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.
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
Overtime, the role of the cabinet may have increasingly been seen to be less and this may have changed peoples’ perception on the system of government used in the UK. The fact that a Prime Minister can dominate parliamentary proceedings gives him/her great power, and this has been linked to the concept of an ‘elective dictatorship’. Prime Minister dominance has occurred in recent years, with the leadership styles of Thatcher and Blair being of particular significance. Blair as prime minister used bilateral meetings with ministers, to discuss important policy decisions. This led to dominance over the cabinet and Blair being seen more as a ‘President’ than a Prime Minister.
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
Out of those 44, most Americans consider only a couple to be truly transformational. So before the question of whether Obama is transformational or not, Americans must understand what it takes to become transformational. Every president who takes office wants to be remembered as one who changed America and transformed people's lives. However, before Obama even stepped into the
The people of the state elected the House of Representatives. Their powers; the majority elects Speaker and officers, the House of Representatives have the sole power to impeach, debate is usually limited to one hour. The referral of bills is hard to challenge, but the House of Representatives have the power to begin tax bills. They also break the ties in the Electoral College. Fortunately, they rule Committee powerful; they also control time of debate, admissibility of amendments.
What evidence is there to suggest that the new Coalition government is more representative than before? In 2010 a new coalition government was elected into power, it was the first time since 1977 when Labour joined the Lib Dems. The outcome of the 2010 election left no clear majority to any one party in government so it was agreed that David Cameron would be the Prime Minister, with his conservatives, and Nick Clegg would become Deputy to Cameron, with the Liberal Democrats. But many people question as to whether this coalition is a more representative government. The turnout for the 2010 election was 65.1% of the population, compared to the 2005 turnout of only 60%, meaning an increase of 2 million voters.
These are all still with Westminster. The electoral system for the NIA was a single transferable vote and when there was a vote for devolution, a majority voted yes. Overall, Northern Ireland have gained power to an extent, however, it has been more difficult to form a permanent government. This is because there has been a lack of trust between the main parties therefore direct rule from London was restored. On the other hand, in February 2010, all parties agreed to transfer of law and order and security issues to the Northern Ireland Executive which was seen as a highly significant event.
On the other hand, the single-issue parties, they only focus on only one public policy matter. The chapter also talks about President’s party is almost always more solidly united and better well-organized compare with other major party. However, competition often caused the leadership group in the party out of power. Federalism is a major reason for the decentralized nature of the two major political parties and also the nominating process is also a major cause of party decentralization. Often, the parties will fight with each other and compete with each other within their party during the nominating process.
Party's can rely on their loyal MPs to vote in favour of their bills, for example; from 1997-2005 Blair's government didn't lose a single vote in the House of Commons because he had such a high majority. The efficiency of this majority also means the government is able to act quickly and decisively in an emergency, where as if there was no single party with popular support, legislation could be chaotic and it would be difficult to come to a decision. For example, the Terrorism Act of 1999 was passed in just 48