This can also affect debates such as adjournment debates. They allow for back benchers to examine and discuss government policy. This therefore reduces government power as it requires government to justify and examine its own actions. ‘No confidence’ debates can also bring down a government eg in 1979 when this was proved. However, the power of legislative debates is subject to a ‘guillotine’. The vote in debates is also usually a foregone conclusion based upon party strengths and lobby fodder. This means that as government usually has a majority, it is not very hard to it to get its bills passed. This is mainly because Prime Ministerial patronage is very strong. MPs tend to be ambitious and therefore, with a view to promotions and ‘getting ahead’, many MPs prefer to be loyal to the P.M who has control over government appointments. Party loyalty is also very strong. This means that MPs are usually elected under a party manifesto and have a strong mandate to support party policies. Betraying the mandate can be seen as a betrayal of the mandate.
The whips also have great influence on the voting patterns within parties. They attempt to force MPs to vote the way that the party would like them to. This can be seen as both persuasive and threatening. This can have great influence over careers. This is because ignoring the whip can be seen as party betrayal and can be very harmful to the future career of the MP within the party, depending on the severity of the whip which has been ignored. In extreme circumstances, this can lead to suspension from the party or can persuade a party to ‘de-select’ them. The whips therefore reduce the power of parliament because the votes, again, can be fairly predictable and a majority government’s preferred outcome often occurs when back bench rebellion does not occur.
MPs can often lack research back up, expertise and political support. This has been exaggerated in recent years with an increasing number of MPs and politicians following politics as their only career. In previous years, it has been more common for MPs to have other careers (usually within Law and Business), this would mean that their expertise would be greater. This can mean that parliament control of executive power could be said to be higher. However, government does have political advisers and a massive civil service which more than makes up for a lack of expertise in some areas. This reduces the control of parliament over the executive.
Collective responsibility can inhibit parliament’s ability to call government effectively to account. This means that when scrutinised by parliament, government can form a united front which makes it difficult to elicit information about policy which reduces parliamentary control over government. Individual ministerial responsibility is also weak. This can mean that accountability can be difficult to enforce.
The House of Lords can be said to be weak because it is not voted for by the electorate, this means that it lacks democratic accountability. It can also be said that it lacks professionalism as well as some of the other weaknesses suffered by the commons. This means that the power of parliament of government is reduced because the House of Lords cannot be said to provide legitimate scrutiny.
However, Parliament can be said to maintain strong power because it forms select committees from experts which can act independently and scrutinise departments effectively. They can call and examine witnesses and are permanent. They also cut across party lines which means they can be said to be independent. They report their findings and recommendations back to the commons. In recent years they have begun to assert themselves more strongly. Eg select committees produced a critical report on the privatisation of air traffic control in 2000. The government usually acts on their recommendations. However, the committees do not also have a great amount of time in which to operate. They can also lack the expertise, resources, staff, power and often the will to be more than an irritant to the government.
The House of Lords, despite its lack of democratic legitimacy, has effectively blocked amended legislation when it saw fit. This means that parliamentary power is increased.
The balance of power between government and parliament is variable in that a government majority can increase government power but a small majority can increase parliament power. The executive government does however act in an environment when it is constantly under scrutiny and constraints. The strength of these depends on the context of the situation. Simply, the government cannot do what it wants without the approval of parliament which means that effectively, parliament holds power and remains the central institution of the Great British political system.