Executive Flashcards
(86 cards)
3 key points for a question on whether parliament holds government to account effectively?
1) Committees
2) PMQs
3) Legislative scrutiny
Why does the nature of select committees make them effective in scrutiny?
Professional and not political; therefore much less partisan than PMQs and hence more effective
Select committees are effective in scrutiny: independence
Wright Reforms: chairs are no longer chosen by the whips, allowing influence of prominent backbencher MPs- eg. Caroline Nokes chair of Women and Equalities Committee and has openly criticised gov hosing asylum seekers.
Select committees are effective in scrutiny: wide reach
Hold televised hearings and are reported on by the media; Privileges Select Committee scrutinised partygate scandal 2023 and got mass attention.
Select committees are effective in scrutiny: government response
Gov has to publicly respond to committee findings; eg. 2023 gov accepted most of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee
Select committees are ineffective in scrutiny: independence
Majority of select committee members are drawn from governing party; influential committees like the Treasury, foreign affairs and defence committees are chaired by MPs of governing party.
Select committees are ineffective in scrutiny: ability to summon witnesses
Considerable but not unlimited; Theresa May as home secretary blocked Home Affairs select committee from interviewing Andrew Parker, head of MI5.
Select committees are ineffective in scrutiny: government response
Gov only responds to 40% of Select Committee recommendations, and these are usually minor changes.
Select committees are ineffective in scrutiny: Example of government not responding?
Education Select committee recommendations of additional funding for early years sector chosen not to implement.
What happens during PMQs?
Leader of opposition gets 6 questions and leader of 3rd largest party gets 2- forcing PM to address the short comings of government.
Evidence of effective questioning in PMQs?
Starmer questions about SORA in 2024 scrutinised how effective the reality of the plan would be; pointed out its lack of success as a deterrent, publicly damaging Sunak’s reputation.
Evidence of success of PMQs- popularity?
Most watched aspect of politics by the public and is televised every week. Impact on influencing voters and exposing party failures.
Evidence of success of PMQs- consequences
Defying HoC leads to pressure to resign, so government and the PM must be competent and on top of their policy brief.
PMQs as unsuccessful in holding government to account: Partisanship
Seen to be focused on partisan political point scoring, not proper scrutiny. Eg. in response to Starmer’s first question about SORA, Sunak deferred to speak about Sadiq Khan’s view on Gaza war.
PMQs as unsuccessful in holding government to account: embarrassment not scrutiny
Starmer criticised for trying to embarrass rather than scrutinise; one liners about PM and gov such as ‘inaction man’ and ‘as strong as a wet paper bag’
PMQs as unsuccessful in holding government to account: nature of PMQs
Very boisterous; parliamentary theatre rather than effective scrutiny. Requirement of more in depth, meaningful questioning of the PM.
What aspect of parliament significantly contributes to the scrutiny of parliament?
House of Lords; takes time to amend rushed legislation- such as the Levelling-Up Regeneration Act 2023; accepted 64 HoL amendments.
Evidence of appropriate checks and balances by the HoL?
Mostly backs down when it’s rejected, recognising its lack of political legitimacy; instances where it doesn’t are justified- to protect HR such as in anti-terrorism legislation 2001
Evidence of parliamentary scrutiny in the HoC?
Backbench rebellion growing increasingly frequent; eg Theresa May defeated 33 times with lots of tories voting against her Brexit deals.
Evidence of ineffective parliamentary scrutiny: government avoidance
Gov has control over most of the parliamentary timetable and rushes legislation through HoC, limiting scrutiny; eg. Illegal Migration Bill.
Evidence of ineffective parliamentary scrutiny: power of government
Large majorities mean few defeats and unconstrained legislative power; Blair defeated only 4 times in his 3 terms.
Evidence of ineffective parliamentary scrutiny: limitations to HoL
Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 prohibit HoL from voting down financial bills and can only delay legislation for a year. After, gov can force legislation through (Blair’s gov did 4 times).
3 key points on whether a PM dominates their cabinet?
1) Powers of patronage
2) Extent of cabinet influence
3) Type of support (popular vs cabinet)
What do the PM’s powers of patronage do?
Shape their cabinets to enhance their power and promote their beliefs; grants PM authority to marginalise power of opposing factions and retain a good image.
