UK Parliament Flashcards

Question

Trustee vs Delegate model

Answer 1

Trustee Model: MPs make reasoned decisions, which may not always align with popular opinion. It's impossible to satisfy everyone's interests, leading to the trustee model where elected officials make decisions based on their judgment.

Answer 2

The official opposition, typically the second-largest party, scrutinizes the government and presents itself as an alternative. A strong opposition is crucial for holding the government accountable, preventing complacency and incompetence. Operates through: Committees, PMQs, Opposition days, Shadow ministers Shadow ministers are expected to expose the failures of the government cabinet and question prospective ministers. A notable example is Shadow Home Secretary Abbott's condemnation of Amber Rudd over the Windrush scandal, which led to Rudd's resignation.

Answer 3

Ministerial questions are often poorly attended, highlighting a potential weakness in parliamentary function. However, the executive is regularly questioned in both chambers, enhancing accountability and transparency, especially since most debates are publicized. Oral Questions: Conducted for an hour from Monday to Thursday Offers regular scrutiny of the government, which is not typical for other systems of government in the world PMQs: Occurs on Wednesdays from 12:00 to 12:30. The Leader of the Opposition gets six questions, the second opposition party gets two questions. Only the official opposition can ask follow-up questions. Other MPs bob to get the speakers attention to ask questions.

Answer 4

* Raises key issues overlooked or ignored by the government, such as the cost of living crisis, party gate, and handling of COVID * Directly interrogates the PM, holding the executive accountable. * Provides the opportunity for the Official opposition to be presented as an alternative government. Similarly, the PM can also expose the opposition's inadequacies.

Answer 5

* Questions are often planted to make the PM and government appear favorable. * Political point-scoring and theatricality overshadow constructive debate and important issues (ie Ian Blackford and Partygate) * The PM may deflect or delay answers to avoid addressing difficult questions. * The adversarial structure of the Commons amplifies partisanship, hindering collaboration. * The two-party system sidelines backbenchers and smaller parties.

Answer 6

APPGs: Informal, cross-party groups with no official status that meet to discuss issues of concern. Examine and discuss policy. Invite stakeholders and government ministers. Serve as platforms for insider pressure groups to influence government ministers. They can be related to important topics (poverty, climate change) or more silly topics (rugby).

Answer 7

Debates on the legitimacy of the upper chamber has been critical in British politics, especially with the introduction of the Hereditary Peers Act 2024-5 seeking to remove the vestiges of anachronism. By analysing the legitimacy, effectiveness of the Lords and recent political reforms, this essay will ultimately argue that the Lords ought not to be elected, rather reforms should focus on reducing the size of the upper chamber and ensuring peerages are made with integrity. * Legitimacy: The membership of the Lords is questionable, with 92 hereditary peers and a quarter of members being party donors. Allegations cronyism have been made against the Lords. A recent Guardian investigation (March 2025) has shed light on potential cronyism within the House of Lords, revealing that nearly 100 members are paid to provide political or policy advice to commercial firms. This practice raises concerns about conflicts of interest, as these roles could influence their legislative duties. The investigation also highlighted that over £100 million has been donated to the three main political parties over the past two decades by individuals who have sat as peers in the current parliament. These findings have intensified calls for comprehensive reform of the House of Lords to enhance transparency and accountability. With an elected Lords, it ensures the actions that the Lords takes is accountable and has consent by the people. * Legitimacy: the Lords is legitimate in their own right, and do not need an election to validate this. They have been appointed based on their expertise and talents, and therefore the nature of the Lords is meritocratic. Legitimacy in democracy does not necessarily entail elections. Having an elected second chamber could risk politicising it and undermining their objective scrutiny capacity. Independence from election cycles means they do not need to be populist and can do controversial but necessary decisions. Reforms such as the Hereditary Peers Act 2024-5 shows how gradual changes consistent to that of the development of the UKs uncodified constitution may be the better alternative to replacing the Lords with an elected chamber. * Legislation and scrutiny: Lords should be elected and accountable to enhance their effectiveness, as a democratic mandate can enhance their authority over the Commons. For example, currently the Salisbury conventions states that the Lords should not oppose legislation on a governing party's manifesto; but if the Lords were elected then they would be able to offer more scrutiny on this matter. With the consent of the people, and accountability of their actions, the Lords can have enhanced powers and a greater role in legislation and scrutiny. It can be argued that making the Lords elected will lead to legislative gridlock, and prevent the swift passage of legislation typical of UK government. They do not have a veto power, and are subservient to eh Commons. * Legislation and scrutiny: With both the Lords and the Commons having an electoral mandate, this can lead to legislative gridlock, as they both argue their actions have the consent of the people. This could weaken parliamentary sovereignty. The role of the Lords, as it stands, is only to be a revising chamber that reviews legislations before it reaches assent, not interfere with every part of the legislative process. * An elected Lords will have serious repercussions for the Commons, and will delay the legislative process. The Lords have been effective in delaying legislation where necessary, as it currently stands. * Representation: The Lords as it stands is highly unrepresentative, as most of them are above the age of 70, and from narrow social backgrounds of private school education. This casts into doubt their neutrality and anachronism, suggesting there is a democratic deficit. * Representation; It can be argued that the Lords do not need to be representative, as their overarching role is to be a revising chamber, not a representative of a constituency. It can be argued that they need people from knowledgeable backgrounds to make important political decisions, which means they often come from private school. The lack of political partisanship in the Lords, as there are many backbenchers and no government majority ensures that their role of scrutiny precedes that of political interests and representation. Implementing reforms to the House of Lords is complicated and expensive. This would require stricter requirements or capping its size to improve democratic legitimacy. There are challenges in balancing representation and expertise. Currently, the House of Lords is usually appointed based on political skill and experience. An elected chamber might undermine their ability to scrutinize the government. An elected chamber would require a second election. There's already low turnout and a participation crisis in current single elections. Another election might compound apathy and disillusionment.

Answer 8

Expertise, influence on the government, powers and publicity, or do it so each theme is on the type of scrutiny and interweave select committee comparisons? * Composition: They offer expert scrutiny and specialize in particular policy areas. They are formed with people who have specific and direct knowledge. Chairs are elected based on their experience. They are highly bipartisan, with joint committees relying on cross-party cooperation. Unanimous select committee reports carry more weight in holding the government accountable, so they are more likely to be open. * Composition: similarly the Lords are also highly bipartisan, with much of the lrods being composed of cross benchers and the government not having a majoriy in the second chamber. Committees reflect the parliamntary makeup, which is often dominanted by the governing party, anf therefore can compromise their fucntion of scrunity. Whips select MPs for public bill committees, who may not be the most suited for the role and encouraged to act according to party lines * Powers: They take evidence from witnesses and interrogate ministers, and have a wide range of powers for gathering evidence and writing reports. Select committees directly mirror the UK government, for example the select committee on Wome and Equlities mirrored minsiter Kemi Badenoch's' department, scrutinized Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch regarding the government's stance on menopause-related workplace protections. The Lords and other scunty types are unabel to enjoy this access to close pwer and directly challeneg the govenrment in this way. * Powers: Ministers or stakeholders can refuse to give evidence (e.g., Mark Zuckerberg refusing to appear before the UK Digital Culture, Media and Sport Committee in 2018). For the Lords, they have greater time to scrunitnese the Commons. The Liaison Committee, composed of the chairs of all select committees, questions the MP once every six months, only occasional so less meaningful. Debates also directly confront Minsiters, espeically with Hoyle and Bercow allowing more urgent questions. * Influence on legislation: In spite of parliamentary sovereignty and recommendations not being legally binding, their insightful advice can lead to policy changes (40% acceptance rate), showing the value of their scrutiny. Committee meetings are publicized in the media, enhancing accountability and pressure for the government. If recommendations are not implemented, the government have to respond publicyla dn directly to every aspect of the report. * Infleunce on elgislation: The Lords is an itnegral part of the parliamnetayr ping-pong process. .. Public bill committees are whipped and reflect parliamentary makeup, making them less critical of the government, so less likely to offer constructive amendments to legilsation. SC amendments are not legally binding, and the government is not obligated to enforce changes or implement recommendations (60% rejection). Debates such as PMQs are even more high profile than commitee meetings, and this can be more damaging and infeluntion on the govenrment, Select committes are legargly the mos teffective form of scrunity, but they are by no means the onyl good one, as the process of scrunity is much motr sbpout the holsitic process of scrunity by different facets rather than work of the cokmmittees alone.

Answer 9

* Scrutiny: Public bill committees are highly effective ins scrutinising the work of the government, The Lords is highly effective in providing expertise. A key aspect of the legislative process is that it passes through the House of Lords, as Parliament is a bicameral system. The House of Lords is a separate body filled with experts, such as Lord Norton, who is a constitutional expert. Due to this, bills undergo constructive and critical scrutiny, and the House of Lords can challenge certain parts of legislation without consequences. This process is known as parliamentary "ping-pong." * Scrutiny: Public bill committees reflect the parliamentary makeup of the commons, and thereby ensures government dominance int he process. However, the House of Lords is ineffective due to the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, which allow its recommendations to be overridden after one year. For example, despite the House of Lords proposing amendments to the Policing Bill, they are only delaying the process. Even those who propose amendments are limited, particularly if they are in the opposition. Due to the First-Past-the-Post system, the governing party has a majority in the House of Commons and in Public Bill Committees, meaning the opposition’s ideas are often outweighed and outvoted. This was evident when Sarah Champion tried to amend a clause on child sexual abuse, only for the Justice Minister to make her withdraw the amendment proposal. Therefore, PBCs are ineffective in practice as they are not thorough and are too adversarial to lead to constructive criticism and development. The role of backbenchers is diminished against a powerful government, and can circumvent scrutiny against party leadership, for example the royal prerogative allowed Blair to push through the invasion on Iraq with little parliamentary challenge against the party leadership. * Inclusivity: Inclusivity: it is an open process with opportunities for legislation to be proposed from various sources, including: PMBs, HoL, gov, BBBC. It can be argued that the government is right to dominant the legislative process as they are the winners of the election and therefore have a mandate to fulfil their manifesto commitments. PMBS Can be a huge opportunity for backbenchers to influence the law, i.e the current Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) bill addressing a long-standing debate about assisted dying, and Historically significant acts have started as private member bills (e.g., abolition of the death penalty). Publicity can be significant even if the bill doesn't pass, as it can encourage the government to introduce primary legislation themselves * Inclusivity: There's a lack of equality of opportunity due to the low success rate of PMBs, government is dominant and stifles bipartisanship. Opposition days fail in the legislative process, as they only allow the official opposition the process to propose legislation and debate on issues, but not other minority parties. opposition is often side-lined in the legislative process, or the opposition days are dismissed, for example in 2023 despite the proposal for tenants to be protected by land eviction raised by labour, a bill was not passed to addressed this, as opposite days are not legally binding. Influence of filibustering an government whips can also undermine PMBs. Few become law as most die during the second reading of the bill, showing the limited influence of backbenchers. Influence of government whips can undermine opposition ideas. * Holistic legislative process / debate: A thorough and robust process with multiple stages for scrutiny and debate. Parliamentary sovereignty allows the government to legislate on any subject it wishes, in a swift manner * Holistic process: The process can be slow, delaying the passage of laws. Some stages are not meaningful (e.g. first reading, royal assent). Bills can fail if not passed quickly enough, or if delayed by the Lords. The Lords and their questionable legitimacy overshadows the advice they offer in the legislative process. Furthermore, the Lords are unelected and have little democratic legitimacy; they do not have a mandate like the government to be part of the legislative process. This was evident when the 9th Duke of Wellington overrode the Environmental Bill, hindering the legislative process. Overriding the House of Lords too easily also allows the government to push its legislation through Parliament more easily, which highlights the importance of not allowing the House of Lords to be overridden too quickly. Thus, the ineffectiveness of the House of Lords demonstrates that Parliament is ineffective in its legislative function.

Answer 10

The role of backbench MPs has become increasingly significant, particularly during periods of weak or divided government. Often seen as supporters of their party leadership, the responsibilities of backbenchers extend beyond loyalty. By examining their roles in holding the government to account, representing their constituencies, and contributing to the legislative process, this essay will argue that the primary purpose of backbench MPs is not merely to support their party leadership, but to act as an essential check within the parliamentary system. * Scrutiny: They participate in select committees and can chair them, holding government ministers accountable. These chairs form the Liaison Committee, which directly scrutinises the PM and the executive. Backbenchers can challenge the government, as they are not bound by collective ministerial responsibility, so have independence to speak on issues overlooked by the government. For example, Diane Abbott, a "big beast" Labour politician, vocally condemned Starmer's decisions to cut PIP payments, instead advocating for a 2% wealth tax. So they can afford to be more critical of the government and not support the party leadership. * Scrutiny: Backbenchers become "lobby fodder" that votes in favour with their party, in order to be in ambitious ministerial positions, rather than protesting on legislation as they do not want their party whip to be removed. MPs are expected to follow the party whip, undermining the legitimacy of votes, thereby meaning their role in scrutinising their party leadership is weak. A large parliamentary majority ensures an in-built backbench support, thereby diminishing the effect of rebellions if it is not co-ordinated. * Representation: MPs address local issues through constituency surgeries and meetings with their constituents. In cases where the interests of their constituency conflict with party leadership, MPs often prioritise representing their constituents. For example, during a 2021 vote on fracking, 27 Conservative MPs defied the party whip and voted against the bill, citing the potential environmental harm it could cause in their local areas. This demonstrates that local representation is often prioritised over party loyalty. Additionally, many MPs challenge ministers on issues relevant to their constituencies. For instance, Ian Blackford has consistently raised concerns about Scottish issues and devolution, highlighting his commitment to representing the interests of his constituents, even when it conflicts with party leadership. MPs are more willing to represent their constituency and not vote for the party leadership in a controversial way, as they want to maintain electoral popularity locally in order to be re-elected. * Representation: While MPs are expected to represent their constituents, they often prioritise party interests due to pressure from party whips and the need for party support to secure re-election. Under the trustee model, some MPs act in line with party leadership rather than local opinion, especially when the party line offers greater political stability. For instance, Labour MP Dan Tomlinson used his question during Prime Minister’s Questions in April to attack the prospect of a Conservative-Reform merger, focusing on national party politics rather than raising concerns relevant to his constituency. This illustrates how backbenchers can sometimes sideline local issues in favour of promoting party agendas. * Legislation: PMBs are a good opportunity in theory for backbenchers to create legislative change. MPs amend legislation in public bill committees, and the Backbench Business Committee increases backbench representation. Creation of the Wright reforms have boosted BB participation in the legislative process. Prominent PMBs have been raised to address long-standing issues, such as the Assisted Dying Bill, which has passed the second reading. Backbench rebellions can lead to policy defeats, for example, the 2019 May Brexit deal was defeated three times. * Legislation: In reality, PMBs aren't an effective model of legislative change. Public bill committees are whipped, and Backbench Business Committee struggles to push questions, while PMBs fail due to lack of support and time. The government dominate the legislative process due to the FPTP system, and therefore if the MP does not have the support of the governing party or their own party, then their legislative bill often gets ignored. NUANCES AND LIMITATIONs * Executive Power: * Government Majority: A large parliamentary majority ensures an in-built backbench support.

Answer 11

The House of Lords, as the upper chamber of the bicameral UK Parliament can either be the adversary or complement to the Commons. However, it is debatable whether the House of Lords is the most satisfactory in fulfilling this role compared to other forms of scrutiny. By analysing the composition of the Lords, the scrutiny it offer, and their influence on legislation, this essay will ultimately argue that the House of Lords is not effective at its function. * Composition / representation: The Lords offer experience and expertise that provide different perspectives to the Commons. Members are specialists in their fields, offering valuable insights (ie Baroness TGT was a Paralympic athlete who advises on matters of sport and disabilities, Lord Philip Norton as a leading constitutional expert). The Lords is unelected, so less political pressure to be populist, and therefore can act according to their own judgement. * Composition / representation: Similarly, they are criticised for being unrepresentative, given the majority of the Lords is over 70, and there have been cronyism allegations (1/4 of the Lords were party donors, many of the Lords have been politicians, ie Gove was on Sunak's resignations honours list). This undermines their capacity for objectivity and overshadows the legitimacy of their expertise. Their inherent lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unaccountable. Their narrow social background (private education) means they perpetuate conservative rhetoric. * The Lords lack of an electoral mandate means they are unrepresentative and also weakens their powers. * Scrutiny: The Lords scrutiny can lead to policy amendments, or prevent a bill from reaching royal assent entirely, evident in the Rwanda Bill, which did not pass before the 2024 election. Process of parliamentary ping-pong ensures that bills passed are agreed on by both Houses. They have no time limit of scrutiny compared to parliamentary debates. The Lords can drastically alter bills. Heavy defeats in the Lords can force the government to reconsider legislation. The legitimacy of a bill can be questioned by the media if it passes in the Commons by a weak majority. ie 9th Duke of Wellington made amendments to the Environmental Act, 2021 preventing harmful sewerage waste. So Lords is effective. * Scrutiny: The Commons can bypass the Lords after 1 year of delay, due to the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts, evident in the 2004 Hunting Act and 1991 War Powers Act. The Salisbury convention also inhibits the Lords from scrutinising a bill that was on the governing party's manifesto. They are also unable to amend money bills, thus limiting their capacity and breadth of scrutiny. Low attendance and irregularity limits the role of the Lords. * The scrutiny of Select Committees of the Commons is more valuable than that of the Lords. * Legislation and government influence: Party affiliations are secondary to scrutiny, no party majority in the Lords, many crossbenchers. For example, TGT a cross bencher spoke openly and critically of how transport accessibility for the disabled was a "national disgrace" and therefore needed legislation to address this on the Transport Select Committee. The Lords are generally open-minded and cooperative due to the presence of life peers and crossbenchers. * Legislation: Their recommendations are not legally binding and can be ignored. The Lords are constrained by parliamentary sovereignty and executive prerogative. The Lords serve as a revising chamber, not a vetoing chamber, with little tangible power over the Commons.

UK Parliament Flashcards

(36 cards)