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.
The Lords has also become more legitimate since the reforms because it’s influence has increased, the Lords are now looked to by the Commons to see what they think of what the government is doing more and more. They scrutinise the government’s decisions and make suggestions and changes to policy. More and more often the Lords reject or request changes to legislation from the Commons which most of the time the Commons agree with or work on – this highlights how effective and influential the Lords are. c) How successfully does Parliament perform its representative functions in modern Britain?
c) Make out a case in favour of retaining the F.P.T.P electoral system for the House of Commons? (25) F.P.T.P is an electoral system used at Westminster, a ‘plurality of votes’ need to be acquired to be elected and this has to be one more than their nearest opponent. You have one vote for one MP of a single member constituency. The system on the whole is pretty broad and representative and consists of a group of people chosen to act and speak on behalf of a wider group. This system works because it produces strong, stable, decisive governments, this means that they can carry out their manifestos and have clear mandates, this means that voters have a clear understanding of the leading parties policies.
This shows hope the people can directly influence the way in which their democracy works and so is hence very democratic. However critics of referendums argue that they undermine the sovereignty of
It has been argued that some Pressure groups are more successful than others, before starting to discuss the reasons, what is a Pressure group? A Pressure group are groups of like-minded individuals who come together on the basis of shared interests or a commonly held cause and put pressure on the policy makers at Westminster or beyond Westminster. Now, coming to the various degrees of success with pressure groups, the reasons for the degree of success will be discussed in this essay. First of all, some pressure groups are more successful than others is due to their relationship with the government. Some insider pressure groups are in close contact with senior civil servants and ministers and are therefore able to influence legislation.
Pressure groups are organised interest groups in which members hold similar beliefs and actively pursue ways to influence government. Unlike political parties, which seek to win control of government, pressure groups are principally interested in influencing those who determine policy. An example of a pressure group in the US is the National Rifle Association (NRA). Pressure groups can be argued to be more successful than other due to them either being part of the Iron Triangle, effective organisation and leadership, wealth, large membership, status and effectiveness of the opposition, achievability of the groups goals, Lobbying and revolving door. As David McKay concluded, ‘The combined political clout of the leading sub-government actors is formidable, with no individual president, public-interest lobbying or congressional leader able to break the pattern of distribution and public expenditure which the iron triangle has moulded.’ The iron triangle is a term used to describe a strong relationship that many commentators of US politics see existing between pressure groups and the relevant congressional committees on the one hand and the relevant government department or agency on the other hand.
But it also depends on what kind of government there is. He believed in a strong federal government. There are many advantages to this. For instance, with this, its very easy to regulate business and taxes. By this I mean a society lives off each other.
Palin doesn't believe that we should pull out of Iraq until their government can properly handle the Iraqi people. We will Know to pull out when our commanders on the ground tell us that the proper conditions have been met. Obviously we know how to govern their country much better than they do, even though their culture, religion, and way of life are completely different than ours. Our democracy is the best system of government in the world and countries like Iraq are fortunate to have people like us come in and do our part to better unify the
Now on the other hand, the US has a long way to go to reach a system like that of Belo Horizonte. The US with all its wealth and power in my opinion likes to feel in power and enjoys to hand out its help instead of incorporating it into a system where it benefits all and not just a few. The US is famous for its liberal democracy, but there is a catch to everything. Democracy is a form of government in which the power is elected by the people for the people. So if the US job is to protect and nourish the country so it can rise and live
It is often overlooked because it is not physical like money or gangs, but it is this power is omnipresent. Public opinion is arguably the most influential things in America. We conform to society for the appeasement of the people around us. This often makes us uniform as a nation. We conform our behavior to match that of our neighbors.