Disscussing If the Case for Commons Reforms Are Strong

1513 Words7 Pages
The House of Commons is a governing body of Parliament. It has 650 seats in it which MP’s and ministers sit in to vote on legislations and policies. Since the 20th century the House of Commons has become the most powerful body in Parliament. It is entirely elected by the electorate mean that it has the legitimate power off the electorate. Both the government and the shadow government are sat in the House of Commons. There are three main parts the House of Commons; the first being the laws and policies that are being put forward, the second being the scrutiny of the government and the polices put forward, finally the representation in the House of Commons and by MP’s and ministers themselves. All of these branches i am going to talk about have good and bad parts to them. The first negative about the House of Commons is the legitimation of the laws being passed through parliament. There are many arguments that a lot of the laws being passed through the House of Commons don’t have approval of the people. The first reason for this is that government has a majority in the House of Commons. This means that if the government backbenchers and ministers vote with the party they will certainly pass the legislation through. The reason that the ministers are loyal to the party is something called “collective responsibility”. This is when a minister has to publically support the party’s policies and have to vote with the party or they get fired. There are many reasons for the backbenchers to vote for the party policies, the first is the loyalty of the backbenchers. Many MP’s are loyal to the party for the simple reason they joined the party as they agree with most of the policies. However, they are mainly loyal to the party as if they have a good track record with the party and voting for it then they may get a promotion to a ministerial job. However, even if backbenchers are
Open Document