When the parliament feels that the executives are using more power than they have or are not using the power correctly, then parliament does have the ability to dismiss the government. This can be seen with Callghans minority government in 1976-9, but also individuals such as Thatcher and Blair both of which eventually lost favour within parliament and their own party. However, as we know that in 2011 Fixed-term parliament Act was introduced under the coalition government which states in section 1 that the government can only hold general elections every 5 years, and in section 2 it says that 2/3 of the house must vote for a vote of no confidence to remove the recent one, showing that the coalition government has furthermore entrenched its powers by firstly insuring that it will last the full 5 years but also that it cannot be removed easily, the only way to remove the government is if its own party votes against it, yet it rarely occurs because many MPs are lobby fodder and want to progress in their career, due to the PM power of patronage. However because it is still being used today that means that Cameron is insuring his power in the future too.
Collective and individual responsibility inhibits parliament’s ability to call government effectively to account. The analysis is that collective responsivity means government presents a united front making it difficult to elicit information about policy. Anyone within cabinet who have aided parliament in the scrutinising of policy must remain openly in favour of policy or step down, for instance with Robin Cook and Geffrey Howe over the leaving of the EU.
It could be argued that parliament does control executive power because parliament has scrutiny features similar to Prime Minister’s Question, Ministerial question time and select committees, which all make the government and its executive’s powers accountable for their decision making. However, there has been a strong argument presented that to some extent parliament does not control executive power effectively, due to the fact that the government naturally has an in built majority within the H.O.C, as well as that the whipping system and the ideology of ‘toeing the party lines’ results in the executive powers having the ability to regularly gain a majority of support from the H.O.C. Furthermore, the increase in prime ministerial or even ‘presidential’ government in the UK, with the leader of the executives having accumulated more power, makes it more difficult for parliament to control executive power.
The government usually has an overall majority. This is due to our voting system of FPTP which gives preference to a two party system, normally they have the majority (and usually large ones) as opposed to coalition and minority government which are produced through voting systems such as AMS in Scotland and Wales. The government still has a majority of 12 seats, 331 in total. This therefore often renders the opposition form of scrutiny as less effective, as the majority of MP’s in the H.O.C, belong to the governing party, their primary role is to support the government of the day, and not to criticize and embarrass it, leading to the emphasis that they are lobby fodder, thus showing that the greater majority is more difficult to oppose it, due to MP’s support so they can progress in their career. Additionally, it means that if everyone voted in the party for a certain issue it will most likely go through due to the majority. However, because David Cameron’s majority is low he cannot risk many of his party members to rebel, unlike Blair’s government which had a majority of 179. In short parliament’s ability to control the executive varies among many things such as the size of the majority.
Party loyalty is also very strong. The power of patronage that the PM has makes many MPs excessively docile and loyal, hence the term lobby fodder. With the rise in the professional opposition to become a rebel who remains loyal in order to gain power and move up in the hierarchy as opposed to become a rebel who remains as a backbencher. This can be seen after the vote on the Syrian strike, where most of the conservative government voted for it, with a vote of 313 yes and 7 against it, only in the conservative party. This created the impression that government had nothing to fear from parliament. The government could always rely on its loyal troops in the H.O.C to approve its legislative programme and to maintain it in power, creating an elective dictatorship. However, the MPs are not always docile as Cameron has already suffered one defeat in the House of Commons in his first year whereas Blair only suffered 2 in 10 years. Such as the Sunday trading bill, meaning that there are differences in opinion when it comes to the one nation traditional values, also showing that those 7 MPs voted for their conscience not their careers.
Whips play an important part in removing power from parliament. By having whips who ensure that MPs behave in accordance to the decisions of the executive make; both parliaments ability to scrutinise and hold the executive to account is diminished, but also their role as representatives of their individual constituency is also compromised. For example with Europe and the conservatives and David Cameron, because the issue caused such a divide within the party and cabinet that they differ on issues, however in the EU referendum they have been given a free vote by the PM. Nevertheless it still shows that the executives hold far greater power over parliament that it should because if they do not, they are punished due to their disloyalty, ultimately leading to ‘withdrawing’ the whip however if they heed to the whip, due to the power of patronage the PM has, they are rewarded through promotions.
In conclusion, there are arguments for and against the view that the parliament has control over the executive. Those who say that parliament does have control because of the committees and view parliament powerful because they are able to call a vote of no confidence. On the other hand the people who disagree see that whips, and party loyalty making the majority of parliament on the executive’s side, showing that executive are in power. However, my view is that parliament is strong and can control executive better than they once could, but executives still over rule due to one reason; they are the majority that’s why they are government.
by
adnanx99yahoocom (student)
