To What Extent Will the Coalition Governments Proposals Bring About an Effective Reform of Parliament?

In: Other Topics

Submitted By charliemckie
Words 690
Pages 3
To a certain extent, the coalition government’s proposals will bring about an effective reform of parliament. However, some people have questioned the effectiveness of the reform of parliament under this coalition, for example suggesting that The referendum on AV may have lead to an even more hung parliament.
On the one hand, Primeministers, known as the incumbent, can no longer call elections to suit their own interests. This was due to the establishment of fixed term elections introduced by Cameron in 2011. The reform reduces media speculation, which makes parliament more stable and fairer for parties not in government. This is also a fairer system as Primeministers would usually call an election when their party was significantly higher in the opinion polls than all other political parties, making the chances of them re-gaining power much stronger than they may have been 5 years down the line at a set date.
On the other hand, some people have suggested that 5 years is too long, noteabely Nick Clegg who wanted 4 years between elections. There have also been concerns about whether campaigns will become dragged out and leborious like America’s 18 month season. Also the fixed term elections don’t necessarily make for a better government and shown by the USA, for example. The flexibility of non-fixed term election system allows for a dissolution and new election if the Government has an inadequate majority. The value of this has been shown in 1951, 1964 and the second election in 1974.
Overall, I believe that despite the fact that fixed term elections don’t necessarily lead to a better government, it does lead to a fairer government. As governments cannot now call elections when its is most likely that they will win them and stay in power for the longest time possible. Fixed term parliaments are fairer and make governments prove themselves consistently to the…...

Similar Documents

How and Why Should Parliament Be Made More Effective?

...How and why should parliament be made more effective? Parliament is the sovereign body in the United Kingdom and so it is vital, for the wellbeing of democracy, that parliament not only exists but is also effective. Parliament plays the role of the Legislative and, as a result, is required to be as effective as possible to assure that laws are well thought out, benefit the whole of society and most of all maintain democracy. However, many people feel that certain aspects within Parliament limit its effectiveness and they feel these features need to be reformed in order for Parliament to carry out its function correctly. Firstly, the most obvious way to make Parliament more effective would be to reform the electoral system. Currently, Westminster elections use the system of First-past-the-post where the candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins the seats. However, this system is highly disproportionate in both terms of the word as it exaggerates winning votes for example, the Conservatives received 36.1% of the vote and won 47.1% of the seats in the 2010 general election, whereas it penalises small parties such as the Liberal Democrats who won 23% of the vote but gained only 8.8% of the seats. Particularly as FPTP produces landslide majorities, it makes Parliament less effective as the party that wins the general election forms the government and therefore has a large majority in most cases. If MPs belonging to the party vote along party lines all the time,......

Words: 1983 - Pages: 8

To What Extent Did the Second World War Bring About a Social Revolution in Britain ?

...To what extent did the Second World War bring about a social revolution in Britain? The impact of war was felt right across British society. One aspect was social mobility, the way the war took people out of their local communities and scattered them far wide across Britain and across the world. The war caused a massive emphasis on the idea that “we were all in this together”, that the Second World War was a “people’s war” with a universal acceptance of the impotence of civilians fighting on the home front. This involved universal acceptance of controls and sacrifices, such as rationing. World War Two encouraged and was a catalyst for social revolution in Britain after 1945. The war confronted Britain with many new social challenges and situations that had never been encountered before. However, it is debatable to what extent the social reform lasted and how strong its impact remains today. It is extremely clear that a social reform took place in Britain post World War Two for reasons including shared experiences and conscription. Military conscription was introduced in September 1940, with all men aged 18-40 liable to be called up, although there were exemptions for those needed in vital war work and for conscientious objectors. The impacts of certain factors did vary in strength and over time. It is evident that some factors still remain such as women in work but other factors such as propaganda were weak and therefore did not endure. It can be argued that the war......

Words: 616 - Pages: 3

Coalition Government

...How far has the coalition government forced the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to revise their traditional ideological stances? The UK's government is currently a coalition, this means that there were two or more 'winning' parties at the 2010 general election. The Conservatives are head of the government and the Liberal Democrats are deputy. By having a coalition government the two parties have to change their ideologies and come up with ideas that fit them both. Evidence shows that the coalition government hasn't forced the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to revise their traditional ideological stances, this means that they haven't changed their traditional values so they can run government together. An ideology is an 'ism', a more or less coherent set of ideas, values and theories that help to explain the world and guide political action. The conservatism is the set of ideologies that the Conservatives believe in. Conservatism is an ideology that is defined by a 'desire to conserve'. It has traditionally been suspicious of abstract principles or developed theories, preferring instead to place its faith in tradition, experience and history. The defining values of Conservatism are; tradition, this means that they respect ideas, practices and institutions that have been passed down from one generation to the next. They also believe in human imperfection, the belief that people are security-seeking creatures and also morally flawed. Finally they believe in......

Words: 1381 - Pages: 6

Assess the Effectiveness of the Coalition’s Plans for the Reform of Parliament?

...The Coalition has introduced a number of reforms designed to make parliament more efficient and more accountable, such as E Petitions, power of recall, the equalisation of constituencies, a reduction in the powers of the Prime Minister and Fixed Term parliaments. Select Committees have also been further reformed, while there are major plans for to make the House of Lords primarily elective. The EQUALISATIION IN THE SIZE OF CONSTITUENCIES to between 72,000 – 80, removing anomalies whereby some constituencies can have 30% more voters than others, might seem relatively un-contentious. However, critics argue that the Electoral Register has not been sufficiently updated for such a radical overhaul of voting, while the new constituencies will often have to cross county borders and urban / countryside boundaries thus complicating the interests that MPs represent. The reduction of MPs from 650 to 600 is also controversial as it will statistically reduce representation in the Commons, as well as proportionally increasing the influence of government in a reduced legislature. There has though been a great deal of support, too, for FIXED TERM PARLIAMENTS since this takes away from the Prime Minister the right to call a General Election at his or her convenience. However, other reforms have been a great deal more controversial; the new ruling that a VOTE OF CONFIDENCE in the government can only be provoked by a vote of 55% in the House of Commons has been condemned...

Words: 1122 - Pages: 5

Coalition Government

...1) Coalition government is one in which two or more parties take part in running a country. On paper it looks simple, but it is a whole lot more complicated. For example one issue that can arise is disagreement between the partners on their policies and proposals. In the case of the UK, Conservatives and Liberals sometimes disagree. An example is, the proposal of AV to be used in a general election, but the Conservatives disagreed. However in the end the two coalition partners agreed that they will hold a referendum. 2) One problem that might arise if the cabinet contained both Conservatives and Lib.Dems is that the government is not stable. It is very possible that the two partners may disagree on their policies and proposals. For example the Liberals opposed the further use of nuclear energy, but it was agreed between the leaderships of the two coalition partners that more nuclear power plants can be build. This can build conflicts between the two parties and result in government failure. Furthermore in the UK coalitions are formed in a time of crisis and the country may be seen by other international countries as weak and this can damage their international competitiveness and foreign investment, which are very important in order to keep the economy running. Furthermore coalition government is actually less democratic as the balance of power is inevitably held by the small parties who can barter their support for concessions from the main groups within the coalition...

Words: 850 - Pages: 4

To What Extent Have Constitutional Reforms Since 1997 Made the Uk More Democratic?

...To what extent have constitutional reforms introduced since 1997 made the UK more democratic? Constitutional reform is a process whereby the fundamental nature of the system of government is changed or where a change is proposed. In the UK this may also involve the process of codification. Since 1997 there has been many key reforms that have made UK more democratic by a large amount and sometimes not so much if at all. Firstly the House of Lords reform where the voting rights of most hereditary peers was abolished. This makes the UK less undemocratic rather then more democratic. This is due to the fact that the House of Lords as a whole is an unelected chamber and therefore undemocratic, however by removing the voting rights of some hereditary peers it makes it less undemocratic as they are there simply by birth and not even appointed. So this reform does make the UK slightly more democratic however some peers remain and the whole chamber is still unelected and so is still very undemocratic. The referendum reform which is the introduction that any proposal to transfer power within the UK should be approved by a referendum. This makes the UK more democratic as it allows the country to become directly involved in the big decisions of devolution as it means large changes in there area/country and as a form of direct democracy makes the decision legitimate and fair. However it also can lead to voter fatigue and also only the government can decide when to put forward a......

Words: 709 - Pages: 3

To What Extent Does Parliament Control Executive Power?

...To what extent does parliament control executive power? Executive power is seen as the exclusive body or group of influential and powerful individuals within the government in power. They hold a substantial amount of authority and responsibility and have the ability to enforce legislation, formulate government policies and govern general maintenance. Alongside the PM, the cabinet and all the ministers form an alliance together to form this excusive body of executive power. The Parliament consists of the House of Lords and House of Commons -which include various party representatives. Lord Hailsham stated that the UK has an “elective dictatorship” implying that executive is able to dominate the legislature. It could be argued that parliament does control executive power because parliament has scrutiny features such as Prime Minister's Questions, Ministerial question time and select committees, which all make the government and its executive powers accountable for their decision making. However to some extent it could be argued that parliament does not control executive power effectively, due to the fact that the government naturally has an in built majority within the House of Commons, as well as that the whipping system and the ideology of ‘toeing the party line’ results in the executive powers having the ability to gain a majority of support from the House of Commons. Furthermore the increase in prime-ministerial or even ‘presidential’ government in the UK, with the leader......

Words: 250 - Pages: 1

To What Extent Is Parliament Still Sovereign?

...To what extent is parliament still sovereign? For many years it has been argued that parliamentary sovereignty has, and still is, being eroded. As said by AV Dicey, the word ‘sovereignty’ is used to describe the idea of “the power of law making unrestricted by any legal limit”. Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution, stating that Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK, able to create and remove any law. This power over-rules courts and all other jurisdiction. It also cannot be entrenched; this is where all laws passed by the party in government can be changed by future parliaments. In recent years sovereignty of parliament has been a In 1972 the UK joined the treaty of accession, this was a statute law passed by parliament. It stated that the UK was now a part of the EU and therefore must abide by the laws and regulations that would be imposed; over 2,900 regulations and 410 directives were added, 43 volumes of the EU legislation. Due to having joined over 30 years after the initial EU was created, the UK has been made to accept laws that had been made without its input. Whereas now, having joined the EU, we are involved in in their creation - this is a key argument for why we should remain a member. Joining the EU has been agued as being a pinnacle point at which the UK lost its sovereignty, as this was the first time in the history of parliament where absolute power was no longer held. Research done by the TPA (Taxpayers......

Words: 898 - Pages: 4

How Effective Is Parliament

...How effective is parliament? Parliament in the UK is mainly made up of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The ‘executive’ refers to the Government. The effectiveness of parliament is judged by how effectively the government is held to account by the Commons and Lords. One of parliament’s main functions is holding the government to account. One of the effective ways parliaments hold the government to account is it forces government ministers to justify their policies and explain why they were developed as well as explain the future effects of these policies. Debates are a perfect opportunity to hold the government to account they provide an open floor for Mps to speak and question members of the government, however this is usually unreliable seeing as PM’s get pre-prepared questions. The opposition party and everyone else within parliament have the duty to criticise and scrutinise government bills. This works to keep the government in check as it forces them to reconsider their decisions, make changes if necessary and defend their ideas from the oppositions criticism. This then works to ensure that policy is well thought out, and discussed before it is passed through the House of Lords. It is Parliaments ability to question that allows them to keep the power of government in check; this suggests that parliament is effective on government to a large extent. An example of a governments defeat would be the Hunting with dogs’ act 2001. However, Parliament is limited......

Words: 1083 - Pages: 5

To What Extent Does Parliament Effectively Control Government Power?

...Government is, in theory, accountable to Parliament, however it is difficult for this to be the case when government makes up a large part of Parliament. So when examining how effective Parliament is at controlling the power of the executive, all of the below has to be considered. The role of select committees and departmental select committees are very important in the control of government’s power. These committees scrutinize government policy, as well as raising public awareness of it, in great detail. The line of questioning is very different, and considerably more in depth, than if the queries were raised in the House of Commons; this is because evidence is gathered in advance and the committees demand answers with substance, opposed to filibustering or rhetoric. Evidence has shown that 40% of committee recommendations to government has then been applied to policy. However, it is not so much that the recommendations are a control of the executive, but the fear the committees induce in the government; the government knows that, if they make a policy that is not in the public’s interest, they will be exposed. That being said, in a legal sense, select committees have no control or power over government, which could be argued makes them ‘watchdogs without teeth’. The committees are also, in part, made up of MPs belonging to the governing party and may not want to scrutinize their party as it may be damaging to their career prospects. The House of Lords cannot block......

Words: 833 - Pages: 4

To What Extent Is the Uk’s Government Becoming More Presidential? Discuss

...To what extent is the Uk’s government becoming more Presidential? Discuss A presidential system is a republican system of government where a head of government is also head of state and leads an executive branch that is separate from the legislative branch. The United States, for instance, has a presidential system. Whereas, a prime ministerial system adopts a fused system, in which the three branches of government are fused together and the monarchy is head of state. The Uk, for instance has a prime ministerial government, where Queen Elizabeth is head of state and David Cameron is the Executive. One could argue that the Uk’s government has become marginally presidential, as the need for a cabinet has become less over time. However, the UK are still a fused government in which powers are shared within parliament, unlike a presidential system. The tendency of Prime Ministers to distance themselves from their party and government has increased, developing a personal ideological stance. Prime Ministers such as Blair and Thatcher are key examples. Both Prime Ministers have developed their own stances: “Blairism” and “Thatcherism’. Blair, for example, had really bad attendance at Parliament and his Cabinet Ministers have been quoted as saying that: “Cabinet meeting sometimes lasted only fifteen minutes.” also, Blair decided a lot of his policies within the Pm’s office, rather than discussing it with his cabinet. For example, the decision to go to war with Iraq was seen as...

Words: 1122 - Pages: 5

To What Extent Is Parliament Sovereign.

...flexible approach to sovereignty.
The legal sovereignty of parliament is mainly challenged by the EU. Knowledge of the relationship between the UK and the EU should be full and exemplified. Devolution is often seen as a de facto transfer of sovereignty. Knowledge of the relationships between Westminster and the devolved administrations. Referendums can also be seen in the same light as devolution. Investigation of the transfer of political sovereignty over a long period to executive government and the prime minister. There should be a clear statement of how legal sovereignty remains with parliament. In the UK sovereignty lies within parliament; Ultimate power lies in parliament due to the fact that the electorate vote for the members of Parliament in free, fair and regular elections. There are two types of sovereignty that exist, legal and political. Legal sovereignty is the principle that one body has the authority and right to change any law in anyway it wants to, legal sovereignty in the UK has been said to lie in Westminster Parliament. Political sovereignty is where power effectively and actively is used and implemented, in other words who holds political power and who has can influence it. For example, political sovereignty lies with the electorate at election time, but at other times lies with Parliament when debating legislation and constitutional statues. People argue that the EU undermines Parliament sovereignty because national sovereignty of the British......

Words: 482 - Pages: 2

To What Extent Have Constitutional Reforms Introduced Since 1997 Made the Uk More Democratic?

...To what extent have constitutional reforms introduced since 1997 made the UK more democratic? Since 1997 the UK has seen many constitutional reforms; it is argued about whether or not they have made the UK more democratic, this easy will be going through a few of these reforms and explain how they have effected the UK. The word democracy means a system of government in which all the people are involved in making decisions that effect the country/state, it can further be defined as a government for the people, by the people, of the people, the people of the state can have their say through electoral votes, referendums lobbying or protests. Democracy has many aspects such as decentralisation, accountability, participation, open government and rights protection; decentralisation means the process of distributing or dispersing power away from the central government, an example of this can be seen in the Devolution Act of 1997. Accountability is the act of the government being liable for everything they do; this relates back to the rule of law which states that anybody can be taken to court if they have broken the law including the law makers themselves. Holding the government accountable means that anybody of the public can take the government to court if they have broken the law or if someone feels like an Act has been broken. Open government definitely helps democracy as it means that citizens have the right to access documents and proceedings of the government to allow......

Words: 1303 - Pages: 6

Discuss the Extent to Which Government Control Limits the Effectiveness of Parliament in Performing Its Main Functions (25)

...Discuss the extent to which Government control limits the effectiveness of Parliament in performing its main functions (25) Within British politics, it is generally accepted that the executive branch, dominates the legislative. Some have often argued that especially since 1997, this trend has developed into an ‘elected dictatorship’, so it can therefore often be questioned whether the Government has too much power over Parliament. The system of party whips, Government Majorities, weaknesses and strengths of the lords, free votes/rebellions, and Private Members Bills are all factors that can be used to discuss the extent of the control Government has over Parliament. Firstly, the whipping system within parties can be used to demand loyalty from MPs under a certain party. Whips control membership of committees and the Business of the house, having the power to ‘withdraw the whip’ from Rebel MPs, meaning party membership and privileges are suspended. This means the party in control of the legislation and with a majority can ensure votes from almost every member of their party, through the whip system, therefore, if they have a strong majority, always being able to pass their bills and reject opposition bills. This limits the effectiveness of Parliament in democratically delivering law, as it allows the party in majority to disregard other parties, and their own member’s opinions, and force them to vote one way, the way that they agree with. This can cause major consequences,......

Words: 997 - Pages: 4

To What Extent Has the British Constitution Been Effectively Reformed Since 1997?

...The new Labour government took power in 1997 began to reform the British constitution, introducing the Human rights act, Devolution and some reform of the House of Lords among other less important changes. Unfortunately Labour did not complete those reforms and a great deal was left undone. The question since then is how much has the constitution been reformed and how positive effect these reforms have had. There is no doubt that the HRA has transformed Britain. It created a means by which government and other bodies could be prevented from abusing our rights. The courts were given powers to enforce rights. This has meant that we now have more privacy and have the right to be treated equally under the law. However, the HRA was not made biding on Parliament and so governments can still abuse rights. This has been seen with anti-terrorism acts which give the police great powers including the ability to arrest suspects without trial. The HRA also does not protect us against the growth of surveillance and stop search powers or the prevention of some demonstrations. Similarly, the FOI act has been partly effective as it enabled us to know about the MP’s expense scandal and other aspects of government. However government can still conceal sensitive information thus perhaps the act should have been stronger. The introduction of Devolution as well supported in Scotland and Wales has made a huge difference in those countries as well as in Northern Ireland, the people of those......

Words: 844 - Pages: 4