How effective are backbencher MPs?
How effective are Backbench MPs? Úna Richards 25/03/2013 A backbencher is an MP who does not hold governmental office, and is not a frontbencher spokesperson in the opposition. There is no said test of backbench MP efficiency, however we can come up with a measure of their effectiveness by looking at how effective they are within their role. What are they expected to do? Do they fulfil their role? In recent years, a large number of backbencher MPs have become more effective despite their limited air time, nowadays the majority of backbench MPs are often more active and involved in debates and plenary discussions. A key function of backbencher MPs is that they represent the people of their own constituency whenever they are involved in government policy. It is typical for local MPs to bring up issues relating to their constituency and become active in decisions that are likely to affect their particular constituents. For example, when there emerged a proposal to build a third runway at Heathrow airport in 2009-10, the relevant MPs from constituencies in the Thames Valley, such as John McDonnel MP, actively opposed the plans or sought to change the details of those plans. When in debates and discussions MPs often try to represent the interests of their constituents, also they often represent pressure groups, either because the
To what extent would you regard the UK system as truly democratic?
C) To what extent would you regard the UK system as being truly democratic? (25 marks) Democracy is a general description of a political system that is organised on the basis that government should serve the interests of the people. It is expected that citizens should also influence decisions or make decisions themselves as well as this; the government should be accountable under a democratic society. The UK is regarded as beholding democracy however current trends suggest increasing political apathy have begun to question whether the UK political system is truly democratic. The UK is regarded as being highly democratic in that all elections are free from bias and interference. This means that all adults can vote without difficulty in a secret ballot, truly expressing their own opinions. However, the First Past the Post electoral system somewhat undermines the belief of free and fair elections in that smaller parties are subject to the tyranny of the majority, thus have no realistic chance of winning. There is only one representative of each constituency to express the ideologies of all constituents. This means that the constituents are underrepresented. For example, in the 2005 general election, MP of Chelmsford, Simon Burns gained 44.9% of the vote. This shows that the majority of the constituency, 55.1% of Chelmsfordians, did not wish for the Conservative to be their MP.
Political divergence between the major parties in modern day Britain
“There are significant differences between the three main parties” The British political system has seen significant fluctuations between policy convergence and divergence between between the three main parties since 1945. These can be categorised by eras of 'consensus' – the 'Post-war' consensus of the need for a government that has an active role in the lives of its citizens, the 'Post-Thatcher' consensus to 'roll back the frontiers of the state' & promote individualism, and some have theorised a 'Post-Blair' consensus (or 'Third Way') where public spending is encouraged but Thatcherite concepts of free market and privatisation are present. In the 2005 general election, policy divergence was clearly evident. Policies in areas such as the economy, family international aid, terrorism, penisions and transport were strikingly similar. For example, all three parties proposed an increase in the state pension, a concept that could be considered Socialist in ideological terms but in reality is more likely to be based on public opinion – a decrease in public pensions would be certainly unpopular. The Liberal Democrats came across as the party with the most radical policies in 2005, such as their proposal to scrap tuition fees and impose a 50% income tax on those earning above £100,000. However, the 2010 election suggested a re-emerging trend of divergence. This was most
![Is the Prime Minister now effectively a President? [40 marks]](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/1212170/listing/1212170_1.jpg)
Is the Prime Minister now effectively a President? [40 marks]
[Type text] Is the Prime Minister now effectively a President? [40 marks] The prime minister of the United Kingdom is the leader of parliament and the head of the legislature; a president is the official head of state of a country. In the past 40 years, the UK has seen a shift in the role of the prime minister—from Lady Thatcher to David Cameron, the role and responsibilities of the PM have changed from the traditional ones. These shifts beg the question: are PMs now just presidents, or has British politics evolved? Margaret Thatcher can be seen as arguably the first ‘president’ to rule the UK; Tony Blair, another pioneer in the presidential shift. These two figures have something in common: they’re large parliamentary majorities. These majorities allowed them to establish themselves as the dominating leader of their governments. They did not need to worry about whether or not they’d be able to push through legislation; they had the majorities to get it done. However, both of these leaders’ tenures ended prior to an election and in both of their places were leaders who were not able to fill the boots their predecessors left behind. Major and Brown both faced unstable governments and weak parliamentary position. This shows that the UK premiership is not always president-like, it can only become that way with a strong leader and the right position in government.
To what extent have the parties involved in the Conservative- Liberal Democrat coalition remained faithful, since 2010, to principles and ideas?
To what extent have the parties involved in the Conservative- Liberal Democrat coalition remained faithful, since 2010, to principles and ideas. The Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats formed a coalition after the 2010 general election as a result of a hung parliament. Whilst both parties have remained faithful to some election promises, both have had to compromise. The Liberal Democrats have succeeded in their aims of raising the pre tax threshold and scrapping the ID card scheme, but have had to compromise on constitutional reform. The Conservative party have kept their commitment to reduce the role of the state through their 'Big Society' scheme, as well as their commitment to favour enterprise and support the business sector, however they have not increased prison capacity. In their election manifesto, the Liberal Democrats (LD) made a pledge to raise the threshold at which at which people start paying income tax to £10000, which edges towards social liberalism, the idea that through economic management and welfare provision, the freedom of the individual can be increased. The agreement of the Conservative party to implement this policy shows how the party has moved away from Thatcher's retraction of the welfare state, and the 'New Right', towards a 'One Nation' stance, pioneered by Ken Clarke, the idea being that economic progress can be achieved through a
Discuss the view that there should be more state funding for political parties.
Discuss the view that there should be more state funding for political parties. Thomas Smith 6F3 Parties in the United Kingdom today are funded in a variety of ways. Parties rely on a number of things to generate income. Party membership, trade unions and donations from wealthy individuals are all examples of ways parties do this. State funding, an idea of citizens in the UK paying a sum of money to the government to bankroll parties, is a topic today that is widely debated in the political side of the nation, and many, including I, believe it to be an advance which is highly recommended in government today. The reason why it is debated is because it holds both advantages and disadvantages, with strong arguments on both sides of the debate, which will be explored in this essay. I for one agree to the idea of state funding for the following reasons. State funding brings about a number of assets to the government. Arguably the biggest advantage is that it will largely prevent something which has been controversial and talked about for a long time- parties relying on donations from wealthy individuals. The removal of this would be effective, as it has been much speculated that those who donate a lot of money to the government can have some sort of political influence- as was with Bernie Ecclestone when he donated £1 million to the Labour Party which may (and probably did)
"Individual party members have little or no power within the main UK political parties. Assess the accuracy of this view.
"Individual party members have little or no power within the main UK political parties.” Assess the accuracy of this view (25 marks). The amount of power lying with individual party members varies between the two main UK political parties whilst the distribution alters when concerning different matters, for example voting for a leader and having an input in policy making. The Conservative party members have complete power when electing their leaders (aside from the fact they cannot elect the two candidates) whilst all branches of the Labour party are able to vote for their leader. When it comes to policy making in the Conservative party it is the leader who makes policy, in the sense that they have the final say on policy and the contents of the manifesto. In the Labour party there is a wider distribution of power in policy making as the MPs have relatively little power and all the branches play a part instead. Conservative party members did not have a say in the election of the leader until William Hague reformed the procedure in 1998 due to the small number of MPs the party acquired in the 1997 general election. In a contest with only two candidates, there is a ballot of all party members, however, if there is a contest of more than two there is a series of ‘primary elections’ but only with the Conservative MPs to find out which two candidates to put before the party
Using your own knowledge as well as the extract, explain why, in practice, parliamentary sovereignty is not undermined by the Human Rights Act
Using your own knowledge as well as the extract, explain why, in practice, parliamentary sovereignty is not undermined by the Human Rights Act. (10 marks) Parliamentary gives Parliament superior and legal authority as they can make or unmake any Act of Parliament they wish and although the House of Commons’ has most of the dominance they always need the support of the House of Lords to pass an Act. Parliamentary sovereignty refers to this joint power. The Human Rights Act 1998 is a law passed by Parliament that has limited the application of parliamentary sovereignty as it is made unlawful for any public body to act in a way which is incompatible with the Convention although the courts can only make a declaration. Under the Human Rights Act, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, as far as possible, in a way that is compatible with the rights of the Convention. However, it is not possible to interpret an Act of Parliament and make the law compatible with the Convention as they cannot override it and only make a declaration of incompatibility, a suggestion to Parliament that the law should be changed to coincide with Convention rights. It is then the majority party that will decide in Parliament of the changes, maintaining the sovereignty. The repercussions of this in terms of maintaining a democratic government because of the fact unelected and therefore
The Theory of the Separation of Powers in UK Government.
SEPARATION OF POWERS The doctrine of SOP is the appropriate allocation of powers and the limits between the legislature, executives and the judiciary. Each state organ must be rules by different people and each of them have different powers. The doctrine originated from Aristotle, where he distinguishes the deliberative, majesterial and the judiciary in every constitution. By the 13th century, England’s King, Lords and Commons could be classified in three types of government, monarchies, aristocracies and democracies as per ancient Greece. In UK today, Montesquieu sees SOP in a different way. He believes there is legislative, executive and judiciary in a constitution. Currently, there is a proper allocation of powers between the three state organs. Furthermore, the SOP doctrine aims to avoid absolutism in power by preventing a monopoly of powers and functions. Montesquieu also mentions that all would be lost if the same man or same ruling body were to exercise these powers. This shows SOP is important in upholding the rule of law doctrine in the British Constitution. Since there is an unwritten constitution in UK, it is a product of experience and does not recognize strict SOP. For example, the ministerial responsibility convention says that ministers not only implement laws but they are decision makers too. Hence, sufficient SOP results in checks and balances within the
Critically evaluate the laws and conventions that regulate and control the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
Critically evaluate the laws and conventions that regulate and control the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. In United Kingdom (UK), it consists of a bicameral legislative system, consisting of the House of Commons (HOC) and the House of Lords (HOL). This is to ensure that the legislative system also represents aspects of society and also ensures that the power to legislate is shared between two bodies, rather than being concentrated on one body. The two chambers should not have the same character as the “UK’s bicameral legislative system should be composed of two complementary rather than rival chambers.” Having a bicameral system would also ‘mutually keep each other from exceeding their proper limits’ as per William Blackstone. The HOC is made up of the ruling government as majority members while HOL is more politically balanced as it is not organised based on political part affiliations. HOL consists of; the hereditary peers, who have the most controversial memberships and only 92 members out of an initial 759 members remained after the House of Lords Act 1999; life peers, where it is a high honour conferred to be one in the UK. They are usually more participatory in terms of attendance and debates than hereditary peers. Judicial peers are judges who were granted peerage after they retired or comprise the Judicial Committee of
