They are dependent on a coalition government because so far they have never had a majority in Parliament. Without the Conservatives choosing to form a coalition with them in order to create a majority, the Liberal Democrats would never have been able to come into power. Furthermore they’re becoming increasing unpopular in power due to breaking promises and being accused of ‘turning Tory’. This suggests that they have no political strength by themselves and that many potential voters will turn to alternatives, such as the Labour party, who could ultimately gain popularity due to the failures of the Liberal Democrats; therefore the UK is still a two party system favouring the Conservatives and Labour party. However on the other hand it is argued that the UK could not possibly be a two party system because the Conservatives wouldn’t have been able to come into power without the Liberal Democrats.
Before they were following the orders of British officers, therefore when they revolted they had no common leaders to organize them. This meant they were not united and could not act efficiently, therefore it was easy for the British to defeat them and end the rebellion. This reinforces the view it was not a significant threat as they did not have the same organization as the British making it impossible for them defeat the British. The significance of the mutiny could also be seen in
Individual members have little or no power, how accurate is this statement? (25marks). Some people believe that individual members are not important in party politics, as they have little or no power, but different party members have different responsibilities than others. In the Labour party the members, union and MP's can vote for the leader of the party, they all have 33% of the vote so they all have equal amount of power in that aspect of party politics. The election of the leader is very important part of political parties as people now vote more for a prime minster than governing party, for example conservative’s won over Labour because David Cameron was seen as more enthusiastic and inspirational then Gordon brown, where he was seen as dull and boring.
Luck played a big part into how Stalin defeated the left side of the party. Because of Trotsky’s illness he often missed political conventions meaning the he couldn’t get his view across to the general public. This meant that Stalin was a lot more popular than Trotsky. Also the fact that Lenin’s testament wasn’t published played a part in Stalin’s success. In his testament he heavily criticized Stalin; if it was published then it would have damaged Stalin’s popularity.
The first phase was the dispersal of hereditary peers with only 92 remaining today and it abolished the voting rights of most hereditary peers. The second phase was to include some element of election to the appointment of Lords, but due to the lack of consensus in the House of Commons on the way forward with this reform, Phase 2 of the reform has failed. This reform has had very little impact on the government because without including any voting in the procedure of membership to the House of Lords, the House of Commons remains more legitimate therefore overall it retains its powers while the House of Lords has fewer powers. Hence, this reform has not completed its aim as it didn’t
The election for the coalition results in 76% supporting pro-Weimar parties, showing that the opposition and threats to the government had settled. People in Germany were no longer looking for extremist parties which was proved by the failure of the right-wing coalition. In theory the coalitions should have worked well with the cooperation from all parties. However, the SPD were reluctant to work with other parties subsequently weakening the democracy. This proves the political instability of Germany in this period as they were the largest party in the Reichstag but still refused to cooperate.
Another contribution was the lack of participation on behalf of two big groups, Anarchists and Syndicalists, who refused to run in elections. In 1931, the left wing coalition won the general elections, though no party held an absolute majority the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers Party) were the most represented party of the coalition and also counted on the Trade Unions and Anarchist non abstainers. The left wing parties, especially the Socialist and Republicans, decided to unite in order to combat the unified right wing parties, these big coalitions made passing laws difficult for the ruling governments and the few that did pass were seen as oppressing and unfair by political opponents, notable examples include the limitations to the Church and the increase of privileges for the poor. The new parliament repudiated a proposed constitutional draft by a reformist Catholic lawyer and immediately rewrote it with extremely Socialist principles. These principles did not go down well with the more moderate members of the coalition and bitter debates followed for much of the following two years (Bienio).
The nobility claimed that such drastic change could only be decided on by an Estates General (most at the Assembly of Notables accepted the principle of a land tax but not the means of bringing it about) • weaknesses and mistakes of the King and his ministers: mistakes of Calonne in thinking that an Assembly of Notables would agree to such reforms – also of appealing to the public behind the back of the assembly which lost him support. De Brienne was also weak. The King did not effectively support either minister • the May Edicts which deprived the parlements in Paris and elsewhere of their right to register and protest against royal decrees. This increased cries of ‘ministerial despotism’ and there were disturbances (Revolt of Nobles) throughout France in support of the parlements. To reach higher levels, students will need to show the inter-relationship of the reasons given, for example they might show that the Crown
However on the other hand a separation of powers undermines the idea of political sovereignty, because even though they have gain legitimate power, they are not able to run the country as they wish in terms of financial and economic policies. Flexibility is big problem also as an uncodified constitution allows the government to change the constitution and allows them to amend it to suit the needs of the party instead of the party in office working within the framework of the constitution, this can lead to a dictatorship also and pretty much removes the importance of a constitution, as it does not limit the government, whereas a codified constitution would most likely entrench these laws, meaning they would only be changed in an extraordinary circumstance . Regardless of this it could be argued that due to the ever evolving philosophy, it
“The failure of political extremism in Britain, in the 1930’s was due to the strength of the National Government” Assess the validity of this statement. During the 1930’s political extremist parties failed to gain power in Britain, despite having success in Europe. It can be argued that this was because the National Government had many strengths and was able to effectively run the country to a stable state, thus the political extremist could not break into main stream politics within Britain. Between 1931 and 1940 the National Government held office, consisting of the main political parties at the time, and having popular leading figures such as MacDonald (1931-1935), Baldwin (1935-1937) and Chamberlain (1937-1940), helped the Government to have wide spread popularity and support throughout the country. This patronage was important because of the threat from political extremists; the government needed a strong army of support that could withstand the persuasions of the extreme left and right winged groups, the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) and the British Union of Fascists (BUF).