How effective are back bench MP’s Backbench MP’s are critical for UK democracy. They are effective because they allow for high standard scrutiny of the government which holds them accountable for their actions to the people. They help in representing the electorate. However there are some circumstances in which MPs are less effective and have little control, for example the UK party system which is enforced by whips. Firstly, back bench MPs are effective because they are a good way of increasing legitimacy and representation in terms of their constituency as they have been voted in by their electorate and therefore should represent the views of those in their constituency.
Cameron in turn, should expect to enjoy less power as he had to form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, in order to achieve a majority. This would mean that the likes of the Prime Minister would in many situations have to be compromised. Another essential factor which would influence the degree of Prime Ministerial power is the unity of the ruling party or coalition. In Blair’s situation, he enjoyed an exceptionally united group, therefore being able to enjoy several years of complete domination. When Blair resigned, Brown was said to enjoy similar power, at least when he still enjoyed popularity.
The House of Commons holds both legislative functions and is also designed to hold the executive accountable. It can be argued that due the introduction, and reforms, of select committees and the regular questioning of ministers the House of Commons is effective. However, it could also be argued that party loyalty and whips have become more important than effective scrutiny. The House of Commons can be seen to be effective in the cases where it has defied the government. Although this happens infrequently there have been cases where Commons has voted against government.
Anna Mitakos To what extent is the House Of Commons effective in carrying out its functions? The House of Commons holds legislative functions and is designed to hold the executive to account. On the one hand it can be argued that it is effective through the use of regular questioning of ministers, the introduction of select committees and also reforms. However it can be argued that MPs are not socially representative of the general population. A function that demonstrates that the House of Commons is effective is because ministers are regularly questioned and held accountable.
Occupied with other matters, the British Empire wasn’t able to completely control the colonies and as a result they developed independent governments. While still only the wealthy could hold positions, the government was fairly democratic. In addition to the large voting percentage, many states formed assemblies that were similar to the House of Commons in England. These were effective because they better represented the people and put a check on the power of the Governor. Further advances in free speech rights also made their way into the colonies.
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
This shows that the PM, whether he feels that it is necessary or not, must ask advice of his cabinet ministers and especially of those who are Liberal Democrats in order to prevent unfairness in the cabinet. As a result, it is clear that the limitations within a coalition government is of full awareness to Cameron. Yet, it could be argued that David Cameron’s powers within the cabinet can considerably enhance his parliamentary power. Evidence of this can be brought from the fact that he can make the decision of which ministers get to continue with their jobs in the form of cabinet reshuffles. Thus, this can give enrichment to Cameron’s power as this can ensure that he gains a majority of support from his cabinet by simply removing those who he feels are untrustworthy despite the fact that he cannot remove every single minister he dislikes.
Conviction politicians truly speak out their minds regardless of what the consequences would be. One example of a conviction politician would be George Galloway who used be a member of Labour party. In the parliament you would see that there are more Party Delegates than Conviction Politicians. There are many reasons for why there are more party delegates than conviction politicians in the Parliament some of the reasons might be: Fear of being sacked and losing their job, money, fame, ego and status and many more. Some MPS choose to be party delegates rather than conviction politicians because they fear of being sacked and losing their job, by not listening to the leader and following orders, instead speaking up against the leader’s views which could put them in a position where they could lose their job.
There are many arguments as to why we should or shouldn’t have more referenda in the UK. Both arguments are fair and it is simply a matter of opinion. There are also many reasons as to why we should have more referenda in the UK. Referenda are a device of direct democracy, giving the public some decision-making of the country. This makes sure that the public’s views and interested are truly presented, rather than being distorted by politicians who want more people to support their party.
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. Also, the fact that the current chamber works perfectly well would suggest that it is very unnecessary to make the second chamber elected. Another argument against an elected second chamber is the fact that you would lose all of the expertise that the members of the House of Lords have built up over the years. This knowledge has made them very good at making political decisions that will be for the good of the whole country. However, the fact that they cannot actually prevent a bill from being passed but only delay a bill slightly contradicts this because their expertise can’t be