Parliament and Government (AQA A-Level Politics): Revision Notes

Parliament and Government

Introduction

The relationship between parliament and government in the UK is complex and often debated. Unlike many democracies where power is clearly separated, Britain operates under a system where the executive (government) is drawn from and remains part of the legislature (parliament). This creates both cooperation and tension between the two branches. Understanding this relationship is crucial for analysing how effectively parliament scrutinises government and holds it accountable.

The relationship between parliament and government

Fusion of powers

In the British Constitution, there is a fusion of powers. This means the executive is formed from members of the legislature and continues to sit within it. Government ministers are also MPs or peers, creating an overlap between the branches of government. This differs significantly from systems like the United States, where the president and Congress are entirely separate institutions.

Executive dominance

Under normal circumstances, the executive dominates the legislature. This means the government typically controls what happens in parliament. However, this dominance is not absolute. In exceptional circumstances—such as during a hung parliament (where no party has an overall majority) or when the governing party is deeply divided—parliament can become a powerful force capable of challenging or even defeating the government.

After emphatic election victories (such as in 1997 or 2019), executive dominance is especially strong. However, governments remain vulnerable to internal opposition from their own backbenchers (MPs without ministerial positions).

Evidence for executive dominance over parliament	Evidence against executive dominance over parliament
Party whipping and discipline ensures government-backed bills usually pass easily and largely unamended in major ways.	In times of minority or coalition government, governments can and are defeated in the Commons. Theresa May’s Brexit deals offer a good example.
Most days of parliamentary business are controlled and determined by the government.	There are 20 opposition days, which allow other parties to set the debate agenda and occasionally, as with the Gurkha citizenship issue, defeat the government. Also, during the Brexit process parliament did seize control of parliamentary business.
PMBs almost always require government support and time to get passed. Only the exceptional situation of Brexit allowed the Benn and Cooper–Letwin bills to pass. After the 2019 election result, they were effectively overridden by the Johnson government’s own Brexit bill: a 100-page bill passed in January 2020 after just 11 days of debate and scrutiny.	Individual MPs can pass legislation independently of the government. While most PMBs are non-controversial, some have dealt with significant issues such as abortion and the death penalty. The Benn and Cooper–Letwin bills concerning Brexit were passed despite the direct opposition of the government.
Do not overestimate the power of select committees. Governments can and do ignore their reports and recommendations, 60% of them on average.	Select committees are increasingly high profile and independent, not least as chairs are now elected by a secret ballot as opposed to being chosen by party whips.
In debates, most MPs follow the party line in their speeches and public bill committee membership is effectively controlled by the whips.	All legislation is scrutinised in debates and public bill committees.
Much of question time, especially PMQs, is simply about political point-scoring and theatricals and not forensic scrutiny of policy. Many would argue the adversarial atmosphere, especially that of PMQs, is a poor advert for parliament as a whole.	MPs can ask questions of the prime minister and ministers in regular question time slots, which directly forces them to account for their actions.

When parliament challenges government

Parliament's ability to challenge government depends heavily on the political context. During Theresa May's premiership, her minority government suffered multiple defeats over Brexit legislation, demonstrating that parliament can assert itself when the government lacks a strong majority.

The opposition in UK politics

The role of the opposition

The Official Opposition plays a vital constitutional role. It is often described as a 'government-in-waiting' because it presents itself as an alternative administration, ready to take power at the next election. The opposition's main functions are to oppose government policies, propose alternatives, and hold ministers accountable through scrutiny and questioning.

Opposition parties form shadow cabinets, where senior opposition politicians take responsibility for scrutinising specific government departments. For example, the shadow home secretary monitors and challenges the work of the Home Secretary.

Strengths	Weaknesses
The Official Opposition gets some extra funding and privileges in parliament. It also receives some funding (Short money) to assist with policy research.	The government possesses greater resources, not least the control of parliamentary business and choosing the topics for most debates. It also has the research resources of the Cabinet Office and special advisers.
The opposition can position itself as an alternative government.	Much depends on the quality of members of the shadow cabinet and how well they perform in debates and in the media. When the shadow home secretary Diane Abbott appeared on LBC radio in 2017 for an interview about the police, she was widely criticised for her weak grasp of numbers and details.
On occasion, such as with the Gurkhas and aspects of Brexit, the opposition can check or even change government policy.	Opposition successes are rare. Most of the time, the government can get its legislation through parliament without huge obstacles.
Backbench rebels from within the governing party can present serious problems. For example, in 2012 Conservative rebels effectively blocked a bill that would have reformed the Lords.	Successful rebellions on major issues are rare. Most of the time the government’s will prevails. Internal opposition only works if supported by the opposition parties as well.

Short money and resources

The Official Opposition receives Short money—additional funding to support policy research and parliamentary work. This recognises that opposition parties need resources to effectively scrutinise the government, though these resources remain considerably smaller than those available to the government itself.

Opposition successes and failures

Opposition successes are relatively rare. Most of the time, governments can pass their legislation without major obstacles. However, there have been notable exceptions where the opposition (sometimes working with government backbench rebels) has forced policy changes.

The effectiveness of the opposition often depends on the quality of its personnel. Shadow cabinet members must perform well in debates and media appearances. A notable example of poor opposition performance occurred when shadow home secretary Diane Abbott appeared on LBC radio in 2017 to discuss police funding. She was widely criticised for her weak grasp of numbers and policy details, which damaged the opposition's credibility on the issue.

Equilibrium of legitimacy

For democracy to function properly, there must be what scholars call an equilibrium of legitimacy. This means both government and opposition must accept each other's legitimacy. The opposition should not attempt to completely block or veto the policies of an elected government—that would undermine democracy. Equally, the government must provide the opposition with regular opportunities to critique policies and suggest alternatives.

Forms of opposition

Opposition in parliament can take several forms:

• The Official Opposition: The largest non-governing party, which forms a shadow cabinet and receives Short money
• Other opposition parties: Smaller parties that oppose government policy but do not form the Official Opposition
• Backbench government MPs: Sometimes the most effective opposition comes from within the governing party itself, as MPs rebel against their own government on specific issues
• The House of Lords: The unelected second chamber can delay and amend legislation, though its power is limited

Opposition parties have 20 opposition days each parliamentary year, allowing them to choose debate topics. On rare occasions, opposition day debates can lead to government defeats, as with the Gurkha citizenship issue.

How effective is parliamentary scrutiny?

Recent improvements

Parliament has made significant advances in recent years. Select committees have become increasingly independent and high-profile, especially after reforms that introduced secret ballots for selecting committee chairs (rather than having them chosen by party whips). These committees can call witnesses, including government ministers, and publish critical reports on government policy.

Parliament has also modernised in some ways. MPs have become more diverse in terms of ethnicity and gender. The House of Lords has been partially reformed, with most hereditary peers removed. Under certain circumstances, voters can now recall and potentially remove MPs between elections.

Continuing weaknesses

Despite these improvements, parliament remains limited in several ways:

The Brexit example

The Brexit process provides an excellent case study of both parliament's potential and its limitations. During the 2017-2019 parliament, MPs seized control of parliamentary business and passed legislation (the Benn and Cooper-Letwin bills) designed to prevent no-deal Brexit, despite strong government opposition. This demonstrated parliament's ability to assert itself in exceptional circumstances.

What citizens want from parliament

The effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny depends partly on what citizens expect from their legislature. If the priority is strong, tough scrutiny of government, the UK system performs relatively poorly. Executive dominance means governments can often implement policies with limited parliamentary challenge.

However, if the priority is a system that enables government to govern effectively and implement its electoral mandate, the Westminster model works well. Compared to the United States, where power is divided between separate institutions, the UK experiences relatively little gridlock. Elected governments can generally deliver on their promises, and voters can reward or punish them at the subsequent election.

Remember!