Introduction and Basics Flashcards
What are the functions of Parliament
Legislation – pass laws
Representation – represent the people
Parliamentary scrutiny – hold government to account
what are the different institutions that form parliament
House of Commons
House of Lords
Crown in Parliament
what majority is needed in parliament
326
who are front benchers
An MP who holds a ministerial post (or shadow minister) as part of the government – sitting on the front benches. I.e. the ‘important’ MPs
who are back benchers
MPs without ministerial posts – sitting on the backbenches. i.e. the less well-known MPs
other mps
15 independents
composition of the house of lords
Members of the house of lords are called peers and it is the upper house of the UK parliament
There are 92 hereditary peers
700 Life peers
26 Lord spirituals
Most Lords are members of a political party (currently 260 Conservative, 174 Labour, 83 Liberal Democrat, 6 DUP, 3 UKIP, 2 Green Party)
But, there are also many independents (‘crossbenchers’) (185).
what are private members bills
A bill proposed by an individual MP not part of government, a backbencher
why are successful private bills rare
- There are only 20 private members’ bills a year and They are allocated by ballot (lottery)
- The government party has a majority in the House of Commons, but individual backbenchers have to cobble together a majority to vote for their bill
- There is limited time allocated to debate and vote on private members bills – that means they can be filibustered. The government controls the timetable in the House of Commons
examples of private members bills
Turing Bill - gay pardon - filibustered by MP Sam Gyiman
Benn Act - Hilary Benn’s Private Member’s Bill that forced the government to ask the EU for an extension if it had not agreed on a deal – basically stopping a ‘no deal Brexit’
Unusually, the House of Commons had a vote first to ‘hijack’ the control of the parliamentary agenda from the government and block-book
enough time for the ‘Benn Act’ to be debated and voted on
It successfully passed and the government had to ask for an extension. - passed in 2 days
House of Lords - Legislation - acts that limited the power of the HoL
1911 Parliament Act - Until 1911 the powers of both houses were the same, and both houses could block a bill but this was regarded as undemocratic
1911 Act - removed the house of lords power to block a delay, could only delay for 2 years
1949 Act - HoL can only delay a bill for a year
aftermath of the Parliament Acts
The Parliament Act 1911 (and 1949) changed the role of the House of Lords – it became more of an advising chamber, giving a ‘second opinion’ on bills, which could in the end be ignored.
examples of parliamentary ping pong
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill - HoL rejected the bill that’ll give the PM sole power to call an election it was stuck in ping pong but given royal assent on Mar 24th 2022
Public Order Bill - a bill to give the police more power and reduce protests - still stuck in ping pong
Hunting Act 2004 - An act to ban fox hunting with dogs, which was seen as cruel.
The Lords blocked the bill passed by the Commons for a full year, after which it became law anyway.
powers of the HoLs
It can suggest amendments to bills passed by the house of commons - eg. Lords proposed giving 16 and 17yos the right to vote in referendums
It can vote against bills passed by the Commons - Dissolution and Calling of Parliament
Can propose its own bills
what further limits on the HoL’s power are there
Convention on money bills - This convention says that bills on financial issues
(taxation or budget bills) cannot even be delayed by the House of Lords. The Lords are supposed to simply wave money bills through and not supposed to vote against them.
Salisbury Convention - the House of Lords is not supposed to vote against bills that are based on manifesto promises from the government party.
The rationale is that such manifesto promises have been ‘approved’ by voters in the election, and the unelected House of Lords stopping them would be undemocratic.
examples of those conventions that limit the HoL power
Spring Budget 2023 passed
majority of the Lords were against an EU referendum, but still waved the EU Referendum Bill 2015 through because Cameron’s Conservative Party manifesto had promised such a referendum.
majority of the Lords was against
Boris Johnson’s Withdrawal Agreement for Brexit, but because the Conservative Party had just won a general election promising that
deal, the HoL did not block it in January 2020.
counter arguments against those conventions with examples
However, conventions cannot be enforced, and
are sometimes ignored.
In 2015 the Lords voted against a money bill, a plan to cut tax credits
Parliament - Representation key words
Free vote - a parliamentary division in which members vote according to their own beliefs rather than following a party policy.
Back Bench Rebellion - BB MP’s voting against the governments agenda
Party Discipline - toe the party line
3 Line whip - A three-line whip is a strict instruction to attend and vote according to the party’s position
example of free vote
Gay marriage act under David Cameron, MP Nicky Morgan voted against it because she receieved many letters from her constituents opposing it
significant backbench rebellions
2012 House of Lords Reform Bill - 91
Conservative rebels vote against the government
2019 Theresa May’s EU Withdrawal Deal –
118 Conservative rebels
2019 ‘Benn Act’ – 21 Conservative rebels
2022 threat with rebellion over binding
housebuilding targets
22 tory rebels voted against Sunak’s NI post brexit trade deal as they are hardline brexiteers
Parliament - Scrutiny meaning
Parliament should check (in our name) what the government does and plans to do. This includes investigating its plans, criticising it, suggest alternatives, and stop it from doing harmful or unpopular things.
methods of scrutiny
Prime Minister’s Question Time (and Ministers’
Question Time)
Vote on government bills
Private members bill
Vote of confidence
Committees
Question Time
PMQ- Every Wednesday 12.00 – 12.30
Individual MPs can ask the Prime Minister questions. The leader of the opposition can ask a larger number. It provided opportunity for the opposition to get attention in the media
MQ - Government ministers have to explain their department’s policies in Parliament to MPs
example of PMQ
Starmer questioned Sunak’s decision to appoint Zahawi as Chancellor after his tax evasion scandal and investigation
Starmer said Sunak’s party is addicted to sleaze and scandal
David Davis - In the name of God go, due to Partygate 2020
How effective are PMQ’s
In practice policy rarely changes because of
questions asked
It is mostly 30 minutes of ‘political theatre’ for the TV cameras and media headlines: it does give media coverage for opposing views. Time allocated to showcase adversarial politics for example, Sunak has been attacked by Starmer and other labour MPs for the Rwanda plan but the illegal immigration act was still passed
Government party backbench MPs try to ‘play for time’ by asking ‘easy’ questions or simply praising the government (questions often suggested by whips)
vote on government bills - link with BB rebellion
MPs’ core instrument of judging the government is with their vote on bills the government proposes
The opposition often votes against government bills
A government party backbench rebellion is rarer, but more effective, as it can stop a bill
vote of confidence
the ultimate way for MPs to hold the
government to account is through a ‘no-
confidence motion’ (or vote of confidence)
A no-confidence motion is a vote to remove the
government: It expresses that Parliament no longer has confidence in the government
If a no-confidence motion gets a majority, the
government has to step down, and call new elections
how effective are VofC
this is extremely rare because the government has a majority, though MPs may lack confidence in their party, they risk losing their seats if an election is called due to a succesful vote of confidence : last
successful no-confidence motion was in 1979:
Callaghan’s Labour minority government
2019 vote of confidence called by Jezza against May failed - 325 to 306
Committees in parliament
Public Bill Committees - Scrutinise a specific bill - members are selected by the whips
Select Committees - Scrutinse the government
Select Committes
MPs are part of ‘Select Committees’ – groups of
backbench MPs who specialise in a particular topic.
Select committees scrutinise a specific government department
36 Commons Select Committees
Members are elected by the House of Commons and the composition roughly reflects the balance of power in the Commons
what do select committees do?
They carry out inquiries and publish critical reports on government policy
They hold hearings
They can ask for witnesses to give evidence.
select committees case studies
2018 Windrush Children Inquiry - The Home Affairs Committee questioned Amber Rudd over the Windrush scandal and deportation targets when she was Home Secretary. This led
to her resignation.
Privilege Committee 2022
Inquiry on whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament over party gate, the committe was headed by Labour MP Harriet Harman, it had 4 tory MP’s, 2 Lab, One SNP - they can suspend Boris Johnson if they find out that he lied
Important committees
Public Accounts Committee – taxation and spending
Home Affairs Committee – police, migration
Liaison Committee: It is made up of the chairs of all the other committees
It’s role is to scrutinise the Prime Minister regularly
are committees effective - yes
- Inquiries can question ministers critically and
in-depth during inquiries
eg - The Home Affairs Committee questioned Amber Rudd over the Windrush scandal and
deportation targets when she
was Home Secretary. This led to her resignation. - Committee members can become experts in a particular area; often more knowledgeable than ministers who move from department
to department
eg - Tobias Ellwood has been a
captain in the army and government minister in the Ministry of Defence, and now Chair of the Defence select committee
are committees effective - no
- Committees can only make recommendations; the government can ignore them - like the HoL
Eg - An estimated 40% of committee recommendations are accepted by the
government, but many of those are relatively minor - The government party has a majority in committees, which can block criticism
eg - In 2017 the Conservatives changed the rules; as a minority government it would have a
minority in all committees, but the rule change meant the government always has a
majority in committees - Committee members are still controlled by whips
eg This makes the government backbenchers in select committees hesitant to
criticise the government. In 2017 Conservative MPs members of the Exiting the EU
Select Committee, spoke out against their own committee’s report on the impacts of Brexit, saying it was too pessimistic - Committees cannot force witnesses to give evidence
eg - Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg gave evidence to US committees over Facebook’s
involvement in hacking to influence the 2016 US elections but none to the UK
Scrutiny - The official opposition
The Opposition in the Commons has particular
responsibility to scrutinise the government.
The UK House of Commons is built around the idea of adversarial politics. The Opposition (the second largest party in the Commons) literally sits opposite the government party – they face each other in debates.
privileges of the opposition
It has special privileges at Prime Minister’s Question Time (more questions for the leader of the opposition)
Like all opposition parties, it gets ‘Short Money’.
The opposition party has ‘opposition days’ (17 per year), when it sets the agenda of the House of Commons –
opposition day votes
Rail Investment and the Integrated Rail Plan - part of tory levelling program - 139 Lab Mps voted no
18 January 2021: Two Opposition Day motions from Labour were passed after a forced division. The first, on universal credit and working tax credit, passed 278–0; the second, on access to remote education and the quality of free school meals, passed 272–0, with most Conservative MPs not voting.
what is short money
Money given to opposing parties used to fund research that would help check the goverment party
why is the opposition often ineffective in trying to make government change policy?
It doesnt have a majority - government defeats in votes are very rare - Johnson’s majority government had 0 defeats, Blairs 10 year government had only 4 defeats
Votes on opposition days are not binding and can be ignored - tory government ignored the oppostion day vote on rail plans
how can the opposition sometimes defeat the government
with help from backbenchers
arguments that the opposition is more effective
The opposition is not controlled
by government whips
They get Short Money
The opposition gets opposition
days
The leader of the opposition gets
to ask more questions at PMQ
arguments that backbenchers are more effective
A backbench rebellion can cost the government its majority, and can actually stop a bill
comparing the house of lords and the house of commons - powers of both houses
Debate & vote legislation
Propose amendments to legislation
Introduce private members bills
Ask government ministers questions
Scrutinise the government through select
committees
exclusive powers of the house of commons
Block legislation
Vote on taxation and spending (‘money bills’)
Vote on government manifesto promises (‘Salisbury Convention’)
Ask the Prime Minister questions directly
Dismiss a government through vote of no confidence
‘confidence and supply’ in case of a minority
government
role of the house of lords
Legislation: Give a ‘second opinion’ on legislation, make the House of Commons ‘think twice’
Representation: Not Much
Scrutiny: Scrutiny based on independence and expertise’
what is the main difference btw the HoL and HoC
electoral mandate
what is the electoral mandate
“The authority, given by the electorate to a party or candidate that wins an election, to carry out policies”
how does electoral mandate apply to parliament
Voters give members of the House of Commons a mandate to legislate, to represent them, and to scrutinise the government. MPs can say, ‘I do this because voters have given me the power to do so’.
Members of the House of Lords do not have such an electoral mandate
what is one key advantage that the house of lords has
Independence and this makes it particularly effective at scruntining the government
why is the House of Lords independent
- Peers are appointed for life, and cannot be fired this means that they are more independent and can Focus on the long-term national interest, not the government’s agenda - BJ appointed 86 life peers including his brother Jo Johnson and Alan Sugar
- House of Lords is less bound by party discipline, they are not controlled by the whip
- There are many more independents
(crossbenchers) - 184 - Government has no majority in the House of Lords - 245 Cons, 179 Lab, 184 ind, 91 Lib Dems
what other advantage does the lords have
one other advantage is their expertise and knowledge
Lord Winston, professor in Medicine
Lord Stern, professor in Economics
what happens as a result of the house of lords being more independent
they can be more rebellious
Boris Johnson had a total of 12 defeats, all 12 were during his minority government while in the HoL he had 243
Blair 4 in commons - 421 in lords
strengths of both houses - legislation
Commons
The Commons has the final
say on legislation
Most bills start in the Commons
Money bills and manifesto promises cannot even be delayed by the Lords
Lords
The Lords can delay bills for a year
The Lords has expertise and knowledge to scrutinise bills
strengths - Representation
Commons
MPs are elected, Lords not
Worries about re-election will ensure MPs to take voters’ wishes into account
MPs are increasingly socially representative
Lords
Not much… (The Lords contains people from a wide range of backgrounds, who may represent specific industries/groups)
scrutiny - comparing strengths
Commons
Commons has PMQ
Commons can use confidence votes
A Commons backbench rebellion can actually stop a government bill
Lords
The Lords is more independent, less controlled
by whips, and without government majority
The Lords has expertise and knowledge to criticise the government
House of Lords Reform - House of Lords Act 1999
Remove all hereditary peers (apart from 92)
Make House of Lords a chamber with members appointed because of their expertise.
Appointed by Prime Minister and independent
committee.
800+ members (changes all the time!)
92 hereditary peers
26 Lords Spiritual
700+ appointed life peers
House of Lords Reform Bill 2012
introduced by the Cameron Clegg Coalition
Proposals -
Largely elected House of Lords
80 % of members elected
20 % appointed/lords spiritual
Reduced size (450 or 300)
Elections using a system of proportional representation
Elected members serving a single 15-year term.
what happened to the house of lords reform act 2012
Strong objections, the bill failed. 91 tory MPs voted against it
options for reform
Status quo – mostly appointed House of Lords
Fully elected House of Lords
Part elected/appointed - e.g. 80%/20%
Abolish House of Lords and have a unicameral
Parliament (like Sweden, Denmark, Israel).
How would the mandate of the House of Lords change if it would be directly elected?
it would have an electoral mandate
how would an elected house of lords affect the balance of power
The lords would become more powerful and it would led to gridlock
arguments for and against an appointed house of lords
For -
Knowledge and expertise
Independence and scrutiny
Clear house of commons supremacy and no gridlock
Against -
Undemocratic
Abuse of PM appointment power
arguments for and against a fully elected Lords
For -
Democratic
Improve representation
Limit government more and deal with elective dictartorship
Against -
Threatened Commons Supremacy
They become politicians meaning they would have less knowledge
Lead to gridlock if there are different majorities in both houses
arguments for and against a hybrid lords
Best of both worlds - Knowledge plus democratic
against -
Still undemocratic
creates two classes of peers which can be confusing
arguments for and against abolishing the house of lords
Save money - each lord is paid £300 a day they attend
against -
Less government scrutiny, it will make elective dictatorship an even bigger problem
pros and cons of parliaments legislative function
CONs
It is too easy for governments with a majority to pass laws (🡪 ‘elective dictatorship’)
The Lords has expertise, but no real power
Private members bills can propose popular laws, but are routinely defeated by the government
Little power for the opposition, meaning laws do not represent the interests of the whole population
PROs
The many stages ensure legislation is checked carefully
Lords (expertise) can suggest Commons to ‘think twice’
Backbench rebellions can stop bad government decisions
Unelected Lords cannot block bills
Government control of majority and of the Commons timetable 🡪 no legislative ‘gridlock’
Criticism on Parliament’s representation function:
Cons
MPs represent their parties as well as constituents, and may prioritise their party under pressure from whips
FPTP means some voters are underrepresented and others overrepresented
The Commons is not socially representative (too old, male, white, privately educated)
The House of Lords has no clear representative
function
Pros
FPTP means a clear link between constituents and MPs
Voters can replace MPs who do not reflect their views at the next election
MPs increasingly socially representative
Criticism on Parliament’s scrutiny function:
Cons
Because the government has a majority in the Commons, most forms of scrutiny by the opposition are ineffective (🡪 ‘elective dictatorship’)
In addition, some forms of scrutiny can simply be ignored - oppostion day votes, select committe
Government backbenchers are controlled by the whips and tend to be less critical
The House of Lords is more independent and critical, but mostly powerless
Pros
The Commons has some significant powers to obstruct the government as necessary (no confidence vote, block bills)
Lords is independent and therefore more critical
Parliament has effective power over minority governments
Parliamentary privilege
The right of MPs or Lords to make certain statements within Parliament without being subject to outside influence, including law
example of the opposition voting against the main party
248 labour mps rejected may’s brexit deal
