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.
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
A voter could switch from voting for the Conservatives to vote for the Labour Party at the next election because they decide according to single issues. In general the public today is not really aligned to parties anymore. I would say that party allegiance is something which is nearly vanished in Britain’s voting behavior. There are still groups which are strongly related to one or the other party but that is not as common as was in the 50s and 60s. The important things today are which party has at the moment the right promises for the single voter and which party is better in delivering policy goals.
A government with a minority of seats in the Commons might however lose a vote of No Confidence and would then have to resign - this last happened to the minority Labour government of Callaghan in 1979. Parliament does, however, have important SCRUTINY functions. In other words, the executive (the prime minister and all other ministers) have to explain and justify their policies and actions to parliament. Ministers (by rotation) answer questions by backbenchers during the daily Question Time (both orally and in writing), while the prime minister answers questions every Wednesday. The oral questions are sometimes dominated by loyal backbench government supporters, and it is often suggested that the media provide a more effective form of scrutiny than does parliament.
This is amplified by the fact that the larger pressure groups can leave many smaller ones in their shadow. For example, the British Stammering Association is a small pressure group with a good cause but one that many people will not have heard of due to its lack of funds and support. Many say that pressure groups holding the government to account and challenging authority is a sign of a healthy democracy. After all, a democracy is a system of government where decisions are arrived at by majoritarian principles. If a certain group of people do not feel that they are being represented then a democracy has to be able to recognise them for anything to change.
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
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.
Although there was changed tactics and a greater push from suffrage organisations to achieve the vote, it in some cases in fact alienated politicians and the public. As source 13 states “we have been told that we cannot have the same political rights which men have won unless we convert the whole country to our side”. This source being written by Emmeline Pankhurst means it very useful as it shows how people directly involved felt about what the suffrage movement had achieved, and from the implications of this source that was very little. If the leader of the WSPU claims herself that the movement is not making ‘substantial progress’ then it is very difficult to argue against this. They were beginning to make headway however this was still a long way to go before the movement had made substantial enough progress to gain the
Finally, what if a representative or senator seriously disagrees with the views of his or her constituents on a particular issue? How should he or she vote? Those who believe that personal views are most important argue that the people vote for candidates that they think have good judgment. Representatives should feel free to exercise their own personal views. After all, if the people don’t like it, they can always vote them out of office!
The first issue was that of what people would be involved in the government. This problem was centered on the idea of different classes of people that were in the nation. By limiting the types of people in the government however, it would limit the types of personalities that would play a role in the government. Some argued that the private men, the working class individuals who represented the majority, had no business being involved in politics and government. Thomas Gordon argued against this because he thought that if anyone would know how the government worked, it would be the private men.