• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

'The government controls parliament but it cannot always rely on getting its own way.' Explain this with reference to the House of Commons.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

February 2003 Alfie Stroud 12Gore 'The government controls parliament but it cannot always rely on getting its own way.' Explain this with reference to the House of Commons. A tendency to ignore the protestations and activities of parliament in issuing central, top-down directives and 'memos' is a criticism often levied at Tony Blair's Labour administration. It is seen to signify a consolidation of executive power, often represented in the media as control-freakery on the part of the Prime Minister. Although any apparent increase in the power of the executive would be accentuated by the immense size of the 179 seat Labour majority, the present government is widely seen to have taken up a continuing trend towards centralised government, often revolving around Downing Street. It is perhaps largely the power of Blair's mandate in conjunction with the vice-like control of the party whips over MPs that has led to comments such as that of Lord Hailsham that we live under an "elective dictatorship." The power of the executive however, is based on long-standing constitutional principles and practise. The concept of 'Queen in Parliament' has long been used to describe the legislative sovereign created in the fusion of parliament and the executive. The executive has come to govern through parliament, requiring in effect its assent for legislation, while drawing from it, as the nation's chief representative body, the legitimacy it requires to sustain its authority. It comes as a surprise to many, given the ostensible thirst for power of the Blair administration, that since coming into power in 1997 it should have undertaken admittedly moderate reforms with the aim of empowering the House of Commons against the executive. ...read more.

Middle

The same complexity of issues has led to a doubling of the use of Statutory Instruments between 1989 and 1994 - regulations issued by the executive ignoring Commons opinion. Such powers give government the means to override those charged with holding it to account, securing it at least basic dominance of parliament. The executive's four key prerequisites of Commons control are essentially guaranteed for any British government by the comparative stability and continuity of the parliamentary system: a majority government is assured by the First Past the Post system, while an ability to restrict opposition is inherent in the basic instruments of government. Yet equally the British system shelters innate means by which opposition can be exercised. Perhaps the most rudimentary of these is the opportunity for disruption presented by the government's reliance on at least certain level of consensual cooperation from the opposition. For on matters of little controversy where there is scarce reason for division of parliamentary opinion, such as on matters of administration for example, governments have come to rely on the acquiescence of official opposition and the safe support of their MPs in order to secure the passing of bills. In general this assistance is given and the majority of government bills go unchallenged in the Commons, partly since oppositions are all too aware that if they were to undermine the government's programme similar tactics could be expected against them when in government. Nonetheless when there are political points to be scored, opposition parties have a number of means by which they may stall the government's proceedings. ...read more.

Conclusion

The executive has for centuries drawn its authority and its legitimacy from parliament - from the House of Commons from which it is primarily drawn. The executive comes from parliament, and the two bodies are inseparably fused. With the consolidation of government power however, this principle has given rise to somewhat of a paradox. The appointment of the first Prime Minister, Robert Walpole, arose from the need for some central focus in the workings of parliament, and yet over two centuries later the executive of which the Prime Minister is head has come to define and control those very workings of parliament that gave rise to his office. Such a situation would be tolerable if parliament were truly able to hold the government to account - if it were able to tie it down to its mandate - but the government's domination of parliament has led it to control parliament's means of scrutiny and opposition. Among them, select committee powers, the time allocated to government scrutiny and the success of Private Member's Bills are all subject to the government's patience with them. Indeed it is largely due to governments' compliance with 'the rules' of British parliamentary government - the uncodefied conventions of our constitution that demand the ability of parliament to hold government to account - that parliament retains any real powers of scrutiny at all. The government is bound to constitutional moderateness by its need to keep the electorate onside: only in this context can government ever expect not to get its own way. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Politics essays

  1. For my creative piece I have written a short story set in the future, ...

    Jim took the hint and followed his strange host in silence. As he followed, he noticed some unsettling features about this man. For a start, he was wearing a smart suit but had a robe draped over the top, perhaps to disguise his head and the fact that he was dressed smartly.

  2. What means are available to parliament and how effective is its scrutiny of the ...

    Therefore, the less legitimate a government can be said to be, which is derived directly from its parliamentary majority, the more effective parliament becomes in scrutinizing government and the policy making process. However, because of the fact that the first past the post voting system in Britain usually leads to

  1. Law making; influences on Parliament, and statute creation.

    When an election campaign begins each political party produces a manifesto in which they tell the public what the government would do if they got into power. These manifestos are rarely stuck to and this is the major criticism of the government policy.

  2. To what extent are senior British civil servants still “anonymous, permanent and politically neutral?” ...

    The position of the chief executive is unclear, as was made apparent in the case of Derek Lewis in 1995. After drastic failures by the Prisons service, the Home Secretary was adamant that he only had responsibility for policy issues, whereas the chief executive had responsibility for administrative failures, resulting in the dismissal of Derek Lewis.

  1. The executive is the dominant policy actor in the HKSAR, other policy actors exert ...

    It hears all prosecutions and civil disputes, including disputes between individuals and the Government. The judiciary operates independently on the principle fundamental PA201 (1) CHAN Sau-fung (S05012153) to the common law system. The Court of Final Appeal has the power of final adjudication.

  2. "Debates, Question Time, and Select Committees all give Parliament Teeth." Do you agree?

    they like, those being questioned can simply ignore these questions - there is nothing to say that they have to answer, despite this rarely happening. Finally, although the Select Committees produce reports on their findings, the Government can also ignore these, and therefore little progress is generally made, yet they

  1. To what extent does executive dominance over parliament prevent M.P.'s from carrying out their ...

    they had better resources then they would be able to carry out this function much better. M.P.'s also are supposed to scrutinize the executive, although some critics would contend that executive dominance prevents them from doing this role effectively. The majority of M.P.'s belong to the governing party, thus presenting

  2. To what extent does parliament protect Britain from an elective dictatorship?

    They had the power to do this and advise the government on some amendments that would be best for the laws. The government although do not have to listen to these amendments they sometimes do. An example of this would also be the terrorist acts as when they were rejected

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work