Evaluate the view that the impact of backbench mps in the HoC is limited

Question 1

Legislation- limited impact

Answer 1

-Backbenchers can be described as having little to no influence over legislation and fail to bring govt effectively to account
-‘Lobby fodder’ that do what the party whips tell them to do.
-Parliamentary debates are sparsely attended.

Question 2

Legislation- significant impact

Answer 2

-Since 2010, parliament= more willing to defy govt–> SC’s are becoming more effective.
-High failure rate for private members bill–> little impact on legislation.
-3 line whips= BB’s risk being removed from the party and forced to become independent.

Question 3

Scrutiny- significant impact

Answer 3

-Strengthening of SC’s e.g Backbench Business Committee + more use of urgent questions = more opportunity to scrutinise govt.
-Scrutinising govt legislation ensures that the legislations being passed are up to the best standard.
-Select committees are one method bb’s use to take control

Question 4

scrutiny- limited impact

Answer 4

-SC’S can be often ignored + their advice doesn’t have to be taken into account.
-PMQS- planted questions may be asked= makes the party look better.,
-SC’s may not scrutinise govt fully out of the fear of being an outcast from their own party.

Question 5

Debate- significant impact

Answer 5

• are allowed in parliamentary debates
• are allowed to freely debate due to parliamentary privilege.

Question 6

debate - limited impact

Answer 6

-backbenchers have to be preapred to play a waiting gamein order to have a mark- not always guaranteed
-Those who fail will join the awkward squad- MPs who like to see themselves as westminister characters.
-may not be listened to