Due to the increasing presidential style of recent prime ministers and the party loyalty of the executive one can consider Parliament’s control of executive power minimal. However, due to the development of independent bodies surrounding Select Committees and the delaying of legislation by the House of Lords it can still be argued to be effective. The government usually has an overall majority. This is due to our voting system of FPTP which gives preference to the two main parties, normally giving them majorities (and increasingly large ones) as opposed to coalitions and minority governments which are produced through other voting systems such as AV in Scotland and Wales. Although we are currently in a coalition the government still has a majority through the combination of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
In recent cabinet changes Cameron appointed 4 women (Including Lady Warsi who is an ethnic minority) to be in Cabinet and the commons has 27 MPs who are part of an ethnic minority. More and more Women and Ethnic minorities but yet it is still not enough. The ration of women in Parliament to women in the public is not equal, which leave many to believe that women are not being equally represented (The same for Ethnic minorities). The question arises as to whether we should have MPs who reflect the ration of the population, or do we only vote in those who would do the job well, even if it leads to a greater dominance of a certain age, gender and
Like presidents, modern prime ministers can generate different political resources through these different roles and the techniques required by them. At the same time and in similar fashion to presidential politics, prime ministers are increasingly monitored and assessed according to criteria that are quite different to those experienced by senior colleagues, also like Presidents a modern day prime minister is often voted in due to factors that have nothing/ little to do with their political agendas, for example in 1997 Tony Blair
Which also allowed the federal government the opportunity for revenue. One of the main emphases for the Hamilton and the Federalist Party was that the federal government was too over power the states. They felt that leaving too much power in the hands of states would only create a weak type of government, with very little power to act. Citizen’s rights would be protected by the legislation, court systems, and of course the Bill Of Rights; distrusting the people with the vote. The federalist created the House of Reps which was directly voted by the people.
Fenjy Duval Not only do we wage wars with other countries against money, allegedly the same things can be found happening with genders. The infamous gender wage gap, although precedent throughout all time, our era of revelations has pin pointed more focus on it than ever before. The gender wage gap has increasingly improved throughout time, yet the numbers are still quite staggering. Katie Johnston, staff member at the Boston Globe, writes, “Hispanic women who clean offices and houses for a living make just 54 cents on the dollar compared with what male janitors make. Compared with their Hispanic male counterparts, Latina cleaners make just 59 percent.” This instance is only one of many that occur throughout all tiers of the economic agenda.
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.
Gender inequality can be defined as the obvious or hidden disparity between male and female. In order to fight gender inequality, the US government had enacted several laws such as the 1963 federal Equal Pay Act, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the passage of Title VII and IX of the Education Amendments in the early 1970s. Gender discrimination can be manifested in several ways in this society; for instance, although there are more women that are being active in the workplace nowadays, they are being paid less money than men in many positions that are being occupied by both entities. This is so true that according to the US Census Bureau, the median income in 2000 for females with a high school diploma was $21,963, compared to $30,868 for males with a high school diploma. Females with bachelor's degrees earned $35,408 in 2000, compared with $49,982 for males.
Proponents of the UK and US voting methods also often cite the lack of a credible alternative as a reason for the retention of the current systems. In the UK, national elections are held when the incumbent government chooses to call an election. This differs significantly from the USA where political office is held on a fixed term basis. When a general election is called each constituency holds an election to decide their Member of Parliament (MP) using the first past the post system. If a party gains a majority it will be offered the chance to form government by the Queen.
In studies provided by the Census Bureau, women proved to have worked more hours per week than men. Vanderkam feels the pay gap is reasonable considering women are beginning to work more hours, but some Americans argue that social inequality is now in favor of women. America is always going to have competitiveness with employee wages. While this is seen as social inequality, it sometimes is morally fair. If women are working more hours than men, many people find it reasonable for women to make more money.
Now if the male is also a college graduate the pay gap will increase to $2,482 a month and total of $1,192,000 during their whole career (Henslin, 2010, p. 316). According to Henslin (2010) “The pay gap is so great that U.S. women who work full-time average only 72 percent of what men are paid” (p. 318). The pay gap isn’t just based of gender but also physical appearance plays a role. Not only does a tall male make more than a short male by $166,000 but tall women also make more than short women. But we go back to the gender inequality because taller men make more than taller women.