'Why is Parliament so weak in relation to the executive?\r'

'The domination of the legislature, which includes fantan, by the decision sustainr branch, which contains g everyplacenance, is a majorly important feature of the British governmental arranging. According to French philosopher Montesquieu, the wish of the separation of posts and, hence, the fusion of the executive and legislative branches (as, uniquely, in the UK) may lead to a oversize accumulation of power in one branch. Un give care the USA governmental system where these branches atomic number 18 kept rigorously separate, on that point is excessive executive power which nitty-gritty that fantan stack be exposed as creaky and impotent to the view fopship.\r\nThere are m whatever a(prenominal) factors that make Parliament serve weak in relation to the executive including; the electoral system, the scrutiny of MP’s, and the power (if any) of the business firm of Lords. The for the first-year time past the post electoral system eachows governments in t he UK to seemingly hulk Parliament without representing a rattling large proportion of the electorate. The system ensures that one party with make headway an absolute majority, which tends to be very large, and, hence, means that parliament is relatively feeble in contrast as the share of dis spatial relationnts is limited which allows government to dominate.\r\nThe 1997 landslide conquest of New mash was only achieved with well-nigh 36% of the vote. This comparatively small plowshare of the voting population gave the party a mammoth 197 seat majority afterwards sitting on the other perspective of the chamber for 18 years. The ample total of seating way of life in Parliament that were given over to Labour meant that fair authority of political opinion was undermined hugely. Additionally, the majorities necessary for new laws would be a given if the party were tramp their leader which in the good example of Tony Blair was closely always the case.\r\nIt is in these ways that Parliament is made to look weak in relation to the executive. In theory, however, the flip side of a strong single-party government is that there are still enough seats left in Parliament to work out a critical checking employment and for opponent parties to present themselves as a lifelike alternative to the government of the day. This system in addition excludes extremist parties, such as the BNP, from representation in the legislature unless its electoral validate is geographi remembery strenuous; it is unlikely to win any seats under FPTP which is validatory in order to prevent them from electoral legitimacy.\r\nIn any case the commonalty invite the ultimate power to terminate the present government from office. Scrutiny of fellow MP’s is made strong if one party dominates the admit of Commons. MP’s take a crap insufficient sequence and support to be able to call ministers to account effectively. MPs often drop the technical expertise to s crutinise legislating adequately and on the occasions that they do ask penetrating questions, the respondent commonly has a response prepared and/or by civil servants.\r\nIn addition, piteous timing of Opposition days cleverness blunt impact which is why any attack on the present government must be carefully planned. In February 2010, the former bosses of the Royal Bank of Scotland were for ternary hours questioned vigorously by a pack deputation and they responded with both sessdour and courtesy. The committee members probed diligently enough but, non for the first time, they were outsmarted by expert witnesses with too much technical information at their disposal.\r\nThis proves that the short-staffed and poorly resourced scrutinizers cannot do their job justly and, hence, in addition highlights how weak Parliament are in relation to the executive. However, MP’s are allowed freedom to ask questions in areas of special interest to them without having to worry abo ut party whips. In Parliament, in the past, a number of important bills have been make dod and promulgated in draft, including Identity Cards and noetic Health Bills. In addition, whatever a minister proposes is subjected to Parliamentary scrutiny at some stage so will have to be viable with room for agreement from the entire Parliament.\r\nFinally, constant debate ensures that even the ruling party is touch by what Parliament thinks even if this is not so obvious at first glance. The Ho accustom of Lords’ lack of authority and powers means that the government can often avert pretty much anything that it throws. The powers of the Lords are exceedingly limited by law as it has absolutely no power over financial matters and can’t prevent legislation in the long term. Additionally, all amendments can be overturned and, like the Commons, the Lords have a limited lineament in developing legislation.\r\nIn 1997, Tony Blair abolished the purity of hereditary peerage b ut allowed the 92 hereditary peers to retain their seats ahead appointing a vast number of Labour peers into the House of Lords in order to make it even easier for him to gain a majority. The huge power of government is shown here and can be manipulated to make Parliament look weaker. However, when peers do vote against legislation past parliamentary gridlock can be created. This was certainly the case in 2007 where the House of Lords defied the frequent consensus in the Commons with 361 votes to 121 in prefer of a 100% appointed House of Lords.\r\nIt is in this way that Parliament can stand up to the executive, whose party have a majority in Parliament, and force play compromises by the government. This particular controversial case of rebellion has proved a victor for the Lords as to this day Peers still have to be 100% appointed. In conclusion, it seems Parliament has been made to look powerless by government who can make use of the first past the post system and gain large majorities without large representation. Additionally, scrutiny directed at MP’s is easily combated with the brilliantly crafted answers of government.\r\nGovernment has also become increasingly dominant convey to further Lords reform by Tony Blair and the clear delaying of laws by which act as a thorn on legislation. However, it has to be express that Parliament has many ways in which it can reduce the ‘bullying’ it receives from the ruling party. The electoral system has obvious advantages that arguably make meliorate Parliament’s role such as the ability to improve on scrutinising future laws and to offer better decisions than the ruling party.\r\n'