To what extent does the prime minister control the cabinet?
To what extent does the prime minister control the cabinet? The extent to way in which the prime minister controls cabinet varies, and can vary greatly, as Prime ministers have great amounts of scope in which they can manage and control the cabinet and the system surrounding it. The cabinet itself refers to the collective decision making process in British Politics. Cabinet fuses executive and legislative branches of government, as its members head government departments but are also drawn from Parliament and is the senior executive organ - which controls policy-making process and makes all major government decisions. Collective collegiality adds strength to the government as a whole and makes the governing party in parliament more united and therefore stronger. One of the key aspects of control over the cabinet stems from collective collegiality. The main reasons for the control the Prime Minister has over Cabinet are due to the powers he/she has over the Cabinet itself. The first is that the Prime Minister chairs cabinet meetings, and manages the agendas, as well as summing up the decisions at the end. This means that the PM has a great deal of control over the meetings, and can direct them in a course that suits what the PM wants. Combine this with the fact that the Prime Minister convenes cabinet meetings and decides when they are called and sets their length - it
Why are US presidential elections so long ?
Why is the US Presidential election such a long process (15m) The process of electing a president of the United States is certainly a long one. The formal process takes nearly a year but in reality starts before it's even begun. The first point to make is that of the importance of the campaign trail. Presidential elections take place in November but before this a significant countrywide election campaign is launched. The Presidential election specifically is as much about character and personality as it is politics, and so it is seen as vital that the chosen candidate of each party effectively "tours" the country fist hand to deliver their message in person. Naturally, The US having 50 states can make this process a long one, but not only does it add a personal aspect to each of the states votes, but also can act as a good test of stamina. The job of president can be long, gruelling and both physically and mentally demanding and the campaign trail can act as a final test before people cast their votes. For example in 2008 Barack Obama showed himself to not only be more in touch with the modern electorate but also to have more of a physical resilience for such as job, especially compared to 74 year old John McCain, who many commented looked especially tired and stressed throughout the final weeks of the campaign, not a good sign for a potential president. Before the final
To what extent does Parliament hold the executive to account?
Roz Cresswell To what extent does the parliament hold the executive to account? Parliament does not govern, but its role is to check or constrain the government of the day. Many therefore argue that parliament's most important function is to 'call the government to account'', there by forcing the members to explain their actions and justify their policies. There are three groups within the UK parliament, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the Monarchy. The HoC consists of 646 MP's and each MP is elected in a local constituency to gain a seat in parliament. The House of Lords consists of 721 peers, there are approximately 600 life peers where as there are only 92 hereditary peers. The Lords spiritual are the second smallest group of the Lords. They are bishops and archbishops of the Church of England, and now only 26 remain. Law lords are the final group to make up the House of Lords. There are only 12 of these, and they focus on judicial work, which is carried out through the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. The final group that can hold the government to account is the monarchy. The monarch is often ignored as part of parliament, which is understandable as the Queen is normally entirely ceremonial and symbolic. As a non-executive head of state, the monarchy symbolizes the authority of the crown. Parliament holds the government to account by scrutinising
"The Main Difference Between the UK And US Constitution Is That One Is Flexible And The Other Is Not" Discuss.
"The Main Difference Between the UK And US Constitution Is That One Is Flexible And The Other Is Not" Discuss A Constitution is a set of rules and principles by which a state is governed and how power is distributed. It defines the power between government and the governed, between different section of government and between central and local government. The constitution is the centre and foundation of any democratic society. Hence, it is vitally important. The US has a written codified constitution that means, is all contained in one document, to which, amendments have been and can be made. The US constitution was written to last and thus, it is very difficult to alter. It requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate and House of Representatives, Presidential approval and three quarters approval of the state legislatures. When the constitution was set up it had the idea of Federalism at its heart. This was to determine the power of the state with power of the national government. The idea was to leave the states with as much power as possible but remove enough to create a national government. This is why three quarters of the state legislatures must agree with any amendments. There have been only 27 amendments, 10 of which were the Bill of Rights, which, guarantee an individuals political and civil liberties. The US constitution is very concerned with the separation of
Membership to the EU and Loss of Sovereignty
Shape of the Modern World (Political History) - Task 6 After previous vetoed applications in 1961 and 1967 to what was then known as the European Economic Community (ECC), Britain was finally allowed to join the European Union (EU) in 1973 after becoming a signatory to the Treaty of Rome, under Labour Prime Minister Edward Heath. Since this however, some critics have argued that membership to the EU has led to a significant loss of parliamentary sovereignty. The term sovereignty refers to the right of a state to pass laws within its own territory or as Hinsley (1966) described, "The idea that there is a final and absolute authority in the political community". In this case, it could be the belief of some people that too much power has been transferred from our government to the EU - an organisation made up of mainly appointed representatives as oppose to being elected. It is the case that EU law overrides national law when the two conflict. This alone could show a ceding of sovereignty and as a supranational organisation the EU is more focused on working towards greater integration than national interest. Despite this surrendering of power to a higher authority, the EU only becomes the supreme decision making body in specified areas, although areas of national law could be affected without intention. For example, EU environmental decisions may indirectly impact agricultural
The ideology of the Democrats is liberal whilst that of the Republicans is Conservative. Discuss
The ideology of the Democrats is liberal whilst that of the Republicans is Conservative. Discuss 'Two glass jars with different labels, both empty'. This has been the traditional opinion of the differences between the parties ever since the federalist/anti-federalist issue was settled. However, in recent decades, we have seen the emergence of distinct ideological identities. That of liberalism - a belief that the federal government should have an active role in protecting the vulnerable & guaranteeing rights, and Conservatism - a belief that government should be restricted in order for the individual to achieve their potential. I will analyse to what extent the Democrats and Republicans adhere to these philosophies. Primarily, the Democrats have been associated with liberalism ever since FDR's New Deal of the 1930s. In this era, the government utilised Keynesian economics and expanded its reach nationally, helping the unemployed by providing jobs. Though these 'tax and spend' have become unfashionable in recent years, most Democrats would identify themselves as liberals. Recent policies would support this argument. In January 2009, a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress passed a 700 billion dollar economic stimulus package. This is clearly a liberal policy, affirming the state's role in the economy. Moreover, it was the same congress who passed the Patient
Long-term factors are no longer important in explaining voting behaviour in the UK. Discuss.
Long-term factors are no longer important in explaining voting behaviour in the UK. Many factors can influence the way in which the electorate vote. Long-term factors are those that have a long term influence on the way in which somebody votes, for example the social class in which that person belongs to. Short-term factors are those which have a short term influence and most prominently during the lead up to an election. An example of such is the impact of mass media and leadership skills. In the last few elections, many long-term factors have become less important due to partisan and social de-alignment, whilst the short-term factors have been ever more emphasised and prominent. Social class is one of the important factors affecting voting behaviour but its influence is declining over time as we move from an industrial to a post-industrial society. Before, most working class (C2/DE) voted Labour while middle and upper class (A/B/C1) voted Conservative. However there has been a decline is Conservative support among AB voters since 1992 and in 2005, 37% of AB voters voted Conservatives as compared to 28% of CD voters that voted Labour. In the last three elections, Labour has also increased their support among C1 voters. Despite this, a large percentage of AB voters returned to Conservatives in 2010 as well as C1's and C2's. This shows that the influence of social class is
"The House of Commons is a highly effective parliamentary chamber" to what extent do you agree with this view? (40)
________________ "The House of Commons is a highly effective parliamentary chamber" to what extent do you agree with this view? (40) ________________ The House of Commons is without a doubt the dominant chamber within Parliament , with huge influence and supreme power in UK politics. It consists of 650 elected MPs, each one representing the interests and concerns of a particular region of the country, known as a constituency. It has three very important main functions; legislation, scrutiny and representation, but it is often questioned how effectively it carries out these functions. I do agree that it is a highly effective parliamentary chamber, but also think there is evidence for this view to be contradicted. Parliament is Britain's Legislature, where legislation, the process of passing new laws, takes place. It is mainly carried out in the House of Commons and there are many different types of it, with the two most important being; government bills and private members bills. For a bill to become law is must pass through a number of parliamentary stages, which involves a lot of close reading, amending and debating in both the parliamentary chambers, however the House of Commons has far more legislative power, as the Lords can only suggest amendments or delay bills from becoming law (which the House of Commons can actually override anyway). It can be said the Commons
To What Extent Is The UK Democratic?
To What Extent Is The UK Democratic? A democratic country aims to have an accountable government that serve the best interests of the people it is governing. The UK is a liberal democracy which ensures that citizens should be able to influence governmental decisions made. But how far is the UK democratic? An element of Britain's governmental system is that there is no written constitution. This means that, theoretically, the government are free to pass any legislation as long as they have the majority in parliament which could be easily achieved if the party has a large majority of seats. This means there is no safeguard for laws that can be altered or new ones that could be created. This is very undemocratic as the government therefore have too much power. The government is also in possession of other powers such as the royal prerogative that allows the prime minister to go to war without consent from parliament. An example of where this was used was the Iraq war in 2005 which was heavily resented by a large majority of the public. Even though this aspect of Britain's governmental system is undemocratic, parliament generally prevents government from taking too much power. Another way in which the UK is undemocratic is fairly similar to the reason above. As we do not have a written constitution, many of our rules are not entrenched. An example of this is the Human Rights
To what extent does Parliament control executive power?
To what extent does Parliament control executive power? Although Parliament to some extent controls executive power, there are limitations to the extent of this control. Government usually has an overall majority. The electoral systems put in place by parliament as a whole usually guarantee this, with the exception of May 2010. In the circumstances of a small government majority, the effectiveness of parliament can be increased due to the fact that normal voting patterns and predictable outcomes for government votes may not apply, meaning that governments power is reduced. A majority can mean that to a certain extent, Government can pass any law it wants to. However, the fptp voting system can undermine representation in the commons because it can mean that certain parties are over represented. This means that Parliament's control over certain parties can be limited. The power of prime ministerial patronage renders many Mps excessively docile and loyal. This means that as opposed to the Burkean view which suggests that MPs use their own judgement in acting on behalf of their constituents. The doctrine of the mandate, by contrast, suggests that MPs serve their constituents by 'toeing a party line'. This can also affect debates such as adjournment debates. They allow for back benchers to examine and discuss government policy. This therefore reduces government power as it
