Politics UK (textbook) - chapter 18 Flashcards
What are the four increases in demands on MPs time?
Public business, organised interests, constituents and MPs themselves.
Why has public business increased the work load for MPs?
The volumes of the bills being passed has caused a drastic increase to the workload of MPs. They care now usually 2500 pages and sometimes can be 3000 pages long. This leads to more time and resources being needed for its scrutiny.
Committee work has also increased with over 300 MPs being involved. The detailed and complex paperwork given by witnesses often leads to a high amount of resources and time being necessary.
How has organised interests increased the work of MPs?
MPs are regularly in contact, with meetings tabling of amendments, tabling motions being asked of them. This together with email has allowed the sheer volume of requests for time to increase significantly especially in the research the MP has to do to deal with these queries.
How have constituencies increase the demand for time from MPs?
This has also increased the demand of the MP through large volumes of emails, constituency functions and holding constituency surgeries which often take up the weekend. The use of social media has also increased access to MPs leading to a larger workload also.
How have MPs themselves created more work?
This is through the necessary marketing needed for re-election, especially with the rise of the career politician. This leads to a great amount of EDMs, holding events, tabling as many questions as possible.
How satisfied are people with Parliament and their constituency work?
People nowadays when polled are often more positive with the work of the local constituent as opposed to the work of Parliament.
What has created the negative perception of Parliament?
Partisanship, executive dominance, the creation of other policy-making bodies, and scandal.
How has Partisanship created a negative view of parliament?
The view is that most MPs - especially through televising PMQs - has created the view of point-scoring, unoriginal and dogmatic MPs in which their own and the parties interests are put first. This has been exacerbated through the gladiatorial coverage of the media and the ability to get Brexit done.
How has executive dominance created a negative perception of parliament?
Party membership and the growth of a party dominating the House, it is perceived, has led to the increase in executive dominance. This is despite many MPs willing to dissent form the party line. It is also perceived as weak when it isn’t able to get public policy over the line as happened when Theresa May had to from a coalition with the DUP.
How has the creation of other policy making bodies enforced the negative view of the House?
This is through the devolution of power to three other bodies: the courts, the devolved assemblies and, up to 2020, the institutions of the EU. This is primarily due to the restrictive ability of EU legislation binding UK legislation, and the powers given to the courts as a result; the devolution of powers to other countries in the UK and their legislative bodies.
How has scandal affected the negative perception on Parliament?
Scandals involving taking payment to table issues or work as consultants has led to les trust in MPs over the years. This led to the view that MPs use office improperly. This is usually involved with the taking of money.
What are the propositions for change?
Radical - The first is a radical approach in which Parliament turns into a policy-making legislature - in order to stop it being party dominated and under the thumb of the executive. This includes constitutional reform and an elected second chamber.
Internal - This approach wants to strengthen the House of Commons as a policy - influencing body, the onus for policy - making resting with government but with the House of Commons having the opportunity to consider policy proposals in detail and to influence their content. This also includes more time for select committees and legislative scrutiny.
Leave alone - Leave alone: This approach, as the name suggests, opposes change. It is the stance of a High Tory although it is not exclusive to the High Tory approach. Some Labour MPs have opposed reform, wanting to retain the chamber as the central debating forum.
Why is Parliamentary reform difficult?
Most MPs are elected to support the party in government. Who wants to increase the scrutiny they receive and strength the House of commons? They will perceive this as a threat and will be inclined to oppose it.
What are the three definitions of power and what do they derive from?
The definitions of power derive from explaining the capacity to affect outcomes in terms of observable decision-making, non-decision-making, and institutional constraints.
Decision-making: This approach focuses on how issues are resolved once they are on the political agenda. Once a government brings forward a proposal, what difference does Parliament make to it? Does the measure emerge in the form in which the government introduced it or at least in the form it wants it.
Non-decision-making: This is the capacity to keep things off the political agenda. This focuses on how issues get on the agenda in the first place. There are cases where a government has been known not to proceed with a measure because of anticipated reaction. Anticipation of how MPs may behave thus has some influence on government. This is of greater importance when there is no majority.
Institutional constraints: The institutional approach is not so much concerned with the substance of a measure but rather with the institutional structures and norms that determine how an issue is resolved. Here the concern is not with how MPs behave – whether they vote for a bill or not –but with the rules (and acceptance of those rules) that determine how a bill becomes law. As an institution, the assent of Parliament needed to pass bills, the necessity of consensus and the lack of governments ability to push past the opposition leads it to being a powerful institution.
