favour of the UK's uncodified system would argue that the fact the constitution is not entrenched creates a much more flexible and adaptable constitution, which means it can evolve due to circumstances when they crop up. A prime example of this was in May 2010 in the election where there was no majority vote. Due to the economic crisis at the time it would have been horrific had there been a 'hung' parliament so thanks to the flexibility of the UK's constitution a draft procedure was made in case of such emergencies. As the constitution was not entrenched this was done quickly and easily which was required because of the seriousness of the situation. This showed the UK constitution to be very beneficial, and furthermore the Queen and the Royal Prerogative did not have to be consulted, which would have been different in a codified system and made the process much slower than in an uncodified constitution.
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
The Canadian Parliamentary and American Congressional governments are fundamentally based upon the same principles; such as democratic ideals and both have an executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. However, the parliamentary and congressional governments implement both democracy and the differentiated branches of government very differently. This essay will examine both the similarities and the differences between the two structures. Firstly by exploratory the executive branches of their respective governments; then analyzing the electoral systems; and the final contrast which will be presented is the bill to law processes. The presentation of the aforementioned differences will plainly demonstrate that the Canadian parliamentary
Do political parties help or hinder democracy in the UK Political parties can be seen to help and hinder democracy in the UK, however in my opinion I feel that they help democracy more than hinder it, as political parties give the electorate a varied range of choice along with many other democracy enhancing factors. One of the main reasons as to why I believe political parties help democracy is because they provide the general public with a diverse choice of ideologies that can gain power, ranging from the conservative party to the monster raving loony party. The electorate can vote for a candidate in a party that they feel shares their beliefs. However, some people may argue that the three main parties (conservative, liberal democrat and labour) have all moved very central and now share similar ideologies detracting from the idea of “choice”. To this I would say that the parties may have centralised slightly, but their core values still exist, which is what most people are interested in.
This is one of several reasons for the splitting of powers between the different branches of government and as well as between the states. The population could get involved in “free and fair elections” (Magleby & Light, 2009 Brief Edition, p. 21) to oust those that they felt were abusing their powers of office. The framers also wished to give the majority and the minorities an equal say in the government so that the minorities wouldn’t be deprived of their rights under the new
This contradicts a democratic society and is seen as a dictatorship because elections are the cornerstone of a democracy. So if two out of three powers that are running the UK are not elected, this itself questions whether or not we are living in a democracy. Furthermore, having a monarchy is very important yet traditional but not in the same aspects of Parliament, as they have more authority over
Judicial power is separate from legislative power and executive power. Statute: Also known as an Act of parliament, this is another term for legislation. Supremacy of Parliament: Also referred to as sovereignty of parliament. This refers to the concept that the final law-making power rests with parliament. Parliament can repeal and amend its own previous legislation and can pass legislation to override common law.
Congress has been somewhat effective in passing laws such as the PATRIOTIC Act under Bush and the Healthcare Reform Act under Obama both show’s that Congress can legislate when it needs be, especially with a majority in both houses. However, the process of passing legislation is often seen as inefficient
Parliament is almost the only source of legislation. When a party wins the general election, a government is formed consisting of various parties. This government then makes laws that become acts of parliament, the legislation, if having been passed by parliament. Most bills that are passed by parliament are government bills, however, some bills that are passed through parliament are private members bills, for example, the abolition of hanging in 1967 by Sydney Silverman. There are also private bills which normally only affect certain private interests and can be introduced by MPs, usually on behalf of a company.