Parliamentary Representatives Flashcards
BI
U.K is a representative democracy so we, the people, decline our political decision-making rights and elected representatives adopt these on our behalf
Primary role of representatives is to act as a check and balance for executive and ensure all actions taken by the gov are accountable to people of U.K
LOF
Question time, committees, House of Lords
LOA
Whilst these can hold great power in scrutinizing actions of the gov, ruling party continues to dominate U.K politics and they can’t fully hold the gov to account
P1
Parliamentary representatives can successfully hold the government to account through Question Time
P1 explain (key points)
Opposing govs ask ruling gov questions and they have to defend decisions made by their gov
Urgent questions can be answered
Televised so public can see what’s happening and media can scrutinise what the gov are doing and public can take appropriate action if they don’t agree with the gov such as voting them out
P1 example
March 2025, Russell Findlay used FMQT to challenge John Swinney on whether he would support lowering school leaving age to 14
Findlay made SNP look weak by reiterating that thanks to the SNP “far too many young people have been left behind”
P1 analysis
QT = effective as gov must defend their decisions and allows the public to see how their country is being ran
P2
However, whilst QT has its merits in holding the gov to account, it fails to do so fully
P2 explain (key points)
Questions disclosed beforehand so gov can brief and craft a perfect response
Publicity stunts rather than answering questions
FM can only answer questions regarding devolved matters, making them look weak
P2 example
Starmer recently used PMQT for own gain and publicity as he highlighted difference between Labour and SNP’s stance on weapons
P2 analysis
isn’t fully effective as briefed so responses may be jazzled slightly and own publicity
P1 + P2 link
Opportunity for gov to defend their decisions and allow opposing govs to express opinions
Can be misused, defeating purpose and lowering effectiveness
P3
Some argue that parliamentary representatives can successfully hold the government to account through their work in committees
P3 explain (key points)
When small number of cross-party representatives scrutinise government policies
Can hold investigations into things that’ve gone wrong and expose failings of gov
Cross-party reduces bias
P3 example
Committees for criminal justice, health, social care amongst others have been working since May 2022 to consider progress made on the implementation of the recommendations of the Scottish Drug Death Taskforce which aimed to force the Scottish gov to respond to its reputation of having the worst drug death rates in Europe
P3 analysis
Committees + somewhat effective as decisions made by gov are scrutinised in-depth so can be held against them if something goes wrong
P4
However, the ability of committees to effectively hold gov to account is limited
P4 explain (key points)
Don’t have any real power to force the gov to attend
Political and reputational pressures are only real things which makes them attend
Can’t scrutinise the gov if they don’t show up and provide evidence of what they’re doing
P4 example
According to the Independent, in 2021, Boris Johnson failed to show up 3 times to the Commons privileges Committee regarding decisions made about the COVID pandemic
P4 analysis
Can’t force politicians to attend so can’t scrutinise and hold them to account
P3 + P4 link
Cross-party reduces bias allowing effective scrutiny
Can’t force politicians to attend so can’t scrutinise if they don’t turn up
P5
A further way parliamentary representatives can hold the government to account is through the House of Lords
P5 explain (key points)
Ask pressing questions + hold investigations
Lords 4 life so less loyal to party
Reject bills from HOC so force gov to rethink their decisions
Lords = experts on chosen subject so laws will only have been passed once experts have provided opinions
P5 example
HOL defeating U.K gov when they wanted to amend the law so someone’s British Citizenship could be revoked without explanation
