EFFECTIVENESS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS e.

g FACTORS AFFECTING EFFECTIVENESS [PARTY SYSTEM, PATRONAGE, SIZE OF GOVERNMENT MAJORITY]

As we have seen, the House of Commons has several key tasks primarily including REPRESENTATION, SCRUTINY and LEGISLATION. How effectively the Commons fulfils these responsibilities is very controversial and a lot will also depend upon the POLITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES of the day. For example, if the government has a TINY MAJORITY [JAMES CALLAGHAN; 1976-1979 and JOHN MAJOR 1992-1997] and the OPPOSITION is increasingly SELF CONFIDENT, as it was under MARGARET THATCHER and TONY BLAIR respectively then it will be significantly more difficult for the executive to control the Commons. This is especially true if, as was the case under John Major, your party is DIVIDED and REBELLIOUS. Generally though Parliament is criticised for not, usually, fulfilling these roles as well as it should:

REPRESENTATION
It is in the House of Commons that British people are represented. However, there is a great deal of debate over how well we are actually represented by our MPs. FIRST PAST THE POST ensures that the House of Commons is not at all representative of how the public voted. After all, in 2005 the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS won 22% of the votes but only gained a derisory 9.6% of the seats in the House of Commons. Similarly, Labours 35.2% of the vote gained them an extraordinary 55.1% of the seats in the Commons which is hardly what the public voted for. Supporters of minority parties, which can fare well in elections with proportional representation, like the GREENS, BNP and UKIP, are thus excluded from any influence in the House of Commons. At the same time, representation in Westminster is complicated by the fact that some parts of the UK are OVER REPRESENTED. As a result of the WEST LOTHIAN ISSUE SCOTTISH MPs CAN STILL VOTE ON ENGLISH DOMESTIC ISSUES WHEN WESTMINSTER MPs CANNOT DO THE SAME FOR SCOTLAND. Residents in some constituencies are significantly over-represented than others [the ISLE OF WIGHT has one MP for 100,000 voters; the WESTERN ISLES have one MP for 22,000 voters]. At the same time MPs are generally WHITE, MALE and MIDDLE CLASS which is hardly representative of MULTI CULTURAL BRITAIN TODAY. For example, in the 2005 Parliament only 2.3% of MPs were from ETHNIC MINORITIES; while only 19.5% were FEMALE which means that on many issues debate may be limited. MPs also do not need to represent the interests of their constituents in the House of Commons and, as well as obeying the dictates of the WHIPS may also decide to vote according to the influence of PROFESSIONAL LOBBYISTS. This can make the representation of an MPs constituents a much more marginal affair than it ought to be.

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement, and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion. Edmund Burke [Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 1774] According to BBC NEWS [30th January 2009], We know that many backbench MPs and peers, from all parties, are on the payroll of companies, either as directors or consultants. The nuclear industry has been particularly active in recruiting senior Labour politicians and former members of the government. We also have an idea of the sort of money they get. Among former ministers who continue to sit in the Commons, Alan Milburn earns 30,000 a year from Pepsico, Patricia Hewitt gets 50,000 a year from Boots and David Blunkett supplements his backbench ers salary of 63,000 a year by as much as 135,000 with various directorships and consultancies. Many more, as many as one in five MPs, list their jobs as non parliamentary consultants, which means that they do not have to declare how much they receive. They must declare an interest when they speak on matters relating to the company, but they can still vote on legislation which may affect its business.

Civil servants at the Department of Transport have asked a top aviation lobby group, FLYING MATTERS, to help win over wavering Labour MPs to support further airport expansion. This group has already helped ensure that the Conservative Party dropped plans by senior advisers for a tax on carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft. Flying Matters claim that their lobbying of politicians, civil servants and the media has persuaded MPs and ministers to adopt the industry line on airport expansion, despite environmental concerns. The Guardian, 18th February 2009

SCRUTINY AND LEGISLATION

One of the key problems reducing the impact of Parliament over scrutiny and legislation is the power of the WHIPS and PARTY DISCIPLINE generally. In order for Parliament to function effectively there has to be TIGHT PARTY DISCIPLINE. The problem with this is that it DISCOURAGES INDEPENDENCE OF THOUGHT AMONGST MPs since they will generally support their partys line in order to foster their own CAREER AMBITIONS. Most MPs, for example, want to achieve ministerial office and party leaders [especially the prime minister] have enormous powers of PATRONAGE so very often on key issues the parties will simply divide along party lines. This is very often the case on GENERAL COMMITTEES and in most DEBATES over legislation MPs will be whipped into supporting the party line. A new MP, in particular, will not want to gain the reputation of being a troublemaker since it will therefore be unlikely that he will rise up through the party ranks. For example, the whips told any wavering Labour MP who was thinking about voting against the LISBON TREATY that this would be A HANGING OFFENCE. Damn your principles; stick to your party Benjamin Disraeli, [Conservative Prime Minister, 1867-8, 1874-1880]

This therefore means that MPs do not always sufficiently examine proposed legislation and, particularly on general committees, simply vote according to their party line. The most shocking thing about the Commons is the way in which laws are made. If you want to see what it is like sit on a general committee! The government has a majority on that committee and it selects a tame majority. I am not easily shocked but I was when I saw government party MPs spending their time on a standing committee writing their Christmas cards. [Tony Wright Labour MP] For the average backbencher, the whip is the street-corner thug they need to get past on their way home from school. Treat him with respect, and life will be fine. If you cross him, watch out. Occasionally, whips can get literally physical: the Conservative Derek Conway (At my secondary modern, if someone hit you, you hit back as hard as you could) was once seen trying bodily to pick up a fellow MP to push him into the right division lobby. David Lighthorn, another Conservative Whip, was notorious for his ability to use his twenty stone weight to pin reluctant MPs to the wall. But usually their methods are slightly more subtle. They have favours to dispense, places on fact-finding missions to Switzerland or Australia with accommodation in comfortable hotels or trips to places in the Indian Ocean to promote British ideas of democracy. Tess Kingham, a former Labour MP, has said the whips behaviour is an affront to democracy. Jeremy Paxman The Political Animal [2002]

At the same time it is not easy for an MP to operate outside the confines of party discipline, because the vast majority of bills and debates in the House of Commons are INTRODUCED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

SIZE OF PARLIAMENTARY MAJORITY:

If the government has a LARGE PARLIAMENTARY MAJORITY and the party is UNITED these problems will become a lot worse because the government will have a huge cohort of MPs READY TO SUPPORT THEM IN VOTES OR COMMITTEE; whenever they are required. This is a point that GEORGE GALLOWAY made to JEREMY PAXMAN in an unpleasant exchange between them on General Election Night, 2005: PAXMAN: I put it to you Mr Galloway that Nick Raynsford had you to a T when he said you were a demagogue. GALLOWAY: Sorry? PAXMAN: Nick Raynsford. You know who I mean? Nick Raynsford. Labour MP? GALLOWAY: No, I dont know who you mean. PAXMAN: Never heard of him. GALLOWAY: Ive never heard of Nick Raynsford, no. PAXMAN: What else havent you heard of? GALLOWAY: Well, Ive been in Parliament a long time . . . PAXMAN: He was a parliamentary colleague of yours until very recently. GALLOWAY: Well, most of them just blend into the other, Jeremy; theyre largely a spineless, a supine bunch.

 PARLIAMENTARY SUCCESS AGAINST THE EXECUTIVE

However, it would be misleading to argue that Parliament is failing in all of its functions! A lot depends on the PERSONALITY OF AN MP and not all MPs slavishly follow the dictates of the whips and instead they try to represent what they regard as being the interests of the wider community. For example, a large number of Labour MPs DID DEFY THE WHIP in order to defeat the 90 DAY TERROR BILL in the Commons, while the prominent Labour MP, GISELA STUART, has been forthright in her refusal to support the LISBON TREATY because she thinks it is undemocratic. Equally, when TONY BENN was an MP he made clear that his first loyalty was to his constituents and his principles rather than the party whip. Such independent-minded MPs can inject a real spark into debate and their role is MAGNIFIED when there is all a SMALL PARLIAMENTARY MAJORITY since then everything has to be thoroughly discussed and debated before it can be pass the Commons. This helps to explain why the MAASTRICHT BILL was so thoroughly debated in 1993 because every single vote mattered, since Majors parliamentary majority was so tiny. Some very far-reaching PRIVATE MEMBERS BILLS have also been introduced by backbench MPs highlighting how a determined MP can really bring about significant changes in society in spite of the parties control of the Commons. This was true of DAVID STEELS BILL TO LEGALISATION ABORTION in 1967 and MICHAEL FOSTERS BILL that ENDED FOX HUNTING WITH DOGS in 2004. It is a similar story, as we have seen, on SELECT COMMITTEES since if there is a focused, non partisan and charismatic chair, such as JOHN MCFALL on the TREASURY SELECT COMMITTEE the government really can be discomforted. PRIVATE MEMBERS BILLS can also achieve a lot if an MP has the necessary tenacity to succeed. Equally, courageous and determined backbench MPs, like NORMAN BAKER can use the Commons to gain high profile publicity for issues of major public concern such as the ALLEGED MURDER OF DAVID KELLY.