Cameron in turn, should expect to enjoy less power as he had to form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, in order to achieve a majority. This would mean that the likes of the Prime Minister would in many situations have to be compromised. Another essential factor which would influence the degree of Prime Ministerial power is the unity of the ruling party or coalition. In Blair’s situation, he enjoyed an exceptionally united group, therefore being able to enjoy several years of complete domination. When Blair resigned, Brown was said to enjoy similar power, at least when he still enjoyed popularity.
Firstly, the stages of making an Act of Parliament are initiated by the pre-legislative process. In the UK, the most common pattern of legislation is that of Public Bills, which are introduced by government ministers and change the general law. They can furthermore be introduced by other MPs In the UK, the most common pattern of legislation is that of Public Bills, which are presented by government ministers and change the general law. They can furthermore be presented by other MP’s. In this case they are called Private Member’s Bills.
The current First Past the Post system leads to an unfair system of representation. For example, in the 2010 general elections, although the Conservative party gained 36% of the vote they ended up receiving 47% of the seats in the House of Commons. For this reason, smaller parties such as the Liberal Democrats do the worse out of this system. In the same elections, although they gained 23% of the vote they only got 9% of the seats. This is one reason that the Westminster electoral system is in need of reform- proportional systems deliver a much more representable result which is more democratic and means that all votes have the same value.
The first and fore most undemocratic factor is how the senators are appointed to office. They are not elected, as they should be in a democratic government, but they are appointed this position by the Prime minister. Often he appoints his senators to gain a majority so his laws may be carried out and also he or she may give this position of power as a patronage to loyal supporters of their party. The second reason is the misrepresentation of the provinces and territories in the senate. The senate elects people for the amount of population in the area so both Quebec and Ontario have more representation than the rest of the country, especially compared to the Northwest territories and the Yukon who only have on each.
Senate Reform In Canada Ever since Canada’s current Prime Minister Stephen Harper was voted into parliament in 2006 he and other Conservative Party members have not been shy about the idea of a possible senate reform or even the total abolition of the senate taking place in the future. There are numerous questions that have been raised about the legitimacy of the senate and if the senate is even a necessary part of Canadian Parliament. Does the senate need changes? Should senators be elected representatives similar to the members of parliament? Does the senate have an important role in modern day parliament?
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 system tends to favour and give more opportunities to smaller parties such as the Liberal Democrats, who currently feel that the first past the post system is unfair towards them and numerous other parties. The system also tends to result in a coalition government being formed, which in some respects can be seen as a good thing, as proportional amounts of power are spread evenly between parties according to the amount of votes received. Northern Ireland, Germany, Australia and France all use different proportional systems at this current time however it is also a key issue in the UK at the moment, as we can see from the recent AV referendum which was held this year. Subsequently it was the decision of the Liberal Democrats to hold the election. Proportional systems are already currently being used in some parts of the UK, and is quite successful where it is in place.
How has coalition government affected party politics in the UK? A coalition government is a government in which two or more political parties are in power, reducing the dominance of any one party within that coalition. The usual reason given for this arrangement is that no party on its own can achieve enough votes to gain power. The UK currently has a First Past the Post electoral system which is not designed to create a coalition government and so the now coalition government is the first we have experienced in the UK. The arrival of a coalition government formed between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party in 2010 has affected UK party politics in various ways.
This would actually increase the level of democracy in effect but may completely defy the objective of politics. If elections were every 2 years, parties could not make any long term goals for the country in fear of losing the next general election. All policies would be short term and therefore not made for any good running of the country and just to gain popularity in the short term. This in turn may not enhance democracy, but lead it to a failing economy and government and may even lead to anarchism. Another potential way of increasing and enhancing democracy would be a compulsory vote.
Because some populations are so high in certain areas, a large amount of the representatives elected to the House, anti-federalists feared, would be only the prominent and wealthy men of the area. This meant that even more power would be given to the government with the titles the men already had before being elected. Not only did the power of the government make the anti-federalists nervous, the lack of a bill of rights kept them agreeing with the constitution. They wanted a set rights guaranteed so that the central government didn’t have all the power that the anti-federalists were afraid of. The anti-federalist’s opposition to the constitution was