House Of Lords More Effective

Question 1

Introduction

Answer 1

The House of Lords and the House of Commons both play roles in scrutinising and checking the government, but the extent to which each is effective is contested. Some argue that the House of Lords, being unelected and more independent, is better at revising legislation and challenging the government. However, a more convincing argument is that the elected and representative nature of the commons, along with the greater formal powers, make it the more effective check on the government authority.

Question 2

House of lords’ independence and expertise- effectiv

Answer 2

It could be argued that the House of Lords is more effective in checking the government because its members are not bound by party discipline in the same way as MPs. Many peers are experts in their fields and scrutinise legislation based on its merits rather than party loyalty. The Lords regularly amend or delay bills, forcing the government to reconsider aspects of its legislation

Question 3

The House of Lords’ independence and expertise- not effective

Answer 3

A more convincing argument is that the House of Lords ultimately lacks reals power to check the government effectively. The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 mean that the lords cannot permanently block legislation, only delay it. The government can also override Lord’s objections by using its majority in the Commons. Furthermore, because the Lords is unelected, it has limited legitimacy to challenge the Lords effectively.

Question 4

The Common’s role in scrutiny and accountability- effective

Answer 4

It could be argued that the commons is less effective because MPs are constrained by party loyalty and the dominance of the executive. Government majorities often mean that backbench MPs struggle to challenge ministers, and PMQs become performative rather than substantive. Additionally, the use of the whip system ensures that most MPs vote along party lines, reducing independent scrutiny

Question 5

The common’s role in scrutiny and accountability- not effective

Answer 5

A more convincing argument is that despite these limitations, the Commons is ultimately more effective at checking the government because of its formal powers. Select committees, chaired by MPs from different parties, conduct rigorous scrutiny of government policies and hold ministers to account. The ability of the Commons to remove the government through a vote of no confidence is a significant check on executive power- something the Lords cannot do.

1. 1979 – Vote of No Confidence in James Callaghan’s Labour Government

In March 1979, Prime Minister James Callaghan’s Labour government lost a vote of no confidence by a single vote (311 to 310), following discontent over the “Winter of Discontent” and failed negotiations with smaller parties. This defeat triggered a general election, which was won by Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives, marking a pivotal shift in British politics. It remains the last successful vote of no confidence in a UK government.

⸻

2. 2019 – Vote of No Confidence in Theresa May’s Government

On 16 January 2019, Theresa May’s government faced a vote of no confidence tabled by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, following the historic defeat of her first Brexit deal. The motion failed, with the government surviving by 325 votes to 306, as Conservative MPs and the DUP backed May despite disagreements over her Brexit strategy. The episode illustrated how party loyalty and alliances can shield a government, even during moments of political turmoil.

Question 6

The Lord’s role in legislative scrutiny versus the Common’s democratic legitimacy- Effective

Answer 6

It could be argued that the Lords is more effective because it spends more time scrutinising legislation in detail. Unlike the commons, where MPs often follow party lines, the lords provides debate and revision of bills, leading to improved legislation. The Lords has successfully forced the government to amend legislation on issues such as welfare reform and human rights

Question 7

The Lord’s role in legislative scrutiny vs the Common’s democratic legitimacy- not effective

Answer 7

A more convincing argument is that the democratic legitimacy of the Commons makes it the superior check on government power. MPs are directly accountable to the public and can challenge the government they must answer to their constituents. Additionally, only the Commons can initiate financial bills and ultimately determine the government’s survival. While the Lords provide useful scrutiny, its lack of democratic accountability means it cannot effectively constrain government power in the way the commons can.

Question 8

Conclusion

Answer 8

While the House of Lords provide valuable scrutiny due to its independence and expertise, its lack of formal power and democratic legitimacy means it is ultimately less effective than the commons in checking the government. The Commons, despite party loyalty and executive dominance, remains the primary for holding the government to account through select committees, votes of no confidence and direct ministerial scrutiny