To What Extent Are Backbench MPs Lobby Fodder?

by pelican347 (student)

We’re led to believe that the MPs we elect to form Parliament actively participate in the governing of our country. Yet in reality, most of the power lies with the executive and the influence of a backbencher is thus lessened. Are they a loyal party drone? Do they represent the constituents effectively? Have they been reduced to mere lobby fodder?

The “Whip” is sent weekly to MPs detailing the upcoming parliamentary business. Divisions are ranked in order of importance by the number of times it’s underlined. Three-line whips apply to major events and defying these may result in being denied places on select committees and promotion or the withdrawal of the whip. Essentially this is blackmail, and it often works, turning backbenchers into sheep who will follow the whips.

In addition to this, some often neither feel strongly about, nor fully know the facts about the subject being discussed in Parliament. Therefore when it comes to a division, most are grateful that they’re told what to do, and gladly become feed for the Lobbies.

However backbenchers can and do rebel in order to assert their power. Cameron experienced his first defeat over the EU Budget last week, with more than 50 Tory MPs rebelling. There was majority of 13, in favour of a rebel Tory call led by Mark Reckless for a real terms cut in the European Union's budget. This proves that some backbenchers are brave enough to take action and not be unquestionably loyal to the government.

The number of U-turns that the current government has done indicates that the threat of a backbench rebellion is sometimes enough to persuade them to drop a policy. In 2010 backbenchers were threatening to rebel over tuition fees. This was enough to force concessions to be made so the rebellion wasn’t as large as expected. It could be said that they failed because the bill wasn’t defeated but in a way it was a success as changes were made. This shows that the image of being lobby fodder is being shaken off by the more outspoken MPs.

It is difficult ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

It is difficult for a Backbench MP to influence government policy if a government has a large majority in Parliament. The power of individual backbench MPs is reduced making it harder to challenge the government. Also, the PM has powers of patronage which demand loyalty; few MPs want to cause a general election by defeating the government. Thus accepting their fate as lobby fodder.

Private Members Bills are a prime example of how power appears to be given to backbenchers yet isn’t in practise. The names of Members applying for a Bill are drawn in a ballot held at the beginning of the parliamentary year. The first seven ballot Bills get a day's debate. There are also Ten Minute Rule Bills which is a speech of ten minutes outlining a position. The majority of PMBs fail because the government doesn’t provide the support necessary for their successful passage through the House and it is also held on Fridays which reduces the attendance. This shows that backbencher serve little purpose, other than acting as lobby fodder.

Yet on the other hand, some PMBs such as the reforms of laws have been supported by the government in the past. The most famous being the 1967 Abortion Act when a backbencher was able to initiate the bill and see it through, resulting in a change in the law. In this instance it can be seen that backbenchers have the opportunity to actually be involved in the running of the country.

Progress has been made. Public Bill Committees, unlike the Standing Committees they replace, have the power to take written and oral evidence from officials and experts outside of Parliament. This gives Committee members more information on which to make their decisions. It examines each Bill, report its conclusions and amendments to the Commons, where Members debate the Bill further. This gives backbenchers more power in governing the country.

Also, the chairs of Departmental Select Committee are backbenchers who aren’t controlled by whips. This allows them to examine “expenditure, administration and policy” of the relevant department freely. Their reports are put to the House and the government must reply to any recommendations within 2 months, which may lead to a debate. They provide an extraordinary amount of individual power to MPs, which adds to the strength of the governmental scrutiny.

Select Committees are a chance for backbenchers to have some influence in government. The output is considered authoritative and influential as there is permanent membership, enabling them to stand out as superior scrutinisers. Members can specialise in a field of public policy meaning they’re more likely to be interested in their duties of scrutiny because they’ll be more informed. This level of involvement shows there is more to being a backbencher than just being lobby fodder.

Backbench MPs have opportunities to hold the government to account in various ways. One being, questioning the PM on issues of concern at PMQs. As well as Adjournment Debates, in which a backbencher speaks on a chosen issue and a Government Minister replies, that take place at the end of each parliamentary day. The fact that they can challenge the government means backbenchers aren’t always loyal party drones.

However, most use PMQs to show support for their leader and score party political points rather than openly criticising the government. This is again evidence that they’re willing to toe the party line and sacrifice the influence they could have, becoming mere lobby fodder.

The fundamental problem is as follows: Backbenchers constantly worry about losing their jobs. Although around a third of the back-bench Tory party are rebels, most fear the whips. They rarely step out of line because today, most MPs are career MPs. Rather than accurately representing their constituency, many are prepared to accept the reality of being lobby fodder in order to stay in a job.