How effective is the House of Commons as a check on the executive?

What is meant by the effectiveness of the commons check on the executive is basically, how able is the house of commons to prevent the Government (executive) from getting its own way or forcing its will upon the people of Britain. In theory the commons level of effectiveness is constant as each Member of Parliament has an opinion on every bill or motion that is put forward that is based on conscience. This is not practicable, however, as the party system and the party whips change this. The whips tell MPs which way to vote and can impose sanctions upon those MPs who rebel against the government.

Therefore when considering the effectiveness of the commons as a check on the executive one must consider how that effectiveness can change with each general election. For example, John Major was extremely limited in the power he could exercise as Prime Minister as his the Tory party was the biggest party by only twelve seats and so he could easily be outvoted if a policy was widely opposed.

The opposite of this would be the first of Tony Blair’s terms in office. With over four hundred New Labour Members of Parliament Blair could afford to push almost any policy he wanted and expect it to be passed with a comfortable majority. Gradually the number of New Labour dissenters has grown and there have been a number of backbench rebellions against Blair. He has, however, survived all of these by virtue of his huge parliamentary majority.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

Many commentators have suggested that in the coming 2005 election Blair will be returned to office with a majority reduced by thirty to forty seats. If this is the case it is likely that Blair will be forced to operate as if he were heading a minority government as Major did. Should this happen then the commons will be more effective at controlling the executive.

As I have hinted, in New Labour’s first term 1997 to 2001 the Labour party was accused of having too much cohesion. There were few backbench rebellions and most Labour MPs were toeing ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

As I have hinted, in New Labour’s first term 1997 to 2001 the Labour party was accused of having too much cohesion. There were few backbench rebellions and most Labour MPs were toeing the party line. Some commentators went as far as to accuse Labour MPs of being spineless and gutless, a bunch of wimps. They were not being seen to make an effort to control the executive.

However, since the 2001 general election the number of rebellions has risen sharply. In November and December 2001 there were twenty two separate backbench revolts against the government’s anti-terrorism, crime and security bill and the following month forty six Labour backbenchers voted against the government’s controversial proposal to introduce single faith schools. In late 2004 ninety six Labour MPs voted against the government’s introduction of top-up fees in universities in England in the second largest rebellion of Labours two terms. Not all ninety six voted against the government at the same time though and so were not able to inflict a defeat.

The largest rebellion saw one hundred and twenty one Labour MPs vote against war in Iraq.

Ultimately though Blair’s huge majority has prevented his legislation being defeated and so the executive has still been getting its way.

The best chance for the government to be defeated was only last week. Charles Clarke’s (home secretary) anti-terrorism bill scraped through parliament by a mere fourteen votes. The Liberal Democrats, who hold forty six seats, failed to appear in parliament for this vote and as such passed up the opportunity to veto Labour’s legislation and inflict an embarrassing defeat upon Tony Blair in the run up to the election.

In the commons the opposition is able to question government policy and raise public awareness about issues. The idea of the opposition party is that it constantly pushes and questions the executive and prevents the government simply doing as it pleases. However, given the recent performance of the Conservative party one could be forgiven for not realising that this was the case.

One of the devices designed to check on the executive is Prime Ministers questions. The leader of the opposition, currently Michael Howard, is allowed to ask six questions of the Prime Minister and Charles Kennedy, leader of the third party, is entitled to ask three. The Prime Minister also takes questions from the floor, which are chosen by the Speaker.

The idea of Prime Ministers Questions is that the Prime Minister is exposed in public and can be examined by his peers. This prevents him/her from simply allowing others to take decisions on their behalf as they will need to know about policies when questioned. It has been argued, however, that since Prime Ministers Questions has been televised, it has become a piece of theatre in which the leaders of the two main parties try to “score points” off each other. Prime Ministers Questions has been described as “yah-boo politics”, politics at its basest level.

During all discussion in the House, the Speaker of the House, him/herself an MP, chairs the debate. The idea is that this person ensures fairness of the debate, in that both sides can be heard, are given a chance to make their view known and also to examine the other side’s argument.

All these features of the House are designed as a check on the executive. There are also further measures for scrutinising the executive.

There are many departmental select committees. These are set up to examine not only how the executive goes about its business but what business it carries out. These committees usually consist of twelve or thirteen MPs who sit in a horseshoe shape. They are designed in this way to be non-confrontational and all members of the committee put aside ideological differences when sitting on one in order to check on the Executive.

One of the most well known or prominent such committees is the Departmental Select Committee for Transport, of which the outspoken labour rebel and personal enemy of Tony Blair, Gwyneth Dunwoody is chairwoman.

The reports published by such committees are an example of effective checking on the executive as the government must give great consideration to the findings of the committee’s reports.

In conclusion I think that it is fair to say the effectiveness of the common’s check on the executive is variable and dependent on certain conditions. There are times when opposition parties wield far greater power than the Conservatives currently do but there are other measures in place to check on the executive when opposition parties do not do so effectively.

Despite the best efforts of party leaders and whips, there will always be those who vote for what they believe in and so ultimately there will always be some sort of check exerted upon the executive by the commons, however weak.

1,134 words.