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.
Thus the machinery of the central government has become increasingly similar to that of the White House machinery. Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador in Washington DC, has claimed that Jack Straw and the Foreign Office were sidelined as most communication was directly between Downing Street and the Washington embassy. However, whether or not the Prime Minister has a Presidential style leadership depends highly on his (or her) majority within Parliament. Margaret Thatcher enjoyed huge majorities of over 100 following the 1983 and 1987 elections, and because of this she was able to enjoy huge amounts of power in
Another example of a PM who did not dominate the political system is Major. The Tory party and cabinet were split and hence Major lacked support; therefore he encouraged discussions within cabinet meetings. However, in hindsight it should be noted that Major and Callaghan both lacked a majority in the House of Commons and had to seize all the support they could. Another way a PM dominated the political system is by running it as a PM government. This is a govt.
The Parliament consists of the House of Lords and House of Commons -which include various party representatives. Lord Hailsham stated that the UK has an “elective dictatorship” implying that executive is able to dominate the legislature. It could be argued that parliament does control executive power because parliament has scrutiny features such as Prime Minister's Questions, Ministerial question time and select committees, which all make the government and its executive powers accountable for their decision making. However to some extent it could be argued that parliament does not control executive power effectively, due to the fact that the government naturally has an in built majority within the House of Commons, as well as that the whipping system and the ideology of ‘toeing the party line’ results in the executive powers having the ability to gain a majority of support from the House of Commons. Furthermore the increase in prime-ministerial or even ‘presidential’ government in the UK, with the leader of the executive having accumulated more power, makes it more difficult for Parliament to control executive power.
Blair was also able to control ministers by use of his "sofa government"- informal decision making by Blair and a select group of non-elected advisors. However, the power the Prime Minister has over Cabinet relies a lot on the Prime Minister being popular. Thatcher, for example, started off as popular, ruling her Cabinet in the way she wanted, but she lost a large amount of public and ministerial support by the end of her role as Prime Minister, and her Cabinet began to turn from her. Another limitation of the Prime Minister is the ability of Cabinet members to carry out a motion of no confidence, in which they will determine whether or not the Prime Minister remains fit to carry out their duties. If the motion is carried then the Prime Minister will be forced
How representative is parliament? Government in the UK is a representative body elected for and by the people. The UK uses the parliamentary system as its model of representation; this means the different areas of government which are the legislative, judiciary and executive branches work in and through each other as opposed to the Presidential model which separates the powers. It can be argued that there is usually a good range of political parties from which to choose. It may be said that the parties currently in the House of Commons represent a good cross-section of political opinion.
A function that demonstrates that the House of Commons is effective is because ministers are regularly questioned and held accountable. An advantage of this is that it increases constituency representation and scrutinises legislation. For example during Prime Minister question time MPs can bring different examples forward from their own constituencies which can allow them to demonstrates problems with a Bill, thereby representing people within their constituencies more. At election times the government becomes directly accountable to the people; for example in 2007 the Labour government saw popular support fall from 41%. In the House of Commons, Bills introduced under the ten-minute rule are one of the ways in which backbench MPs (private Members) can introduce legislation.
As a consequence, prime ministers have gradually institutionalised their involvement in policy. The view now, is that it is the prime minister, and not the cabinet, who dominates both the executive and Parliament. This happens because the prime minister is both the head of the civil service and the leader of the largest party in the Commons. As prime ministers have considerable authority in the management and controlling of cabinet, it is argued that cabinet has declined and so the power of the prime minister has increased. Prime ministers chair cabinet meetings, this enables prime ministers to harness the decision – making authority of the cabinet to their own ends.
Political parties are a large part of the government. Even they are not supposed to, they basically control the government. Nominations and campaigns utilize a lot of time, energy, and money. Lastly, elections and voting behavior are the final step for one to obtain presidency. Political parties are a big part of the government.
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.