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.
It may help Grove Street Advisors to open a new market which was attractive, and the third one was the pension fund of a European country targeting U.S. venture funds. Working with a smaller amount of committed capital would challenge the scalability of GSA’s model. The concern of going-small was the limit of return with a huge amount of diligence. In conclusion, compared with all those options, the recommendation for GSA is to shift its approach to mainstream funds-of-funds. GSA has the ability to get more cases and be more successful in the venture capital industry.
b) Using your own knowledge as well as the extract, explain why recent reforms can be said to have made the House of Lords more legitimate. Recent reforms have made the House of Lords more legitimate, the 2001 reforms made by Blair’s government meant that that most hereditary peers were no longer part of the Lords – this meant that the people in the Lords were not their because of their blood but because of their expertise and interest in subjects relating to discussing inside the chamber. Blair, by removing hereditary peers made the Lords more accountable and more professional. The Lords become a real discussion based chamber with key figures from around the country invited to discuss and debate topics which meant something to them. However, the Lords have always had a strong hold on the Commons, overriding them more times than the government’s own backbenchers.
Since 1997 there have been many constitutional reforms from the Labour Government to the recent coalition government, these reforms have changed the UK political system quite dramatically; these reforms may have increased our democracy but have also created new problems which have to resolved through Parliamentary debate. The main Constitutional reform which has been ongoing through the Labour and Coalition government, however the Coalition seem less keen, is the reform on devolution of Powers to Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland and Northern Ireland were granted with Primary powers of legislation meaning they can create legislation on a variety of different matters such as Health and Social services and Law and Order, this gave Scotland and Northern Ireland much more independence and power to run their own nations, Wales was only granted secondary powers meaning they can alter legislation but not create. This devolution was in response to referendums held in the Scotland, Wales and NI and there have also been calls to have complete independence from the UK however the referendum held on this matter returned a NO vote. This devolution however has raised some issues which seem hard to solve for example the West Lothian Question creates a problem n which Scottish MP’s can vote on English Laws but English MP’s cannot vote on Scottish Laws.
This was a huge investment, but has strengthened the UK economy to no end. It allows for businesses to enter and leave the country quickly and defiantly, it also allows for freight and other such businesses to operate all around Europe. It links the UK, a member of the EU with the rest of the EU, increasing trade and allowing for shared resources between England and France. Without the EU this would not be possible, not only from an investment perspective, but also from an international perspective, the concept of a county sharing a tunnel with another is a tricky one as it would be a weak
Collective security had a better response towards aggression rather than appeasement. This is because a lot more European countries didn’t approve of the decision made during the Munich Conference. Winston Churchill was one person who strong didn’t approve with this decision. He was a British politician who thought, “keeping peace depends on holding back the aggressor” (Document 6). Churchill believed that in order to guarantee the security of Czechoslovakia, Europe should have held Germany back and Britain and France should have worked together as an alliance.
Also holding on to this great superpower status was largely to do with the fact that Britain still had an Empire, inevitably making them feel more superior to the other European countries, this was a lack of realism as after both Suez Crisis and the formation of the EEC Britain began to understand that they were missing out. The scale at which Britain had failed was only determined when the EEC boomed, making the fact that were previously invited a harder pill to swallow. Joining became the main priority for Britain. Now that the lack of realism had dawned on Britain, its desperation grew as the EEC became more and more influential showing that the previously thought unbeneficial agreement was now in Britain’s interests, as most of the popular trade routes where now run by the EEC. The EEC gave Britain the cold shoulder 3 times regarding entry as they believed Britain to be a liability
This is a huge difference compared towards America. The work productivity and efficiency of jobs in Europe are much more exceptional. This can be due to the way longer vacation time is permitted and promoted in the working industries. As a part of the culture in Europe, it is very convenient for the employers to earn vacation time. Americans have a different psychological aspect of this matter.
The general consensus was that smaller states demanded a more active role in the government, despite their smaller populations, but the larger states claimed bias and claimed that, in essence, “majority rules”. Some major delegates also used this opportunity to forever shut the ghosts of Shay, in which the government was granted significant power to suppress like wise rebellions. The government would be in essence based on that of England, but with a conglomeration of majority and state rule. Prominent figures such as James Madison proposed compromises, which led eventually to the decline of states rights and the abolishment of the Articles of Confederation. This, however, was also balanced so to ratify the Constitution.
Although it wasn’t coined the American dream just yet, the dream itself is much older than the US, we can date it back to the 1600s, (PBS) when people began to have all sorts of aspirations for what was a new and unexplored continent to European immigrants. These dreams included, owning land, being debt free---theoretically at least, which would increase one's happiness. These dreams are as alive now as they were back then, however, the American dream is in critical condition and is quickly slipping away from us. Is it reversible? The more statistics are provided about the condition of our economy and the social pressures, the more that becomes apparent.