Urgent Politics help!

Hi, need help in answering the following question:
'How effective is Parliament in checking executive power?'
From what I can gather, it is about scrutinising and the like... but am rather stuck.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Reply 1

Natasharox

You can look at several things. You can look at procedure, i.e. how effective is parliamentary scrutiny? You might want to look at question time, and how not all MPs get a chance to ask questions. You could also look at the effectiveness of committees (both types) and other scrutinising procedures.

You could also mention adversarialism, and question whether it is a good or bad thing for checking executive power.

Also, remember to look at the House of Lords' role in checking power. For example, they can amend and veto legislation, BUT they can be bypassed.

Reply 2

Phlox

You could also mention the Queen as one of the three branches of parliament, and briefly examine her role in checking executive power. You could quote the example (this one was discussed during our Politics class) of when she curtly expressed her concerns to Margaret Thatcher during the 1980s that Britain was getting too cosy with South Africa during segregation.

Reply 3

Diaz89

Prime Minister's QT, select committees etc

Reply 4

Antonia87

The House of Lords is partially responsible for scrutinising the executive - due to their responsibility of examining, passing and amending legislation. The Lords can refuse to pass a bill (or Act of Parliament) up to three times if the disagree with what its attempting to enforce.

The Opposition is usually seen as a means of checking parliamentary power as they will face the governing party in debate over legislation and issues that arise in the nation as a result of the government's actions. In this sense, the leading party in Parliament have to justify their agenda.

Also, dont forget the vote of (no) confidence. Parliament may call the vote when faced with a failing government. This was responsible for the Callaghan government's demise in 1979.

You also have select committees (that are typically unbiased and neutral) which exist in order to interview ministers and civil servants - which in turn monitors the actions/decisions of those in Parliament.

Reply 5

passenger17a

There's also the counter argument that they are not very effective because the executive consists of the legislative. In the UK the governing party is in control of the parliament i.e. the legislative won't criticise the executive as much as you'd wish. I know this isn't case because the Labour party seems to be very critical of Gordon Brown at the moment. However, just think of the times under Tony Blair; or Thatcher who just kicked out everybody that had sth against her i.e. the parliament couldn't and didn't effectively check the government. Shame that the leader of the government (PM) is also leader of the party (which has the majority in the parliament).

Reply 6

Sapphire-Flame

Hi. I have to answer this questuion aswell and swear I can't remember anything.

Just so I'm clear, may someone please explain the difference between the government (executive) and parliament (legislature)?

Thanks for any help.

Reply 7

Matt Walker

You might want to consider the functions of Parliament and the successes and failures of how it carries them out. I would also take a look at executive dominance.

Urgent Politics help!

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you