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.
Pressure groups are mostly seen to be a major part of how democracy functions in the UK, however whether they undermine democracy is a question that has always been raised. They are mostly seen as to help democracy rather than hinder it however, as they help to represent the opinions and needs of minorities, as well as give an extra platform for participation. One of the ways in which pressure groups can undermine democracy is that they concentrate power,meaning some groups are able to influence the government more than others. These types of groups are ones such as the BMA and BDA, wealthy insider groups which a close and established relationship with the government and have direct access to decision makers, allowing them to influence policies
One simple reason is due to the lack of publicity a pressure group may achieve. More reasons of why some pressure groups are much more successful than others will be discussed throughout this essay. Firstly, the membership of a pressure group definitely enables the success, as an increasingly large amount of members belonging to one pressure group would result in the pressure group being more known. For example, the pressure group ‘friends of the earth ‘ has more than over 200,000 members and this makes it easier for the pressure group to expand more and get noticed. And also, it allows the pressure group to influence decisions much easily.
Representative democracy has been able to flourish in recent years as elected individuals who make decisions are arguably more knowledgeable than the electorate themselves. There is a greater sense of accountability to elected individuals to the public and more responsibility taken by those in power to protect the interests of the people by limiting the power of the government. Arguably, the question posed is of popular interest today as Britain has been described as a largely consultative democracy. A representative democracy is advantageous compared to a direct democracy as elected MPs are of sufficient educational backgrounds and are more superior in knowledge at making the most effective decisions. Arguably the elected MPs are the reason that a representative democracy flourishes with the elected MPs superseding the knowledge of the public.
This doesn’t just include the funds available to the group, but also the ability to exercise financial power. A pressure group that is able to impose financial sanctions on their targets is more likely to have success. An example of this in action is the September 2000 fuel protests. These eventually led to a reduction in fuel tax, due to the pressure placed upon the government. The funds which the pressure group has available are also important in the success of pressure groups.
In 2010 backbenchers were threatening to rebel over tuition fees. This was enough to force concessions to be made so the rebellion wasn’t as large as expected. It could be said that they failed because the bill wasn’t defeated but in a way it was a success as changes were made. This shows that the image of being lobby fodder is being shaken off by the more outspoken MPs. It is difficult for a Backbench MP to influence government policy if a government has a large majority in Parliament.
First we will take a look at the positive outcomes for citizens and society as a whole if this type of program was set up. First citizens would have more say in the process of laws being decided and may actually help in the process since many government officials do not have the time or resources to go over every page in the laws they are reviewing or signing in. Also citizens would have more control over something they may completely disagree with, for example the recent decisions to insert more stimulus money towards the economy would more strongly be rejected by a citizen based vote than a Democratic majority based Congress. Also a system like this would bring our system closer to a federalist based system on which our founders wanted our society to be and would take away some control of our government branches and would give states even more say in crucial decision making processes. This would make it much more difficult for governments to grow and enact more control over its citizen's daily lives, issues and
For example The British Medical Association possesses expertise which the government needs to be successful in its policy formation. It is revered by the public who trust Doctors, and the government is generally not willing to ignore its wishes out of hand for fear of bad press. Outsider groups do not tend to command the same level of respect as they do not possess information or follow an agenda that is important to the government or to popular opinion. These groups tend to be cause groups and follow agendas which are extreme or at least at odds with that of the government’s agenda. This enables them to use more extreme tactics as unlike insider groups they have nothing to lose from causing public disturbances and embarrassing the government.
Why introverts can be great leaders By Eliza Ridgeway for CNN c/div> STORY HIGHLIGHTS Introverted leaders tend to be more receptive to different ideas, new study says Their understated style can lead to improved team performance, according to Francesca Gino Businesses who don't value introverts can miss out, Gino says (CNN) -- Outgoing personality traits are often associated with top corporate roles, but new research suggests businesses miss out when they fail to find and promote executives with more understated styles. Harvard Business School researcher Francesca Gino has found that introverts can play a crucial role in leading teams. Many of the strengths that people associate with leaders, for instance being dominant or being good at giving directives, are often the same traits that characterize someone who is an extrovert, Gino told CNN. But in a forthcoming paper, she argues that when it comes to day-to-day teamwork in the workplace, less obvious leadership qualities can become more important. She and her collaborators asked bosses to rate how extroverted they considered themselves and then studied how their teams worked.
The oral questions are sometimes dominated by loyal backbench government supporters, and it is often suggested that the media provide a more effective form of scrutiny than does parliament. MPs have remarkably limited access to resources, partly because of the largely secretive nature of UK government. They can sometimes contribute to the pressure that might ultimately lead to the resignation of an incompetent