Is there any realistic sense in which Parliament controls the government?
The UK is supposed to operate a system of Parliamentary Government, where Parliament holds the supreme authority, but in reality this rarely is the case. Parliamentary Government only really occurs during a low or no majority government or hung Parliament, for example in 1979, when James Callaghan’s minority labour government lost it’s liberal support and a vote of no confidence voted him out. Parliament was first established to control the reigning monarch, but as the power of the monarch has been reduced, it is debatable whether or not the same power has not just been given to the executive. Theoretically the executive is supposed to be controlled by Parliament, as one of it’s main functions, but in reality this is quite the opposite way around. Due to the First Past the Post electoral system the M.P.s and therefore the party, elected need only to have majority in large numbers in certain areas; for parties who’s support is thinly spread but not great, these parties may not even be represented.
The M.P.’s who are elected under this system sit in the House of Commons and vote but all the parties are not properly represented in relation to their supporters. Also if the Government has majority, they can easily call in the Whips which will cause the M.P.s belonging to the Governing party will usually vote the same way as the Government and not for what they judge to be right or in the best interests of the Commons. Some would suggest that the M.P.s, by definition are Members of Parliament and so Parliament is in control but there is not proportional representation of each party and M.P.s belonging to the Government will be biased in their decisions as they support the Government.
The First Past the Post system also gives the winning party a ‘landslide effect’ which gives the winning party more seats than a direct translation of the number of votes. This is how the winning party can gain such a big majority in the House of Commons. For example in the 2001 election Labour only got 40.7% of the vote but were allocated 62.7% of the seats. This meant that not only was the proportion of seats wrong for them, it was wrong for every other party, and this gave Labour a big majority. This period of Government proves to be a perfect example of how the executive can dominate Parliament.
Even the Legislative process, one of Parliament’s most important functions, is susceptible to control by the Government. There are many stages of the process which are designed to prevent any one body controlling this but many are flawed and easily manipulated by the Executive. The first stage which can be noted is the Second Reading where the Bill is debated and then voted on in the House of Commons. If the Whips are called in then the M.P.s belonging to the Government will vote with in accordance to this and if it is a Government suggestion and there is majority, the law will pass this stage.
The next stage, the Bill is reviewed by a standing committee. The Standing committee is made up of Back Benchers and is drafted to debate the Bill and they are not usually experts in this specific area. They are not given a lot of time or resources and these committees always have Government party majority and do not usually bother to amend the Bill. The Whips can be used here and the Back Benchers will vote with the Whips as most Back Benchers do not want to spoil their chances of becoming part of the direct Government by being disobedient. If the Bill is amended it has to be voted for by the Commons again which means only what the government wants may pass through. Another type of Legislation which is non governmental is a Private Members Bill. This is a way in which other parties can put forward Bills, but these are not given enough time unless they are backed by the Government but if not they are rarely debated very long, therefore another way in which the Government dominates.
