Just fior fun - The White House

Click here to access an interactive look “Inside the White House”.

Useful for students learning about government. Students can watch videos or take an interactive tour through the West Wing, the South Lawn, the East Wing, and the Residence. There is also a slide show of the presidents and other historical information.

It's not in your exam Vlad...but worth a look anyway!

Revision website

Click here to access the revision website discussed in class today.

Unit 2: The Commons Vs the Executive

A key function of the House Of Commons is to hold the Executive to account. How effectively does the House Of Commons carry out this function?

Parliament in the UK is made up of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The House of Commons is the lower, pre-eminent chamber of Parliament, which contains more legislative power than that of the upper chamber, the House of Lords.

One of parliament's primary functions is to hold the executive to account, this means that the house of commons forces the government to do things such as justify bills, explain decisions and their motives defend their actions, and defend their policies.

This form of accountability is the most frequent case, as whatever the government decides to do; the House of Commons will always look for a reason why they decided to carry it out. The only time this does not happen is during election times, where the general public holds the executive to account by voting for or against them.

Firstly, the meaning of ‘accountability' is a complex concept, and has been used in a variety of ways. The main meaning is; being held account, scrutinised or being required to give an explanation. Lord Sharman in his 2001 Report reviewing audit and accountability for central government split the notion into four different aspects;

1. giving an explanation -perhaps through an annual report, outlining performance and activity;
2. providing further information - perhaps by providing information (e.g. to a Select Committee) on performance, beyond accounts already given;
3. reviewing and, if necessary, revising -examining performance, systems or practices, and if necessary, making changes to meet the expectations of stakeholders; and
4. Granting redress or imposing sanctions -stakeholders might enforce their rights on those accountable to effect changes.

To hold the government to account, in constitutional theory, there are a lot of parliamentary mechanisms, or ‘checks' carried out by the House of Commons, such as questioning, debates, and select committees. The government relies on these, and parliament, to stay in power. It does not matter as to how much of a majority the party may have in government, if there is a vote of no confidence from the House of Commons, the party in office will be expected to resign and a general election would be called. The last time this happened was in 1979, when James Callaghan was the Prime Minister of the UK.

The main methods of holding the government to account in the Commons are; Parliamentary Questions, Parliamentary debates and the select committee system.

Firstly, Parliamentary Questions are seen as the best method of gaining and accessing information on the government's intentions, these are also seen as opportunities for MP's to ask questions regarding their constituency, and allow them to get answers to questions asked by their constituents. Obviously, this can be seen as a very effective method, as topical political questions will be asked, and answered by the Prime minister and his ministers, this can make the government accessible and transparent.

However, Parliamentary questions can also be seen as quite ineffective. During Parliamentary questions an MP may only ask up to two oral questions and any amount of written questions a day, and only one per minister. Supplementary questions can only be asked if the speaker allows it, and questions can be examined as to whether or not they comply with the rules.

This lack of freedom to ask as many questions, to whoever, on any issue is surely detrimental. Furthermore, all questions must be given in advance, so that the ministers of the specified departments are able to draft an answer, this, and the fact that some questions (relating to security service, or commercial confidence) are refused to be answered by ministers, weakens the effectiveness of Parliamentary questions. If MP's are given the chance to draft a generic answer then it means they aren't put on the spot spontaneously with the expectation of being able to answer a question.

Some may think this makes a mockery of the job they are doing, as they aren't able to answer a question on it, however it must be said that giving the MP time to formulate a good response can increase the likelihood of the person questioning receiving a good answer.

Furthermore, in relation to Parliamentary questions, Prime ministers question time takes place every week. This, like earlier stated, can be effective in that the Prime minister is able to explain policies and answer any questions; however, it can also be seen as ineffective because he is also able to formulate a generic answer.

Also, some believe that it has become more of a ‘contest' between the opposing party leader and the Prime minister, in which a ‘slagging match' takes place, which is more like a media show than real accountability.

Parliamentary debates are also ways in which the government is held to account. Adjournment debates take place during an adjournment period for half an hour at the end of every working day, in these, MP's can use a motion to adjourn the House of Commons to raise issues which relate to their constituency. Again, questions are given in advance and answers are drafted, a ballot is then held once a week and four MP's are given the chance to ask questions. This is a good thing as backbenchers are given the opportunity to speak and question the government, however not for long, as four MP's asking questions in half an hour gives them less than ten minutes each. Also, again, answers are drafted so generic answers will be given.

This is typical in the other types of debates, Opposition day debates where the opposing party is given the chance to choose the topic for debate, these take place 20 times a year, 17 times the ‘government in waiting' is given the chance, and the other 3 days are given to the second largest opposition party. These are a good thing as the opposing parties are given a duty to scrutinise and criticise government bills. Similarly in estimates day debates and early day motions, generic answers tend to be given, underlining the ineffectiveness of them.

Most debates are undermined by the fact that most people who vote on them in the House of Commons are in fact ‘whips' and members of the party in power. This means that most of the time the leading party will win any debates being held. This is a similar situation to the select committee system.

The purpose of select committees is to supervise policies, decisions and the various activities carried out by their specified government department, they then report on their findings. In 2002 the Liaison committee set out core tasks which select committees are expected to undertake.

MPs who are part of select committees are expected to cross examine and question ministers in relation to their department, allowing in-depth examination of departmental activities, which cannot be sought by debates and parliamentary questions.

Select Committees are advantageous, as they tend to have specialist knowledge in the department of which they scrutinise, and have the ability to decide on what issues to look at, meaning they can decide to look at the more topical issues. Their reports include useful public records of information on government policy, which usually wouldn't have been publicised.

Also, the reports can influence current political debates in regards to the governmental powers and they draw media attention to them. Furthermore, they can influence debates on the provisions of a bill in concerns to the legislative process. The government is then expected to respond to reports, meaning that they are always forced to explain themselves.

Although they can be seen as effective, select committees do have disadvantages.

Sometimes they do not always get the information they want (i.e. the arms Iraq affair), so scrutiny cannot be carried out effectively.

Also, reports can be ignored by a strong government as they are merely recommendations and are not enforceable.

Another problem is the lack of assistance available to a select committee, although they contain specialists in the required field, there can sometimes be a lack of resources for a select committee.

Moreover, there is a problem in regards to the composition of a select committee, as backbenchers tend to have too much control over them, and therefore, like with debates and questions, the party in government will have a lot more control and power, and committee reports will tend to favour the government.

Summary

The way in which the House of Commons holds the executive to account can be very effective, if it is done in the correct way. It gives the Prime Minister and ministers a chance to explain policies and actions, and answer any queries regarding them. This way, there is theoretically a lot of transparency in the government, so the public is aware of what is going on in the country and whether or not it is being run in the correct way.

However, it is not as well carried out as well as it can be for a variety of reasons, making it quite an ineffective process in some circumstances. Generic answers to questions which are given previous to debates and question times undermines their value as ministers aren't expected to spontaneously answer questions, also the mass support in the commons for the leading party in the form of whips means that there is a tendency that all debates go their way.

This is also the case as I have mentioned with the select committee system, as the members are chosen by the Prime minister and powers tend to lie with the backbenchers, so, again all decisions are leaned towards the favourable outcome of the leading party, which I believe makes a mockery of the whole system.

Unit 2: Select Committees PPT

Select commitees from mattbentley34

Unit 2: Select Committees

Please read the following article on Select Committees then answer the question that follows:

Departmental select committees_(factsheet)[1] from mattbentley34

What are Departmental Select Committees & how effectively do they preform their role of scrutinising the Executive? (10 marks)

You will be awarded up to 7 marks for Knowledge and Understanding (discussion of a range of issues and quality of explanation) - You will be awarded up to 3 marks for your intellectual skills eg: ability to explain the nature of the arguments and ability to link them to the question asked.

Unit 2: The Coalition & the Constitution

This is a really interesting lecture by Professor Vernon Bogdanor on the Coalition and the Constitution Professor Vernon Bogdanor, long a student of coalition governments, has been looking at the implications for the British constitution. He drew interesting comparisons between historical coalitions and our current situation. Bogdanor argued that many coalition governments had been formed out of fear. For instance, the current economic stresses at home and abroad caused the Liberal Democrats to form a coalition with the Conservatives and abandon their previous policies and adopt the Conservative policy of immediate and sustained deep spending cuts.

Unit 2: Jan 13 - Question on Prime Ministerial power

Jan 13 mark scheme, report & model answer from mattbentley34

Unit 2: President Vs Prime Minister

President versus Prime Minister

The president of America is frequently referred to as the world's most powerful person. However, the federal structure of America has put restraints on the power of the president that do not occur in Great Britain, lead by a Prime Minister. The powers of Congress and the Supreme Court are used as a balance to the power a president might accrue in his time in office. The Constitution of America ties the president down as to what he can and cannot do. This codified document can only be changed by the Supreme Court. Such a constraint does not exist in Britain though the input of the European Court on formulating some British legislation is difficult to assess but does not come into the same league as the power that that the Supreme Court of America has.

The general powers exercised by a British Prime Minister include:

the power to appoint, reshuffle or dismiss cabinet ministers

the power to create new peers to the House of Lords

the power to give out honours

the power to appoint top civil servants, ambassadors, bishops and judges

the power to determine government business and Cabinet discussions/agendas

the power to withhold information from the Houses of Parliament if deemed necessary

the power to use the media via a lobby system

the power to terminate the life of a government and call a general election

The Prime Minister clearly has an abundance of powers at his disposal. Sir Richard Crossman wrote that :

(The PM) is now the apex not only of a highly centralised political machine but also of a highly centralised and vastly more powerful administrative machine.

The PM's position as leader of the majority party in the House of Commons together with his position as head of government, thus combining legislative and executive powers, amounts to an "immense accretion of power."

Many of the PM's powers derive from the prerogative powers of the Monarch. These extensive powers are wielded independently of Parliament and effectively give every PM the power of a Head of State. These powers include the right to appoint ministers, to dissolve Parliament and so set the timing for a general election, to be in charge of the armed forces and the security services, to negotiate treaties and other diplomatic agreements and to summon and chair Cabinet meetings. The proponents of Prime Ministerial government postulate that the Cabinet is effectively the tool of the PM and that, in practice, government policy has long ceased to be  decided at Cabinet meetings. PM's use Cabinet Committees (the PM chairs several of these), bilateral meetings with individual ministers, the No. 10 Policy Unit, the Cabinet Office, Think Tanks and 'kitchen cabinets' of personal aides and advisers, to shape policy and present it to the Cabinet. The Cabinet as a collective body, it has been argued, has been reduced to a clearing house and ratifier of decisions already taken.

Unlike their ministerial colleagues, the PM is not tied up with a particular department and is ultimately responsible for co-ordinating government policy across the board. The PM's potential impact on policy-making is therefore enormous and a pro-active PM like Mrs. Thatcher intervened extensively in departments and left her personal imprint on an array of policies from local government, education to privitisation.

This suggests that the PM can act like a virtual autocrat. However, this is not so as there are constraints on his power. Though a PM's power in the Cabinet is great, he cannot get himself into a situation whereby he is seen to surround himself with 'nodding donkeys'. The party he leads will not tolerate this and every five years (maximum) the PM and the party have to present themselves to the country who will vote on their record of government. A PM who is seen to be going against the British tradition of democratic government whereby the party is all-inclusive at Westminster will lose out when the party abandons its support for him. Mrs. Thatcher lost the support of both her Cabinet and the Conservative Party when she was seen as being too over-bearing and out of touch. A PM who loses support from his own party is doomed to failure even if he does have the power to reward loyalty. The current PM, Tony Blair, leads a party with a Parliamentary majority second to none. On paper, it would appear that his power as PM is unassailable. However, all he needs to do to sow the seeds of his own political downfall is to lose the support of those Labour MP's at Westminster. In this sense, the party have the power not the PM. Tony Blair has yet to have a serious challenge to his position as party leader. What happens should this occur?

Many in the current Labour Party are concerned about Tony Blair's apparent desire to make decisions by himself or with a small non-elected clique thus by-passing both the Cabinet and Westminster. A former Cabinet colleague, Mo Mowlam, has made these accusations and has also stated her belief that Cabinet meetings are a farce as they are no more than sessions whereby Blair is agreed to. If this is the case, what happens when the Labour Party tires of this?

During the current fight against terrorism, President Bush has held frequent meetings with Cabinet colleagues, and those who air a belief that an American attack on Iraq - without an agreement from the UN Security Council - is fraught with danger, are seemingly allowed to do so. Colin Powell has been reported as voicing his concerns and the media have reported this accordingly. The President has his views while others close to him express theirs. Congress has also had an input with the Senate approving a $34.4 billion rise in defence spending to assist in the president's campaign against terrorism. The House of Commons, on the other hand, has frequently complained that it is being side-lined by not having a full debate about the issue. Therefore, the ability and opportunity for politicians to voice opposition to the PM's policies regarding this foreign policy issue are very limited. Blair has been accused of developing presidential powers.

However, the powers of the president of America are limited by Article II of the Constitution. There are many things the president can do but there are also many things that he cannot do. The House of Commons at Westminster does not formulate policy; it discusses proposed legislation and votes on them. Congress, however, has been given very real powers by the Constitution, the likes of which are not seen in Great Britain. The Senate can remove the president from office - the president cannot remove a Senator; the Senate ratifies the president's Cabinet; all financial issues have to start in the House of Representatives and Congress can reject a president's proposed budget. These clearly limit the power of a president.

In Britain, the Chancellor's budget is introduced regardless of what Parliament thinks. With the exception of a party revolt, the party in power cannot remove a PM

Unit 2: Is the Prime Minister becoming Presidential?

The Prime Minister and British Politics

The Prime Minister is the most important person in British politics. The Prime Minister appoints his cabinet and makes the final decisions on major issues such as whether a referendum should be held on an issue such as the Euro or whether Britain should join a potential American attack on Iraq. The Prime Minister drives the Labour Party’s policies and is the person most likely to be held to account for those policies at election time.

There are those who believe that the personality of the Prime Minister is now almost as important as stated party policies. In the 2001 election, Tony Blair was challenged by the Tory leader William Hague. Blair was seen as confident, statesmanlike and authoritative while Hague was seen as nice but inexperienced and out of his depth. The personality issue has continued into 2002 with some seeing the new Tory leader, Iain Duncan-Smith, as being no better than Hague. The implication is that if people vote for personalities as much as issues, then the Tory leader has no chance of winning the next election whenever that is called

The Prime Minister is a working Member of Parliament. Tony Blair represents Sedgefield near Newcastle and he would be expected to fit into his work as Prime Minister, time for constituency issues. The Prime Minister may be head of the government but he is also seen as ‘primus inter pares’ – first among equals. Other ‘titles’ that have been used in the past to describe the Prime Minister are ‘keystone of the Cabinet arch’ and ‘a sun around which planets revolve’.

Traditionally, the Prime Minister has answered to the House of Commons once a week (depending on his diary) during Prime Minister’s Question Time. Recent changes to this whereby questions to be put to the Prime Minister are made known to him before the sessions have caused unease. American style question sessions with the press have also not been well received by the newspapers themselves.

The Prime Minister selects those politicians he will work most closely with – the Cabinet. Therefore, the Prime Minister has to be seen as the head of the executive branch of government. If a politician wants to make progress from backbench to Cabinet, that politician will have to impress the party leader, who will be either the Leader of the Opposition or Prime Minister. Those members of the Cabinet who do not succeed in their posts are dismissed during the delicately phrased ‘Cabinet re-shuffles’.

In Blair’s first term as Prime Minister probably the most famous fall from grace was the Health Minister, Harriet Harman, who was held responsible for failing to deliver the health reforms promised by Labour in the run-up to the 1997 election. More recently, Robin Cook has been re-shuffled by Blair to the post of Leader of the House after less than inspiring foreign ventures as Foreign Secretary – especially a trip to the Middle East. Blair chose the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, to replace him. The Cabinet is expected to work with the man who selected them to this privileged position in British politics. Those that do not, pay the political price. Mo Mowlam, who served under Tony Blair most famously as Northern Ireland Secretary, claims that in her experience, Cabinet meetings were too dominated by the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet simply rubber stamped what Blair wanted to happen. "If that is what Tony wants, we should vote for it" was an alleged comment made by one member at a Cabinet meeting.

The Prime Minister does not only appoint his Cabinet. He has patronage elsewhere such as the appointment of junior ministers (who will go further politically only if they impress the Prime Minister), senior civil servants, bishops and judges. Such power allows the Prime Minister to appoint people into these positions if he is certain that they will support his policies and not present a challenge to his power. A recent slight change to this is the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate, the current archbishop of Wales, Dr. Rowan Williams. He has made it clear that he does not support any British involvement in an attack on Iraq unless it is backed by the United Nations, whereas some believe that Blair supports the Americans in an attack on one of the ‘axis-of evil’ nations.

The Prime Minister also chairs a number of select committees; at present the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee, the Constitutional Reform Committee, the Intelligence Services Committee and the Northern Ireland Committee. In these committees, policies may be determined; hence the Prime Minister has to be very influential in these committees.

Historically, decisions made by government were taken after committees had met. Clement Atlee had148 standing committees and another 313 existed for temporary issues between 1945 and 1951. This number of committees has been drastically reduced (in 1997 there were just 19) as the Prime Minister will come to a decision after meeting with the relevant head of government department whom he would have appointed and their advisors on whatever topic it is they are discussing.

This process streamlines the process of decision-making, as committees were becoming too big to manage. The committee that examined the whole issue of devolution had 19 members to it. However, members of these committees were usually elected members of the House – or a substantial number of them are – whereas advisors and the ‘special advisors’ that have been used by the Blair government are not elected officials but political appointments.

This has called into question the democratic nature of Prime Minister’s doing this. Are these advisors becoming more important than Cabinet ministers are? Labour MP’s have openly complained at the ease with which these advisors have access to senior government members but they, as duly elected MP’s, are not given the same access.

As early as 1964, the Labour MP Richard Crossman described the role of the Prime Minister as becoming more and more presidential in style. This has been a constant criticism of the current Blair government – that accepted conventions of government are being pushed to one side and replaced with a prime ministerial style of leadership where one man has huge powers regarding decision making. This was another complaint made by Mo Mowlan regarding the role she perceived Blair to be taking.

Another function of the Prime Minister is to represent the country abroad. The queen is Britain’s head of state, but the Prime Minister is Britain’s de facto representative abroad. The media avidly follows foreign visits by the Prime Minister.

To summarise, the Prime Minister is;

the leader of his party in the House of Commons the head of government he has the right to select his cabinet, hand out departmental positions, decide the agenda for cabinet meetings which he also chairs. he can dismiss ministers if this is required he directs and controls policy for the government he is the chief spokesman for the government he keeps the Queen informed of government decisions he exercises wide powers of patronage and appointments in the civil service, church and judiciary he can amalgamate or split government departments he represents the country abroad he decides the date for a general election within the five-year term he decided the timetable of government legislation in the House (though this has been delegated to the Leader of the House before)

Unit 2: Parliamentary Committees and their effectiveness

Useful ppt looking at committees in Parliament. This subject can be used in many essays such as Parliament, Prime Ministerial power and back bench effectiveness.

Select commitees from mattbentley34

Unit 2: How effective are Backbench MP's? (40 Marks) - Mark scheme and Examiners report

The document below contains the usual question, mark scheme and full model answer. An excellent way to revise a fairly simple topic. You should look at an MP in the commons who has been efective in some way, to help with application marks in your exam.

Back bench mp q, answer, mark scheme jun 12 from mattbentley34

Unit 2: Jun 10, Question on Parliament and executive.

Please take some time to read the document below. It gives you a comprehensive detail on how to answer a question on power of Parliament...a common question in Unit 2.

As we have now had a few years of a coalition, I feel a question on how effective Parliament / the Executive has changed could easily come up.

Jun 10 question, answer & report from mattbentley34

Unit 2: Jan 13 Q 3 - Mark Scheme and Examiners report

Question, mark scheme, examiners report and model answer jan 13 from mattbentley34

Unit 2: Are Prime Ministers becoming too Presidential?

This question comes up in lots of past papers. Below are two articles on this...please take some time to read. They will give you examples to help with application marks in your essays.

To what extent have UK Prime Ministers become Presidential? (25 Marks)

Mark Scheme

A range of factors have been identified as contributing to a “Presidential” style of Prime

Minister. Reference may be made to the factors outlined by Foley, these include: the

culture of the outsider, where the PM is seen as a non-establishment figure on the side of

the ordinary citizen: spatial leadership where the PM distances him or herself from the

formal Governmental apparatus; the growth of bilateralism where the PM instead of

conducting the bulk of meetings in a full Cabinet forum with a number of Ministers, by

contrast chooses to hold “one to one” meetings with each Departmental Head or Secretary

of State, this allows a greater leverage for the PM, instead of this being diluted and

challenged in a full Cabinet; next there is the increasing focus of the media which puts a

direct spotlight on the PM raising her or his profile above and beyond fellow colleagues.

The drive to a “Presidential” style allegedly focuses on the person above issues and this

downplays ideological or policy debate and raises the importance of style and individual

characteristics. This can be seen in the personalised drive of current electioneering where

the leader of a party is seen as far more important than its policies. This in turn has been

implied to diminish the role of the political party in its former context and the leader is

seen as the “brand image” to the loss of the political party. The PM is seen to have more

direct contact with public, making a point to be seen at grassroots level. In addition the

last 20 years has seen the growth of the PM’s Office and an increase in the number of

staff. It is alleged that there has been a diminishing role for the Cabinet and decisions are

made elsewhere in smaller groups and presented to the Cabinet simply to approve as

opposed to discussing. It is further alleged that the decline of Parliament has enhanced or

raised the prestige and power of the PM.

However, the extent and reality of a “Presidential” style of Prime Minister may be

challenged by pressures which curtail PM power. The Cabinet is still an important and

instrumental part of the Government machine, it is noted that lack of support here was

the factor which finally removed Mrs. Thatcher. The political party is not as enfeebled as

often suggested and a PM who acts arrogantly will ultimately fall or be curtailed by its

power, for instance backbench revolts can limit the legislative scope of the PM. The media

which can deliver power can also damage the PM’s image. In the UK the constitutional

arrangements can and do limit the PM, for instance the Constitutional Monarch acts as the

Head of State not the PM. Likewise Parliament can act to censure the PM as noted in

legislation but also in an open forum. Events can also act to undermine and restrict the

PM, events over which the PM has no direct control or influence. The latter can also

deliver failure in post for the PM which undermines his or her authority and image.
Click here to access an article which discusses the reasons why Cameron may be becoming more presedential.

This article, although very long, is the one examiners like you to use/quote when discussing Prime Ministerial powers.

Unit 2: June 09 question on Parliament

The document below has the question, examiners report and mark scheme (in red). A typical question on Parliament.

Jun 09 question, answer & report from mattbentley34

Unit 2: Prime Ministerial power & Thatcher

What does this satirical look at the Thatcher cabinet suggest about her style of leadership?

Unit 2: The Judiciary

Click here to access all the information you require to answer specific questions on the judiciary.