Gov Scrutiny - 20 Marker

Question 1

Intro

Answer 1

US and UK political system scrutinise the actions of the government.

Legislatures check the executive is properly implementing laws, reacting appropriately to situations and hold government to account

Argued the US legislatures are more effective at scrutinising
the actions of the government and this response will discuss question time in the UK not being as effective as compelling members to hearings, committee scrutiny being more effective in the US, as well as scrutiny by the House of Lords not being as effective as Senate approval

Question 2

PMQ’s - Point

Answer 2

Prime Minister’s Questions is held every Wednesday at 12pm

Question 3

PMQ’s - Explain

Answer 3

Gives MPs the chance to question the government and put Prime Minister under pressure

Begins with a question regarding the future engagements of the Prime Minister, before
question of topical political relevance

Question 4

PMQ’s - Example

Answer 4

18th January 2023 Keir Starmer questioned Rishi Sunak on the length of time it takes for
an ambulance to arrive after a 999 call as the average wait for an ambulance was 2.5 hours

Question 5

PMQ’s - Analysis

Answer 5

Consequence, PMQ’s effective as answers are public media pick up and put scrutiny on government do what they can to avoid difficult questions might lead to negative headlines

Question 6

Congressional Hearings - Point

Answer 6

Public

Compelled to answer questions under oath

Question 7

Congressional Hearings - Example

Answer 7

Congress held hearings on the policy of the Trump administration to detain
illegal immigrants and investigated the conditions that they were being held in

Question 8

Congressional Hearings - Analysis

Answer 8

Differences in terms of the effectiveness of scrutiny. In the UK, often ineffective

Whereas in the US hearings in
Congress can be very effective in holding the executive to account

Question 9

House of Lords - Point

Answer 9

Second chamber

Question 10

HoL - Explain

Answer 10

19th century powers been reformed in favour of the more democratic Commons

Meant that Commons has more power over Lords because it is elected rather than appointed

Characterised through expertise & independence

Question 11

HoL - Example

Answer 11

Lords are experts in a particular area like medicine or technology

Lord Bird is the founder of the Big Issue

Question 12

HoL - Analysis

Answer 12

Consequence scrutiny paid by the lords and any issues for the government into the media

Question 13

Senate - Point

Answer 13

Two roles in the process of appointing
personnel to Executive and Judicial jobs

Senatorial approval is needed for hundreds of appointments including 15 Cabinet posts

Question 14

Senate - Example

Answer 14

2018 Mike Pompeo replaced Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, on that
basis

The importance of the Senate’s role in appointments is difficult to overstate

Question 15

Senate - Analysis

Answer 15

Executive scrutinised effectively by US than UK

UK very limited opportunities for scrutiny

USA, the system of checks and balances and the separation of powers ensure that one of the key roles of Congress is to effectively scrutinise the executive

Question 16

Conclusion

Answer 16

In conclusion, the executive is scrutinised more effectively by the legislature in the US than in the UK to a
large extent. In the UK, there are very limited opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny whereas in the
USA, the system of checks and balances and the separation of powers ensure that one of the key roles of
Congress is to effectively scrutinise the executive. In the UK, the Prime Minister can usually depend on a
greater level of party loyalty and for their MPs to ‘toe the party line’, whereas the US President does not
have the same level of control due to the separation of powers. Arguably, US politicians can be seen to be
more independent and less likely to be influenced by party loyalty than those in the UK. There are also
noticeable differences such as the disparity between the UK and the USA in relation to issues like budgets
and staffing, ultimately meaning that congressional committees could be considered to be more effective
when scrutinising the work of the executive