Discuss To The Extent Which Party Contr
In the House of Commons there are many parties all fighting individually for control of the house, and to be in power and govern the land of the UK. To win the election and do this a party or coalition of parties needs a 326 majority to be able to form a government. This system creates a dominance in the house of commons if that majority is achieved sufficiently, as with Tony Blair’s landslide in 1997 where he had over a 150 seat majority, it is this kind of one party dominance I am going to be discussing in this essay and whether or not it limits parliaments main function to represent constituents and pass laws which benefit them.
Power in theory in this system should lie with the commons and the chamber as they should be able to voice their opinions, and fight the policies of government properly but obviously parliamentary control does limit this a huge amount as how can this be true if a party does control power the opposition will be outnumbered and effectively be a lame duck and completely pointless. It means that parliament and the mps who are not inn government or the majority party have to literally sit there and can no longer really help their constituents on the issues that matter to them this certainly limits parliaments main function especially in opposition parties in particular. Secondly there is the argument that in politics and the majority party in particular there is a certain do as your told attitude, there is no more free thinking in parliament on a large scale anymore, mps are merely there to toe the party line as they cannot really step out of line as they may be deselected at the next election. This is a huge threat to there jobs basically but is very effective on behalf of the large party as it means that party whips will have to be used less, as most people in the party know that if they want to go far into the executive then they basically must