House of Commons Effectiveness
To that extent is the House of Commons effective in carrying out its various functions?
The House of Commons holds both legislative functions and is also designed to hold the executive accountable. It can be argued that due the introduction, and reforms, of select committees and the regular questioning of ministers the House of Commons is effective. However, it could also be argued that party loyalty and whips have become more important than effective scrutiny.
The House of Commons can be seen to be effective in the cases where it has defied the government. Although this happens infrequently there have been cases where Commons has voted against government. A Good example of this is when Blair’s plans to extend the detention of terrorist suspects to 90 days were blocked.
The powers of the whip and party loyalty are diminishing during this coalition. Reports suggest that the voting behaviour of coalition MPs show that rebellion is at a post war high. Similarly the last Labour government towards the end had major difficulties from backbenchers, with 112 Labour backbenchers going against the government at least once. Backbench rebellions have been more frequent than any since the Second World War and for some MPs rebellion against the coalition is becoming a habit. Backbenchers have even refused to sustain the government in power previously. On four separate occasions the government has been brought down by a confidence motion, most recently with Callaghan in 1979.
Select committees and their introduction in 1979 have much increased the effectiveness of the House of Commons both in its legislative function (partaking in the process of a bill becoming a law) and also to hold executive to account. Select committees can call for ‘persons, papers and records’ and after reforms made by the previous Labour government in 2000 they are now appointed by an independent body. These committees have had a majority of successes including the government’s Arms-to-Africa
The House of Commons holds both legislative functions and is also designed to hold the executive accountable. It can be argued that due the introduction, and reforms, of select committees and the regular questioning of ministers the House of Commons is effective. However, it could also be argued that party loyalty and whips have become more important than effective scrutiny.
The House of Commons can be seen to be effective in the cases where it has defied the government. Although this happens infrequently there have been cases where Commons has voted against government. A Good example of this is when Blair’s plans to extend the detention of terrorist suspects to 90 days were blocked.
The powers of the whip and party loyalty are diminishing during this coalition. Reports suggest that the voting behaviour of coalition MPs show that rebellion is at a post war high. Similarly the last Labour government towards the end had major difficulties from backbenchers, with 112 Labour backbenchers going against the government at least once. Backbench rebellions have been more frequent than any since the Second World War and for some MPs rebellion against the coalition is becoming a habit. Backbenchers have even refused to sustain the government in power previously. On four separate occasions the government has been brought down by a confidence motion, most recently with Callaghan in 1979.
Select committees and their introduction in 1979 have much increased the effectiveness of the House of Commons both in its legislative function (partaking in the process of a bill becoming a law) and also to hold executive to account. Select committees can call for ‘persons, papers and records’ and after reforms made by the previous Labour government in 2000 they are now appointed by an independent body. These committees have had a majority of successes including the government’s Arms-to-Africa