4.2 the relationship between the executive & parliament
How effectively does parliament hold the executive to account?
In 1976, Lord Hailsham stated that the ability of British govt to dominate parliament
meant it was essentially an elective dictatorship.
- Govt exerts great control over parliamentary business – this limits opportunities
for the opposition to debate govt legislation.
- Public Bill Committees always have a govt majority & are whipped – unusual for
opposition to be able to significantly amend legislation at committee stage.
- Govt with large majority can often rely on the support of its MPs to the pass
legislation it wishes.
- Govt can change law using secondary legislation (statutory instruments), over
which the HoC has much less power of scrutiny.
- PM has extensive powers of patronage. Govt whips can offer ambitious
backbenchers to join govt or withhold any change of advancement – powerful
way the govt can encourage loyalty.
- Royal prerogative – PM does not legally have to consult parliament on use of
British military forces – May 2018 air strikes on Syria.
- Salisbury Convention – HoL shouldn’t attempt to stop govt legislation that was in
winning party’s manifesto.
However, relationship between parliament & executive is dependent on
circumstances.
- Minority govt / one with small parliamentary majority will find it hard to pass its
legislation programme, esp. if it cannot rely on loyalty of its backbenchers. In
such cases, both Houses can become mire assertive.
- If opposition is united with a strong leader who is expected to win next GE –
undermine confidence of govt.
House of Commons
Examples of weak parliamentary influence over executive –
1979-87 – Thatcher’s determined leadership of C party contrasted with divisions in L,
which led to the party fracturing & the foundation of the SDP. This meant C’s were
facing split opposition & having won the Falklands War in ’83, Thatcher increased her
parliamentary majority to 144. In these circumstances, Michael Foot & Neil Kinnock
couldn’t challenge her policies in HoC.
1997-2001 – Blair’s landslide victory in GE gave him a 179-seat majority in HoC. Party
was almost totally united around his third way politics. Having suffered the worst GE
defeat since 1832, C only had 165 MPs. Their ability to oppose Blair was more
undermined by C divisions over EU & Hague’s ineffective leadership.
How effectively does parliament hold the executive to account?
In 1976, Lord Hailsham stated that the ability of British govt to dominate parliament
meant it was essentially an elective dictatorship.
- Govt exerts great control over parliamentary business – this limits opportunities
for the opposition to debate govt legislation.
- Public Bill Committees always have a govt majority & are whipped – unusual for
opposition to be able to significantly amend legislation at committee stage.
- Govt with large majority can often rely on the support of its MPs to the pass
legislation it wishes.
- Govt can change law using secondary legislation (statutory instruments), over
which the HoC has much less power of scrutiny.
- PM has extensive powers of patronage. Govt whips can offer ambitious
backbenchers to join govt or withhold any change of advancement – powerful
way the govt can encourage loyalty.
- Royal prerogative – PM does not legally have to consult parliament on use of
British military forces – May 2018 air strikes on Syria.
- Salisbury Convention – HoL shouldn’t attempt to stop govt legislation that was in
winning party’s manifesto.
However, relationship between parliament & executive is dependent on
circumstances.
- Minority govt / one with small parliamentary majority will find it hard to pass its
legislation programme, esp. if it cannot rely on loyalty of its backbenchers. In
such cases, both Houses can become mire assertive.
- If opposition is united with a strong leader who is expected to win next GE –
undermine confidence of govt.
House of Commons
Examples of weak parliamentary influence over executive –
1979-87 – Thatcher’s determined leadership of C party contrasted with divisions in L,
which led to the party fracturing & the foundation of the SDP. This meant C’s were
facing split opposition & having won the Falklands War in ’83, Thatcher increased her
parliamentary majority to 144. In these circumstances, Michael Foot & Neil Kinnock
couldn’t challenge her policies in HoC.
1997-2001 – Blair’s landslide victory in GE gave him a 179-seat majority in HoC. Party
was almost totally united around his third way politics. Having suffered the worst GE
defeat since 1832, C only had 165 MPs. Their ability to oppose Blair was more
undermined by C divisions over EU & Hague’s ineffective leadership.
