The Executive v Parliament Flashcards
arguments suggesting that the executive has become less powerful in relation to Parliament in recent years
in recent years, FPTP has not given the executive a large majority in the Commons
select committees have given Parliament significant power to scrutinise the executive
the House of Lords is a key part of Parliament and yet another way that Parliament seems to have more power than the executive
arguments suggesting that the executive has NOT become less powerful in relation to Parliament in recent years
FPTP tends to give the executive large majorities, allowing them to dominate
the executive tends to have a majority in select committees
the House of Lords faces restrictions on its powers which often means that the executive is more powerful and influential
in recent years, FPTP has not given the executive a large majority in the Commons
in recent years, the executive has not had a large majority in the Commons, which indicates that power may now lie with Parliament
in 2010, the Conservatives had to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats because they were 20 seats short of a majority, and in 2017 the Conservatives were 8 seats short of a majority, resulting in a hung Parliament and a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP
in the event that a government has a small majority or no majority at all, they tend to be seen as weak and unstable
for example, Theresa May has been severely undermined throughout the Brexit process, her lack of a majority has caused undeniable problems with the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, problems that may have been much easier to maintain and control had she had a majority in the Commons
this weakness has allowed Parliament to wield a significant amount of power and influence, with MPs and peers undermining and challenging the executive more than ever before
FPTP tends to give the executive large majorities, allowing them to dominate
perhaps the most significant argument to suggest that power still lies with the executive and that the balance of power has not shifted to Parliament is that the first past the post electoral system fosters executive dominance
under first past the post, a non-proportional system where the number of seats a party wins does not equal the number of votes obtained, the government/executive usually enjoys a large and decisive majority
for example, in 1983, the Conservative Party under Margaret Thatcher won a landslide victory, securing a 144 seat majority
similarly, in 1997, the Labour Party under Tony Blair won by an even larger landslide, gaining an astonishing 179 seat majority and then going on to win 167 seats in the 2001 general election
these secure majorities make it hard to defeat a government in the Commons and gives the executive a clear mandate to carry out their manifesto pledges with little to no major pushback
nowhere is this clearer than in Tony Blair’s government, which had the undeniable strength and dominance to make major decisions and implement fundamental reforms
for instance, the government ended the right of all except 92 hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords, which meant that now no party held a dominant position in the upper house as the majority of hereditary peers were Conservative supporters
Blair’s government also introduced the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated ECHR into UK statute law, enshrining rights such as the right to a fair trial and the right to privacy
moreover, a government with its own majority that is particularly strong will usually have no problem dismissing the opposition and overriding any criticism
this demonstrates that the electoral system used in Westminster allows the executive to retain power by making them more effective and increasing their strength, suggesting that the balance of power has not shifted from the executive to Parliament
select committees have given Parliament significant power to scrutinise the executive
another argument to suggest that the balance of power has shifted from the executive to Parliament is that select committees have given Parliament significant power to scrutinise the executive, a power that has been enhanced as committees have grown in importance and influence since being reformed
they provide scrutiny of a particular government department, analysing its expenditure, administration and policy
the government must respond to select committee suggestions within 8 weeks and often listen to their reports, taking recommendations on board in order to improve legislation
in recent years, they have been particularly effective in putting pressure on the executive to make amendments
for example, in 2015, the Justice Select Committee published a report on criminal charges recommending that the criminal courts charge should be removed
2 months later, the charge was removed, demonstrating the influence that select committees and Parliament can have over the executive
moreover, since the reforms, which meant that the chair of select committees are now elected by the whole House rather than appointed by the executive, select committees have increased in independence and enjoyed far greater legitimacy – thus handing further power to Parliament rather than the executive
the executive tends to have a majority in select committees
the executive tends to have a majority in select committees because the composition of select committees reflects the relative strength of each party in the Commons, which perhaps implies that the balance of power has not completely shifted to Parliament
for instance, in 2015, the Education Select Committee was chaired by Conservative MP Neil Carmichael and of the other 10 members, 5 were Conservative, 4 were Labour and 1 was SNP, demonstrating that the executive still has an upper-hand as the Prime Minister and the executive are likely to be treated more leniently by committee members from their own party, especially those who wish to remain under consideration for promotions
but even if the executive did not enjoy this advantage, select committees still have severe limitations, such as their lack of enforcement powers, meaning they cannot compel the government to follow their recommendations or ensure this action is implemented
additionally, 60% of select committee recommendations are rejected by the government and any recommendations that are accepted rarely involve major changes of policy, which limits the ability of Parliament to scrutinise and have power over the executive
the House of Lords is a key part of Parliament and yet another way that Parliament seems to have more power than the executive
the House of Lords is a key part of Parliament and yet another way that Parliament seems to have more power than the executive, implying that power has shifted from the executive to Parliament
it has the power to delay legislation by up to a year according to the 1949 Parliament Act and has become increasingly willing to oppose government measures since the removal of most hereditary peers and the ending of single party control, both of which gave the upper house more legitimacy
for example, there was heavy debate between the Lords and the executive over the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Bill, involving a marathon sitting of 30 hours in the Lords
the upper house wanted the bill to include a sunset clause, meaning that it would automatically expire a year later and the government eventually promised to review the bill the following year, demonstrating how the Lords often uses its powers to secure compromises from the executive
it has also grown in assertiveness, with the executive being defeated 241 times between 1979-97 but 528 times between 1997 and 2010, which is a considerable increase and seems to indicate that Parliament has grown in power
the House of Lords faces restrictions on its powers which often means that the executive is more powerful and influential
it can be argued that power has not shifted from the executive to Parliament because the House of Lords faces restrictions on its powers which often means that the executive is more powerful and influential
the upper house tends to avoid outright conflict with the elected government because it still lacks democratic legitimacy, usually backing down after a prolonged period of debate
for example, in 2017, the House of Lords voted on amendments to the EU Bill regarding residency rights of EU citizens in the UK and a pledge to ensure that Parliament had a vote on the final Brexit deal — both of which were voted down in the House of Commons
however, the Lords eventually backed down and the bill was passed, demonstrating that the Lords are usually careful not to overstep their boundaries, particularly since the decision to leave the EU had legitimacy by being backed by a UK wide referendum
but even if the Lords decides to maintain its opposition, the executive can use the Parliament Act to force through a bill
this was used three times by Blair, including in 2000 over equalising the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual people and in 2004 over banning hunting with dogs
the executive can also usually use its majority in the House of Commons to overturn critical Lords amendments, as seen in the coalition government’s decision to reject 7 amendments to its Welfare Reform and Work Bill, arguing that only the Commons was entitled to take decisions with large financial implications
