Preview

How effective are backbench MPs?

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
630 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
How effective are backbench MPs?
‘How effective are backbench MPs?’ 40 marks
Backbench MPs are critical for UK democracy. They allow for high standard scrutiny of the government which holds them accountable for their actions to the people. They help in representing the electorate. However there are some circumstances in which backbench MPs have little control, for example an elective dictatorship or because of the UK party system which is enforced by party whips.
Firstly back bench MPs are a good way of promoting presentation in terms of their constituency boundary as they have been voted in by their electorate and so therefore should have a sound understanding of what the people need and want. However the majority of MPs are white males between their 40s and 50s. Out of 650 House of Common MPs, only 147 of them are female, which is disproportionate to the number of females in the UK. Also less than 25% of MPs are from a multicultural background so it cannot be 100% representative.
Secondly backbench MPs allow the current government to be made accountable to the electorate. Backbenchers can take part in scrutinising opposition, or even their own parties, during events such as the Prime Minister’s Question Time, where, for an allocated time, the PM is asked questions concerning anything. Select committees can also be used to scrutinise. For example the head of the Public Bills committee is always headed by a member of the opposition, currently Margaret Hodge. This is to ensure that they are effective and non-corrupted. Although MPs have the power to dissolve the current government, through a vote of no confidence (last one in 1979), MPs that standalone against their party by having controversial or independent thoughts on an issue, then they are brought into line by party whips which could result in having an MP who does not represent you adequately. It shows that MPs achieve more together.
Due to first past the post leading to majority governments, except for 2010 general

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    The current cabinet of the United Kingdom is the result of a coalition government formed after the 2010 general election. Headed by the Conservative leader David Cameron it combines Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs and has been subject of intense scrutiny by each of the parties. This has meant that David Cameron has had to keep to his parties traditional values (e.g. Thatcherism) in order to hold party loyalty but at the same time make policy concessions to the Liberal Democrats so that he can maintain government unity. This has led to the cabinet being in a much stronger position (in relation to the prime minister) than in previous governments and has affirmed a re-emergence of the idea of cabinet government, an idea that had, in reality, become almost irrelevant.…

    • 548 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    One of the main functions of backbench MPs is scrutinize the government and hold them to account via different ways, and it is this function which proves them to be highly effective. Their role in Parliament ensures and strengthens the democratic legitimacy of the executive, thus giving government the authority and right to exercise political power. Another key role of backbench MPs is to act as cross-section of the larger society and therefore represent their interests in Parliament. However, the increase of power held by the government further supports the Burkean view that an “elective dictatorship” has formed considerably in the UK political system. In addition to this, many people have argued that backbench MPs have limited power in actually calling the government to account due to the party system, which ensures that MPs are dictated by ministers and party whips – who use persuasive methods (the promise of promotions or the threat of expulsion/demotion) reduce the effectiveness within the political system. There are both arguments for and against the effectiveness of backbench MPs, however it is debatable as to which outweighs the other.…

    • 1497 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    One argument for is that the cabinet includes more than one political party, this means that the Prime Minister has to confer, with other MP’s and with the other party in the coalition, on all matters. This limits the patronage and decision-making power of the Prime Minister, and that he/ she has to share their power with another party, in order to come to a decision that both parties are happy with. An example of this was when the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats had to discuss the annual Spending Review and decide which taxes they should raise and cut. This led to both parties wanting to cut different taxes, which the other party wanted to raise, such as housing. If only one party was in government and the one Prime Minister had all the power, then they would have been able to cut and raise the taxes they wanted to, but being in a coalition meant that they had to come to a group agreement, where both parties weren’t entirely happy. This argument is quite strong because if the Prime Minister has to share his/ her powers it means it is harder for the cabinet to come to a decision, however it does lead to the decision being fairer and appealing to a wider range of the population.…

    • 970 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In his thinking – which is entirely true – the role of the senate is an advisory role to the government and checking the laws that are passed by the House of Commons. However, for the purposes of democracy, he sites that even if the members of the senate are appointed as independent candidates, the selection process ought to be on the basis of merit and ought to follow the due process. I am in support of the arguments presented by this author because he looks at the public good. At times the House of Commons might pass laws while looking at their immediate self-interest, however, an experienced senate remains as one of the bodies to bring justice…

    • 581 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Accountability in parliament is the stem of the fundamentals of democracy; it is how we know that the ministers within the party we elect are doing their job correctly and to make sure the minister becomes responsible for any misdeeds or faults while practicing his/her profession. One of the most obvious forms of rendering out the faults of individual ministers is parliamentary scrutiny or to be more specific questions to ministers. Departments take it in turns to answer questions were ministers need to answer questions to see how well they know what they are doing and acknowledge the slipups in their plans. The idea of question time is that the opposition may seek out flaws in…

    • 387 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The house of lords is the upper chamber of the Uk’s bicameral parliament, Beginning in the the 11th century. The house of lords’ role in government is to work with the house of commons to; make laws, check and challenge the actions of government ( the house of lords has no veto power) and provide independent competence. Firstly, in 1999 the Labour party under Tony Blair as Prime Minister reformed the house of lords. For centuries the house of lords consisted of members that inherited their seats, the Act removed such right. The act reduced members of the house of lords from 1,330 members to 669 members and a proportion of the members that are ‘cross benchers’ members with no party affiliation. In order for this act to receive supported votes, Tony Blair and the labour party passed the Weatherill Amendment that put in place a deal that allowed 92 of the 669 members to remain heredity. The reforms in houses of lords progressive towards democracy due to the fact that Historically, members of the House of Lords have been the richest and most important landowners in the country, who would pass their peerages down through their family, which creates bias towards the wealthy. By…

    • 1175 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The select committees have a very effective role as they have the power to question and cross examine ministers, their civil servants and any witnesses they may want to call from any external organisations. MPs gain a lot of knowledge and expertise while being in the select committees, which can be a very good thing as they are able to wisely question and analyse the policies that are being debated. They are able to request access to government papers, so they are able to increase their knowledge on the specific issue.…

    • 538 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Since 1945, there has been a single party majority government. Before the coalition, the government could control parliament due to its large majority, however we’ve seen a recent change in the relationship between the executive and legislature. The main issues that arise would be from the small majority of just 76 in the Commons, the lack of support from backbench MPs and fact that Cameron is the first Conservative Prime minister to not have a majority in the House of Lords. The Coalition of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party lacks both ideological and tribal unity, which would normally derive from a strong, single party majoritarian government. This provides Parliament with more opportunities to examine and scrutinize the government.…

    • 787 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    One of the core functions of a constitution is to ensure the accountable and responsible exercise of power by those entrusted with it, and that they are called to account when they are not. Through elections, Parliament is elected through a public and democratic procedure, and it is only imperative that they are held accountable in a similar approach.…

    • 2004 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Poop

    • 308 Words
    • 2 Pages

    In a parliamentary Democracy their core principle is parliamentary sovereignty, which means that parliamentary actions can not be over turned by any other branch...…

    • 308 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    How democratic is the UK?

    • 2136 Words
    • 9 Pages

    Democracy is a very general term used to describe various political systems that are organised on the basis that the government should serve the interests of the people. It is expected in a democracy that citizens should influence decisions, make decisions themselves and that the government is accountable to the people. It is also expected that the freedoms of citizen’s are protected, minorities are protected, governmental power is controlled and dispersed more widely. This indeed is the model of democracy many countries try to emulate today. If we are to consider the UK’s own version of democracy, it is important to see how exactly it has developed. We should start on the 15th of June 1215; King John is forced to sign the Magna Carta, a document establishing that the King would not rule with absolute power. Then on the 1st of January 1295 Edward I becomes the first Monarch to call Parliament where two representatives, along with nobles and clergy, from each area are called to air grievances against the crown. The foundations of Britain’s Parliamentary democracy have been laid. What follows are several significant events: the Peasants revolt of 1381, Acts of Union in 1536 and later in 1709 joining Scotland, Wales and England into a United Kingdom, the English Civil War of 1651 where the Parliamentarians defeat the royalists and Oliver Cromwell forever establishes that the monarch cannot rule without Parliament’s consent and finally the Representation of the People Act of 1969, making all British Citizens at the age of 18 and above eligible to vote. These are the main events that have each contributed to the development of British democracy from the old Feudal system to the modern representative, parliamentary democracy that the UK is governed by today. If we are to look at Britain’s political system now, it can be argued that the UK is democratic in the aspects of representation and accountability, however undemocratic in the aspect…

    • 2136 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Canadian Party Discipline

    • 3485 Words
    • 14 Pages

    Instead they are allowed to vote according to their own conscious and/or to the decisions made by the voters in their constituencies, because after all, as some critics say, members are elected by their constituents and should be responsible to them.11 This will result with the MPs playing a more important role in the House of Commons in terms of passing legislations. Also, if party discipline were relaxed in Canada, representation for all areas of Canada may improve.12 For example, it will be easier for MPs from western provinces to challenge their party, if needed, in support of western issues; coalitions of members from different political…

    • 3485 Words
    • 14 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Nomination Paper In Canada

    • 1062 Words
    • 5 Pages

    If individual voice out their opinion individually there will be no order in the House of Commons and difficult to accomplish their party engender and will not have clear “distinction between the government and the opposition in Parliament” . The role of party discipline allows the legislature to “operate effectively, ensures stability of government and eliminates suspense from parliamentary votes” according to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. In “Canadian Parliamentary Review – Article,” John Reid, an ardent supporter of party discipline, argue that “under our system of responsible government, the public at an election has great power to make decisions which give them ability to vote effectively results from party…

    • 1062 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    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…

    • 1009 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Individual Member of Parliaments (MP’s) from any political party (or a peer) can introduce a Private Members Bill. These hardly have any chance of becoming law as too much of Parliament’s time is occupied up with Government bills. As a consequence of this, Parliament gets little chance to discuss Private Members Bills, let alone vote on them.…

    • 997 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays