Controlling the Parliament and the House of Commons 'The government controls parliament but it cannot always rely on getting its own way.' A tendency to ignore the protestations and activities of parliament in issuing central, top-down directives and 'memos' is a criticism often levied at Tony Blair's Labour administration. It is seen to signify a consolidation of executive power, often represented in the media as control-freakery on the part of the Prime Minister. Although any apparent increase in the power of the executive would be accentuated by the immense size of the 179 seat Labour majority, the present government is widely seen to have taken up a continuing trend towards centralised government, often revolving around Downing Street. It is perhaps largely the power of Blair's mandate in conjunction with the vice-like control of the party whips over MPs that has led to comments such as that of Lord Hailsham that we live under an "elective dictatorship."
In order to prevent one branch from becoming supreme, and make the branches cooperate, the system of check and balances was introduced. This principle allows one branch to limit the other ones, or check whether it fulfills its competences duely. The most general type of republic is parliamentary system, often called parliamentary democracy. A parliamentary system is a type of republic, where the power of parliament exceeds the power of president. Although, president reserves some key competences.
The president can not dissolve an assembly as one can in a parliamentary system. Also in a presidential system there is the judicial branch, which is the court system. The judicial branch is important because it helps uphold the constitution. One of the last advantages of a presidential system is that there is more stability because a president is elected to a fixed term, where as in a parliamentary system a prime minister can be ousted at any time. A presidential system is not perfect, but it has it’s high and low points.
In essence the judge would only be able to reflect the view of the legislature through his interpretation of the laws that had been reconfigured by the legislative branch. The current unbalance of power within Great Britain’s government shows how the government can be viewed as a parliamentary-dictatorship due the prominent power that the Prime Minister has over the rest of the government through controlling both the executive branch and parliament, which is composed of both the House of Lords and The Commons. After more substantial reform the government in the United Kingdom has come to a more unified status; however, there is still arguably a parliamentary dictatorship in Great Britain despite recent reform due to the control of the prime minister though policy making and implementation. Great Britain is arguably a parliamentary dictatorship due to the immense power that the Prime Minister and his party have over government relative to their opposition. The Prime Minister’s hold of office depends upon his party having the m... ... middle of paper ... ...as a overwhelming influence on how the government operates.
The Effectiveness of the House of Commons as a Check on the Executive What is meant by the effectiveness of the commons check on the executive is basically, how able is the house of commons to prevent the Government (executive) from getting its own way or forcing its will upon the people of Britain. In theory the commons level of effectiveness is constant as each Member of Parliament has an opinion on every bill or motion that is put forward that is based on conscience. This is not practicable, however, as the party system and the party whips change this. The whips tell MPs which way to vote and can impose sanctions upon those MPs who rebel against the government. Therefore when considering the effectiveness of the commons as a check on the executive one must consider how that effectiveness can change with each general election.
An example of this is when Margaret Thatcher was allowed to pass the unpopular poll tax. In result to this, she lost the following elections which showed that the people had power over the government, not physically, but enough which pressurises the government. There are three issues which question Parliamentary Sovereignty. These are EU laws, HRA and Devolution. EU laws have dramatically affected Parliamentary Sovereignty as the UK are members of the EU.
In addition, any lawsuit that their Parliament wishes to pass, must comply with the constitution. In certain predicaments those without this supreme law document have the ability to choose not to comply with laws that are transcribed in their constitution. An example being the allowance of passage for a new bill that does not fully comply with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. In relation to normal stature more permanence is given to supreme legislation however, controversial legislation can be exceedingly difficult to pass, though not impossible. In parallel to the USA, New Zealand’s current constitution is neither supreme nor entrenched, a trait inherited from Great Britain.
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.
Advocates of this belief claim that parliament in the modern day supports the executive rather than scrutinizing it and thus acts as little more than an electoral college. They claim that this decline is evident in the fact that it is unable to effectively scrutinize bills, its members are loyal to parties rather than electorates and in that it is ineffective in acting as a forum of debate. This essay will assess and evaluate these claims and ultimately conclude whether or not there has been a decline in parliamentary thesis. The legislative function requires that parliament initiates, deliberates and thereafter passes legislation. In accordance with its intended image parliament should ideally allow legislative proposals to be raised both by the government and ordinary members; any such bills should then be scrutinized and amended where necessary to make them suitable for enactment.
The result of smaller parties gaining seats is that in order to gain a majority the larger parties must form a coalition government with the smaller who then gain a disproportionate say in government as the larger party needs their support to get legislation through. No government since World War II has been elected on more than 50% of the vote, even the recent 'landslide' victory of Tony Blair's New Labour won with only 41.9% of the vote. This shows that the smaller parties would most certainly be necessary for a successful government in Britain. Therefore, although proportional representation has benefits such as giving a truer reflection of the vote, it can also have undesirable character... ... middle of paper ... ...lable to them Overall, I believe that the UK should reform its electoral system, but I think it should adopt the Jenkins Commission and AV+. The Independent Commission would have considered all types of reform, looked at the UK's political history, and produced a system that would best suit it.