Does Parliament lack democratic accountability?

I thought someone had posted the title - apologies. I guess it would depend; Parliament's principal role is to scrutinise the executive. The prerogative by definition gives the government the ability to act independently, although much of it has been significantly modified. It depends on one's perspective tbh...

As for 2, it does - once a Member of Parliament is found of dishonest behaviour (either being convicted, presenting false information on expenses or being suspended from the house for 10 days) a petition will open in the respective constituency. If 10% of that constituency signs the petition, the MP will lose their seat and a by-election will be triggered.

I think I am up to scratch on everything with this - except the removed from Parliament bit? I am not sure how to approach this. Any ideas?

removed from the citizens? similar ideas to unrepresentative in terms of unable to relate to large majority of citizens/ vice versa due to class/ gender/ race etc.

this whole question has me so confused. are you dealing with HOC and HOL separately? it becomes so complex when you break it down.

I'm also struggling so much with how to define democratic accountability? as in, how does being executive dominated effect the ability to be accountable? it seems there are so many ends to this question I can't work out how they all link!

Okay - I think in that case I might consider merging representation and removal together. I kind of understood it to be about what impact the public can have on Parliament. But I have herd so many different ideas I am unsure on where to take it...

It is probably best to approach them separately, mixing it up could get a little complicated. If you focus on representation in reference to each to form an analogy, I think that will be best.

I understand democratic accountability to be the normal accountability mechanisms, together with how democratic those mechanisms are... during question time, are the questions relative to the public interest; also consider the new petitioning process in relation to this. It depends how you argue it but there are a number of different angles you can take. As for the link, if for example Parliament is dominated by the executive, will scrutiny of the executive really be effective in the context of the so-called democracy... But again, it depends how you approach it.

Hope it helps...

OK, I am officially stressed.

The wording of the question is confusing, are you approaching it as how the executive is accountable to parliament (select committees, debates etc) or how parliament is accountable to the citizens?

Because I have no idea on the mechanisms in place for the latter?
Thanks for the help !

This is just my opinion but I don't think we should be talking about how the executive is held to account by Parliament, or at least not a lot.

My theory is that the reason why the question mentions that Parliament is "dominated by the executive" in relation to democratic accountability is because if Parliament is dominated by the executive, or in other words is controlled by the executive to an excessive degree, than that would mean it isn't dominated or controlled by the public enough in comparison, as there should be a balance between vertical and horizontal accountability in Parliament. This would make sense in the context of democratic accountability wouldn't it? You could talk about the ways in which the executive whip Parliament into approving legislation and whatnot that way and link it back to how it affects Parliaments accountability.

Someone please confirm if this makes sense