Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The main functions of uk Parliament
Describe the main functions of the House of Commons
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The main functions of uk Parliament
The effectiveness of Westminster Parliament in holding the executive to account relies on a number of variables, arguably, the most important being the degree of the government’s majority. Other variables include the unity of the party, the presence of a foreign war or the presence of a hostile media. This being said, there are also a number of mechanisms by which Parliament is able to hold the executive accountable.
Westminster Parliament has the ability to hold the executive to account through a variety of methods, such as through the House of Lords. Though it is unelected, the Lords fulfill a fundamental democratic requirement; as the upper chamber within a bicameral legislature, it acts as a constitutional check and balance on executive power. This being said, Tony Blair forced the Hunting Bill of 2004 through the Lords as a Parliament Act; the very rarely used route by which Bills can become law without the assent of the House of Lords. In this way Westminster Parliament failed to ensure executive accountability.
In terms of scrutinizing the executive and actions of government, the House of Commons has a number of opportunities at its disposal, mainly in the form of debates and questions. The Commons is notorious for its constant debate; the Commons can express its views on foreign policy and international crisis, for example the 1956 debates of the Suez crisis and the emergency debate on the Falklands following the Argentinean invasion in 1982. Question time is also a very important example of an opportunity for the executive’s actions and plans to be publicly questioned as the meeting is now frequently featured on TV news and politics analysis programmes. This allows Her Majesty’s Royal Opposition to challenge the exec...
... middle of paper ...
...therefore did not have a huge majority or popularity within the House of Commons, he was openly criticized by an increasingly hostile media as well as some of his own MPs indicating a lack of unity within his party which eventually lost him the general election by quite some margin.
To conclude, our parliamentary system is hugely problematic in holding the executive to account. At times Westminster Parliament is very effective in holding the executive accountable by use of scrutiny and various other mechanisms. However, this is not necessarily the case in times of huge majorities in favour of the executive such as in the cases of Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher. In short, the effectiveness of Westminster Parliament depends on the situation in terms of (the biggest factor being) degree of majority, presence of war, unity of the party and hostility of the media.
Later he was elected to the House of Commons and associated himself with the conservative sect. He supported things such as complying with the Treaty of Paris. During the Constitutional Convention he remained in the background, but did play a very important role. He cast a tie breaking vote for the Great Compromise and also implied the threat that the South would not support the constitution unless it supported the Three-Fifths compromise. Although he constantly stated his support for the Three-Fifths Compromise he also implied that he would be willing to compromise with the North as long as they respected the basis of the Compromise. Although he did not sign the Constitution, His threats of a Southern walkout from the Convention and his unrelenting dedication to getting proper representation were some of the reasons that the Three-Fifths Compromise was
who had been seen by many Tories as a future leader of the party lost
He was dynamic and thus in due course very effective. His success as Minister of Munitions led to him becoming Prime Minister in December 1916, where he replaced Herbert Asquith. Most Liberal ministers resigned with Asquith, and about half the Liberal MPs (120) supported the old Prime Minister rather than the new. While the war continued it was said that he was ‘acting more like a president than a prime minister, his leadership style, was accumulating enemies, and thus storing up trouble in the future.
In Mellon’s article, several aspects are mentioned supporting the belief that the prime minister is too powerful. One significant tool the prime minister possesses is “… the power to make a multitude of senior governmental and public service appointments both at home and abroad,” (Mellon 164). Mellon goes on to state the significance the prime minister has when allowed to appoint the government’s key member...
In light of the recent Senate scandal, the public’s attention has been directed to the government’s credibility and its members’ discipline again. Mike Duffy’s 90,000 dollars scandal has put the Canadian government’s party discipline into the spotlight. While it is well-known amongst general public, there are other similar incentives and disincentives shared between the Members of the Parliament (MPs) and senators in keeping them disciplined, as well as some different ones that set them apart. In this essay, I am going to analyze the main levers of party discipline in the House of Commons and the Senate for their effectiveness. By comparing the similarities and differences, I will explain for the motivations behind the Senate, even if they have seemingly fewer incentives than the MPs, such as free of worrying about being re-elected.
Was it because of his part in the decline of the Liberal party? Or was
Paun Akash, Robert Hazell, Andrew Turnball, Alan Beith, Paul Evans, and Michael Crick. "Hung Parliaments and the Challenges for Westminster and Whitehall: How to Make Minority and Multiparty Governance Work (with Commentaries by Turnbull, Beith, Evans and Crick)." in Political Quarterly Vol 81, Issue 2: 213-227.
Parliament was used to "manage the Crown's business (Loades 90)." The parliament was also used to pass bills and legislature, but each time a bill was presented, it was mandatory that it would go through each house at least three times. As the age of the Parliament became older, it's procedures grew "more sophisticated, and more strictly enforced." (Loades 92) The Parliament also became a place at which "provided a very good platform for a monarch who wanted to say something of particular
To Conclude, One can say that there are restraints on Parliament, and these do affect its supremacy, and sovereignty. However, in my opinion we can say that although these restrictions are there, Parliament remains the supreme law maker and highest body within this country even over Europe. I believe this as Parliament still has the power to pass a statute allowing us to leave the EU, until this is taken from Parliament, I feel it is still the most powerful body in this country.
In recent years, Select Committees have become incredibly significant and effective at holding the executive to account. This ability to scrutinise has been propelled by the intense media coverage and public support for committee reports and inquiries. This is especially the case with issues such as the phone hacking scandal. With such a high profile of certain aspects of committee work, their scrutiny has been incredibly effective at forming and reforming aspects of government policy and conduct. Despite select committees being the most effective they have been in their entire history, there is still an incredible amount of scope for future reform and development. Select committees need to be more self-evaluative, in order to assess their
Since the 1950s there has been a rise in the power of the Prime Minister, specially Crossman in 1962 and Benn, who in 1979 referred to “a system of personal rule in the very heart of our Parliamentary democracy”. As Britain has remained the “world’s most successful representative democracy”. The role of the executive has significantly increased at a great deal since the end of World War 2, however, the outward dangers of a supplementary individual hegemony attached to the Prime Minister shouldn’t be overemphasized. Although the modern examples of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair whose styles of leadership have each been labelled as presidential. In this essay I will be assessing the four main prime minister’s power and if his or her powers constrained under the British system. For instances, the power of patronage, cabinet power, the party leadership and the mass media. These are four main factors of the prime minister and its effectiveness can be argued.
The RP helps to keep our powers separated which avoiding the judicial tyranny. After the formation of the two houses of parliament, which called the legislature, the creation of our statutes prevail to the RP. In the case of De Kayser, RP and statute found to co-exist and statute prevails, for the reason that the representatives in the House of Commons are elected from the public in order to create statute to help the development of the country. Moreover, the constitutional conventions are also part of our unwritten constitution and have conflict to the royal prerogative. Some of the RP powers are included to the conventions such as the automatic granting of royal assent, which the Queen should sign after the convention. Finally, the fire brigades union case mentioned that the executive cannot exercise the prerogative in a way which would derogate from the due fulfilment of statutory duty. The data indicates that the current prime minister, has power to overrule the UK’s parliament recent vote of a military intervention in Syria by using the RP which bypass any common decision of acts of war. Generally, powers such as the parliamentary immunity and prerogative powers, destroy the equality and justice of the society, by giving permission, to avoid the soft process of the legitimate society and finally breaking the rule of law. Supporting this argument, a member of parliament, Jack Straw strongly
The royal prerogative is a source of constitutional law; it is derived from common law powers that have been handed down from the monarchy to the executive. The significance of the prerogative in constitutional law is that it provides the executive with considerable power to act without following ‘normal’ parliamentary procedures. As Dicey explained, the prerogative is ‘every act which the executive government can lawfully do without the authority of an Act of Parliament’. In constitutional terms, it is therefore important to explore the means by which the UK constitution secures the accountability for the exercise of prerogative powers by the executive. Historically the prerogative was exercised by the monarchy, the majority of powers are now used by ministers, and very few remained the personal preserve of the sovereign.
As accountability has been set out through controls and we can look at those controls to the prerogative in three ways. Judicial, Parliamentary and Constitutional. We will start by looking at the Constitutional controls, back in 1689 the bill of rights was formed limiting the kings powers and use of those powers and setting out the rights of parliament for example the king had to get parliaments permission before raising taxes. In the modern day this allows Executive Ministers to exercise the majority of the prerogative powers in their own right or through the advice they provide to the Queen, which she is, bound constitutionally to follow.
Political Accountability is regarded a necessary condition for all political systems, and can be defined as “a process of being called to account to some authority for one’s actions and involves both answerability and taking responsibility”.