Reforms: Have They Made Parliament More Democratic? Flashcards
arguments suggesting that reforms since 1997 have made Parliament a more democratic institution
devolution has decentralised power, ensuring that it is not concentrated into one source
house of lords reform has made parliament a more democratic institution by allowing the upper house to be a more effective check on the executive
house of commons reform has made parliament more democratic by enabling select committees to be more effective in scrutinising the government
arguments suggesting that reforms since 1997 have NOT made Parliament a more democratic institution
devolution has not improved democracy because it can simply be reversed by parliament and England continues to lack its own representative body
house of lords reform has not been enough, it is still undemocratic and therefore parliament is still partly undemocratic
house of commons reform has not made parliament a more democratic institution as select committees have weaknesses and that restricts their ability to hold the government to account
devolution has decentralised power, ensuring that it is not concentrated into one source
decentralises power, ensures that power is not concentrated all in one source, thus acting as a check on government power which is vital in any democracy
prevents a remote and unaccountable government, or what Lord Hailsham referred to as an “elective dictatorship” – devolved bodies force the government to engage in regional issues and be more responsive
e.g. Scottish Independence
devolved bodies allow the regions to express opinions directly to the government more frequently and easily as they have a stronger link to government
they make the government more responsive by forcing them to listen to public opinion and prevents them from rushing through change without consulting the necessary regions and gaining their support, therefore acting as a check on government power
ensuring that the government is responsive and acts in the interests of the people is an important feature of any democracy, suggesting that improvements to democracy have been provided by devolution
devolution has not improved democracy because it can simply be reversed by parliament and England continues to lack its own representative body
does not provide a real check on government power as devolution can be reversed by Parliament using an act of parliament
parliament has the ultimate authority to delegate power to devolved bodies, but this also means that it can take this power away when it pleases and repeal legislation at any time using a simple majority in the House of Commons
devolution has not made parliament more democratic because there is still unequal representation across the UK since England is the most prosperous and heavily populated part of the UK, yet the only one without a devolved body of its own
house of lords reform has made parliament a more democratic institution by allowing the upper house to be a more effective check on the executive
reform has made parliament a more democratic institution by allowing the upper house to be a more effective check on the executive
the Labour government from 1999-2010 suffered more than 450 defeats in the Lords
the upper house is also becoming more independent and willing to oppose the government which could be because of the Blair reforms, including the removal of hereditary peers in 1999 which has made them more legitimate and democratic so as a result, they feel more confident in scrutinising the government
for example, in 2015, the Lords voted to delay planned cuts to tax credits and compensate those affected which raised a constitutional issue because tax credits are a financial issue that the Lords should not be involved in as the Commons has financial privilege over them
however, the Lords still voted to delay and as a result the government decided to review the cuts and listen to the concerns of the Lords, which illustrates just how effective the House of Lords can be as a check on the executive
this suggests that current reform has been enough to make the house of lords more willing to scrutinise the government
house of lords reform has not been enough, it is still undemocratic and therefore parliament is still partly undemocratic
the HOL is still unelected and undemocratic – needs further reform
the government ended the right of most hereditary peers to sit in the Lords, but there are still 92 hereditary peers left
rather than get rid of all hereditary peers the government had to compromise as the Lords threatened to use their powers to obstruct and delay reform and no agreement was made on making the Lords wholly or partly elected, so it continues to lack democratic legitimacy
under the coalition government of 2010-15, some democratisation of the House of Lords took place but this process remains incomplete
it is unfair that unelected forces are able to intervene with the elected representatives, who have the backing of the people
the Lords is an unelected and thus unaccountable body, it is not elected by the people and does not have their consent, so does not have to face the public at general elections every 5 years like the House of Commons does
in other words, as their positions are guaranteed for life and do not depend on being viewed positively by the people, the Lords can theoretically act however they please without fear of repercussions for their careers
house of commons reform has made parliament more democratic by enabling select committees to be more effective in scrutinising the government
house of commons reform has been sufficient and highly successful as select committees are now very important and effective in holding the government to account
for instance, in 2004, the chairs of committees were awarded additional salaries to raise their status, thus strengthening select committees
in 2010, a system was introduced to elect members of the select committees, as before this they were largely elected by party leaders
chairs are elected by the whole House instead of being appointed by party whips - in other words they are more legitimate and less restricted by whips which allows them to act more effectively in examining and checking the work of the executive in great depth and detail
these reforms, known as the Wright Reforms, have enabled committees to focus more on improving the work of government rather than acting for their own gain and has emphasised their freedom
select committees devote weeks to debating and investigating an issue
for example, in 2018 the International Development Committee have been responsible for scrutinising and examining Oxfam in depth that would not have been able to be achieved in regular parliamentary debates as they cannot dedicate this much time to an issue, which just goes to show how effective select committees can be
house of commons reform has not made parliament a more democratic institution as select committees have weaknesses and that restricts their ability to hold the government to account
has not made parliament a more democratic institution as they continue to lack effective checks on their power
the House of Commons needs further reform because select committees still lack sufficient power, further reform would enable them to be a more effective check on the executive
the government of the day usually holds a majority in these committees due to the electoral system of first past the post that tends to produce a strong government with a clear majority
the existence of this majority can restrict the committee’s effectiveness because those MPs and peers belonging to the governing party are expected to support their party instead of criticising it which makes it difficult to properly scrutinise and place checks on the government
select committees hold no enforcement powers which means that they cannot compel the government to follow their recommendations or force them to take any action
while it’s true that 40% of committee recommendations are accepted, these rarely involve major changes to policy
