Parliament Essays

Assess the main factors that limit the effectiveness of Parliament

Argument	Counter argument	Mini conclusion
Discipline that is exercised by the party whips and leaders prevents MPs and peers from operating independently. Divisions and standing committees are usually strictly whipped.	MP’s today are not just ‘lobby fodders’ as reported by Peter Riddell in his article scrutinising the House of Commons, concluding that MPs today are more effective than ever of holding the government accountable. MPs rebel more than ever, EU budget vote: 53 Rebel Tory MPs defeat their own government over spending cut call – voting against their own party.	Although party whips exist, they are much more lenient because of the fusion of the legislature and the executive, in the British parliamentary democracy. However, in a presidential democracy, party whips are able to have greater control and fewer rebellions occur.
MP’s do not have sufficient time, expertise, knowledge, research to examine legislation and government policy to its fullest.	Lords are of many fields, and the delegation and perhaps sharing of the role of scrutiny could be shared between both Houses to enable the widest range of expertise and knowledge to be utilised. Legislation is passed relatively quickly due to not having a codified constitution, so MPs should use time effectively whilst dealing and scrutinising legislation before passing to the Lords.	There are many MPs, and between them and the Lords – totalling 650 members of Parliament there should be enough time, expertise and knowledge to examine legislation to create the most effective sets of laws for the country to be run by.
Commons lacks legitimacy due to a distorted representation because of the electoral system for Westminster – FPTP. The Lords are also unelected and therefore have no legitimacy, particularly the 92 hereditary peers that still exist.	Commons can be perceived as legitimate, as an MP would need concentrated support in a constituency to achieve a seat, so there is representation, although it is arguably very limited.	Commons is debating electoral reform after the coalition in 2010. The effectiveness of Parliament is significantly reduced purely by the existence of a coalition; the lack of legitimacy to the Commons and Lords is further highlighted because of the coalition making Parliament ineffective because of internal divisions within the current government.
	Hereditary means are not the only way to get at Lordship; part of the PM prerogative powers is the ability to select Lords; they have legitimacy from the governing party.
Traditional secrecy of government making it difficult for MPs, peers and select committees to obtain information and examine policy effectively	Freedom of Information Act 2000 makes information accessible and open. The ‘expenses scandal’ 2009, caused public outrage by disclosure of widespread actual and alleged misuse of the permitted allowances and expenses.	The Freedom of Information Act 2000 has made it easier to access information, and therefore obtain and examine information. Trust in a lot of MPs has declined after the expenses scandal.

How effective are backbench MPs?

Effective	Evaluation
Calling Government to Account – Backbench MP’s are provided with a variety of opportunities to check the performance of the Government and of Parliament; PMQ and the ability of legislative scrutiny.	Despite the opportunities this is limited; MP’s are not given enough time an understanding over an issue and PMQ is an opportunity for the PM to show off rather than real deliberation to occur.
Scrutinising Ability is Strong – MP’s ability to scrutinise legislation has been effective and more frequent over recent years. Michael Gove’s plan to reform GCSE’s.	Select committee power is severely limited, there work is often rushed by parliament and does not have to be acknowledged when formulating polices.
Backbench Rebellion – MP’s have exercised their ability to defy against whips and the party line to impact long term policy changes. House Lords Reform and a freezing of the EU budget have been the most significant rebellions. David Cameron thus becomes the latest in the line of Prime Minister dating back to Edward Heath to have at least one Commons defeat inflicted on them by their own backbenchers.	Backbench rebellions often fail to make impact on policy. This is also increasingly a thing of the past; James Callaghan suffered 34 defeats under his time whilst Cameron has only faced 4 to date. The Conservative-Lib Dem government have been successful in avoiding rebellions through control and compromise.
Ensuring Representation – Backbench MP’s do a great deal of work in the constituencies and local government. Successful fulfil parliaments function of representation. Stephen Timms, very busy, very popular.	Whips still hold great power, even in a coalition government their power has allowed the government to dominate parliament with a minority.
Coalition – the coalition has been dependent on Parliamentary unit to pass any policies. Unlike previous prime ministers, Cameron has needed to work through backbench MP’s to succeed. Changes in EU membership, privatisation and drastic cuts.	Unpopular policies have still been able to pass under the current coalition government. Bedroom tax, legal aid cuts and education cuts.
Media – individual ministerial responsibility still stands so MP’s often create a personal persona over the media. This is often an effective way to impact the attitude of the public and effectively policies formulated in government. Mark Garnier against leaving the EU.	The media often only concentrates of the PM and his/her cabinet. The media can also be a tool used to expose the flaws in an MP resulting in a decrease in their political power.

How effective is Parliament in controlling the executive?

For (Effective)	Against (Not Effective)
Parliamentary sovereignty meant that sole power lies within parliament and not the Executive. If a parliament feels that an executive’s performance is weak they can be dismissed James Callaghan vote of no confidence 1979.	Political sovereignty shows that power realistically lies within the executive. The executive set the agenda and is likely to have an effective rule with a majority in parliament. Prime Ministers now claim to have a personal mandate from the people.
Parliament holds legislative power. Legislations may be drafted by government but parliament has to pass them which often connotes that they are redrafted and amended to suit the members of parliaments view. Especially in the current coalition government where Cameron is severely constrained.	Whips have become increasingly significant who encourage parliament to pass government legalisation. The executives have increasingly been able to dominate the workings and the agenda of parliament even Cameron with his artificial mandate.
Backbench MPs have played a greater role in parliament. As of the introduction of the Backbench business committee and the increased use of backbench rebellion Government has lost its ability to control parliament.	Even in a coalition the executive dominates parliament. Legislations often go to the will of the Conservative Party. Backbench rebellion is often a thing of the past, with James Callaghan experiencing 34 but Thatcher, Blair and Cameron experiencing bellow five.
Checks and balances of government power. Despite the fusion of powers the executive is checked by select committees, through PMQ and by the judiciary.	There are constitutionally no checks and balances which allows for a weak system to be put in place. Checks like PMQ and committees do little to improve and contain the performance of government; they are often open to exploitation and lack effectiveness.
Increasing significance of Select Committees. Select Committees have taken their roles more seriously and have been given a more effective role in recent years.	The House of Lords still remain weak in their effectiveness in parliament. Select Committees have an abundance of restrains.
House of Lords have a played a bigger role in recent parliament. As the coalition government has an artificial government the Lords have taken it upon themselves the question the authority & legitimacy of Parliament.	The House of Lords lack any democratic mandate to challenge the authority of Government. The Salisbury convention still remains and weakens Lords powers.

Has the Formation of the Coalition Government Altered the Relationship between Parliament and Government?

Point	Evaluation
Legislative Process – Prime Minister can no longer dominate the legislative process. The PM is highly dependent on their power to persuade. Faced with difficulties from the opposition and within the main party.	Much legislation is prosed in the Quad which the Prime Minister controls. This reflects many other governments where a few or a PM’s closest advisors dominate the workings of the system.
Collective Responsibility – no longer exists so there is no illusion of a strong and united government. Allowing for parliamentary scrutiny to be stronger.	Conservatives still dominate the government; most conservative policies are passed through despite their controversy.
Whips & Party Discipline – party discipline has become a thing of the past. It is hard to discipline someone form another party and please those whom lost out from the coalition agreement; forced centre ground politics.	Government has had no major defeats showing that party discipline is still strong. Government also lasted the five year term.
House of Lords – Salisbury convention does not stand in the coalition, allowing for the HOL to amend mandated legislation. The mandate was also not clear so the need for strong scrutiny increased the influence of the Lords.	Constitution will always limit their scope allowing for a powerful government.

Asses the arguments in favour of a largely elected House of Lords

Point	Evaluation
Representation – if the lords are to become elected, they would be elected on the basis of a Proportionately Representation system. This would then means that the lords would have greater presentation in regions and could be more representative for parties than the house of commons.	The lords are already representative, they are appointed on the basis of their political background, experience and knowledge which provides them with a great deal of ability to scrutinise the workings of government.
Increase power – as executive dominance has become an occurrence each parliament the Lords would be able to operate with a democratic mandate. This would potentially allow the lords to block and controversial legislation and conventions like the Salisbury Convention would be weaker.	The lords could be given too much power and become an obstructionist chamber. This then makes gridlock likely to happen if a divided government forms which would limit the efficiency of government.
Corruption – as it stands, the Lords positions are far too secure and far too unchecked which allows them a great deal of power to act corrupt. The Lords had an as controversial expense scandal as the commons and rarely attend debate.	Lords have developed a greater professionalism since the reforms in 1999. The lords had also seen it as their duty to check the coalition government as of its weak mandate and have felt the need to “make up for the lack of opposition in the commons”.
Biggest Democratic Flaw – the UK has a large unelected chamber which possesses a great deal of power over legislation that an elected government passes.	The Lords are both well-educated and experienced which has allowed them to conduct their role. Most controversial legislations are dealt or defeated in the Lords. (Education reforms, scrap GCSEs)
Public Support – since the Scottish referendum on devolution both the Labour Party and SNP pledged to remove the chamber and replace it with an elected chamber to improve efficiency and representation in parliament.	The coalition government failed to bring about a house of lords reform and were given no reason to continue as the lack of direct support

Is the House of Lords more effective than the House of Commons in checking the executives power?

Arguments For	Evaluation
Party Discipline – Lords are not constrained by whips and have proven to be more independent. Together with their life memberships the Lords tend to be more willing to fulfil parliament’s function of scrutinising the work of government.	Select Committees in the common can be as significant as the Lords. There tends to be weak party discipline amongst committees which also allows them to have a great deal of power to check the work of government.
Controversial Legislation – the Lords have developed a reputation for dealing with controversial pieces of legislation like the proposed education reform that was dropped. The coalition government faces 103 defeats by the Lords.	The lords are severely limited because there is no unilateral power to create and pass laws. Parliament can and sometimes does act solely on the basis of commons accepting legislation.
Neutral – the reforms made by the Labour government removed the inbuilt conservative majority which created a more politically balanced chamber. The Lords are diverse by political party and experience.	Cameron has appointees tended to be very conservative and have only led to increase in the size of the chamber.
Salisbury Convention – under the coalition government the Salisbury convention did not stand, this meant that the lords could check a greater deal of the work of government.	Coalition government was a clear anomaly so the lord’s ability to check government now is likely to have reduced. The commons will therefore be more successful at this.
Life Peers – life membership means that Lords have a long period of time to check the work of government and bring about significant proposals that can create an efficient government.	The house of commons are elected which gives them an incentive to be more productive and scrutinise the work of government. Backbench MPs conduct a great deal of this.