Parliament Flashcards

Question

evaluation of hofc - representation

Answer 1

good - active in constituencies often holding clinics - often also represent sections of society / certain interests (pressure groups) - aren't mere lobby fodder, since 1970s have become more independent (eg before coming to power JC defied the whip 148 times since 2005) bad - are mere lobby fodder - payroll vote / party whips - not socially representative - FPTP = large parties very large whilst small parties very small

Answer 2

middle class professionals 191 women only 6% are not white - in population of britain 18.1% are not white

Answer 3

good - have power to question minister, civil servant - PMQT - Liason committee questions pm twice a year - ministers by tradition present policies to commons before media - departmental select committees bad - PMQT big show, making the other side look silly, planted questions - MPs reluctant to criticise0

Answer 4

``` good - departmental select committees (publish shortcomings and failures bad - little time for proper scrutiny - laws are often poorly drafted - legislative committees are whipped ```

Answer 5

good - commons does legitimate laws - laws are generally well respected - power to block government legislation if against public interest / abuses power (eg Blair blocked on amount of time allowed to hold terror suspects) bad - legislative practice ancient and ineffective - lord salibury - lords = 'Commons Housemaid' as legislation so poor

Answer 6

good - good at holding all day debates (eg on whether to bomb syria 2nd december 2015 lasting around 11 hours, also university tuition fees, war in iraq, how to deal with terrorism) bad - commons given little time with such a packed schedule so happens very rarely - tend to follow party lines? (Hilary Benn's speech going against corbyns stance and was a free vote for labour)

Answer 7

good - retains power to veto - gov doesn't always win (eg so far dc defeated 9 times, callaghan 34 times) bad - Party discipline means they are rarely defeated - payroll vote / patronage = unlikely to challenge

Answer 8

``` scrutiny representation calling gov to account legislation deliberation checking gov power ```

Answer 9

``` good - more socially representative - many sections of business represented / professions / are the top of their field represented - specific knowledge bad - unelected so unaccountable so not representative - high average age - few working class - still not socially correct enough ```

Answer 10

207 women (34% vs 29%) (4 of past 6 leaders have been women vs only 1 women PM and never been a woman speaker)

Answer 11

good - peers = more independent - more active in questioning (dont have to worry about consequences of criticisng gov) bad - no departmental select committees - no PMQT - as unelected, looses legitimacy / weight to question

Answer 12

good - much more effective than commons (housemaid) as has time and experience - specific, detailed knowledge from most peers over one particular aspect - less part lines bad - if lords do try to amend, commons has to agree

Answer 13

good - laws must be passed by lords to be passed bad - illegitimate - many conventions and acts standing the lords way (salisbury convention, parliament acts)

Answer 14

``` good - time - knowledge - better debates than commons bad - weak legislation powers - debates for show more than anything else ```

Answer 15

``` good - members cannot be controlled by gov - no patronage - much less whipped - independent - can cause u turns in gov policy (working tax credits) bad - can bypass lords - they can only delay for a year - commons will always win over lords ```

Answer 16

june 2010 - back bench business committee set up with chair elected by MPs - committee controls debate in the chamber for 27 days a year (debates have ranged from afgan war to big society concept), also schedule 8 days of debate in westminster central hall 2010 onwards select committees chairs now elected by MPs taking the power away from the whips

Answer 17

house business committee to oversee day to day running of house constituency boundaries to be redrawn so constituencies the same (and to make house smaller) some as big as 92,000 (illford south) then as small as 44,000 (scunthorpe) recall MPs change to AV

Answer 18

expenses scandal | = parliamentary standars act 2009 - independent parliamentary standards authority replacing fees office

Answer 19

received royal assent march 2015 MP sent to prison or suspended for 21 sitting days petition open for 8 weeks and must receive 10% of electorate by election follow (MP allowed to stand) Zac Goldsmith = big supporter

Answer 20

save money streamline legislation remove obstructions from efficient gov force commons to face up to its responsibilities

Answer 21

important check on gov power deny many experts a position in politics expertise lost

Answer 22

useful and knowledgeable people brought into politics could manipulate members so so social balance result in greater independence

Answer 23

patronage into pms hands tonies cronies just become huge as parties appoint too many to support their party

Answer 24

democracy accountable greater authority proportional representation = reflect party balance more accurately

Answer 25

``` house too influential just a repeated of hofc unnecessary lose the experts only get second rate (all the good politicians go to commons, lords left with the second best) ```

Answer 26

1999 - house of lords act removing all but 92 hereditary peers report on the royal commission in report of the house of lords = wakeham commission, made recommendations on mixture of elected and appointed an no hereditarys 2001 white paper proposing 20% elected, too small so dropped 2007 white paper series of votes for differing amounts of electedness but none got a majority (couldn't agree on percentages) 2011-2012 house of lords reform bill to make a senate but rebellion by tories house of lords reform act 2014 allowing peers can now be expelled, retire and remove unattendees