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.
If bills get past the committee stage, members can make influential recommendations as they are perceived to be policy specialists. This could mean it is harder to gather enough votes due to the range of evidence provided and therefore the bill can be rejected at the 2nd or 3rd readings. The issue of ‘pork-barrel’ politics also arises in the committee stage. Congressmen may insert ‘earmarks’ into bills, which is a provision that gives money to a particular Congressman’s state. In order for many bills to get passed there is often a need for compromise between members of Congress as such favours are often exchanged in order to gain crucial votes on legislation.
This source of power is also affected by members of the cabinet whom are too powerful and important to easily dismiss, most recently famous was during Tony Blair’s leadership, 1997 – 2007, and the pressure he received off Gordon Brown to leave. The majority a Prime Minister receives in a general election also alters the power that they have. If there is a large majority then a Prime Minister has, arguably, got more of a political mandate than a leader with a
Should the Westminster electoral system be reformed? The Westminster electoral system has been a target for reform for a long time. Despite the loss in the 2011 referendum, reform is still wanted by a number of people especially the Liberal Democrats who will benefit the most. First Past the Post is the system that Westminster uses for election to the Houses of Commons it is a simple majority or plurality system that requires a candidate to get more votes than anyone else. One argument that the Westminster electoral system should be reformed is that First Past the Post doesn't give the social representation that other system gives, for example in the Parliament elected in 2010, women, 51% of the population, are represented by 22% of Parliament therefore an under representation, however, university educated are overrepresented, 91% of the Houses of Commons represent 31% of the population but having PR doesn't guarantee that the social composition of Parliament only making the percentage of votes more proportional towards the seats.
To what extent is it reasonable to describe modern British prime ministers as presidents in all but name? Few, if any, now doubt that the office of prime minister dominates the British political system. As long as the holder of that office is not faced by too many limiting factors, such as a small parliamentary majority or a divided party, the British system has moved away from the traditional ‘cabinet government’ model to a ‘prime ministerial’ model. We argue that the system has now become ‘presidential’. * PMs perform most of the functions of a head of state: The prime minister has come to be, effectively though not legally, the head of State, the leader of the nation, irrespective of party allegiance.
However, there are also informal powers which make Prime Minister much more important than their ‘constitutional’ role suggests. The Prime Minister has three important relationships: the cabinet, individual ministers and government departments, the Prime Minister’s party and, through it with Parliament and the people often through the mass media. These relationships explain how Prime Minsters can influence the government but also explains why the influence is provisional and subject to constraints. The Prime Minister does dominate the political system in the U.K as they chair the Cabinet where they can organise and make appointments to Cabinet committees. The Prime Minister can determine the number of cabinet meetings.
In an effort to create an accountable and effective democracy the constitutional founders created the re-election system for Congressional members. Each House member is re—elected every two years while senate members are elected every four years. Some political scientist argue that Congress is ineffective because of the focus on these frequent elections, while others contend that the competition and frequency of elections ensures accountability to the American people and does not hinder effective policy making. Congressional representatives must respond to these two contradictory expectations by the general public. They must be viewed as effective policy makers, and they must represent the views of their constituency which is known as the Paradox of the Legislature in a Liberal Democracy.
Phillips, Christopher. Constitution Cafe: Jefferson's Brew for a True Revolution. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. Print. ------------------------------------------------- Thesis: the constitution states, “the power vested in the federal government comes from the people themselves”; however, the house of representatives has a limited number of members, does not ban gerrymandering, nor does it include term limits for years served in office which has led to unrepresentative government.
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.
Primus inter pares – ‘ A first among equals’ In the UK prime minister is considered to be a ‘first among equals’ as they act as a chairman of their ministers. Cabinet government – A system whereby the power of the executive is vested in the cabinet who hold collective responsibility, the prime minister is still ‘first among equals’, he has further powers than his ministers such as patronage but cannot act unilaterally. Royal prerogative – powers exercised in the name of the crown these are the power to : -declare war and negotiate treaties -dissolve parliament - appoint government ministers - appoint judges 2007 ‘governance of Britain’ green paper included proposals to allow parliament to scrutinise how ministers use prerogative powers. Collective responsibility – Secrecy – Ministers must keep details of cabinet meetings secret Binding decisions – Once a decision is made by the cabinet system it is adopted by all cabinet and junior ministers even if they were not involved. Those who are unable to accept this are expected to resign or to be dismissed; senior ministers who have resigned include Nigel Lawson (1989), Sir Geoffrey Howe (1990), and Robin Cook (2003).