Herbert Asquith vs Horacio Cartes

Herbert Asquith became Prime Minister after the resignation of Henry Campbell-Bannerman. He led the Liberal government, overseeing major social reforms including the introduction of old-age pensions and national insurance.

Asquith's government passed the Parliament Act, which removed the House of Lords' power to veto money bills and limited its ability to delay other legislation. The act was a major constitutional reform, following the Lords' rejection of the People's Budget.

Asquith led the United Kingdom into World War I after Germany invaded Belgium. His government managed the war effort, including the introduction of conscription and the Defence of the Realm Act. The war dominated his premiership.

Asquith formed a coalition government with the Conservatives and Labour to manage the war effort. The coalition was marked by internal tensions over military strategy, particularly the Gallipoli campaign and conscription.

Asquith resigned as Prime Minister after a political crisis over the conduct of the war. He was replaced by David Lloyd George, who formed a new coalition. Asquith's resignation marked the end of his wartime leadership.

Cartes signed a tax reform law that increased the value-added tax from 5% to 10% and introduced a 10% income tax on agricultural exports. The reform aimed to increase state revenue for social programs but faced opposition from business sectors.

Horacio Cartes won the 2013 Paraguayan general election as the Colorado Party candidate, defeating the PLRA candidate Efra

Opposition parties attempted to impeach President Cartes in March 2017 after he proposed a constitutional amendment to allow presidential re-election. The impeachment effort failed in the Senate, but the re-election proposal sparked violent protests that left one dead.

Cartes resigned from the presidency in June 2018, one month before the end of his term, to take a seat in the Senate. Vice President Alicia Pucheta served as interim president for the remaining month. The move was criticized as a maneuver to gain immunity from prosecution.