Article content continued

The idea that our parliamentary traditions have been usurped seems to be widely held; the belief that the House of Commons has regressed into a rubber-stamp for the executive almost universally so.

The governing executive’s mindset is that the opposition, and the occasional dissident Tory, cannot be trusted with serious affairs of state, so they should get out of the way.

Which suggests the question: Does Parliament matter?

Yes, it retains its role in deciding which party forms government; it can even remove that party from office in a confidence vote. Yes, it remains a forum for public debate and it continues to perform a representative role by linking the House of Commons to the people through their constituency MPs.

But it has been emasculated in its role initiating and influencing public policy by a powerful and disciplined government that seeks to quash any dissenting opinion, even when it emerges as friendly fire.

Much of the reaction has manifested itself in despair that this descent into impotence is irrevocable. But, as a study into the inner workings of the British system reveals, parliament has the power to take up its bed and heal itself.

Meg Russell, professor of British politics and deputy director of University College London’s Constitution Unit, said the study revealed growing levels of backbench independence, buoyed by structural changes to the committee system, which mean even majority governments have to fear the power of Parliament and factor defeat in the House of Commons and House of Lords into the equation when crafting policy.