Finance is a major issue in both the UK and the States as every bill and department must have revenue in order to run efficiently. In congress all taxation proposals must be approved on a congressional basis, and the chances are that any taxation bills will receive amendments on and executive level. Parliament is remarkably powerless in its consideration of public finance, even though it takes a lot of time considering annual finance bill. The executive in Britain has all the power when it comes to finance and taxations, it is even able to push controversial finance bills through parliament such as the poll tax (1988). In parliament expenditure is very rarly questioned. The public accounts committee, does scrutinise the spending programmes but only after they have been done.
In terms of representation of interests, congress is hands down the more effective of the 2 houses. Congress is extremely open to lobbyists. Members rely heavily on interest groups for finance of election campaigns and Political support. The weakness of the Party system in congress, frees members from party commitment, allowing them to support external groups more easily. The fact that election comes once every two years for those in the House of representatives means that they are much more liable to take care of constituent interests rather than party interests.
In parliament Lobbyist action is possible although it is a very uncommon occurrence. MPs can be sponsored by outside groups such as trade unions, business and cause groups, but there are many questions asked about the effectiveness of this method. Also major differences in campaigns mean that MPs cannot take part in much individual spending as law limits it; this means that there is little need for financial support from such interest groups. One major difference between Congress and Parliament is the question of partylines. In parliament the Party Whips are seen as big and authorities on the party seen. Because of this it is often the case that Mps will vote on the party lines to avoid being punished by the Whips.
Scrutiny of government is the one subject of which there is much difference between the two countries. Congressional committees have the wide powers to access papers and call witness. Freedom of information act ensures the right to see official documents. In general the American government has not been known for its secrecy. In America it is common for the media to broadcast most important political hearings. A major difference is on the doctrine of collective responsibility. In America such a notion does not exist so consequently members of the government can be more frank about what is happening in their apartment.
In general parliament, and in particular the government has always been known for its secretive nature. Select committees have fewer powers to see government documents, as the official secrets act often inhibits their actions. Committees in parliament are much lower profile then those in congress and are often led by members of the executive. Question time what was once seen as a direct scrutinisation of the government has now become largely government controlled.
In looking at both congress and parliament it is blaintently obvious that the American legislative is much more effective in controlling the executive, than in Britain. Congress has many checks and balances between the legislative and the executive, and in comparison to Parliament is much more open to debate. In my opinion the executive alone controls Parliament. It is the executive that sets the agenda for the legislative and this must be abided by. Harsh whip systems and secrecy shadow the UK executive and in my opinion make it less effective than America.
