• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Compare and contrast the extent to which the PM and president are accountable to their respective legislatures?

Extracts from this document...


Compare and contrast the extent to which the PM and president are accountable to their respective legislatures? It is fair to say, that both positions are held accountable to a certain extent by their respective legislatures. For example the PM can be questioned at PM question time, whereas the president can be scrutinized through specialist congressional committees. Many argue, that the UK PM can be held accountable to parliament on many occasions. Firstly PM question time, offers backbench MP's and lords the opportunity to question the PM either on legislation, or on government policy. Many see this as particularly effective scrutiny as it demands a response from the PM, perhaps prompting to make a promise on an area. However, others argue that there is no real scrutiny of the PM in question times. They say the ritualised format, combined with the difficulty of asking questions, and the media spectacle of partisan point scoring as lacking in any real scrutiny of the PM. Tony Benn, a former leader of the house, stated that PM question time now had more planted questions than "gardeners question time." ...read more.


A further way in which the PM can be held accountable to his respective legislature, is through select and standing committees scrutiny. Standing committees look at the detail of a government bill, and may put foreword amendments. Many MP's see their most important work as MP's is on select committees. Select committees allow backbenchers to undertake investigational work, and their findings often prompt the government to act on an issue. Often these committees have a considerable degree of expertise, as they are important in providing scrutiny of the PM. For example, Bruce George, has sat on the defence select committee since 1979. Increased media coverage of select committee proceedings, such as at the time of the Hutton enquiry, has brought the spotlight on to the PM making him accountable for his actions. In the US, as stated before, congressional committees play a major in holding the president to account. One further way a senator or congressman can do this is by voting in his/her respective houses. If they decide to vote against a presidential bill, such as they did in 1995 with Clinton's budget, then they can effectively hold him to account, forcing him/her to make amendments. ...read more.


For example, a backbench MP in the house of commons, can initiate a private member's bill, perhaps gaining support, and forcing change in a certain area. For example, private member's bills have achieved success in areas which the PM does not want to be directly associated with, for example social reforms such as abortion or homosexual reform. In the US, legislation from congress can also paly a big part in holding the president to account. For example, when the republicans gained a majority, they set about legislating a "Plan for America" in order to combat the economic downturn during some Clinton years. Whereas members of the US legislature often have considerable success with their legislation, hostile tactics in the commons and lords in the UK, such as filibustering, imposition of the guillotine, combined with the government whip make success with PMB's very hard to achieve. In conclusion, both the PM and president can be held accruable to their respective legislatures to a certain extent. In my opinion the UK PM is in a stronger position legislatively, as he has the majority support in the commons, the chief legislating body. He exercise complete control over backbench MP's through extensive controls, such as the whip system not available to the president. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United Kingdom section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United Kingdom essays

  1. To What Extent Has the Power of the PM increased?

    Her goals were purely selfish and individual therefore bared a strong imprint. Thatcher appeared to have a lot of power within her time in office. She was able to pass through her radical policies, of course not without opposition, but not enough to make her take a step back.

  2. To what extent was Cavour the "architect" of Italian Unification?

    However despite the effects of his political and diplomatic activities, his motives were far from nationalistic in the true sense of Italy.

  1. What powers does the PM have over his or her cabinet?

    to completely bypass her cabinet on a budget which they would never have agreed on as it cut Govt. spending and forced people to 'fend for themselves'.

  2. Evaluate the above statement and consider the extent to which you think it is ...

    and the judiciary lacking its own powers of enforcement, there is no guaranteed protection against just such a development. 1 "The UK" 2 Interestingly, this term though in use for some considerable time, was not formalised until the 1905-1908 premiership of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who was the first official holder of the title.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work