18.4 - Comparisons with the Legislature of the UK

Question 1

Rational comparisons between the US and UK.

Answer 1

• Actions of MPs and Congresspeople can be viewed through what is best for them and their careers. (In the UK this typically means party loyalty, in the US it typically means heavy focus on constituents)
• The actions of leaders within Congress and Parliament can be determined by likely outcome and how that outcome might affect their own personal power.
• The HoL being unelected against the Senate being elected leads to different outcomes due to voting in the HoL being more free than in the Senate (i.e. must follow party (hmm..), must support constituents etc.)

Question 2

Cultural comparisons between the US and UK.

Answer 2

• The actions of individuals within Congress and Parliament are strongly guided by the individual’s ideological coherence to their party’s beliefs.
• Factions within parties can sometimes lead to voting across party lines (although this is far less common now.)
• There is growing expectation that the representative bodies should reflect (to some extent) the descriptive make-up of the electorate.

Question 3

Structural comparisons between the US and UK.

Answer 3

• Processes that guide legislative output of both houses are fixed and rigid.
• The separation of powers in the US and electoral systems in the US give different outcomes to the fused powers and electoral systems of the UK.
• Congress being directly elected and having direct checks on the president can achieve more than Parliament.
• The political processes within both countries limit the influence of third parties, thereby encouraging and adversarial two-party system.

Question 4

What are the similarities with the UK and US legislatures?

Answer 4

• The ‘lower’ house controls taxation and appropriation of money for government policies.
• The responsibility for the creation of legislation and the legislative process is very simimlar in both countries.
• Oversight of the executive branch through a range of checks and balances for both branches.
• A range of representation exists within both legislatures.
• Power over foreign policy is relatively weak in both Congress and Parliament.
• Both legislatures can enact constitutional change.
• The two-party state has ensured oversight but deepened partisanship.

Question 5

What are the differences with the UK and US legislatures?

Answer 5

• Both HoCongress are directly elected by the public. The HoL is unelected and unaccountable.
• The chances of ‘divided government’ in the UK are almost non-existent. Common in the USA.
• Party unity in the UK is extremely high (whips, party manifesto etc.), party unity in the US is weaker (although getting stronger).
• The speaker in the Commons is apolitical, whereas the leadership in both HoCongress are tied up in party politics.
• Parliament is more efficient at passing legislation owing to the fusion of the exec. and legis. branches whereas Congress passes relatively little legislation each session.
• Parliament is sovereign, Congress is not.
• The exec. can dominate the legis. branch in the UK, whereas separation of powers in the USA limits the power of the president in this regard.

Question 6

What are the strengths of the HoR?

Answer 6

• Two-year terms ensure accountability.
• Power of initiation over appropriation and taxation bills.
• Effectively decides over what matters an official can be impeached.
• Two-party system limits impacts of third-parties (can make oversight better).

Question 7

What are the weaknesses of the HoR?

Answer 7

• Power can be concentrated in the hands of Speaker, committee chairs and House Rules Committee.
• Partisan politics prevents many bills being passed each session.
• Frequent elections mean a focus on short-term change and allow for excessive influence on lobbyists.
• Relatively poor representation of women and minorities.

Question 8

What are the strengths of the HoC?

Answer 8

• Dominance by majority party and fused powers ensure legislation is passed quickly.
• Speaker is independent.
• Five-year elections give the power to effect real change.
• Parliament Acts and the Salisbury Convention allow for strong government.

Question 9

What are the weaknesses of the HoC?

Answer 9

• Dominance by the majority party can allow for an ‘elective dictatorship’ and limit the effectiveness of checks on the exec.
• It is possible for poor legislation to be rushed through the House.
• Strong whips make for only limited opposition.
• The two-party system limits the influence of third parties

Question 10

What are the strengths of the Senate?

Answer 10

• Longer terms allow officials to focus on making good policy and affecting change.
• Unique powers to ratify treaties and appointments allow for greater oversight of the exec.
• Unanimous consent and unlimited debate result in weaker party control.
• The power of individual senators allows for every state to have a voice that is heard.

Question 11

What are the weaknesses of the Senate?

Answer 11

• ‘Unanimous consent’ allows for undue influence of a single senator.
• It can only ratify or reject the treaties and appointments put to it, not create its own.
• The use of the filibuster can lead to gridlock and is difficult to prevent.
• Each state having two senators misvalues the importance of states across America.

Question 12

What are the strengths of the HoL?

Answer 12

• As an unelected body, the Lords can focus on the long-term interests of the UK.
• Experts are included in policy-making rather than just charismatic politicians.
• Being unelected, they are more free to challenge the will of the government.
• It is possible to nominate a range of minorities to the Lords to improve their representation.

Question 13

What are the weaknesses of the HoL?

Answer 13

• Lacking in legitimacy as it’s unelected.
• Its power can be usurped through Parliament Acts and the Salisbury Convention.
• The large size of the Lords makes it cumbersome.
• The challenge it poses to the Commons is minimal as its suggestions and amendments can be ignored.