The House of Lords Is Now More Effective Than the House of Commons in Checking Government Power. Discuss

Parliament is very effective when dealing with the public and their interests and needs like when they redress public grievances to make sure they are listened too. However, parliament isn’t so effective on the representative side of things. This is because the electoral system that we use isn’t very fair and excludes smaller parties of a chance of being voted into parliament. This therefore means a large number of public votes have been

The US federal legislature is bicameral, therefore it consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and in theory they should both be of equal power. However, in reality it is the Senate which is considered to hold the most power, although there are arguments to in favour of them having equal rights. In order to reach a balanced judgement I will consider both sides of the argument, beginning with the claim that the Senate is more powerful than the House of Representatives.

In the USA, the President and the houses are elected separately, however in the UK, the Prime Minister is elected, primarily, as an MP- it is the leader of the winning party who gets the role of Prime Minister. However, in recent years, election campaigns have become really personalised- focussing more on the party leader’s personality, strengths and weaknesses rather than the party’s policies, promises and ideas as a whole. The lead up to the next general election demonstrates this: the party leaders of the three major parties have become the ‘face’ of their party’s election campaign. The media concentrates more on the party leader rather than the party as a whole- just like in USA. For the first time in British history, there is going to be live debates between the three leaders-again just like the run up to the American general elections. These points highlight that the UK is beginning to adopt some American, presidential traditions, it can be said that this is a strong sign that presidentialism is growing in the UK.

However the government is held to account by the British public in general elections because the First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system favours the two party

Under the British constitution, parliament is sovereign. This means, amongst other things, that Parliament has a monopoly on making and amending laws. The British constitution, and the three functions of government which operate it often falls short of creating a definitive separation. Separation of powers refers to the idea that the major institutions of government should function independent of each other, in a utopian world there should aim to be a balance between the Crown and Parliament. In practice however, separation between the executive and legislature is near enough non-existent, an example being that government is made up almost entirely of MPs. Contrast this with the USA where no member of Obama’s government is equally a member of congress. However, the USA does have a codified constitution, a constitution written to delegate a clear separation of power. As we are well aware the UK doesn’t have such a constitution, the rules that

The UK is divided into parliamentary constituencies of broadly equal population (decided by the Boundaries Commission), each of which elects a Member of Parliament to the House of Commons. The leader of the party with the largest number of MPs is invited by the monarch to form a government, and becomes the Prime Minister. The leader of the second largest party becomes the Leader of the Opposition.

Arguably, the scrutiny of Public Bills has depended more on the House of Lords than it has on the House of Commons in recent years. The term “scrutiny” means the critical observation or examination regarding the Public Bills. The “effectiveness” of the scrutiny could be measured in a variety of ways, such as the period of time the bill stays in parliament for, and whether parliament can take on board evidence from committees and implement the bills into legislation. In order to determine if the House of Lords has been more effective than the House of Commons in scrutinising public bills, it is crucial to compare and contrast the effectiveness of the procedures used in both houses.

In the past, backbencher Member of Parliaments have proven to be able to wield a great deal of power. Backbenchers have the means of voicing their concerns through caucus meetings, House of Commons committees, and private member bills. However the issue depends on when, and if, they want to wield that power. In addition, the growing predominance of influential prime ministerial power have further undermined the powers of MPs, thus making them more and more ineffectual in representing their constituents. Reforms need to be made as the current parliamentary system does not sufficiently provide the backbench government with enough influence to hold the prime minster accountable. Increasing support for independent MP initiatives and decreasing the retribution they face for these initiatives will boost the willingness for backbench contribution. This shifts the power from being centralized at the prime minister to a more

The House of Lords is the second chamber of the UK Parliament and is independent to the Commons although it complements the work of the Commons. Members of the Lords play a vital role in scrutiny, there are two main reasons for this, the first being that they are independent to the Commons and in many ways have increased power which they often use to stand up to the Commons by blocking reforms. Lords also have a better balance of parties so no government has a majority. The Government however can override Lords by using Parliament Act; this was used when the fox hunting ban was being put through under Blair’s government as there were too many in opposition of the ban in the House of Lords. The Parliament Acts, although rarely used, provide a way of solving disagreement between the Commons and the Lords. The Parliament Act of 1949 also prevents Lords from delaying bills for more than one year.

The House of Lords urgently needs to be abolished, it’s a symbol of what we have worked tirelessly to eradicate; the inequality in our society. Made up of Britain’s elite and wealthy, the House of Lords only represents a select few members of our society. Never mind the fact nobody actually voted for them. If we want to consider our country a real democracy, we have to stop giving our rich and wealthy members of society power. If the government requires more members to run the country effectively, we can elect

The monarch is a figure head and does no decision making. The voters of a parliamentary system elect parliament who then elect the prime minister and the cabinet. The prime minister is normally the leader of the most popular party in parliament. The PM even being the head of government is not as powerful as the head of government in a presidential system. The parliament of the system withholds the most power. They make or break any law. Compared to the separation of powers as in a presidential system there is only a separation of functions. Each part of government has its own function to perform, but there is no system of checks and balances. An example of the overlapping of powers is the need of a vote of confidence. A vote of confidence is proposed by a party and needs backing from the other part of government. With no system of sorts there is more likely of upheaval and change of rule. There is not as much stability in a parliamentary system as there is in a presidential. Lastly there is no judicial rule as there is in a presidential system. A parliamentary system has had success in the past but still is seen as not as successful as a presidential system.

MPs are the only person out of a constituency of 70,000 or so people who are able to vote. The significance of voting cannot be understated and as such a system that facilitates this must be robust. There are a variety of different voting procedures in place around the world, additionally, there are also different systems used within the UK.

This is in stark contrast to the House of Commons, who rely on a democratic election process

Lord Hope has argued that, ‘Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute …' Hence it can be said that, considering the ‘rule of law' as the ultimate factor, it is this, and not Parliamentary sovereignty, that is accountable for the respective powers of the Parliament and the courts. Baroness Hale agreed that, ‘the courts will treat with particular suspicion any attempt to subvert the rule of law.' Also, Lord Steyn candidly stated, ‘supremacy of Parliament is still the

Parliament - Parliament is pretty much the identical to the legislative branch here in the US. The prime minister is accountable in his actions to the parliament. The parliament consists of the house of lords, house of commons and monarch.