Analysing the British Political System

Politics B – L.O.1

Analysing the British Political System

There has been debate over whether or not Britain actually has a constitution, as such. When one thinks of a constitution, it tends to be the American style model of ‘the’ constitution that springs to mind – a single written code, setting out rules and guidelines of how government institutions, and the relationship between such institutions and the citizens, should be conducted.

However, despite Britain not having such an easily definable constitution, one exists nonetheless, in the form of uncodified (that it, not strictly written in a single document for that specific purpose) documents that are scattered among different sources, of which there are six main sources comprising: statute law, law which is made by parliament; common law, law based on legal precedents, that is, made by judges on the basis that what is decided by one court of law must be followed by other courts when dealing with similar matters (although this is not the case within the Scottish system, where judgements are generally made on individual cases); Royal prerogative, traditionally the privileges and powers held by the monarch, although in reality today these powers are generally held by the Prime minister/cabinet, the monarchs role being little more that a political ritual; constitutional conventions, which do not have the force of law but have been used over such a period of time that they are regarded as having a kind of ‘political licence’ – e.g. a firm convention in Britain is that the monarch the royal assent to legislation; European Union law, whereby British authorities must accept decisions taken by E.U. institutions and finally Works of Authority, books written by authoritative constitutional theorists to which reference may be made when trying to settle any constitutional disagreements or uncertainties.

Some argue that this kind of scattered, uncodified constitution is outdated and undemocratic, and call for reform, however many still believe that the constitution should remain uncodified, as it allows for flexibility in the ever changing political world. As such, the British constitution is one that has developed and evolved throughout time as a result to economic, social and, of course, political change.

This is a preview of the whole essay

With political change in mind, it has been said that one of the major changes in British politics in recent times is that the nature of government in Britain has shifted, and that there now exists a more ‘Prime ministerial’ government than the traditional cabinet government. The growth of Prime ministerial power (and that all major power lies with the Prime minister and select advisors) as opposed to general cabinet rule has lead to claims that the Prime minister is now taking on a more presidential role, with strategies and actions being compared to those which operate in the US, particularly in terms of election campaigns where, like the US president, emphasis is placed on the nature of the Prime minister him/herself, rather than the nature of the party and their policies. Many factors have been suggested as having contributed to this shift; one such suggestion is that the role of the media has influenced this. Much used in election campaigns, the media, particularly the popular press, can be highly personalised, preferring to put focus on the party leader (especially since Mrs Thatcher was in power) and, as such, the Prime ministers involvement in social activities makes him/her newsworthy & can project a positive image to the prospective electorate.

Despite this, Britain, strictly speaking, still operates under a cabinet government, and so the role of the cabinet in the decision making process is of great importance.

The cabinet operates at the peak of a hierarchical system of government in Britain and is made up of executive members who share in the decision making process, determine government policy and oversee, and essentially control, government. The Prime minister is, in effect, the head of the cabinet, considered the ‘first among equals’, that is, the Prime minister makes the major decisions after consolation with his/her chosen advisers. However, unlike the US president, the Prime minister is not a singular executive who makes decisions and is then held solely responsible for their consequences. In the cabinet, there exists the constitutional convention of collective responsibility. This ensures that cabinet ministers are held equally responsible for any decisions taken within the cabinet and its committees, and must be seen to support any such decisions or resign from their cabinet post.

However, the cabinet is only one part of a wider network of government departments and committees, most importantly in the decision making process by Parliament, which is Britain’s main legislative authority, and is seen as the most accessible of Britain’s political institutions, with proceedings being reported in the press, etc. Parliament comprises of three main elements: the monarchy, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, all three of which must be in agreement before any law can be made, although, as mentioned previously, the role of the monarch in this process is largely symbolic. Should the monarch today actually choose to exercise their constitutional power, without reference to advisers, particularly the Prime minister, it could damage both the nature of the constitution and the institution that is the monarchy itself. Only in the case of a ‘hung parliament’ (where no single party has overall majority in the commons) does the monarch have any real say.

The roles of the House of Commons and the House of Lords are similar but important differences do exist, possibly the main difference being that the Commons are elected and the Lords are not. Functions performed by both Houses include that of legitimation, whereby formal approval is given to Bills that pass through them. Scrutiny is also performed by both Houses, by forming select committees to examine and criticise proposed policies, actions of the executive and government expenditure. Both also have a legislative role, as they are able to approve or reject legislative proposals (Bills) before they are put forward for assent (these will usually go through the Commons first, followed by the Lords for further scrutiny).

The Houses’ differing roles occur in the functions including, for the Commons, representing (whereby each member represents his/her geographical constituency) and recruitment of government ministers (most backbenchers in the Commons will have ambitions to become government minister – ‘frontbenchers’ – and so this house acts as a recruiting ground) and, for the Lords, deliberative function (whereby debates will be held on policy or topical issues) and the judicial role (a role somewhat detached from the general proceedings of the House, by which it acts as the highest court of appeal and in which only the highest Lords can take part).

It is also important to consider the role of the previously mentioned backbencher (also known as a private member). As well as supporting the government of day (or, occasionally, opposing them), they represent their individual constituency interests and they will address and grievances on behalf of their constituents. Although their political activity is generally restricted, they do have the power to introduce bills, which can be done in two ways – by selecting an issue of particular interest to them or acting on behalf of a pressure/interest groups to help introduce legislation.

There are two different types of bills (proposed legislation), public and private. Public bills (also referred to as government bills) are generally more successful, the majority of bills passed are in fact public bills, and often relate to manifesto propositions. These are generally given more time and though than the second type of bill, the private bill (or private members bill), the majority of which fail to make it through the legislative process. Private members bills can be proposed in one of three ways: by the ballot, the ten minute rule or by standing order 58. Ballot bills, whereby members can enter their name into a ballot from which 20 names are drawn and then given time to propose such bills. These are the most successful of the private members bills, however the majority still fail due to the timing of such a ballot – they are allocated only 12 Fridays in each session to discuss them, which creates problems as attendance is low on Fridays due to MPs returning to their home constituencies for the weekend. Such low numbers mean that ballot bills will often be pushed aside or removed from the Commons timetable altogether, in favour of bills which are already in the pipeline. The ten minute rule (whereby members are given ten minutes to propose legislation) is generally unsuccessful and so members tend to us it more for publicising ideas rather than for realistic legislative proposals. Finally, there is Standing order 58, which offers slightly higher chance of success than the ten minute rule, and allows a bill to be introduced without debate if the speaker is given a days notice. As mentioned, the majority of all three types of private members bills still fail, as the necessary time and support for their passage through the House is generally not provided.

And so, we have looked at what differentiates the roles of members of the House of Commons/Lords with that of the Executive and what defines the British constitution. Far from simple, and indeed far from perfect, the British system in operation today undoubtedly stems from long standing tradition, which can be difficult to change and undeniably leads to some inequity, although this is something which is certainly not unique to the British political system. Despite its deep-rooted conventions, the British system is one that continues to evolve and adapt to the ever changing political world.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------