"The UK HoC is a more effective legislature than the HoR in USA" Flashcards
(15 cards)
Introduction for the question?
effectiveness refers to how well it carries out core functions- legislation, oversight and scrutiny, representation and recruitment
HoC and HoR are both bicameral legislatures, but are parliamentary vs presidential systems.
Point and explanation for legislative efficiency?
HoC is more effective at passing legislation quickly and consistently than the HoR.
Due to fusion of powers and strong party discipline in UK system, the government usually commands a majority, making it easer to pass bills
Examples for legislative efficiency?
Boris’ government swiftly passed brexit withdrawal agreement in 2020 due to a strong majority.
House can act decisively e.g.- Wall street bail out (usually requires a crisis)
Analysis of legislative efficiency?
UK system allows for faster, more decisive law-making. In US, separation of powers and frequent divided government lead to gridlock and legislative delays (response to Dunblane)
Commons clearly more effective.
Point on scrutiny and accountability?
HoC is more effective at holding the executive accountable
in a parliamentary system, the exec is directly drawn from and answerable to the legislature, enabling regular scrutiny through mechanisms like PMQ’s, select committees and confidence votes.
Example of scrutiny and accountability?
2022 resignation of Boris followed intense commons pressure and ministerial resignations. Contrast, while HoR can hold hearings, real accountability is limited without senate support. House recommendation of impeachment failed twice in Trumps first term.
Analysis of scrutiny and accountability?
Though US congressional committees are powerful, the exec is not dependent on legislature for its position. in UK, the fusion of powers paradoxically increases scrutiny due to constant legislative oversight
Point for representation and responsiveness?
HoR is more representative and responsive to the public than HoC, all 435 members are elected every 2 years, meaning they are more directly accountable to their constituents.
Example for representation and responsiveness?
Representatives in HoR voting according to delegate model- e.g. Republican Joseph Cao 2009 11 votes for Obamacare.
Contrast, 13MPs in HoC voted against triggering Article 50 even though they were from leave constituents.
Analysis of representation and responsiveness?
Short electoral cycles and larger size of the HoR encourages the Delegate model while there is more evidence of the Trustee model in the HoC.
Point on independence from executive influence?
HoR is more independent from exec control than UK HoC, separation of powers ensures US House can act as a genuine check on President, whereas UK, strong party discipline often leads to Commons acting as “Rubber-stamp”
Example for independence from executive influence?
Nancy Pelosi led House efforts to impeach Trump twice- clear demonstration of legislative independence.
Meanwhile, UK MPS are often subject to party whips and face deselection if they rebel- e.g.- 21 Conservative MPs losing the whip under Boris in 2019.
Analysis of independence from executive control?
US structure empowers representatives to oppose the executive without losing office, enhancing accountability and legislative integrity.
Conclusion for question?
HoC is more effective in passing legislation and scrutinising the executive, however HoR is stronger in terms of representation and independence.
Compare checks and balances between US and UK?
US- excessive checks? Judicial review established by Marbury vs Madison
presidential legislative failures- Kennedy- civil rights, Clinton- health care reform
UK- statue law dominance means parliament can pass any law e.g.- Gun control post Dunblane, HRA, constitutional reform act- all could never be passed in congress.
