Backbench MPs abilitiy to vote

5 POINTS

Backbench MPs do have opportunities to influence decision making in central government through voting in parliament.

As part of the legislative process, new legislation is subjected to voting in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

A loss for the government is often seen as humiliating and therefore they will do their best to avoid this.

This usually gives backbench MPs an opportunity to exert some influence.

For example, in 2012, David Cameron lost the vote on EU budget cuts due to the way in which backbench MPs voted. 

Backbench MPs ability to vote

3 ANALYSIS

However, ultimately it is the size of the government’s majority that dictates how much influence back bench MPs have with regard to voting.

For example, the fact that the government formed in 2010 was a coalition  dictates the fact that backbench MPs have more influence as the Conservatives have less of a majority.

Additionally, the whip system ensures that any government with a decent majority should rarely lose a vote in the House of Commons. 

Backbench MPs Committee Work

5 POINTS

Furthermore there are opportunities for back bench MPs to influence the government through parliamentary committee work.

Parliament has both standing and select committees which scrutinise government legislation.

The committees have the power to call witnesses and documents although cannot force MPs or ministers to attend.

By refusing to attend MPs will not look good and this will often lead to heavy criticism from the media.

For example, the recent phone hacking select committee gained nation-wide exposure and back bench MPs who served on the committee were able to use the situation to gain national attention. 

Backbench MPs Committee Work

5 ANALYSIS

However, it could be argued that a MPs opportunity to influence decision making is limited with regard to committees work.

The reality is that select committee work rarely gains much widespread publicity.

Reports produced by select committees can be mostly ignored by the government, especially on legislation that has not generated nationwide media attention.

Select committees rarely change the direction of government policy.

For example, the UN Human Rights committee could be argued as being ineffective, one reason being that their work is unreported and usually stays confidential.

Backbench MPs Debates & Parliamentary Question Time

5 POINTS

 Moreover, back bench MPs can exert influence through debates and parliamentary question time.

Parliamentary debates provided backbench MPs with an opportunity to influence central government by asking questions and criticising the executive.

For example, Prime Minister’s question time is the debate that tends to generate the most media exposure.

It is the one debate which the public tends to see on the news.

It is highly theatrical and can help damage a party’s morale. 

Backbench MPs Debates & Parliamentary Question Time

5 ANALYSIS

However, government ministers are normally well prepped by civil servants and special advisors.

They are often able to predict what they will be asked and have answers ready. Ministers, including the Prime Minster, will spend time rehearsing.

‘Prime Minister’s Questions’ in particular is often accused of being ‘punch and Judy’ politics.

It is extremely adversarial in nature and often comes down to political point scoring.

Accusations are also made that they make little substantive difference. 

PM vs Executive

8 POINTS

The House of Lords is the 2^nd chamber of parliament that can be very influential.

Legislation faces the same obstacles in the HOL as it does in the HOC.

The HOL is less combative than the HOC.

Lords are more likely to put party affiliation to the side to ensure that only good legislation passes.

Lords can vote against legislation and send it back to HOC ‘Legislative ping pong’.

This can be an annoyance for the PM and can make them look weak.

Power to delay legislation can often kill legislation.

E.g, in 2013, the HOL planned parliamentary ‘ping pong’ to win battle over secret courts. 

PM vs Executive

4 ANALYSIS

However, the PM gives peerages and will obviously only appoint people they know will support the government.

The PM often rewards loyalty with peerage.

Also, the HOL can only delay legislation.

Although often effective, a determined government cans still force through legislation in the end.