Higher modern studies

One of the main roles of the Parliament is to hold the work of the government to account. This means when the government handles something badly or makes a mistake, it is the Parliament’s job to call them out on it. MPs can scrutinise the work of the government and MSPs have committees whose job is to review bills and conduct inquiries. This essay will discuss the effective of the Parliament when holding the Government to account and explore factors including the legislative process, party whips, PMQs and committees. This essay will conclude that the Parliament can hold the Government to account to a small extent.

One reason why the Parliament can hold the government to account is by questioning the prime minister. This means every Wednesday at noon, members of political parties will get the chance to ask the Prime Minister questions and peruse the effectiveness of the current government. The Prime Minister is ultimately responsible for the Government’s actions and must justify its policies and in this way is held accountable to the people in the UK.  For example, on the 11th of September 2024, former Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative party, Rishi Sunak, asked a question in opposition about the removal of the winter fuel payment from over 10 million British pensioners and asked Keir Starmer to publish the impact assessment during a recent PM questioning in the Commons chamber. This highlighted the unpopularity of the Labour Government legislation. This demonstrated that PMQs awe a good opportunity for opposition MPs to scrutinise the work of the government by asking the PM difficult questions. The PM is ultimately responsible for all government decisions and he must be able to justify these. He can also be questioned on current issues, even if he chooses not to discuss these in Cabinet meetings. However, the questioning only lasts 45 minutes and not every question will be answered. The PM also has a large team to help him prepare and evade uncomfortable questions. In conclusion, PMQs are clearly effective at offering valuable scrutiny of the Government’s work; even if it does not result in significant change, it forces the PM to answer difficult topics which hold him accountable.

One reason why the Parliament can’t hold the government to account is by scrutinising the legislative process. This means when a bill is proposed in parliament, MPs will debate it during the second reading. Then it will discussed by the committees before getting further debated in the House of Lords where they will use a vote to grant royal assent. For example, the social winter fuel payment regulations 2024 when the government won a vote on the plan to restrict the payments to all except the poorest pensioners by 348 voters to 228 – a majority of 120. The impact of this is that even if all Labour MPs vote in favour and all opposition MPs vote against the bill, it would still pass. This means that a majority government can result in weak scrutiny from the House of Commons because it is unlikely that bills will be stopped. However, often legislation goes through a process of many amendments after parliament scrutiny. In conclusion, it is evident that the parliament cannot fully scrutinise the legislative process because a majority government has the power to overrule the remainder of the parliament which makes their votes much less likely to make a difference.

Another reason why the Parliament can hold the government to account is by having committees in the Scottish Parliament. There is no House of Lords because the Scottish Parliament only has one chamber so committees are seen as playing a vital role in the legislative process. The role of committees is to scrutinise government legislation by reviewing bills and conducting inquiries. They also allow for cross-party work to be carried out. For example, in March 2021, the government committee published a scathing report on the Scottish Government’s handling of the situation after complaints were made against Alex Salmond regarding sexual assault in 2018. The Scottish Government eventually admitted it had acted unlawfully and had to pay Mr Salmond’s legal fees or more than £500,000. The impact of this is that that the committees can call the Government out for making mistakes and they advise next steps they can take. This means the Government won’t make these mistakes again because they know the committees will scrutinise them and they will make adjustments to take onboard the recommendations for change. However, there is no guarantee the government will act on the recommendations because they won’t be penalised for deciding not to follow them and any scandals will be “yesterday’s news” so the committees don’t tend to look into it any further after they have made an inquiry and created a report. In conclusion, committees successfully hold the government to account because they have a substantial amount of power to publish extremely critical reports about the wrongdoings of the Government. This encourages the government to make changes to accommodate these recommendations which will make the public content.

Another reason why the Parliament can’t hold the government to account is because of party whips. Whips are MPs or Lords appointed by each party in Parliament to help arrange their party's involvement to parliamentary business. This means the senior members of the party will ensure the maximum number of MPs vote in favour of the party policy set by the leader to maintain party unity. For example, in July 2024, 7 Labour MPs have had the whip suspended for 6 months after voting against the government on an amendment to scrap the two-child benefit cap. This included ex-shadow chancellor John McDonnell who voted for an SNP motion calling for an end to the policy, which prevents almost all parents from claiming Universal Credit or child tax credit for more than two children. MPs rejected the SNP amendment by 363 votes to 103, in the first major test of the new Labour government’s authority. The impact of this is the party whip system will carefully control their MPs on important votes, and many governing party MPs won’t vote against the bills as they fear they will lose their seat in the next election if they aren’t being backed up by the party. This can lead to a lack of scrutiny. However, if MPs have the whip withdrawn, it can result in a lot of media attention, this could draw attention to the ruling parties because their own MPs disagree with their actions which makes the public question it. In conclusion, party whips are clearly ineffective at providing insightful scrutiny of the government’s work because MPs will agree follow party lines given to them by party whips in fear of losing backing from the party so a large majority of MPs will refuse to voice any opposing opinions.

In conclusion, after exploring different ways the Parliament attempts to hold the government to account, it is evident that the Parliament holds the government to account to a small extent. Although, PMQs offer MPs the chance to ask questions and scrutinise the work of the government, it only lasts 45 minutes and the PM prepares in advance to evade difficult questions. Additionally, committees can hold the government to account but only to a minor extent as their recommendations are not always taken into account by the government. Because the current Labour government is a majority, opposing parties will find it close to impossible to change the bills made by the Labour party without the Labour MPs moving away from the party's views. However, this often does not happen due to party whips, meaning MPs are at an decreased likelihood of straying from party views as they fear of losing backing from the party if they did.


*You might want to change the examples and obviously the wording

One reason why FPTP gives fair representation is that it produces one clear winner. This is because for a MP to win a constituency they must have the most amount of votes, which gets them a seat in parliament. The party with the majority of seats in parliament goes to form a majority government. For example, in the last 10 general elections, FPTP has In the last 10 General Elections, FPTP has produced 8 majority governments (1 coalition and 1 minority government). The impact of this is that people know who is in government. With a strong majority, it is easy for the government to pass laws and meet the promises they made to the public during elections. Therefore, it provides fair representation because strong government can meet their manifesto promises and share significantly more effective and voters will have faith in the voting system. However, FPTP does not always produce one clear winner - it can occasionally result minority or coalition government which can be weak and unstable. These often fail to meet manifesto promises, and do not deliver fair representation.

Another reason why FPTP give fair representation is because it keeps extremist parties out of power. This means extremist parties are not gaining enough support from the public so they won’t win seats in parliament because people wont and the people who do vote for them, it will only equate to small amount, which will affect how much power they have. They don't get enough votes in a single constituency to result in a candidate from the extremist party being elected. For example, In 2024 the ‘Save Us Now’ party put forward 1 candidate but won no seats. It was founded by conspiracy theorist Mark Steele who claimed that 5G and WiFi were part of a weapons system and that the street lights were linked to the 5G network and were ‘causing cancer and microwaving babies in their beds’. The impact of this is that extremist parties don’t end up with any power and they won't be able to put policies through the government because the majority of people don’t vote for them so it is harder for the parties to gain seats as they cannot get seats another way. Therefore, FPTP provides fair representation as it stops these extreme views being argued in parliament and in the long term, people will be much more likely to vote as their views are represented in parliament. However, the voting system should still be democratic so the proportion of seats should reflect the proportion of votes, regardless if it is an extremist party.

One reason why FPTP does not provide fair representation is because women are hindered. This means the political environment still very male dominated and there is voter bias regarding women and gender roles. On the ballot paper, the voters will be able to select an MP of their choice. Voters are less likely to vote for female candidates because they believe they will be too occupied with parenting or maternity leave. This means that female names are less likely to get chosen on the ballot paper due to sexism. Also, women are less likely to be chosen as candidates by male dominated parties and because FPTP only has 1 clear winner, this means smaller parties with more female candidates are less likely to be involved in the Parliament. For example, 2024 General election only 40% of MPs are female, compared to 51% of the British population. The impact of this is that females are less likely to bring issues regarding women’s rights to males representatives which means they won’t be discussed and there won’t be any changes made. Therefore, female constituents may find it difficult to raise issues of gender inequality with male representatives. In the long term, if they don’t discuss this with MPs, the issue of gender inequality is less likely to be raised in parliament. However, although voters are able to select the name of an MP, the candidate's party is also shown on the ballot paper and because it is a bipartisan system, many people will choose to vote for one of the main 2 parties regardless of the candidate. This means some voters will subconsciously vote for a party without taking into consideration the gender of the candidate.

Another reason why FPTP does not provide fair representation is because it is a 2 party system. This means there are only 2 dominant political parties which gain the majority of votes. Most people tend to vote for one of the two parties because they have strong family ties to the party or because the dominant parties are seen as stronger and more reliable because they have a large amount of supporters. These are usually opposing parties; one being right-wing and the other being left-wing and there often isn't a middle ground. For example, a YouGov poll found that 1 in 5 people said they would tactically vote in the 2024 General Election. The impact of this is that there isn’t a wide range of political views so not everyone’s vote counts and because the Labour Party and Conservative Party have contrasting views, so there often isn’t an in between. In the long term, voters could be put off voting or feel like there is no points because one of the two main parties will win anyway. Supporters of smaller parties feel that their vote is insignificant and might be ‘wasted’ and instead choose to do ‘tactical voting’ (voting for a larger party you don’t support in the hope it prevents another party you strongly disagree with getting into power). Therefore, FPTP does not provide fair representation as people are less likely to vote for smaller parties because they think their vote will be wasted so smaller parties won't gain enough seats. As shown in the last election, one fifth of voters used tactical voting which shows voters are much more likely to strategically vote. However, FPTP is successful at preventing extremist parties gain powers and this means the majority of voters who vote for these 2 main parties can have their views represented in Parliament.

In conclusion, after discussing the effectiveness of FPTP, it has been made clear that it only provides fair representation to a small extent because it does not give smaller parties enough representation. Although, FPTP keeps extremist parties out, it hinders smaller parties which means some individuals will never get elected and it causes a lack of progress to occur. Additionally, FPTP encourages tactical voting as it's always the 2 major political parties who receive the most seats due to more funding and media attention they get. If FTPT continues to be used, it means that voter engagement can be affected as people may feel as though their vote is wasted if they vote for a smaller party because they will not gain enough votes. People will continue to show a lack of trust in politicians and they may not choose to vote in the next election.

There are many consequences of inequalities on groups. Inequality can be defined asunfair or unequal treatment between groups of people. This is often determined by an individual’s protected characteristics like gender, race and ethnic minority. The experience of inequality is negative and is often perceived as prejudice and discrimination. This essay will discuss effects of inequalities on a variety of groups including low paid workers, women, ethnic minorities, and young people. This essay will conclude that women are the group who experience most inequality in comparison to other factors.

One group who face inequality are low paid workers. They are strongly affected by rises in the cost of living. This means people who are in low paid professions and are struggling to provide for themselves and their family because they are not earning enough money to live comfortably. For example, it is estimated that since the COVID-19 pandemic, food costs have risen by around 20% while for many, income rates have fallen and there was also the removal of £20 per week from Universal Credit claimants. The impact of this is that low paid workers who may only be earning the minimum wage, have lost this ‘uplift’ and do not earn enough to achieve a minimum living standard, and as a result they experience social inequalities. Therefore, low pay can cause inequalities in housing and living standards which can go on to cause multiple deprivation meaning that low paid workers are a group that face significant social and economic inequalities. The housing charity Shelter estimate that around 30% of people in the UK live in ‘bad’ housing. (example) When increasing housing and heating costs are also considered (caused by rises in gas import prices) it is estimated that around one million families have to choose between heating and eating. However, although it is recognised that the impact of inequalities on those who are low paid is clear, it must be acknowledged that groups like the unemployed are further disadvantaged because they have no access to an income, disadvantaging them further, in comparison to low-paid workers.

Another group who face inequality are women. Women often experience domestic abuse and other forms of sexual assault. This means gender stereotypes expect men to be dominant and ‘head of the household’; men should ‘wear the trousers’ and ‘control their woman’. For example, in 2019, Health Scotland found that 29% of women in the UK have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by a current partner since the age of 15. The impact of this is that women are domestic abuse survivors are more likely to develop mental health issues such as PTSD, anxiety, or depression. They may also be fearful to go into particular spaces or in busy environments where males might be more dominant like night clubs. Therefore domestic abuse is a significant impact of social inequality on women as many women who have survived domestic abuse may find it hard to develop future relationships which could be romantic or platonic. They may also be scared of going into public places and experience poor mental health. However, another group that also face a high amount of domestic abuse is young people so being a women may not be the only factor that makes people more likely to experience violence.

Another group which has faced the consequences of inequality are people from ethnic minority groups. This means that individuals from specific ethnicities or races experience inequality due to racial discrimination, language barriers and other forms of prejudice. Despite decades of equal opportunities legislation, most recently the Equality Act (2010), the UK’s Black and ethnic minority population still faces inequality. For example, according to the JRF, the BAME population experiences lower levels of pay by 26% compared to white people. The BAME population also has poverty rates around 2x the level of those among the white population. This leads to a higher chance of living in poverty. The impact of this is that people from the BAME community are much more likely to experience poverty compared to white communities. Furthermore, this could lead to further dependence on Universal Credit, alongside further consolidation of racial stereotypes, cementing untrue prejudices about people from the BAME community. Therefore, we can conclude that people from ethnic minorities are clearly impacted by inequality to a significant extent. People from BAME communities are substantially more likely experience poverty which impacts their quality of life. In the long term, this will lead to EM groups being unable to get a well-paid job and they also might struggle to get opportunities due to the structure of industries. However, it is important that we recognise that although members of the BAME community experience inequality, inequality is not only caused by race but other factors too, as according to the UK, the group most likely to experience poverty are children and young people as they are reliant on adults for support, proving that both people from BAME communities and youth experience poverty.

Another group who face the consequences of inequality is young people. This means that an individual’s age may determine how they experience discrimination and prejudice, especially in the context of experiencing domestic abuse and violence in the home. This may be influenced why young people's ability to engage in physical violence compared to the elderly who would encounter more barriers if they attempted to cause physical harm to another person. Young people are also more likely to be in a domestic setting where their parents or r carers could abuse them under their own roofs. Parents may want to control of manage the young person by 'disciplining' them abusively and the young person may struggle to defend themselves against a fully-grown adult. For example, in 2019, Health Scotland found that the risk of partner abuse in 12 months is highest among young people aged 16-25 years and lowest among those aged 65+. The impact of this is that children who are victims of domestic abuse are more likely to become perpetrators of domestic abuse in adulthood. This negatively impacts their families lives and could create a chain-reaction of abuse as the children may normalise abusive behaviour. Therefore, it is clear that young people are much more likely to be impacted by inequality because of lived experience with domestic abuse, meaning that the long-term impact is that young people who have been exposed to domestic abuse causes harm to their future relationships and can trap them in a cycle of abuse. This emphasises the significance of the impact on young people, as they will continue to live with the impact of domestic abuse for the rest of their lives. However, it must be acknowledged that although age can determine the likelihood of experiencing domestic abuse, other factors like gender can also determine whether someone experiences abuse. For example, Health Scotland found that in 2019 29% of women in the UK have experienced physical and sexual violence by a current or previous partner.

Overall, this essay has shown that various groups across society are impacted in different ways by inequality. It is evident that women are the most likely group to experience inequality due to sexism in the work place and domestic abuse. However, this can be linked to other groups too such as both women and young people experiencing the highest number of domestic abuse. Other factors included the exposure of domestic violence to young people, the impact of ethnicity on inequality in the workplace and how low-paid workers are likely to experience financial inequality. However, despite the contribution of all four of these factors, it is clear that women experience intense inequality inter-sectionally and in multiple realms of their lives, thus being the group that experiences the most social inequality in comparison to the alternative factors which have been discussed.