UK Democracy 3 Flashcards
Holding the government to account
How does PMQT hold the executive to account?
Every Wednesday, for 30 minutes the PM is grilled by the leader of the opposition as well as back bench MPs about the work of the government.
Areas where the government is considered to be failing are highlighted and the PM has to defend her government.
E.g. defend the slow progress on Brexit and possibility of a no deal brexit. ( Windrush generation / NHS Humanitarian crisis)
How do debates in the common hold the government to account?
The government is not allowed just to pass any laws they want. These need to be presented in parliament and debated and then voted on.
Debates force them to justify and explain why these potential laws and changes should be introduced.
For example they persuaded MPs to vote in favour of expanding Heathrow by advising it would provide 100,000 jobs and not cost taxpayers.
How do (departmental/ commons) select committees scrutinise the government?
Select committees are formed to monitor the work of government departments. They check their policies, administration and spending.
They get information from government ministers and officials as well as private organisations.
They will publish a report identifying their findings and making recommendations to the government on new policies.
The government has to respond to the report within 60 days and although it can ignore their views, 30-40% of recommendations are implemented.
Why do some people disapprove of the make up of select committees?
The make up of select committees mirrors the make up of the house of commons. This means because the Cons are in government, select committees have more Cons than other parties.
Some people feel that Con MPs will not do true scrutiny since they don’t want to reveal the failings of their party since it could harm their promotion prospects.
Why do some people think PMQT does not provide effective scrutiny?
It is too short - only 30 minutes.
Although not scripted, the PM is normally briefed on what to expect.
It turns into a media circus, leaders trying to score points against each other and mud slinging. Too rowdy for real investigation or legislative change.
Why does FPTP make it hard for scrutiny of the government.
With FPTP a government normally has a majority in the House of Commons.
This means the governing party is most likely to have enough MPs to vote the way the government wants following debates. Especially if the Whips are used.
Why is the Whip so powerful
The Whips are used to make sure MPs vote the way the party wants. A 3 line whip says that the MP must vote the way the government wants or lose the party support. This means that at the next election the party may not support them. By not showing loyalty they can rule out promotion to the cabinet or a peerage when they retire. If there are lots of rebels it makes the whole party look weak which is bad.
Give examples of MP rebellions
2016 81 Con MPs rebelled against David Cameron and voted FOR a EU referendum
2013 David Cameron issued a 3 line whip to approve military intervention in Syria, however Cons rebelled which contributed to the failure of the plan.
Why do some people consider the work of select committees to be more effective scrutiny than that of PMQT.
Select Committees
- Less rowdy, calmer atmosphere. No braying or whooping from cronies or opposition.
- Investigative rather than point scoring.
- More time to go into detail and investigate answers and issues thoroughly.
- Can call in expert witnesses.
Describe the work of the Lords in holding the government to account.
All legislation must be examined by the House of Lords to ensure that it will work in practice. This is good scrutiny since they use their expertise to examine the bills line by line and will send it back to the commons with amendments to make the bill better.
The Lords can block bills they disagree with for up to a year. In this time pressure groups and charities can raise awareness, people can lobby politicians.
Explain why some people feel the Lords have limited ability to hold the government to account.
Ultimately the commons has most power since it is elected by the people - and remember the government will have a majority of MPs giving it lots of power.
Amendments made by the Lords to bills can be ignored. The Lords can’t block bills for more than 1 year and can’‘t block budget bills or anything in the government manifesto.
Case Studies - Commons Select Committees
The Treasury and their tax rules were reviewed by the select committee after finding out that Google only paid £130 million for 10 years of back dated taxes. This was to investigate the poor deal for British tax payers.
Home Affairs Select Committee investigated treatment of Windrush generation by the Home office. This led to calls to change immigration procedure by the Home Office, including stopping immigration targets and criticism of it’s ‘hostile environment’ policy to immigration..
Case Studies - Voting / Legislation
2018 May managed through promises to MPs and use of Whips to get parliament to vote for MPs NOT to get a final vote on the brexit deal.
David Cameron decided against introducing a bill to allow fox hunting in England and Wales after SNP made it clear that they would vote against it.
Case Studies - PMQT
May has had to defend
- Windrush generation scandal - especially when much was done while she was Home Secretary.
- Slow progress of Brexit and possibility of a no deal Brexit.
- Red Cross causing the NHS a humanitarian crisis.
- Scandal of universal credit telephone hotline of 55p a minute and the 6 week wait to get benefits.
Case Studies - House of Lords
- 2015 Lords voted against Cons policy to cut £4.4 billion to the tax credit system. The Lords voted against arguing it would increase poverty and the government did a U-Turn.
- 2018 Lords voted for an amendment to let MPs have a final vote on the Brexit deal. Although this went back to the Commons who then voted against it, this amendment could have given them more power
