Controlling the Parliament and the House of Commons 'The government controls parliament but it cannot always rely on getting its own way.' A tendency to ignore the protestations and activities of parliament in issuing central, top-down directives and 'memos' is a criticism often levied at Tony Blair's Labour administration. It is seen to signify a consolidation of executive power, often represented in the media as control-freakery on the part of the Prime Minister. Although any apparent increase in the power of the executive would be accentuated by the immense size of the 179 seat Labour majority, the present government is widely seen to have taken up a continuing trend towards centralised government, often revolving around Downing Street. It is perhaps largely the power of Blair's mandate in conjunction with the vice-like control of the party whips over MPs that has led to comments such as that of Lord Hailsham that we live under an "elective dictatorship."
For a majority government, party discipline becomes an even more important issue as it is directly related to the term of the Prime Minister (PM). Under the rule of maintaining the confidence of the House, the PM must gain the support of the House in order to stay in his role. This is where high party discipline comes into place. With it, the PM will not have to worry about being dismissed by the Governor General. Should the high party discipline deteriorate and gives away into a low one, such as the one in the States, the government will be in a constant potential risk of collapsing into paralysis.
Britain is a liberal, parliamentary and stable democracy, where its dynamic society conditions the agenda of politics. The fusion/separation, or lack thereof, of powers is complicated, but essentially includes the Executive and Elected Legislature, Appointed Legislature, the Judiciary and the Crown. The largest party forms the executive government, whose primary role is to run government and present laws, and overall represents the will of the majority. The House of Commons is elected to reflect the will of the people, and create, criticize and approve laws. The appointed legislature is the House of Lords, and they constitute the unwritten constitution, acting as an extra safety measure, also with the ability to criticize and approve laws.
The president’s biggest constitutional power is the power of the veto (Romance, July 27). This is a power over Congress, allowing the president to stop an act of Congress in its tracks. Two things limit the impact of this power, however. First, the veto is simply a big “NO” aimed at Congress, making it largely a negative power as opposed to a constructive power (July 27). This means that the presidential veto, while still quite potent even by its mere threat, is fundamentally a reactive force rather than an active force.
These checks mean that Britain is not theoretically an “ Elective Dictatorship”, as rules still exist which means the executive can not have a dictatorial role. Britain currently is not an “ Elective Dictatorship”, as the Parliament still has some effectiveness in scrutinising the executive, however as Britain is falling more into a Prime-ministerial style government there is possibility that Britain can become an “Elective Dictatorship.”
Parliamentary Sovereignty is one of the most significant factors of the Constitution of the United Kingdom, and makes the Parliament the most powerful legal force, who dominates themselves. It involves the legal relationship between the courts and the Parliament, and has remained a traditional value for many centuries, and its doctrine is what makes their system different from other widely held states. However, although the parliament has its strength, it also has some lack of power to control and amend those Acts of the European Union, who tend to override them; such as the European Communities Act 1972, and the Human Rights Act 1998. This paper is going to define and compare the impacts of both Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Communities Act 1972, by showing both similar and contrasting effects on the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Human Rights have significant benefits for the United Kingdom, as it focuses on the institutions of the states to separate the scrutiny, which can be seen as an important fact when there is powerful doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.
This is a variable factor of every presidency, but if you are unfortunate to have this effect, then it becomes difficult to pass legislation. If there is not a major swing in congress, then your legislation will not be passed. In this point the power of persuasion is the only opti... ... middle of paper ... ...annot check it, and if they do, they cannot stop it. However, the limit on this is that the president cannot declare war on another country without the approval of congress. A presidents power to negotiate treaties is what makes him seen as a powerful figure abroad.
On the other hand, there’re some major attributes that get accepted. It‘s accepted that this model of Westminster democracy has well-built devolved cabinet government control through the political group in authority at the moment. Parliamentary autonomy is as well important with supremacy just inside the state (Lane & Svante 2000, 82).The mainstream group is the group which enacts or executes laws as well as support these policies and get usually supported through their group 's backbenchers. The two-party organisation exists under Westminster replica and the opposing group exists to show the errors of the appointed party 's guiding principles because the opposing party 's objective involves checking on the party in power with an aim of becoming elected in future elections (Lane & Svante 2000, 44). It’s too a facet that policies are responsible since it’s merely the state that is engaged during the process of policy making, where officials appointed by citizens are agents of their citizens and work for their interests.
who’s interests tend to be ignored. The house of commons is responsible for scrutinising the activities of the British government, this is to examine weather the government has exceed its authority or abuse its power, this demonstrate the fact that the house of common can be described as a watchdog carrying out scrutiny on the government. However the problem is that Britain’s unwritten constitution means that the limits of the government’s power is not explicit, but as a matter of interpretation. Which always turns out to be in favour of the government e.g. the fact that all members of the British government are drawn from the legislature means that there is conflict of interest between parl and govt.
One side provides a more stable government, while the other provides more room for debate on controversial issues. All types of political democracy have a number of things in common, but most importantly, the government is elected by the people, for the people. In a parliamentary system like that here in Canada, the government is formed by the largest party in the legislature. In this type of structure, if need be, the leading government and their prime minister can be easily ousted by the legislature by a vote of no confidence. On the other hand, in a presidential system the head of government, (who is also the head of state) can only be removed from office by impeachment, a rather large ordeal compared to the forced resignation of a Prime Minister.