In what ways, if any, is the UK Parliament more than the instrument of party leaders?

In 1976, Lord Hailsham coined the term ‘elective dictatorship’ to describe the political dominance of the elected party in British government. As such, the UK Parliament is considered to have become an instrument of party leaders. Yet, it still retains its own significance as a crucial body in British government. This will be established by identifying structures within the UK Parliament that demonstrate its powers to be independent of party leaders.

The British Parliament consists of the triumvirate of the monarch, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons. Over the years, power has moved from the monarch to the Houses of Parliament; within the Parliament, power has shifted from the House of Lords to the House of Commons (Baldwin 2005). The House of Commons is largely dominated by the majority party. The rise in two-party politics, as well as the first-past-the-post electoral system, delivers large majorities in the Commons. Once a majority party is elected, the monarch asks the party to formulate a government. The party leader becomes the Prime Minister, enabling the majority party to gain power over the executive. In the House of Commons, British parties are noted for their remarkable unity when it comes to voting. Once a party line is agreed after soundings and discussions between the Chief Whip and MPs, the final decision is expected to be binding on all MPs of that party. A member who votes out of party line runs the risk of having the party whip withdrawn; this is tantamount to expulsion from the party. The increase in the number of career politicians since the late twentieth century have also ensured stronger party discipline as those pursuing politics as a career would be less likely to defy party lines. Due to these structures, the majority party wields great power over the British government.

However, these structures are not wholly watertight. Though it is usually misleading to refer to the powers of the Commons to be independent of single-party government, there have been a number of occasions in which the power of the House of Commons has come to the fore. Such instances include backbench members asserting independent voting behaviour, opposition parties checking the power of the minority party, and the rare occasion of the hung parliament creating a coalition government. In addition, though its power has significantly diminished, the Lords still retain significant influence in the Parliament.

The Backbench Rebellion

Even though a party has nominal majority in the Commons, it cannot be entirely sure of complete support by its backbench members. Party whips must monitor the responses of the party members and make concessions. Occasionally, the majority party fails to pass bills because of backbench rebellions.

One such instance was in 1986 during the Thatcher government. At the second reading of the Shops Bill on Sunday trading, 72 Conservative MPs voted against the Bill and nearly 20 abstained. At the time, the Conservative party had a nominal majority of more than 130 members, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The Backbench Rebellion

Another more recent case in which the Commons really asserted its role as a body independent of the party in power was on the government’s legislation designed to give legal effect to the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht. A small band of Eurosceptics on the Conservative back benches threatened and almost defeated the majority. This group of ten to twenty members often formed tactical alliances with the Labour opposition to alarm and annoy ministers for months while the Bill slowly grinded its way through the legislative process. This sustained parliamentary campaign garnered great media attention and critically questioned the government’s stance. It debilitated and discredited John Major’s administration, leading to the administration’s loss of authority and eventually its loss of office in 1997.

In a related context, the Conservative whip was withdrawn from nine MPs who persistently rebelled on European issues in 1995. However, most of the rebels gained support of their local associations. The government’s majority in the Commons was threatened, so the whip was soon restored.

There are even more examples of the government having to modify bills to satisfy its own party members. The Thatcher government withdrew proposals to increase parental contribution to students in higher education (1984); withdrew proposals to sell off parts of British Leyland to General Motors (1986); and withdrew proposals to introduce identity cards for football spectators (1990). More recently, the Blair government faced dissension in its own party on issues such as foundation hospitals, variable university tuition rates, top-up fees, and the Iraq War.

It is true that such cases in which the Commons asserts its power over the majority party are rare. However, it is undeniable that these occasions arise and the structure of the Parliament allows for it. Though these occasions are rare, this is evidence enough to show that on important matters, the Commons becomes more than an instrument for party leaders.

The United Opposition

It is not only the backbench members of the majority party that check the power of the government of the day. More often, the opposition parties serve to oppose legislation proposed by the government and create a forum for debate.

Most prominently, the opposition can move a motion of censure on the business conduct of the government or minister at any time. On 8 March 1979, at the end of a confidence debate following the so-called winter of discontent, enough of the opposition parties united to defeat the majority Labour government by 311 votes to 310. The Conservative motion carried by one vote precipitated the May 1979 general election and brought the Conservative Thatcher administration to power.

The opposition parties have a number of additional resources and functions that can be used to influence the Commons. Each year, 20 days in the House of Commons are assigned opposition days: on 17 of these days, the motion is chosen by the main opposition party and on the other 3 days, the motion is chosen by the third largest party. In addition, the opposition can also persuade the Speaker to grant an adjournment debate on urgent issues. It is also traditional for an opposition MP to chair the influential Public Accounts Committee. With these resources, the opposition also provides a check on the elective dictatorship that might otherwise be rampant in the Commons.

Rejection by the House of Lords

The Commons is often the focus of interest on major occasions – a Budget Statement, a motion of censure on a minister or the government, an emergency, or the decision to go to war. Yet, the House of Lords is not completely out of the picture in the Parliament. The House of Lords still retains certain resources and authority which is less influenced by parties than in the Commons.

The House of Lords has a reading of all legislation that passes the first two Commons readings and the standing committee stage. It can then amend or delay Bills; sometimes, its powers of delay amount to obstruction if the government’s term is nearly complete, its legislation timetable already full, or it is unable to get the defeated measure through the Commons again. Ultimately, the Upper House forces the Commons to reconsider the issue and adds significant changes to the policy.

The House of Lords have irritated minority governments and majority governments alike to force concessions. For instance in November 2004, the Lords blocked the Hunting Bill to ban foxhunting in England and Wales until the Parliament Act was invoked and the Commons passed the Bill. In other cases as in the Blair government’s Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill and the Foundation hospitals Bill, the Lords forced major amendments.

In comparison to the Commons, the House of Lords also has more time to consider the legislation. While the Commons devotes about one-third of its time considering bills, the Lords usually spends most of its time discussing legislation. Relatively non-controversial bills and amendments are increasingly introduced in the House of Lords. Unlike the procedure in the Commons where amendments must be selected by the chairman and the Speaker in order to be debated, all amendments tabled by any peer in the Lords are considered. This alleviates much of the legislative burden in the Commons as much of the detailed decision-making is done in the Upper House.

Despite restraint measures such as the Act of Parliament 1911, the Salisbury Convention, and the Parliament Act 1949, the House of Lords still remains a relevant body in the UK Parliament. In an era where many members in the Commons are career politicians and have little expertise in other fields, the House of Lords is essential. With its prominent leaders in business, finance, culture, the Civil Service, and trade unions, the Upper House has been called a meeting place for yesteryear’s elites. The Lords are an integral part of the Parliament that is out of reach of party leaders.

Hung Parliament

There are also instances that call for the questioning of the notion that single-party government dominates British parliament. The British party system is usually regarded as having a two-party system since the Labour and Conservative Parties between 1945 and 2001 regularly gained over 90% of the seats. However, support for the two parties among the electorate has been steadily declining since 1970, challenged by the growth of the Liberal Democrats and political nationalism in Scotland and Wales. It would thus be more fitting to qualify the term two-party system to the period between 1945 and 1970.

Similarly, the majority single-party government is historically not the norm in British Parliament. The Liberal government depended on the support of other parties for a working majority in the Commons between 1910 and 1915. There were also 13 years of coalition government between 1915 and 1945. Since 1945, the Cabinet has consisted of members of the majority party and one party has had an overall majority in the Commons for the most part. However, the general election in 2010 resulted in a hung parliament since no party secured a majority in the House of Commons. The current government is led by a coalition of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat Party. These two parties share seats in the Cabinet and have agreed to coordinate important policy decisions.

Though critics blame the ‘broken’ first-past-the-post electoral system for the hung parliament, it is still evidence to show that the parliament is more than an instrument of party leaders. Some contend that the current hung parliament would actually be better for the country as dependent parties are forced to compromise and reflect the will of a greater majority of the public. As Former Cabinet Minister Clare Short said in an interview with the Telegraph in April 2010, “People will be stuck in the building, votes will be close, the Executive instead of being so arrogant will have to be nice, to listen, to keep everyone on board, and that will change the atmosphere all to the good. Some proper democracy will come back into the Commons and we need it badly.”

More than an Instrument of Party Leaders

The Parliament is inevitably led by the majority party and its party leaders. Yet, on the important issues, the mechanisms in the Parliament react in the form of backbench rebellions, dissent by the opposition parties, and obstruction by the House of Lords. In some rare instances, a hung parliament occurs, signalling the need for party leaders of different parties to reconcile differences and coordinate decisions to best serve the interests of a larger portion of the British public.

Elective dictatorship is an inaccurate term to describe the UK Parliament. A dictatorship is not checked by other powers. Yet, in the UK Parliament, the party leaders are subject to constant scrutiny. Without the support of his own party, tacit approval by the opposition, consent by the Lords, and confidence of the public, the party leader is powerless. The UK Parliament is much more than an instrument of party leaders.

References

Baldwin, N.D.J. (2005) ‘The Origins and Development of Parliament’, in Baldwin, N.D.J. (eds), Parliament in the 21st Century. Politico’s. London.

Baldwin, N.D.J. (2005) ‘Parliament in the 21st Century: Concluding Observations’, in Baldwin, N.D.J. (eds), Parliament in the 21st Century. Politico’s. London.

Cowley, P. (2001) Revolts and Rebellions. Politico’s. London.

Norton, P. (2005) Parliament in British Politics. Palgrave Macmillan. New York.