1. How effective are Back Bench MP’s? (40 Marks)
Possible answer, mark scheme & examiners report
Representing - Good on a constituency basis ----> Westminster Hall to debate
Awful as a collective body ----> Mainly White, Male and middle class [only 143 women
mps etc... not multicultural]
Accountability - Good ----> Can take part in 'scrutiny' ------> e.g. Select Committees
Bad ----> Independent minded MPs are suppressed via the whips
Good ----> They as a collective body have the ultimate power to remove the
government ----> VONC e.g.1979
Legislating - Almost bad in every way ----> Elective dictatorship
----> proposing a legislation is difficult unless financed by a pressure group or if it has
gov support
Debates - Good ----> Allows MPs to have a voice on important issues such as EU
relations
Bad ----> Debates must be requested and will only be accepted if it doesn't embarrass
the government meaning that controversial issues such as Iraq won't be discussed.
ineffective because they are not members of the cabinet and therefore are not as
included in the decision making process,
less media coverage than frontbench MPs who are able to reflect their views on current
affairs programmes such as Question time.
effective, due to the fact that they are members of parliament; parliament is sovereign
and the supreme law making authority, they are less pressured to tow the party line,
and are more able to carry out constituency duties.
Mark Scheme
The roles of backbench MPs (also the role of the Commons in general) include the
following, together with factors determining positive and negative factors affecting
effectiveness. :
Representing the interests of constituents – Some opportunities exist to raise issues.
MPs vary in how much constituency work they do.
Representing various sections of the community and political causes.

2. Varies from MP to MP. Some can be effective, e.g. Caroline Lucas.
Debating issues in the Chamber.
Largely ritualised, unlikely to influence outcomes.
Work on select committees.
Strong influence and becoming stronger. Examples include work of Tom Watson
Work on legislative committees.
Whipped and unlikely to have any influence.
Work on party policy committees.
Decreasing role in view of think tanks and policy agencies.
Sometimes developing private member’s legislation - Rare and difficult.
Calling ministers and government generally to account. Some success, though ministers
are adept at avoiding answers.
MPs lack research help and often expertise.
A Level 2 response will typically exhibit the following features:
At least two roles of MPs explored, together with some knowledge of both strengths
and weaknesses of those roles.
A Level 3 response will typically exhibit the following features:
At least three roles of MPs explored, together with sound knowledge of both strengths
and weaknesses of those roles.
Examiners report
It was encouraging to see that the vast majority of candidates did attempt an
evaluation of MP's work, rather than merely describing it. Naturally, the quality and
depth of evaluation varied, but most candidates did approach the question correctly. It
was also remarkable that most candidates recognised the different and varying roles of
MPs. Many did ignore constituency work, although referring to that aspect was not a
prerequisite for a high mark.
Many good responses differentiated between effective constituency work by MPs and
ineffective work on, for example, legislative scrutiny.

3. A widespread failing, however, was good evaluation of the growing importance of
departmental select committees and there was especially a lack of examples.
For example, the work of members of the Culture, Media and Sport select committee
apropos the behaviour of the press was rarely referred to. Nearly all, however,
understood the importance of the power of the whips, patronage and party loyalty.
The majority of answers were also well-constructed, with useful introductions and
conclusions. The coherence of the writing, especially the evaluative passages, varied
greatly. The very best responses tended to explore the question what does
effectiveness actually mean? - making their evaluations much more successful than
the average. For example, those who remarked that MPs, especially of the governing
party(ies), are there to provide legitimacy, not just to check executive power, gave a
more textured evaluation than most.
An example of a very solid answer, with especially strong introduction and conclusion.