To What Extent Are Backbench MPs Lobby Fodder? We’re led to believe that the MPs we elect to form Parliament actively participate in the governing of our country. Yet in reality, most of the power lies with the executive and the influence of a backbencher is thus lessened. Are they a loyal party drone? Do they represent the constituents effectively?
Arguably the elected MPs are the reason that a representative democracy flourishes with the elected MPs superseding the knowledge of the public. However, it could be argued that MPs have the interest of toeing the party line, or even acting in their own interests rather than the constituent’s interests. Nevertheless, MPs are learned individuals who would make the correct decisions with the interests of their party, their constituency and themselves, effectively fulfilling the role of an MP. The government within a representative democracy is advantageous as it is held to account for its
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. This can be seen after the vote on tuition fees and the liberal democrats. Despite the fact that they had campaigned for this cause endlessly only 26 (including a few Conservatives) chose to vote against the bill. Whips play an important part in removing efficiency from Parliament. By having whips who ensure that MPs behave in accordance to the decisions of the executive both Parliaments ability to scrutinise and hold the executive to account is diminished, but also their role as representatives of their individual constituency is also compromised.
This is when a minister has to publically support the party’s policies and have to vote with the party or they get fired. There are many reasons for the backbenchers to vote for the party policies, the first is the loyalty of the backbenchers. Many MP’s are loyal to the party for the simple reason they joined the party as they agree with most of the policies. However, they are mainly loyal to the party as if they have a good track record with the party and voting for it then they may get a promotion to a ministerial job. However, even if backbenchers are
Supporters would argue that referendums should be used in the UK. This is for many reasons, such as allowing the public to have control over decision making. In doing so, making that decision is far more representative because it would be the popular choice, therefore making it far more legitimate. Also, because they’re secret ballots it means the voters can be non-partisan furthermore granting the final outcome to be a more justifiable choice due to f the vast amount of voters. In addition, referendums are a form of direct democracy, consequently giving the public control over decision making.
The founding father’s were able to give the people a democratic way of electing leaders, while still having the a few of the people making important decisions in the peoples best interest. During the time of the revolution people were sick of the British parliament and felt as though the were not getting a fair and equal share in the decisions pertaining to them. Hence the phrase taxation without representation was coined. When America won the revolution many concerns and issues cropped up with the declaration of independence, it held very small amounts of power. Paying off debuts of the revolution became a choice that most states opted out on because their was no force behind the request.
Firstly, a codified constitution would clarify the nature of the political system to citizens of the state. Most British citizens do not understand the concept of the constitution, nor what the UK constitution entails. It is therefore an argument that having a codified constitution would raise public awareness and support for the government would grow. It would also enable the public and people in government to view the constitution whenever necessary for matters such as court cases, etc. This would encourage public involvement in politics and act as an improvement to our democratic society.
FPTP is an electoral system where the voters select a single candidate by marking an ‘X’ next to his/her name. In 2005, Blair made one of the weakest governments the UK has seen having only 355 seats and a 32% majority. FPTP provides a clear-cut choice for voters between the two main parties but unfortunately the third parties often wither away because FPTP excludes smaller parties from ‘fair’ representation. The current FPTP system questions whether the UK is a democracy or not. Within the UK’s society there are many things which make it democratic, having free and open elections is one, enabling the choice of who represents the citizens.
In recent years, government mistrust has become rampant. In the past, approximately 75% of Americans trusted the government most or all of the time. However, this number has sharply decreased. In the Gallop’s annual governance poll conducted in September of 2011, only 19% of people were satisfied with the way the country was being governed. First, it is important to recognize that these polls suggest that Americans are displeased with the people in charge of our government, not the institution as a whole.
If a party gains a majority it will be offered the chance to form government by the Queen. The MP is then responsible for representing all constituents, even those who didn’t elect the member. For example in 2005 George Galloway received only 18.4% of his constituents but was still elected MP for Bethnal Green and Bow. [1] This high proportion of constituents who didn’t vote for Galloway is not a unique anomaly, during the 2005 election only three MPs secured more than 40% of their constituents votes. It may be argued that voter apathy has a large influence on this