Why is Parliament so weak in relation to the executive?

The domination of the legislature, which includes parliament, by the executive director branch, which contains governance, is a majorly authoritative feature of the British political system. According to French philosopher Montesquieu, the lack of the dissolution of powers and, hence, the fusion of the executive and legislative branches (as, uniquely, in the UK) may lead to a large accumulation of power in unrivalled branch. Unlike the ground forces political system where these branches be kept strictly separate, there is luxuriant executive power which means that fan tan shag be heart-to-heart as weak and powerless to the ruling fellowship.There are galore( contributenominal) factors that make Parliament look weak in relation to the executive including the electoral system, the scrutiny of MPs, and the power (if any) of the reside of Lords. The first past judgment of convictions the post electoral system allows governances in the UK to seemingly dominate Parliament w ithout representing a very large proportion of the electorate. The system ensures that one party with win an absolute majority, which tends to be very large, and, hence, means that parliament is comparatively powerless in contrast as the berth of dissidents is limited which allows government to dominate.The 1997 landslide victory of New Labour was only achieved with about 36% of the vote. This comparatively small percentage of the voting population gave the party a mammoth 197 seat majority after sitting on the other(a) side of the chamber for 18 years. The huge numbers of seats in Parliament that were given to Labour meant that fair representation of political discernment was undermined hugely. Additionally, the majorities necessary for new legalitys would be a given if the party were croup their leader which in the movement of Tony Blair was almost al slipway the case.It is in these ways that Parliament is made to look weak in relation to the executive. In theory, however, t he flip side of a strong single-party government is that there are still enough seats left in Parliament to fulfill a critical checking role and for opposition parties to present themselves as a realistic alternative to the government of the day. This system also excludes extremist parties, such as the BNP, from representation in the legislature unless its electoral support is geographically strenuous it is unlikely to win any seats under FPTP which is verifying in order to pr til nowt them from electoral legitimacy.In any case the Commons have the ultimate power to remove the present government from office. Scrutiny of fellow MPs is made difficult if one party dominates the House of Commons. MPs have insufficient time and support to be able to call looks to account effectively. MPs oftentimes lack the technical expertise to scrutinise code adequately and on the occasions that they do ask penetrating questions, the respondent usually has a response prepared and/or by civil ser vants.In addition, curt timing of Opposition days might blunt impact which is why any attack on the present government must be carefully planned. In February 2010, the former bosses of the Royal Bank of Scotland were for three hours questioned vigorously by a select military commission and they responded with both sewerdour and courtesy. The committee members probed diligently enough just, not for the first time, they were outsmarted by expert witnesses with besides much technical information at their disposal.This proves that the understaffed and poorly resourced scrutinizers arsenot do their job properly and, hence, also highlights how weak Parliament are in relation to the executive. However, MPs are allowed freedom to ask questions in areas of special interest to them without having to worry about party whips. In Parliament, in the past, a number of important bills have been debated and published in draft, including individuality Cards and Mental Health Bills. In addition , whatever a minister proposes is subjected to Parliamentary scrutiny at some stage so volition have to be viable with room for agreement from the entire Parliament.Finally, constant quantity debate ensures that even the ruling party is affected by what Parliament thinks even if this is not so obvious at first glance. The House of Lords lack of authority and powers means that the government provoke often revoke pretty much anything that it throws. The powers of the Lords are extremely limited by law as it has absolutely no power over financial matters and cant veto legislation in the long term. Additionally, all amendments can be overturned and, like the Commons, the Lords have a limited role in developing legislation.In 1997, Tony Blair abolished the honour of hereditary peerage but allowed the 92 hereditary peers to retain their seats before appointing a bulky number of Labour peers into the House of Lords in order to make it even easier for him to gain a majority. The huge po wer of government is shown here and can be manipulated to make Parliament look weaker. However, when peers do vote against legislation then parliamentary gridlock can be created. This was certainly the case in 2007 where the House of Lords defied the general consensus in the Commons with 361 votes to 121 in favour of a 100% appointed House of Lords.It is in this way that Parliament can stand up to the executive, whose party have a majority in Parliament, and force compromises by the government. This particular controversial case of rebellion has turn out a success for the Lords as to this day Peers still have to be 100% appointed. In conclusion, it seems Parliament has been made to look powerless by government who can make use of the first past the post system and gain large majorities without large representation. Additionally, scrutiny directed at MPs is easily combated with the brilliantly crafted answers of government.Government has also function increasingly dominant thanks to further Lords reform by Tony Blair and the clean delaying of laws by which act as a thorn on legislation. However, it has to be said that Parliament has many ways in which it can sign on the bullying it receives from the ruling party. The electoral system has obvious advantages that arguably rectify Parliaments role such as the ability to break on scrutinising future laws and to offer better decisions than the ruling party.