Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Does Parliament lack democratic accountability? Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlmightyJesus)
    1) it's not always about *your* individual influence. it's about the collective influence of society/the majority (that's what democracy is about - the collection of individuals, and not simply you alone). and it largely concerns your rights consequentially. your *individual* rights. the more accountable politicians are to society, the less likely they are to take away your legitimate rights
    2) you have a better idea than democracy for a system that gives you your deserved protections and just treatments? what's that? and what evidence backs it up?
    I am quite aware how democracy allegedly works. Look around the UK and US if you think democracy is a good idea. It has manifestly failed. I propose giving more power to the monarchy and house of lords. The more restrictions there are on the power of these destructive parties the better in my view.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sequin Rugby)
    I am quite aware how democracy allegedly works. Look around the UK and US if you think democracy is a good idea.
    do you think the UK and the USA are perfect manifestations of democracy? do you think soviet russia was a perfect manifestation of communism?

    It has manifestly failed. I propose giving more power to the monarchy and house of lords. The more restrictions there are on the power of these destructive parties the better in my view.

    "failed" in what respect? to implement what you, and you alone, want our government to do? hm. or are you talking about the FLAWS of our democracy which doesn't cover this? giving the lords more power (like you argued for) is not going to give you any more influence to get your deserved rights. how exactly is giving power to the HOL going to aid you? why do you assume that they will agree with you? and like tony benn once said (whom I only agree with on this area of democracy) "I'd rather have a bad parliament than a good king, because at least you can change a bad parliament in the future whereas while a good king might be good now, he may one day be bad, and you won't be able to change him". that's the issue with your argument - you assume that a lack of democracy will always be in your favour. giving the HOL isn't taking away power of political parties when political parties are within the HOL, and political parties effectively appoint the HOL members. regarding the queen though, how do you propose that she rules when she has no political merit? I mean, at least with some dictatorships, you have technocracies. but how is the queen a technocrat? why should *she* govern, and not some group of experts? she's really just a hereditary plutocrat and nothing objectively more than this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lisa96)
    Hey guys, currently got an essay to write and I'm stuck on how to argue against this statement since I don't think it lacks democratic accountability. Any help would be appreciated
    Yo, change your option to allow people to send you PMs. We can talk about the essay
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prospero12)
    Yo, change your option to allow people to send you PMs. We can talk about the essay
    Just checked my settings, and apparently my PMs should be working?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lisa96)
    Just checked my settings, and apparently my PMs should be working?
    Can't send anything, neither as a PM nor as a VM... :dontknow:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Haha. I am glad I am not the only one fishing around on forums to get ideas for this question...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nannonxx)
    i'm doing the same easy - for the democratic accountability part do we talk about ministerial responsibility and how parliament hold the government to account (what we've done in tutorials) or how parliament itself is held to account?
    I considered this also. However, I think the bulk of the answer should be centred around the latter aspects i.e., executive domination, representation and being 'removed' from citizens. I think it's worth exploring these three elements in the first part of the essay; afterwards explain those things in the context of democratic accountability, then conclude. It's proving to be a very complex question.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone even have a definition for democratic accountability?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CarltonCole)
    Does anyone even have a definition for democratic accountability?
    surely it's quite self-explanatory, given the meaning of those two words?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The problem IMO is FPTP which disenfranchises large sections of the population. To stay in power the govt only have to appease the middle ground enough to win the marginal seats. PR is the only way to go.

    Speaking as someone who's reasonably pro-European how is it fair that UKIP only have 1 seat while the SNP have 56?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lisa96)
    I think it's how parliament is held to account since that's what I've been told by others. But it is confusing since the public law textbook just talks about parliament holding the executive to account. Defo won't get this done by next week 😩
    What sort of thing are we meant to discuss for how it's held to account then? Debates and Select Committees and such?

    If you google how Parliament is held to account all that comes up is how the executive are held to account by Parliament 😩
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nannonxx)
    What sort of thing are we meant to discuss for how it's held to account then? Debates and Select Committees and such?

    If you google how Parliament is held to account all that comes up is how the executive are held to account by Parliament 😩
    All I've mentioned is select committees and back bench committees. I know the textbook just talks about executive accountability as well. ://
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    do you guys know what we really mean by democratic accountability?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    The real lack of democratic accountability lies with the EU. Unelected commissioners are the main propagators of legislation yet are not voted in by any European citizens. To have a number of mostly failed domestic politicians forcing legislation down upon 500 million people is the most concerning lack of democracy; as highlighted by them forcing through TTIP.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi guys, i also have this question, and am struggling so much with how to answer it, i dont know where to start? any help?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    really confused by this question as well!
    if parliament lacks accountability, is this referring to them lacking the ability to hold the executive to account?
    or that parliament is lacking in being able to be held to account by the public?

    any help would be amazing, stressing about this one.

    thanks x
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by baconislife)
    Hi guys, i also have this question, and am struggling so much with how to answer it, i dont know where to start? any help?
    1) the voting system creates only two parties in a constituency, and basically 2 in the parliament - first past the post is not a representative system of voting. there should be a proportional system not only for representation but also more choices to be encouraged on both a local and national level. if you look at the list of most democratic countries to least democratic countries, generally, the most democratic nations are those with proportional systems.
    2) elections aren't quite frequent enough. once every 5 years is more than most democracies. norway, sweden, new zealand, ireland, france, canada, japan, india, etc have an election every 4 years. australia even has one every 3 years (and function very well) and the US even has a "parliamentary" election every 2 years. it's only generally luxembourg with its 6 year terms that beats the UK in lack of regularity. therefore, we ought to have either 2, 3 or 4 years as a new regularity of elections
    3) there is no right of recall of MPs (as there is in countries like switzerland and the US in some states), meaning if an MP promises to vote a certain way, or act a certain way, and then doesn't, then the constituency has no power to get them out of office early. a right of recall (a real one with the citizens as those with the power to set one up and not a party committee, as was proposed) would fix this.
    4) MPs cannot control every agenda in that either the EU controls policies or the government writes out legislation for parliament and whips its party members to vote in favour of it. the whips positions ought to be ended and we ought to leave the EU. The appropriate remedy for this would at least be for the ministers of each governmental department to be elected by the parliament
    5) royal prerogatives allow the government to make certain crucial decisions without the consent of parliament, such as the declaration of war. royal prerogatives ought to be ended.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlmightyJesus)
    SNIP
    This only addresses one part of the essay (unrepresentativeness). EU law and royal prerogative are also slightly off-topic, since the essay focuses on parliament's dominance by the executive, not how the executive itself is independent.As for recalling MPs, look into the Recall of MPs Act 2015.The first two points are very good though!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prospero12)
    This only addresses one part of the essay (unrepresentativeness). EU law and royal prerogative are also slightly off-topic, since the essay focuses on parliament's dominance by the executive, not how the executive itself is independent.As for recalling MPs, look into the Recall of MPs Act 2015.The first two points are very good though!
    1) well I wasn't given that info. and surely the royal prerogative is an aspect of executive dominance when the executive use them?
    2) that act (which I actually thought failed to pass) doesn't actually give the people of a constituency the power to recall - it gives that power to a party-political committee which isn't neutral
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlmightyJesus)
    1) well I wasn't given that info. and surely the royal prerogative is an aspect of executive dominance when the executive use them?
    2) that act (which I actually thought failed to pass) doesn't actually give the people of a constituency the power to recall - it gives that power to a party-political committee which isn't neutral
    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.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.