The extract states that although a country’s political culture may contain ‘great variety’ or be ‘relatively uniform’ in nature, it is vital to understand the politics in a country to eventually understand ‘the ideas that influence the political behaviour’, this being the political culture. The extract sees the differences amongst various groups in society as defined by region, ethnicity and social class, these factors ultimately defining the voting behaviour of Britain, but also the political culture that this behaviour operates in.

The extract also states that ‘older values have been allowed to merge with modern attitudes’, this perhaps alluding to the religious and social pluralism that has become apparent, and the idea that Britain is experiencing a period of ‘post modernism’. The extract gives the example of education levels having risen in Britain so attitudes of deference and respect for authority have declined. Deference is one of the key features of Almond and Verba’s ‘Civic Culture’ a term they used to define the climate of British politics. They argued that British political culture is made up of three attributes, Deference, Consensus and Homogeneity. Although there was substantial evidence at the time for these ideas, for instance the Conservatives accepting the NHS as a success, the idea of a civic culture has since been contested. Denis Kavanagh disagreed with the idea of civic culture in that he felt there was lack of confidence in political institutions, social tension, for instance the rise of the British National party, breakdown of traditional class structures, public apathy with low voting turnouts and the desire for constitutional reform.

The arguments of Kavanagh against the idea of a ‘Civic culture’ in Britain are similar to the extract’s idea of ‘older values merging with modern values’ instead of solid deference within Britain. It has been argued that with constitutional reform, the influence of the monarchy has declined which may have had some affect on the current political culture of Britain. While Britain was ruled by a monarchy, the culture of the country would have been very different. It has also been argued that there has been a considerable change to British political culture since the end of the Second World War, the Thatcher era ushering in a breakdown of post war consensus with self reliance, and the glorification of a free market. This was changed again with Blair’s ‘ Third Way’ which accepted rights alongside responsibilities and promoted constitutional reform. Now however Britain is said to be experiencing ‘post modernism’ where political cultures are unavoidably influenced by globalisation and voting behaviour becomes more volatile with partisan dealignment.

Although the extract argues that ‘respect for authority has declined’ there is no factual evidence to support this, only using the argument that higher levels of education has encouraged this. It could of course be argued that higher levels of education has in fact re-enforced the concept of authority, seen as all schools operate via a system by where teachers are respected by students. The extract although, highlights the volatility of political culture seen as it has changed over the years, but sees that old values have merged with modern, it could be argued that modern values are completely opposite, for example religion has played a larger role in the past, influencing voting behaviour, but with religious pluralism, these values no longer influence the majority of the electorate.

Gender, class and age can be seen as pivotal factors in determining the political behaviour of individuals. It has often been presumed that sociological factors such as these will ultimately shape voting behaviour despite the arguments that other ideas determine voting including a person’s rational choice or the idea of a dominant ideology that will determine voting patterns. These are strong arguments, but the idea that ‘Gender, class and age’ influence voting behaviour deserves much examination.

Although there is evidence of cross-class voting, between 1945 and 1970 there was evidence that supported the theory that a person’s class largely determined how they voted. Nearly two thirds of all voters voted for their ‘natural’ class party this reinforcing the perhaps stereotypical view that most working-class voters opted for Labour while those outside of this class opted for the Conservative party. Since this time, many political scientists including David Denver and Ivor Crewe have claimed that the reverse of this process is now in action across Britain. The idea of ‘class dealignment’ has since become a popular target of debate, arguing that the link between class and voting behaviour has been significantly reduced. Evidence of this can be located with the large increase in the working-class vote for the Conservative party in the general election of 1979, an idea incompatible with the idea of ‘class alignment’.

The significance of class within voting behaviour can be examined through the increase in the proportion on votes cast for the Labour party across the general elections of 1987, 1992 and 1997. With the Labour party still on the far left of the party despite the various changes of Kinnock until this point, the party only received 30.8% of the vote against a Conservative majority of 100. The Labour party was able to improve this percentage but only through, as many saw it, moving the principles of the party towards the centre and through this appealing to the middle classes as opposed to simply the working class electorate. In 1997, the Labour party managed to win 43% of the vote and if we accept the idea that Labour here had appealed to the middle classes, which would have perhaps voted for the Conservative party if accepting ‘class alignment’, this is evidence of class dealignment as the voters have switched loyalties.

In 2001, the theory that the younger members of the electorate tended to vote for the Labour party and the older members for the Conservative party held true. Forty-seven per cent of voters aged 18-34 chose Labour, while only 29% of these voters opted for the Conservative party. Conversely, only in the above sixty-five bracket did vote for the Conservative party exceed that of Labour. The only party that contravenes this idea is the Liberal Democrats whose support in 2001 was spread fairly across all age brackets. It was the traditional idea that people’s political views became more inclined to the right or the Conservative party with age. This assumption however, was challenged by Butler and Stokes in 1969, when they put forward their ‘generational cohorts’ theory. This theory suggests that most elderly voters required their political preferences from their parents in the early 20 th century when the Labour party was not well established as a credible party of government. Since many of the parents of those who were elderly in 1969 were inclined to the Conservative party and would have transmitted their views to their children which is explanation enough for the reason why many of the elderly in the 1960s were Conservatives. The idea is not that these people grew to be supporters of the Conservative party as this idea would mean that later generations which had been brought up while the Labour was a credible party of government would continue to support Labour in their old age.

It was generally accepted that women were more likely to vote for the conservative party than men, as one political scientist put it “There is overwhelming evidence that women are more conservatively inclined than men”. It has been argued that between 1945 and 1966, while men had given the Labour party a victory at every general election, women had only done so twice. By 1997 however, gender differences had all but disappeared and in 2001 men and women voted for the two main parties in identical proportions. It has been suggested that three factors alone account for this disappearance in gender differences. The Labour party has made a conscious effort to appeal to female voters as well as emphasising improvements in education and childcare. Their adoption of ‘positive discrimination’ encouraged many women to stand as MPs and in the election of 1997; many of these women were awarded this role due to the party’s landslide victory. A changing workforce may also account for the disappearance; it was only in the mid 1990s that the number of women in paid employment reached a similar level to that of men. Family and household roles change as more women opt to work outside of the home and this, political scientists suggest, it changing the voting behaviour of women and subsequently Britain.

Despite many arguments regarding class, gender and age there is also the factor of region that plays a role within the voting behaviour of Britain. The term ‘North- South Divide’ which rose to popularity during the 1980s, is indicative of segregation within geography, support for the Labour and Conservative party being specific to a part of this divide. Although the divide between the north and south appeared to decline with the results of the elections in the 1990s where support for the Conservative fell sharply in areas where there had been a strong proportion of votes during the 1980s, notably the South East and London. Despite this, there is new evidence to suggest that the North-South divide is returning to British politics. In the south-east and south-west the Conservative party have advanced massively in the past two years, up from 39% to an average of 48%. The evidence of the divide lies in the fact that in the north of the country Conservative support appears to have fallen from 28% to 26%. The picture of Britain now is split across the middle with the south of the country favouring the Cameron leadership of the Conservative party and the north of the country that largely rejects the party. Perhaps it could be argued that due to Labour’s losses in both Scotland and Wales the idea of a north-south divide is one dimensional, the south in some cases fond of the Brown government.

Many argue that besides regional differences, there are other factors including ethnicity, religion, issues and political models that should be incorporated. Although studies show that the majority of black and Asian people vote for the Labour party, different levels of support have been noted within each of these groups. In 1997 there was a 16% difference between Asian and black support for the Labour party, in an earlier study there was marked higher levels of support for the Conservative party among East African Asians than among those from the Indian sub-continent. Although this could be considered a major factor, ethnicity is generally related to other factors, most often religion, because of its persuasions in this area. Despite the apparent decline of religion in Britain, religious denomination or identification continues to bear some relationship to party choice. The Church of England, closely identified with the political establishment, has been described as the ‘Tory party at prayer’. Non-Christians, those with no religion and Roman Catholics appear to support Labour in much greater numbers than the other parties, while the Conservative party receives more support from Anglicans than from other groups.

Some political scientists have argued that the outcome of elections is dependent on a rational analysis of the party’s positions on a range of principles, issues and current policies. The commentator Dorey argues that, since 1970 issue voting has increased in importance both in terms of ‘saliency’ and in terms of which party is seen to have the best policies on the salient issues. With the Conservative party, it is obvious that the party has incorporated the ‘green’ policies in order to appeal to voters on this level. The party is also strong with ‘family values’, something that appeals to most of the electorate in that it is a unit that everyone is involved in. Surely the factors of issues and rational choice must have some impact on voting behaviour? Political commentators have for a considerable period of time remarked on increasing ‘volatility’ within British politics and there is evidence for a decline in support for the Labour party due to the Iraq war which is of course compatible with the idea of issue voting.

There are of course several voting models that many see to affect the voting behaviour of individuals. There exists the social structures model which is inclusive of sociological factors such as class, gender and age, but there is also the dominant ideology model, the party identification model and the aforementioned rational choice model. Each of these models hold strong arguments, the dominant ideology model arguing that the establishment ultimately influences attitudes and behaviour within politics. The party identification model arguing that a voter’s psychological attachment will define outcome and the ration choice model seeing that issues will ultimately sway outcome. Despite these arguments, it could be accepted of course that a mixture of these models can successfully explain voting behaviour as there are numerous similarities.

Gender, age and class clearly have an influence over the voting behaviour of Britain. Much evidence exists to support this idea, particularly the social structures model which includes sociological factors such as these and sees them as the most important when defining voting behaviour. There is much evidence however, to suggest that these factors may have been more relevant some years back, seen as now Britain is experiencing an era of ‘post modernism’, perhaps the voting behaviour of Britain is changing also. These factors also may have more importance depending on the type of voter, for instance those who believe that the class system is important and should be retained may be more influenced by the class they are in, this ultimately determining their voting behaviour. The majority of evidence concerning gender, class and age and their influence over voting behaviour appears to have been stronger in the past, for instance in 1967 it was stated that “There is overwhelming evidence that women are more conservatively inclined than men”, now however, votes are spread fairly equally across parties. Despite this, there is still substantial evidence that supports the argument that younger voters are more inclined to the left, 47% of voters aged 18-34 voting Labour while those in the above sixty-five bracket, voting for the Conservatives more than for the Labour party in 2001. With class, like gender, the relationship between it and voting behaviour appears to be at its weakest, however, this may not necessarily endorse the class-dealignment idea. Voters may in fact be changing their behaviour because the policies on offer from the prospective parties have changed considerably. Despite this, there is still evidence that supports the traditional view that most working-class voters will opt for Labour while the middle classes are inclined to the Conservative party.

In this extract, the term ‘political culture’ is used to mean the set of values which are unique to a country in the way they operate politics, referring mainly in this context to how they ‘influence the political behaviour of individuals.’ The extract argues that these individuals can be identified by differences in ‘region, ethnicity or social class’ (but questionably makes no reference to gender, age or education) and this is what results in a society consisting of ‘various groups’. The extract makes reference to the fact that a country’s political culture can ‘contain great variety’ or be ‘relatively uniform in nature’ but gives no examples to back up its claim. It could have used the example of Britain whose political culture has changed dramatically since the 1970s from the individualist Thatcher era, where the government was concerned with self-reliance, enterprise and market values, through to Blair’s New Labour. His government aimed to put more emphasis on responsibilities, modernise Britain’s political culture and succeeded with introducing a path between traditional socialism and Thatcherite individualism (The Third Way). Today, in what is now known as the post-modern era, Britain’s political culture revolves around a pluralist and culturally diverse population who have come to see the effects of globalisation and are now concerned with new issues such as environmental pollution and climate change.

The extract mentions the decline of ‘deference and respect for authority’ in Britain, as a consequence to rising ‘education levels’ and this is known as civic culture. The extract argues that Britain’s civic culture is declining which is in accordance with Denis Kavanagh (1983) who argues that the key characteristics (defined by political commentators Almond and Verba) of a civic culture - deference, consensus, and homogeneity – are no longer really present in Britain as people have become increasingly dissatisfied with their government and there are ‘greater social tensions’ between social groups (for example the 1981 Brixton race riots or the existence of the British Nation Party which is profoundly racist.) Evidence that Kavanagh and the extract are correct in saying that Britain’s civic culture is waning, comes from such things as increasing public apathy (suggesting a lack of support for authority and the establishment) and the increasing crime rate (levels of violent crime increased by 35% from 2004-2005 alone. I.D.

Gender, class and age, play a large part on the involvement of the individual in politics, for example it can be argued that older people are increasingly more likely to vote as they see the act of voting as more of a tradition to be upheld than younger people. Class is also an important factor as traditionally, politics has always been seen as run by middle and upper class people (who got their education from Westminster or Eton like Conservative leader David Cameron) rather than those belonging to the working class. Gender must also be taken into account as women have only been allowed to participate in politics relatively recently, beginning with their being granted suffrage (for women over 30 anyway) in 1918. However other factors, such as education, ethnicity and the region in which someone lives must also be taken into account as they also play a significant role in an individual’s involvement in politics.

In 2005, just 19.7% of MPs (127 individuals) elected to Parliament were female which is completely unproportional to the amount of women they need to represent (49.76% of the total population are female) and despite women being able to stand for election since 1918, Britain has only ever seen one female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. The lack of women involved in Britain’s government can be seen as an incentive for many to get involved and work to represent their gender, however politics has always traditionally been seen as the forte of men who sometimes make it difficult for women to succeed (even putting a ‘glass ceiling’ in place which prevents women succeeding beyond a certain level) and deter many from even trying. This may help to explain Britain’s fall from 27 th place (in 1999) to 47 th place (in 2002) in the international league table for the representation of women in the lower or single chambers of national Parliaments (Longmate 2003). Women are being encouraged to partake in politics by some organisations however, such as the Labour party and the Welsh Assembly who have questioningly introduced ‘positive discrimination’ e.g. in the form of all women shortlists, to make it easier for women to become elected and make their representation in government fairer.

Class is certainly an influential factor in the involvement of individuals in politics. Political parties often target certain social classes to try and gain the most votes e.g. traditionally Labour have always targeted the working class but the move to New Labour in recent years has seen them target the broader middle class as there are more votes to be gained there (their share of the vote increased from 34% in the 1992 general election to 43% in 1997). This was also the case for Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher who aimed policies such as tax cuts at the working class and as a result gained more votes. This seems to suggest that someone’s class greatly affects how they will vote (class alignment) and this is represented in the social structures model. According to this model, someone who is working class is more likely to vote Labour compared to someone who is non-working class, as they will probably vote Conservative. Evidence for this theory is that nearly two thirds of the electorate voted for their ‘natural’ class party between 1945 and 1970.

In the 2001 British Election Study, it was found that 76% if 65+ aged people voted compared to just 40% of 25-34 year olds. This clearly shows that older generations are more likely to vote than younger people who are becoming increasingly apathetic towards voting. For pensioners, voting is more of a tradition for them and as the majority are retired, they have more time to worry about issues concerning them such as the state pension, council tax and the NHS which therefore encourages them to vote. For a lot of younger people, they are too busy working and bringing up families to care much about turning up to voting stations where their vote, should they cast it, is more than likely not to count anyway due to Britain’s first-past-the-post voting system.

As well as gender, class and age, the issue of education in influencing the individual’s role in politics, is significant. This is because in a child’s life, they will spend 15,000 hours at school and so the education they receive will play a key role in their political socialisation. According to the primacy model, people are most easily influenced when they are children and according to some research, children have obtained a sense of party loyalty, national identity and have some political knowledge by the time they are 10 or 11 years old and have therefore been in school for at least five years. However, it can be easily argued that very little of the time children are in school is spent on learning about politics or political issues and so education does not play a major part in an individual’s involvement in politics.

Ethnicity is another factor which may influence an individual’s political involvement and should be taken into account. Currently, there are very few non-white people in British Parliament, in fact in 2001, only 12 of the 650 seats available were taken by people from black or Asian backgrounds. The situation is not much fairer in European Parliament where there are only 9 MEPs from non-white backgrounds out of 785 representatives (and over half of these are British.) This evidence suggests that non-white people are seriously underrepresented in British (and European) politics. As with the factor of gender, being underrepresented may encourage more people from ethnic minorities to get involved in politics or, it could be argued, it may intimidate them from getting involved as it seems untraditional and also difficult for non-white people to be successful in politics. Many would argue that racism is still prevalent in Britain today (there are statistics to back this up for example, black and Asian people are eight times more likely to be stopped and searched compared to white people) and this is the reason why many non-white people are deterred from becoming active in politics. The fact that racist parties, such as the BNP, exist may also be a reason for discouraging people from ethnic minorities from being politically active. Despite there being talks about doing more to encourage racially different people from getting involved in the running of the country (suggestions have also been made about the controversial policy of positive discrimination), there has been little improvement, for example, Britain had three Afro-Caribbean Labour MPs in 1989 and 17 years later, this number has only increased to four. It seems racism and lack of encouragement are seriously affecting the individual’s involvement in British politics today.

Regional differences may also affect how involved with their country’s politics a person may be. For instance, the emerging ‘North-South divide’ in Britain shows that region seriously affects the way people vote e.g. people in Scotland and Wales are far less likely to vote Labour, evident from the fact that support there has dwindled from 43% to 36%, as more Scottish people than ever are voting for the Scottish National Party. However, people in the South East and South West, people are much more likely to vote for the Conservative party who have advanced from 39% to 48%. On the other hand, people in the North are far more likely to vote for the Liberal Democrats. This evidence would make it appear that Britain’s population are more likely to vote a certain way depending on the region in which they live which means that regional differences play a large part in the political behaviour of the electorate.

Having assessed the influence of gender, class and age as well as the factors of education, ethnicity and regional differences, there are some conclusions which can now be made about the extent of the influence of each of these factors. Gender does seem to affect the individual’s involvement in politics as slowly, more women are getting involved in politics, helped largely through all women shortlists which haves seen great success such as in the Welsh Assembly where 50% of MPs are now female. However, more needs to be done to encourage women to partake in politics if they are to eventually represent all British women proportionally. Gender seems to be an important factor in an individual’s political involvement, but not more important than class. There has been evidence of class alignment under the social structures model which shows that the majority of people have, in recent years, voted for their ‘natural’ class party e.g. Labour for the working class and Conservative for the middle class. This shows that when assessing the influence of certain factors, class is certainly significant as there is strong evidence that it affects the way people vote and therefore how political parties will brand themselves. The fact that there is a model for this theory is supporting evidence too. Age is also hugely important as worrying evidence from the British Election Study and Age Concern shows that increasingly, there are more older people voting than younger people. This also makes it appear that older people are more interested in politics and therefore more likely to become actively involved with it. According to the recency model, education is also an important factor as people are most influential at a young age and therefore how involved they will be with politics in later life, stems from their childhood. However, this factor is not as significant as that of class for example (which has strong supporting evidence) as out of all the time children spend at school, a very small amount (if any) is spent studying their country’s politics. The factor of ethnicity may also affect an individual’s involvement in politics, for example the fact that non-white people are seriously underrepresented in Parliament maybe a factor to encourage them to get more involved however this is countered with the fact that there is still a lot of racism in Britain today and racist parties do not help to encourage more people from ethnic minorities to be politically active. Regional differences are more likely to affect an individual as there is so much evidence to suggest that region strongly affects which political party members of the electorate will be more inclined to vote for. E.B.

Explain the term ‘grey’ voters used in the extract.  

The extract uses the term ‘grey’ voters to refer to the section of the electorate who are more advanced in years, particularly the over sixty fives. The extract presents the argument that traditionally older people are more likely to vote Conservative, as with age comes an increase in wealth and property which leaves one less reliant on the welfare state, which in turn leads to a Conservative leaning. However it also states that Conservative support appears to be diminishing amongst the grey voters, as in 1997 the grey vote provided a ten point lead over Labour, whereas by 2001 lead had halved to 5 points. Some commentators may argue that this because of the ‘generational cohorts’ model. The model states that people born in the same era are likely to vote similarly as they generally hold the same values. Their political preferences are then passed on to their children and this continues until a different party becomes more favourable and the voting behaviour changes. Therefore where the ‘grey’ vote was traditionally Conservative, it may be that that generation had simple always voted this way, not that they had decided to vote Conservative as they grew older. This may explain why the Tory grey vote is now waning; as a new generation of voters moves through the system.

The ‘grey’ vote is presently something that any party in, or running for, government must pay particular attention to. It is increasingly evident that the over sixty fives are more likely to vote, as they still regard it as their civic duty whereas younger people are more likely to feel apathetic towards voting and have yet to build party loyalties. A survey for Age Concern showed that 69% of the over 55s said they always vote in a general election compared to just 17% of 18 to 24 year olds. Also Britain currently has an ageing population, which means that there are a greater number of older people than younger that make up the populace. This is because life expectancy has increased and people are waiting longer to have children. These factors combined mean that the grey vote is potentially very powerful as pensioners can effectively create a block vote on issues that affect them, such as the NHS. This means than they can almost form their own pressure group to get their opinions heard and accounted for.

Explain the term backbenchers used in the extract.

A member of parliament that does not hold governmental office or is not a Front Bench spokesperson for the opposition is known as a backbencher. Backbenchers are MPs or legislatures who have not been selected to sit in the cabinet or Shadow Cabinet for any number of reasons, possibly because they have yet to be selected or have been dropped from government. Because of this – and as the extract suggests – backbenchers tend to follow their party’s policies in order to gain their leadership’s favour, in the hope of obtaining a place in office. Whilst it is tempting to cite Clare Short as a rebellious backbench MP, one must remember that Short left the Labour party to become an independent MP, thus relinquishing the requisite to follow her party unquestioningly. However, it is true that, unlike the source indicates, backbenchers are not always puppets for their parties – for example, backbencher Robert Marshall-Andrews voted against the Iraq war in 2003, despite being a Labour MP. Backbenchers play a fundamental role if their party experiences a fundamental split over a certain issue – it is then that the votes of backbenchers become vital.

The extract does not touch on the fact that backbenchers may be influenced by the lobbying of backbench committees – 61% of pressure groups believe that influence of party committees is useful to their cause; and although this influence over policies is indirect, it is very much present. One must also consider whether a backbencher votes according to their conscience as the trustee model suggests, according to their constituents as the delegate model suggests, or according to their party as the mandate model suggests. Whilst the extract errs toward the mandate model, one could argue that a backbencher has more reasons to vote than simply for promotion – they may vote according to their morals, or even according to their constituents as they have voted them into Parliament.

“Parliament usually supports the actions and policies of the government of the day.” Discuss.

When considering the actions of Parliament, one must clearly distinguish between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and the limitations inflicted upon both; in the current democratic system, is Parliament being given a just opportunity to challenge the executive?

The House of Commons can theoretically demonstrate power against the executive, and is able to scrutinise legislation; however, the ability of MPs to oppose the government is limited when one considers the use of whips. Whilst a one-line whip does not require attendance, a three-line whip necessitates attendance; and under a two-line whip, MPs can only abstain if they pair up with another likeminded MP or have their constituency week during that particular vote. If an MP acts against a three-line whip, they may have their whip withdrawn – effectively meaning they are thrown out of the party. The most alarming instance of this was in 1994, when 8 Conservative MPs were ousted from their party when they voted against a Bill concerning increased contribution to the EU. This suggests a startlingly undemocratic approach – MPs are not truly free to vote, as they face being expelled from their party if they disagree with a motion. So one could say that MPs in the Commons may obey the government of the day in the pursuit of promotion, as rebellion would result in the loss of their position – and this is supported by the fact that rebellious MP Clare Short became an independent MP. Conversely, whips do not carry the same gravity in the House of Lords. This is because even if a Lord’s whip is withdrawn, they may still stand for election – party support is far less significant in the Lords, with no official party loyalties in place.

Concerning opposition of the government, one of the House of Lords’ main abilities is to delay the passing of a Bill for up to two years; it also possesses a total veto over proposals concerning the life of a Parliament. Because it tends to receive Bills that have already been passed through the Commons, the House of Lords examines Bills in more detail in order to check for issues that may have been overlooked; as such, it may pass amendments before sending a Bill back to the House of Commons. However, this power is limited – the government’s majority in the Commons enables it to reject any unwanted changes made to particular clauses. Another limitation was proposed by Lord Salisbury in 1945, and is now known as the Salisbury Convention – this entails that a Bill cannot be rejected at its second or third reading if it is part of the governing party’s manifesto.

Within the Commons, Private Members’ Bills enable MPs to propose their own objectives; objectives that the government may or may not agree with. The efficiency of this system is questionable, however – between 1983 and 2002, only 12% of these Bills were passed. The most successful form of a Private Members’ Bill is the Ballot Bill, which involves the drawing of 20 MPs names from a ballot held at the beginning of each parliamentary session; however, time can be limited due to the discussion of Bills already being considered. The timing of these is also debatable – given that most MPs return to their constituencies on the Thursday, it seems odd to schedule discussion of Ballot Bills for the next day.

MPs that outline their potential Bills under the Ten Minute Rule generally do so for publicity, instead of striving for actual legislation – thus these Bills do not directly effect change. As such, any change brought about using this type of Private Members’ Bill will not be done through official political channels; rather, it would be brought about thanks to the input of the public or media.

If a Bill has already been passed through the necessary steps in the House of Lords, an MP may introduce it into the House of Commons – however, the likelihood of a Bill being passed within the parliamentary session is unlikely, due to the time this approval would take. The likelihood of a Bill being passed when introduced under Standing Order No.57 is possibly even more doubtful – during discussions scheduled on the Friday, Ballot Bills are given considerable priority in terms of time. Thus it typically depends on restrictions of time as to whether a Private Members’ Bill will have effect – suggesting that MPs are not given sufficient opportunity to challenge the executive.

However, Private Members’ Bills can have some impact, even if they are not successful – Michael Foster’s Ballot Bill concerning a ban on foxhunting did not succeed, but did pass in its second reading with 411 in favour to 151 against; furthermore, it triggered actions on the government’s part that resulted in a foxhunting ban in 2005. However, in this case one could argue that the Bill only brought about changes because the government agreed with its basic policy – Bills allow the government to pass reforms that could be damaging to be linked directly to, for example the lowering of the age of consent for homosexuals to 18. As such, it can depend on governmental policy as to whether a Bill has influence or not.

The House of Commons is also given the ability to form or consult committees when considering legislation. Standing committees consist of members from different parties, which are chosen by senior members on the Committee of Selection – these standing committees debate possible amendments achievable within a Bill’s basic standards, as outlined at the second reading. However, such amendments tend to fail; changes to clauses will usually be whipped in the House of Commons. The government can also apply the guillotine, meaning the institution of a time limit if agreement with the Opposition cannot be reached conventionally. In light of such potentially undemocratic means, Norton suggests four possible reforms for standing committees. The first of these is the timetabling of the standing committees, which would render application of the guillotine unnecessary – and since 2002, the ability to timetable has been available. Norton also suggests the permanence of standing committees, which would enable them to build up greater expertise for the consideration of bills; furthermore, Norton proposes the idea that a Bill’s passage should precede its second reading – thus enabling a broader discussion without the hindrance of underlying principles. Finally, Norton suggests that standing committees should be crossed with select committees and be able to question witnesses and debate particular clauses of a Bill – such an approach would mean outside groups could bear more open influence. These ‘special standing committees’ have been utilised, but only over uncontroversial Bills.

The other type of committee made available to the Commons is the select committee, which may either be departmental or non-departmental; both can take evidence in either written or oral form, which leads to the formulation of a report intended for the Commons. The Public Accounts Committee is a non-departmental committee set up in 1861; it assesses the government’s accounts and checks that the spending of money is authorised – this illustrates the importance of such committees in terms of the government’s actions. A non-departmental select committee can be set up to investigate a particular problem with the government. It is a departmental select committees job to scrutinise a government department’s expenditure and policies; and by the end of 2003, 18 departmental committees had been set up. Party whips can continue to demonstrate control by influencing who takes the 11 places available in a departmental select committee; however, they – alongside frontbench Opposition members and government ministers – cannot attend.

As with Private Members’ Bills, a huge restriction on the power of departmental select committees is that of time; however, they may request the evidence of people or records during their examination – though the efficiency of this is debatable, as witnesses and ministers often fail to give simple answers. Furthermore, departmental select committees are given little access to legal assistance, and are often influenced by party bias; a report may even fail to be discussed in the House at all. Although the government allowed for the committees to access extra resources, it rejected proposals for the reduction of the power of party whips, as well as the ability for the full House to ask questions concerning reports.

So one can conclude that Parliament does, on the whole, appear to support the government – however, one must also consider the constraints in place upon members of the Houses of Parliament. With increased resources and a more suitably democratic approach, Parliament may be given more opportunities to effectively question the government; thus the proposed reforms must be taken extremely seriously. A.T.