Evaluate the view that Parliament is able to significantly hold the Executive to account.

Question 1

LoA

Answer 1

parliament is not able to hold the executive account

Question 2

para 1 theme

Answer 2

opposition

Question 3

para 2 theme

Answer 3

select committees and other committees

Question 4

para 3 theme

Answer 4

questioning

Question 5

para 1 - opposition

Answer 5

• Although the opposition check power, the majority of PMs still succeed
  
  • Not all opposition leaders are strong like Blair and Cameron, and a weaker opposition leader can actually boost the position of the PM. William Hague outlined the weaknesses of the Conservatives and the strengths of the Blair government. Michael Foot outlined the weaknesses of the Labour party and the strengths of Thatcher’s government.
  • Large parliamentary majorities are often a given due to the electoral system of FPTP can completely nullify any opposition. Blair in 1997 and 2003 secured huge majorities, meaning he was blae to absorb rebellions over Iraq, with him not losing a single vote in parliament until 2005.
    Boris Johnson has secured a majority of 80 meaning he is quite difficult to defeat in parliament.

Question 6

para 1 - however

Answer 6

• Blair outlined the inefficiencies of the major government when he was the leader of the opposition (1994-97)
  
  • Major suffered four defeats in his last three years of tenure e.g in 1996 over limiting pay increases (317-168)
  • When a PM command a small majority, policy can become very hard e.g Wilson 65-66 majority of 4, Major 92-997 majority of 21
    May had a minority government supported by the DUP, and she lost her first Brexit vote by 230 votes. She also failed to pass policy on grammar schools and prisons due to her weak position in parliament.

Question 7

para 1 - rebuttal

Answer 7

This is all dependent on the strength of the opposition leader and strength of majority. Not every opposition leader is as strong as Tony Blair, and given FPTP majorities are quite likely.

Question 8

para 2- select committees

Answer 8

• They often review problems after they have occurred and criticised the government for this
• The government is not obliged to act upon the recommendations of select committees
• Ministers have a huge amount of support, whereas MPs have very little research support
• Legislative committees are far less independent than select committees as their membership is still dominated by party whips
• Amendments that are contrary to a majority government’s wishes are rarely accepted
• Gov can ignore select committee advice e.g. FASC on Syria
  MPs are expected to obey whips “carrot and stick”

Question 9

para 2 - however

Answer 9

• Select Committees allow for the scrutiny of government departments.
  
  • Committees reflect the composition of the Commons, so a government with a majority will also have a majority in the committee. They have the power to send for ‘persons, papers and records’. Due to implementation of the Wright report, the executive no longer controls membership of the select committees. They can act independently and scrutinise departments effectively.
  • They have an interrogative style of questioning and witnesses have no notice of questions
  • Committee members tend to be independently minded, so feel freer to be critical
  • Chairs of committees get paid well and so the position attracts career and independently minded politicians
  • Successes include Margaret Hodge (PAC) in 2013 holding Amazon, Starbucks and Google to account for their tax
  • Public bills committees were strengthened in 2007
  • Backbench Business Committee 2010 makes backbenchers able to choose topics for debate 35 days a year. For example, one topic for debate that was held and has been acted upon was the childhood obesity strategy

Question 10

para 2 - rebuttal

Answer 10

If MPs are to be succesful, they will need to follow the governments agenda due to powerful whip system

Question 11

para 3 - questioning

Answer 11

• PMQs is political theatre rather than proper scrutiny. The Speaker often has to intervene to address the behaviour of MPs. For example, Dennis Skinner had to be removed from the Commons for calling David Cameron dodgy Dave.
• Too many questions are from ‘friendly’ gov backbenchers
• PMQs has become an exercise in point scoring. It is ‘punch and judy’ politics, with jeering and shouting in a highly childish manner
  Sir Kaufman labelled PMQs as “an exchange of pointless and useless declamations” (2015)

Question 12

para 3- however

Answer 12

• Parliament requires that ministers, including the PM, answer questions by backbenchers in the commons
  
  • PMQs forces the PM to be well informed about policy and the wider new agenda e.g. Boris has had to be well informed about COVID
  • The opportunity to regularly question the PM is significant and quite unique. While not always entirely civilised, PMQs is still important opportunity for the Commons to challenge the PM. In 2017, Corbyn used PMQs to effectively overturn the premier-rate number used to call universal credit.
    The speaker can raise ‘urgent questions’, which allows the Commons to demand the attendance of the relevant minister so they can answer questions and face criticism

Question 13

para 3 - rebuttal

Answer 13

PMQs has simply become political theatre, and is no longer a useful form of holding the PM to account.