The Executive and Parliament Flashcards
what is the relationship between the executive and Parliament?
Parliament holding the executive to account
parliamentary scrutiny of government activity
parliament’s ability to remove governments and ministers
executive dominance in parliament
what is an elective dictatorship?
Lord Hailsham coined the phrase ‘elective dictatorship’ to describe the way in which power had become centralised in the hands of the executive
he use this term at a time when a Labour government with a small Parliamentary majority was in office yet was still able to get most of its legislation through the House of Commons
it also relates to the fact that a government that dominates Parliament, usually due to a large majority, therefore has few limits on its power
The concept of elective dictatorship is the starting point for broader questions surrounding the relationship between the executive and Parliament
what did Lord Hailsham argue that the only real check on executive power is?
Lord Hailsham argued that the only real check on executive power is the periodic holding of general elections at least every five years
but in the interval between elections, the executive can do more or less as it pleases, including far-reaching and irreversible changes
examples of governments making far-reaching and irreversible changes
2003 — The Blair government, elected on only 40% of the vote, attempted to abolish the role of Lord Chancellor without any prior consultation but faced constitutional difficulties with this so instead vastly reformed the role in the CRA 2005
2011 — The coalition government, created through an agreement between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats that had not been put before the electorate, passed the fixed term parliaments act
David Cameron, backed by Labour and LibDem leaders, offered to devolve more powers to Scotland if it rejected independence in the 2014 referendum
how does executive dominance arise?
executive dominance arises due to…
- FPTP electoral system — it is non-proportional (the number of seats won does not equal the number of votes won) so often produces single party governments with large Parliamentary majorities based on a small share of the popular vote
- whip system and prime minister’s use of patronage — patronage refers to the Prime Minister‘s ability to promote or demote MPs, this reinforces party loyalty and discipline
- The government dominates the legislative process
- The use of the Salisbury convention and Parliament acts — limits opposition from the House of Lords, used to push legislation through even if they face opposition from the upper house
- parliamentary sovereignty — in the absence of a codified constitution, Parliamentary sovereignty means that the House of Commons is the main chamber so whoever controls the House of Commons (the executive) is the dominant force in the political system
parliament holding the executive to account: what can members of both Houses do?
members of both Houses can question and scrutinise the executive
although the effectiveness of this is weakened if the government has a large majority in the House of Commons
parliament holding the executive to account: in what ways does Parliament hold the executive to account?
parliamentary influence over government legislation
parliamentary scrutiny of government activity
parliament’s ability to remove governments and ministers
parliamentary influence over government legislation: what has become more common in recent years? is it easy to defeat government measures?
parliamentary rebellions have become more common in recent years but defeat of government measures are still rare
for instance, Tony Blair did not lose a single vote in the House of Commons until after the 2005 election when he lost 100 seats and even then it took a combination of Labour rebels and opposition parties to defeat his plans to extend the detention of terror suspects to 90 days
this demonstrates that it is not easy to defeat government measures
parliamentary influence over government legislation: why might a government withdraw a contentious measure?
however, it is much more common for a government to withdraw a contentious measure themselves rather than face defeat in the House of Commons, which may be embarrassing and damage their authority
for example, in 2015, David Cameron withdrew his plan to hold a vote on relaxing the ban on hunting after the SNP made it clear that they would vote against it
parliamentary influence over government legislation: what influence does opposition have?
sometimes opposition can compel a prime minister to hold a free vote
for example, in 2013, David Cameron allowed a free vote on the issue of same-sex marriage, knowing how strongly many Conservative MPs opposed it
he won the vote thanks to the support of the Labour Party despite almost half of his MPs attempting to block the measure
on certain issues the government can rely on support from opposition MPs — in 2007, Tony Blair won a vote on the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapon system because support from Conservatives cancelled out a rebellion from his own MPs
parliamentary influence over government legislation: what does party discipline and loyalty ensure?
normally, the pressure of party discipline and loyalty will ensure that a government secures the passage of even the most controversial parts of its programme
in 2010, the coalition won a vote to increase student tuition fees even though this meant that the Liberal Democrats had to abandon their election promise and the government majority fell from 83 to 21
parliamentary influence over government legislation: what has the House of Lords become increasingly willing to do? although how is their power limited?
The House of Lords has become increasingly willing to oppose government measures since the removal of most hereditary peers and the ending of single party control in the upper house
it has used its powers to secure compromises from the government — for example, the sunset clause in the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act
however, it tends to avoid outright conflict with the elected chamber because it still lacks democratic legitimacy
The government can also still push through legislation in the House of Lords using the Parliament Act, which was used three times by the Blair government
The government can also usually rely on its majority in the House of Commons to push through legislation relatively easily
parliamentary scrutiny of government activity: how has the ability of select committees to scrutinise the government been enhanced?
changes to select committees have enhanced their status
in 2010, chairs of select committees were elected by MPs — they are no longer appointed by the Prime Minister, which allows for more effective scrutiny
Long serving chairs have accumulated experience and public standing, increasing their ability to scrutinise the government (for example Andrew Tyrie, Treasury select committee)
The role of chairs has also expanded to include pre-appointment hearings and scrutiny of legislation
parliamentary scrutiny of government activity: weaknesses and limitations of select committees
ministers can block the appearance of officials as witnesses
although governments have to respond to select committee reports, they do not have to act on their recommendations — select committees have no enforcement power
the resources available to select committees are limited, reducing the scope of their research of reducing their effectiveness at holding the government to account
select committees are also usually dominated by the government as composition of select committees reflects party strength in the House of Commons — the Prime Minister and the executive are likely to be treated more leniently by committee members from their own party
select committee proceedings may be more effective than other forms of scrutiny but these proceedings and its scrutiny receive less publicity
parliamentary scrutiny of government activity: strengths of select committees
the Prime Minister has to attend twice a year at the liaison committee, which consists of the chairs of all select committees
select committee proceedings allow for more in-depth scrutiny of policy than PMQs, which tend to be theatrical and unprofessional
whereas the practical value of oral and written questions to departmental ministers in select committees is far more professional and seemingly effective
parliamentary scrutiny of government activity: parliamentary debates
parliamentary debates on major events (e.g. the debate on military action in Syria in 2003) can occasionally lead to government defeats
although arguably, such defeats can be attributed to poor management of MPs by whips who fail to keep them in line rather than due to the effectiveness of Parliamentary scrutiny
parliamentary scrutiny of government activity: strengths of Parliamentary debates
opposition parties are allocated 20 days per Parliamentary term to choose the topics for debate
they can therefore force the government to answer questions on a certain topic
The BBBC, created in 2010, has scheduled debates on topics that the government may not have chosen
The BBBC works on a cross-party basis, however its work receives limited media attention, with some exceptions such as the release of documents on the Hillsborough disaster
parliamentary scrutiny of government activity: limitations of Parliamentary debates
The government still determines how much time is allocated to BBBC debates, this limits the effectiveness of BBBC scrutiny as they are constrained by the government
parliament’s ability to remove governments and ministers: what are the limitations to Parliament’s power to remove ministers and governments?
in modern times, Parliament’s power to remove ministers and governments has been limited
The House of Commons has the power to remove a government through a vote of no confidence, but this has not happened since 1979
Governments can face down opposition by making a vote a matter of confidence in the government, as John Major did on a crucial division on the Maastricht Treaty in 1993
MPs will not usually risk triggering a general election in which they may lose their seats
parliament’s ability to remove governments and ministers: what safeguards are there for the executive?
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act introduced safeguards for the executive by allowing a Prime Minister who loses a vote of no confidence a 14 day period in which to form a new government
parliament’s ability to remove governments and ministers: how can Parliamentary pressure and criticism end politicians’ careers?
some ministers careers have been ended as a result of criticism from MPs (Parliamentary pressure) and further attacks in the media (usually due to supposed incompetence, corruption or scandal)
Alistair Campbell’s supposed ‘golden rule’ about a minister having to resign if they are in the centre of a media storm for more than a certain amount of time seemed to apply to the downfalls of Peter Mandelson, Charles Clark, Maria Miller and others
although David Cameron‘s premiership ended due to the defeat of the Remain campaign in the referendum, which he championed — it was not ended by events in parliament
executive dominance in parliament: what is the key debate surrounding this topic?
has it become easier or harder for the executive to dominate/control Parliament?
arguments to suggest that executive dominance in parliament has reduced: INCREASED REBELLIONS
increased number of rebellions in the House of Commons over the last decade
governments rarely lose legislation votes in the House of Commons but will withdraw bills if they fear defeated in the House of Commons or will make an issue a free vote
this demonstrates Parliament’s influence over the executive
arguments to suggest that executive dominance in parliament has reduced: RESTRICTIONS ON PREROGATIVE POWERS
The government faces restrictions on the exercise of certain prerogative powers such as the right to authorise military action
this convention is not legally binding but there is an important precedent that a prime minister must get Parliamentary approval of military action — although Theresa May ignored this in the 2018 Syrian air strikes
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act has removed the Prime Minister‘s power to choose the date of the general election — unless 2/3 of MPs support such a move, as they did with Theresa May in 2017
this demonstrates that the government may still be in control and can dismiss such acts and conventions — however, it is MPs (aka Parliament) approving these measures that allows them to happen
for example, the executive would not be able to hold an early general election without support from enough of Parliament
