UK Goverment Questions

Question 1

Evaluate the view that the House of Lords is a more effective check on government than the House of Commons

Answer 1

Parliament Acts and Salisbury Convention limited effectiveness of the Lords:
SOFT: number of gov defeats recent years suggest Lords retain effectiveness — 60 defeats from 2015-16 against 241 from 1979-97 — Lords can also force the gov to hold a GE if it prolonged life of parliament beyond 5 year maximum term
STRONG: Parliament Acts limited effectiveness, setting out that Lords can only delay non-financial legislation for up to a year — defeats mean little in practice and veto scenario is highly unlikely. By contrast, Parliamentary Privilege has empowered backbenchers to scrutinise the government which contrasts with Salisbury Convention

Question 2

Evaluate the view that parliament is effective in scrutinising the UK government

Answer 2

Role and significance of backbenchers in the commons:
SOFT: there are limits on the influence of backbenchers, such as adjournment debate and 10 minute rule — gov uses power to propose its own amendments, rather than listening to proposals from MPs
STRONG: increasing importance of backbenchers in scrutinising the government — parliamentary privilege gives MPs a legal right to make statements with legal immunity — Backbench Business Committee of 2010 resulted in topics being chosen for debate, leading to introduction of new laws, such as Harvey’s Law in 2015 — inc in backbencher rebellions (35% divisions 2010-15 against 28% 2005-2010)

Ministerial questions and PMQs:
SOFT: critics argue that PMQs are less about scrutinising the government and more a pretence — ‘planted’ questions such as taunting to Ed Miliband 2012 and personality clashes exemplify this
STRONG: defenders argue that it obliges PM to engage with oppositions — Blair called it the most ‘nerve-racking’ experience

House of Lords:
SOFT: often argued that Lord lacks power to adequately scrutinise the government — mainly a revising chamber as its up to gov whether to accept or reject amendments
STRONG: Lords becoming kore assertive — 1999 removal of hereditary peers ended dominance of Conservatives in the Lords, shown after 2005 with Lib Dem peers opposing Blair on Salisbury Convention — life peers more likely to scrutinise and challenge gov for this reason

Question 3

Evaluate the view that constitutional reforms since 1997 and up to 2015 did not go far enough

Answer 3

POWER OF THE PM:
SOFT: 2011 FTPA ended historic powers of PM to choose date of general election by fixing five-year intervals (earlier if 2/3 MPs vote or if PM loses vote of no confidence and fails to form a gov in 2 weeks)
STRONG: in practice did not go far enough as may showed that it was possible to get around FTPA — June 2017 she called early general election, only 2 years following previous, showing faults of us entrenched constitution if PM can get support with ease

DEVOLUTION:
SOFT: successfully dispersed power over the UK — following referendums 1997-98, devolved bodies created for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, designed to suppress support for SNP and unify unionist.nationalist factions in NI
STRONG: resulting grievances from devolution outweighed benefits — Welsh Assembly not given comparable powers to Scottish Parliament (less demand) — ‘West Lothian’ question had no answer at the time, showing creating devolved bodies was not enough

HRA:
SOFT: 1998 HRA incorporated ECHR into UK statute law — judges could not strike down laws incompatible with ECHR and guaranteed all citizens certain rights
STRONG: unentrenched nature of constitution — introduction of control orders 2005 allowed authorities to limit freedom of movement, as gov delegated from article 5, the right to liberty and security

PARLIAMENTARY CHANGES:
SOFT: 1997, all but 92 hereditary peers expelled from Lords, making Parliament more legitimate, replacing with life peers. Recall of MPs Act 2015 holds MPs to account
STRONG: Labour did not go far enough, as from 2000 a House of Lords Appointment Commission nominated peers not linked to party, but PM continued to make nominations on party grounds, instead of electorate