# On UK politics 1



## MYHEARTISUNDEAD (Dec 29, 2010)

*WARNING - Language*

Is Parliament increasingly dominated by the Executive?

I would be  inclined to agree with this statement, but only to a certain degree.  There are limits to the power of the executive and additionally some  very effective methods by which Parliament can scrutinize government,  but generally it is undeniably evident that government does in fact dominate parliament.

The  first and foremost point I would like to highlight is the factor of  executive majority. The UK voting system is a "first-past-the-post"  system, where the largest party in the legislature is invited to form a  government as a result of the general election. Thus by nature of UK  politics, the government inherits a majority which provides them with  the ability to push their policies through parliament.
_
*The  current coalition government is formed from two parties, the  Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats under the PM David 'Meat'  Cameron and Deputy PM Nick 'I will happily destroy my parties principles  for power' Clegg, so there isnt a traditional majority, which may or may not prove to be a weakness; time will tell.*_

However,  not all majorities are strong and unchallenged as John Major found out.  His Conservative government had a very small seat advantage during  their time in office, and as a consequence had a very difficult time  with various Bills they tried to get through the legislative process,  for example the Maastricht Treaty. Backbench revolts was also a key point in this failing of government but I shall touch on that later.

*The Maastricht Treaty is the central pillar of the European Union and allowed for the creation of the central European currency, the Euro; but many UK politicians within the UK legislature were opposed to the UKs  involvement, and still are. If I was to break rank and relish in  self-indulgence, I would be weighted in my opinion to state that it is  mostly those of the Conservative mindset whom are opposed to UK  involvement in the EU.*

The inverse is of course that a  government with a large majority can more or less dominate legislature  and parliament (bar some very specific methods of scrutiny such as  select committees). Tony Blairs  Labour enjoyed a period of elective dictatorship during 1997-2005, not  losing a single vote in parliament despite extremely significant  backbench revolts on matters like university tuition fees, benefit cuts  on lone parents and the extremely controversial  Iraq War which reduced his 161 seat majority to just 5. You would  naturally assume that such a large portion of colleagues and many  millions of protesters  would change their mind, but you would be wrong, which almost  solidifies the possibility of an ulterior motive. It opens the door to  delicious speculation for us cynical few. What we chew on is reality,  one that is oh-so-refuted by the apathetic dribble that populates this  planet.
*I  hate referring to a war as 'controversial.'It invokes a sense of  detachment, and allows professional individuals and bodies to discuss  matters of death, pain and suffering in a manner that is lofty and so  distant from the reality of the situation that it sickens me. It is  impossible to justify the Iraq War, and it is an insult to the  intelligent for them to try to do so in the public eye.*

Anyway,  backbench revolts is a reason for a PM such as Major with a tiny  majority to sweat under the collar. This is an important way that  parliament can scrutinize  government and effectively loosen their grip around parliaments throat  because it follows through to other mechanisms that are used to build  the executive, such as standing committees or even debates.

Standing  committees are in reality useless at holding the government to account,  offering little to no resistance so in a sense they exist simply to  'rubber stamp' government bills. This is firstly because of the inbuilt  government majority again, that I have already touched on. Secondly,  party whips* are allowed to sit on these committees, dictating what  their fellow party does, making sure they toe the party line. These both  contribute to governments overall growing dominance over parliament.  Its loyal party sheep and the great reaching arms of party whips  ensuring that all is going to plan.
A crowning example of the folly of these unscrutinized-government-legislation-approval-committees would be the 1993 Education Act. Government MPs  were noted to be writing out their Christmas cards, due to the fact  that the result of these general committees is almost always a foregone  conclusion, and thus extremely boring for those involved. If this wasnt  enough, the government then demonstrated another of their key  imbalances on this mechanism, the guillotine. This means that the  committee time was cut short, leaving over 70 clauses completely  unamended.

_*Party whips are an extension of the leadership in a party within the UK legislature. Their role is discipline of party MPs,  reciprocal communication between the PM and his party and even  assistance of a personal or political nature, for example the various  party whips must have been buzzing around Commons during the recent  expenses scandal. Fucking crooks._

But, there is a  glimmering light on the horizon, a would-be saviour in the form of  select committees. These specialised committees are departmental based,  working tirelessly to hold the shady business of the dominant executive  to account. They have the power to call witnesses,  ministers, their civil servants and even the PM him/herself. The  composition is designed so that it is bi-partisan, delivering an even  grouping for non-biased discussions and suggestions into government  policy. Even the physical seating itself is situated in a horseshoe  format instead of directly opposed seating, which is the norm for most  of parliamentary proceedings. This promotes a more consensual environment.  An example of departmental select committees good work is the 1999 Home  Affairs committee, whose suggestion to tag offenders to reduce prison  overcrowding was taken up by Blairs fresh government and implemented immediately.

Additionally, as a tribute to their sensational scrutiny, Blairs government tried to remove two of their finest chairpersons in 2001, Gwyneth Dunwoody  and Donald Anderson, more or less for being irritants. Thankfully  democracy still exists in its minute form and parliament defeated  government on this incident. This is a good example of parliament  triumphing over government.

Unfortunately, like all shining  knights, there is always a flaw in their armour, and in this case,  several. Firstly, they are under resourced. This means that they lack  the staff, time, money and so on, to really pursue their scrutiny in  real-time. When I say real-time, I am referring to the fact that the  reports select committees issue to the government with possible changes  (whom can also simply ignore the report if they do not agree) are  normally published a significant time after the actual events of  government. This is because of their crippled funding.
Secondly, the  arms of the executive are ever-looming in the shadows; the party whips  still having the ability to influence ministers outside of the committee  so they do not divulge sensitive information.
Thirdly, as we are in  the age of the career politician, ministers on these committees may  sacrifice their own opinion in favour of toeing the party line so they  gain theoretical points with the PM whom may just promote them.

*We  are no strangers to politicians betraying their core principles in  favour of promotion and power. One of the most profound and recent  examples of this is the Liberal Democrats. Nick Clegg and his foolish few broke their pledge not to allow an increase in university fees, hence cursing their party into public unfavour  for another 100 years and betraying the trust of their constituents;  completely undermining our, US as a PEOPLE, our faith in elected  representatives.
You can almost say that it has become a fundamental  core necessity of almost every political system in use today. Corruption  is rife.
I, for one, believe this is counter-productive to our  development as intellectuals. The more we bank in ignorance, the further  we hinder evolution.*

So,  a quick summary. Government pretty much dominates legislation and  parliament in general through their whips, their majority and the PM's power of patronage (exploiting power hungry MPs) that I shall develop in a moment. But the counter-argument  is that there are effective methods parliament scrutinizes government;  select committees for one, backbench revolts another, especially under a  low government majority.

Now, the power of patronage. This  rather formal sounding power is entirely exclusive to the current PM of  the times. It allows him to hire and fire ministers, with the power to  demote loosely tying in with this. He may do any of these actions if a  minister defies him (for example Jack Straw was demoted to Leader of the  House for openly criticizing the plans for the US to invade Iran). This  invokes the fear of God into MPs,  and so they are much more likely to toe the party line. If they toe the  line, then the government majority is secured and it can continue to  overpower parliament.

Parliament is of course made up of the  House of Commons, but also the House of Lords. Lords has proved to be a  very effective way to challenge government decisions and policy,  especially since the reform*, often throwing a wrench in it's seemingly  unstoppable policy plans. For example in 2001 the government removed the  clause on 'incitement to religious hatred' from their anti-terrorist  bill after it was repeatedly rejected by Lords. It's true, Lords can be a  worthy challenge to government dominance, but they can only delay  legislation and suggest amendments to it, not right-out reject it,  in-which case government can use the Parliament Act to push it into  lawful existence  after 1 year. The 2000 government legislation to impose a ban on  fox-hunting was delayed by Lords for a huge 4 years, more  acknowledgement to their good scrutiny. In addition, Lords cannot amend  money bills, which is a huge part of government policy. Any government  minister hopeful of extreme budget cuts such as the current Chancellor  of the Exchequer, George Osborne, will go to bed every night with a sigh  of relief in relation to this fact.

_*Various reforms to the House of Lords have seen the removal of the vast majority of Hereditary Peers bar 92 whom were kept by Blairs Labour due to a secret deal with Lord Cranborne (woefully undemocratic and counter-productive to modern political development)._

Another  faction in parliament that finds itself crippled by finance related  issues, is the opposition. They do not get access to information about  government spending, so by default this makes scrutiny at mechanisms  such as Question Time*, very difficult. Only during opposition days (20  total) does opposition truly get to scrutinize the executive. They are  also always in minority by nature of politics, so they nearly always  lose votes in the UK system, unless the government backbench rebels  throw their weight. This has been seen many times before, but most  notably with Jim Callaghan in 1979 when he was voted out in a vote of no  confidence, initiated by Thatcher and her Conservatives, forcing a  general election to be called and a new government to be formed.

_*Arguably  it forces the Leader of the Opposition to adopt adversarial and  combative tactics, relying solely on well documented and publicised  issues of the times, instead of getting to the root and heart of  government policy. This in turn allows the PM, and in fact  all of his Cabinet to employ these very same tactics, and thus this  political jousting ensures very little light is shed on anything the  government has in development._

One final point to be made about executive control over parliament, would be the simple practical fact that MPs  workload has increased considerably in terms of constituent letters,  weekend surgeries and many other demands. This all equates to less time  for MPs to put serious effort into holding the government to account.

So  in conclusion, I would be inclined to agree that the executive  increasingly dominates parliament. However, parliament can in return  effectively scrutinize through some useful mechanisms in place, but also  when the situation allows it.


----------

