Relations between the Branches - Topic 4.2

Question 1

Why can the executive claim to be an elective dictatorship?

Answer 1

• The government exerts a great deal of control over parliamentary business, limiting the opportunities for the opposition to debate government legislation
• Since Public Bill Committees always have a government majority and are whipped, it is unusual for the opposition to be able to significantly amend legislation at committee stage
• A government with a large majority should be able to rely on the support of its MPs to pass the legislative programme it wishes
• The government can change the law using secondary legislation, over which the Commons has much less power of scrutiny
• The PM possesses extensive powers of patronage. Government whips can offer ambitious backbenchers opportunities to join the government or withhold any chance of advancement. This is a powerful way in which the government can encourage loyalty
• The royal prerogative means that the PM doesn’t legally have to consult Parliament on the use of British military forces, as Theresa May showed in 2018 when she didn’t seek parliamentary approval for air strikes on Syrian chemical installations
• According to the Salisbury Convention, the Lords should not attempt to stop government legislation that was in the winner’s manifesto, since this would obstruct what the public had voted for

Question 2

What examples are there of strong parliamentary influence?

Answer 2

• 1974-79; Wilson & Callaghan - Also Wilson won the Oct. ‘74 Election, he did so with a Parliamentary majority of three. When Callaghan took over in 1976, the majority vanished and Callaghan had to establish a confidence-and-supply agreement with the Liberal Party from 1977 to 1978. When this ended, the government struggled on until it was defeated in a vote of no confidence by one vote, forcing a sudden general election
• 2017-2019; Theresa May - She decided to call a snap election to try and win a larger parliamentary majority, which would’ve made it easier to pass the Brexit legislation she wanted. However, the Tories lost seats and May became PM of a minority administration. She was forced to establish confidence-and-supply wth the DUP, meaning the government had to try and pass in Brexit legislation without a majority, which was becoming increasingly more difficult.
• 2019; Boris Johnson - When he became PM in July, he faced an even more uncooperative Commons than Theresa May had. His Brexit proposals were even more unpopular with pro-EU tories and he had suffered humiliation in Parliament when trying to seize control of parliamentary business and enacting the Benn Bill, extending the Brexit deadline if the deal wasn’t achieved

Question 3

What examples are there of weak parliamentary influence?

Answer 3

• 1979-87; Margaret Thatcher - Her determined leadership coincided with the division in Labour and the fracturing of the party and the formation of the SDP. The Tories faced a split opposition and had just won the Falklands War when going into the 1983 Election. Her parliamentary majority increased to 144 and neither Labour leaders Foot and Kinnock could effectively challenge her policies in the Commons
• 1997-2001; Tony Blair - Winning a landslide election, he had a Commons-majority of 179. The parliamentary party was almost totally united around Blair’s third way political philosophy and having suffered their worst general election defeat since 1832, the Tories had 165 MPs. Their ability to oppose Blair was undermined, along with divisions in the party and ineffective leadership

Question 4

Has Parliament’s control on the government increased in recent years?

What examples support this claim?

Answer 4

• The Backbench Business Committee was established in 2010, which allowed backbenchers to determine the issues they wish to debate for 35 parliamentary days each parliament
• Since 2010, the chairs of select committees have been elected by secret ballot of all MPs and the membership of select committees by a secret ballot within each parliamentary party; no longer controled by the whips
• The Liasion Committee consists of the heads of the select committees and regularly questions the PM. The meeting takes place in a restrained, non-partisan atmosphere and so can put the PM under more sustained objective scrutiny
• E-petitions can now be sent directly to Parliament and a Commons petition committee then decides when and where those eligible will be heard
• Recent Commons speakers have authorised more urgent questions making ministers more accountable
• The executive’s authority has been reduced by the convention that the Commons should now be consulted on the commitment of British forces to military operations

Question 5

Has Parliament’s control on the government faltered in recent years?

What examples support this claim?

Answer 5

• Since 2003, there is an expectation that Parliament should authorise military action, however, this is not a legal requirement and in 2018, Theresa May went against this convention with joint air strikes on Syria
• The Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011 still allowed the PM to call a general election, as Theresa May did in 2017, so long as MPs agreed. This act was repealed with the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act of 2022, which returns the powers for the PM to decide

Question 6

How has the Lords’ relationship changed in recent years?

In relation to the legislative and executive

Answer 6

Since the removal of most of the hereditary peers and their replacement with life peers, the Lords can claim greater professional expertise and so has become much more self-confident in oppossing government legislation. It has also lost its in-built Conservatve majority and become more balance in its composition.

Although the powers of the Lords have not changed, the peers’ willingness to use them has. The Labour government between 1999 and 2010 suffered more than 450 defeats in the Lords. In 2015, the Lords provoked even more controversy when it opposed attempts by George Osborne to cut tax credits. Although thtis concerned financial legislation, and so, according to the Parliament Act of 1911, the Lords shouldn’t oppose the government, the Lords claimed that it could vote against the measure as it had been introduced through secondary legislation. The Lords was highly provocative in opposing the EU withdrawl bills introduced by May and Johnson in a similar manner to George Osborne.