This is criticised because the current political party in power have the ability to make their own decisions for the UK before listening to what the people want. This then becomes a problem because they may make changes that the majority of the population will not agree with. However, near to the next election they may decide to listen to people as they want them to vote for them (the current political party in power) during the next election. Secondly, the UK has a hereditary monarchy and a house of lords, both which are not elected. This contradicts a democratic society and is seen as a dictatorship because elections are the cornerstone of a democracy.
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.
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
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.
For example in the 2010 general election the Conservative party won with 307 seats, however only 36.1 per cent of people on the electoral register voted for them, which means that there were 67.9 per cent of the votes cast in the general election had no effect on the outcome and were wasted. This highlights the criticism of the legitimacy and the authority the current government has as well as the question of the legitimacy of their mandate as effectively 67.9 per cent of people voted against them. Another criticism of the FPTP system is that it favors only the larger parties and in the UK only three parties (Conservative, Labour and arguably the Liberal Democrats). This is seen as a bad thing as many parties don’t even stand any kind of chance during these elections, mostly because unlike the main 3 parties they do not have the money to send Representatives of their party to many different constituencies. This is seen as unfair as the main three parties have such an advantage but also reduces the
The problems with the way in which the electoral system worked, meant that the majority people wanted change and therefore pushed for electoral reform. Many constituencies were left underrepresented; As Thomas Paine explains in his book “Right of Man”, cities with thousands were receiving the same representation in parliament as small villages “The town of Old Sarum, which contains not three houses, sends two members; and the town of Manchester, which contains upwards of sixty thousand souls, is not admitted to send any. Is there any principle in these things?” The new industrial towns were also facing troubles with the services in the areas, as there was not enough to of it to cover the rising population the fact that they couldn’t not then bring this issue up due to lack of representation also led to the need for reform. The lack of representation was not the only injustice people felt with the electoral system, suffrage was also corrupt, in many cases powerful landlords in control of small constituencies knows as pocket or nomination boroughs would manipulate inhabitants with such tactics as bribery, force or even their wealth, as usually they were part of nobility, to vote for who they wanted in power. Examples of this can be seen when the Earl of Lonsdale brought 14,000 miners and made then freemen outside their
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
Liberty died in America today I'm watching the results of the mid-term election as I write this and I am afraid that freedom died in America tonight. There have simply not been enough incumbents defeated to make an impression upon the entrenched elites who control the Big Government party which runs this nation. Yes, the House of Representatives has gone over to the Republicans, but those of us who were looking for the majority of that body to be composed of new people are disappointed. Yes, some of what the liberal mainstream media has taken to calling the “Tea Party” candidates have won their races. But their numbers are few, miniscule really in comparison to the total of 435 seats that were up for grabs.
This meant that he had to draft in Whig party members to fill the gaps, which then reduced the Tory presence in Cabinet. Then when Canning died Robison was unable to form a government as he lacked enough support from the Tory party. The result was that George IV then had to ask Wellington to form a government out of desperation. Wellington managed to get a government but lost support of the left wing of the Tory party over parliamentary reform. Huskisson and other ‘liberal’ Tories resigned and this really spelt the end of the Tory party.
Why was Gladstone unable to win the campaign for Home Rule in 1885 and again in 1893? Gladstone was unable to win the campaign for Home Rule in 1886 and again in 1893 mainly because of the strong Conservative opposition in the House of Lords. This feeling is exhibited by Source N when the 1886 Home Rule Bill failed at the first hurdle, the House of Commons, despite Parnell expressing that it is only a small proportion of Protestants that ‘sought to rekindle the…almost expiring embers of religious bigotry’ the MPs failed to be won over by his argument. The idea of distaste for Parnell is reinforced with the Unionism of Protestant Ireland indicating that because he was seen as a Fenian terrorist, giving into him would be giving into violence and untrustworthy methods like the Land league, a cover for Fenianism. Similarly Source K exhibits the hatred Ulster Unionists felt towards Home Rule as they ‘would resort to force’ to ensure their prosperity was not compromised by a terrorists wishes to become independent.