The Executive and Constitutional Reform Flashcards
arguments to suggest that the executive has been undermined by constitutional reform since 1997
devolution
house of lords
house of commons
arguments to suggest that the executive has NOT been undermined by constitutional reform since 1997
devolution
house of lords
house of commons
devolution: how has devolution undermined the executive through the decentralisation of power?
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
devolution: how has devolution undermined the executive through the creation of more divisions?
devolution has arguably created more divides rather than ending them, leading to instability, which weakens democracy rather than strengthens it
there are growing divides between the regions of the UK in regards to national identity, which having devolved bodies seems to have strengthened
nationalist parties such as Plaid Cymru and the SNP have grown in significance within their respective devolved assemblies and both regions have seen a growth of nationalism and desire for independence
asymmetrical devolution has created tension between the assemblies as they have unequal powers
all of this can be seen to have undermined the executive
devolution: how has devolution not undermined the executive?
has not undermined the executive 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
it has also taken the workload and pressure off of the Westminster executive and allowed regional problems to be tackled by regional bodies, thus allowing the executive to devote more time to other issues, which strengthens it rather than undermines it
house of lords: how has house of lords reform undermined the executive?
reform to the Lords has made them more willing to challenge the government, this growth in assertiveness can be seen to have undermined 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
house of lords: how has house of lords reform not undermined the executive?
(the Lords tends to back down as it still lacks democratic legitimacy)
has not undermined the executive as the Lords tends to back down as it is still undemocratic and unelected, tends to give way to the elected government
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
because it is still undemocratic, the House of Lords tends to back down as they are not democratically legitimate and want to avoid conflict with the elected government
this was seen in 2017 when after detailed scrutiny, they voted on amendments to the EU bill that had been previously voted down in the Commons regarding residency rights of EU citizens in the UK and a pledge to ensure that Parliament has a vote on the final Brexit deal
however, the Lords eventually backed down and the bill was passed without the amendments as many Lords felt that they did not have the right to pressure the government in such a way
house of lords: how has house of lords reform not undermined the executive?
(there are still immense restrictions on the powers of the house of lords that mean it has not undermined the executive)
limits on the Lords’ ability to check the executive include the Salisbury Convention, which states that the Lords cannot oppose policies included in the government’s manifesto as that government has mandate to implement those policies following the win of the general election
moreover, the government can usually use its majority to overturn critical Lords amendments
and if the upper house maintains its opposition then the government can use the Parliament Act to force a bill through
this was used three times by Blair, including in 2004 in regard to banning hunting with dogs
house of commons: how has house of commons reform undermined the executive?
reform to select committees has undermined the executive as it has given these committees a lot of power to hold them to account and scrutinise them
in 2004, the chairs of committees were awarded additional salaries to raise their status, thus strengthening select committees and in 2010, a system was introduced to elect members of the select committees as before this they were largely elected by party leaders
these select committees scrutinise departments of government and examine details of expenditure, administration and policy, thus being crucial in holding the government to account
following the Wright Reforms, 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
house of commons: how has house of commons reform not undermined the executive?
(government continues to have a majority in select committees)
reform to the Commons has not undermined the executive as the executive still has more power than select committees
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
house of commons: how has house of commons reform not undermined the executive?
(lack of enforcement powers)
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
