Compare and contrast the effectiveness of the Senate and the House of Lords in holding their respective executives to account (25 marks)

Introduction:

Both the US and UK systems of government are bicameral, meaning they have two chambers. The Senate is the upper chamber in the US, while the House of Lords is the upper chamber in the UK. However, as highlighted by Watts ‘whereas, in Britain, one chamber is dominant, this is not so in the US’. Indeed, common sense would dictate that the Senate is much more effective in holding its respective executive to account as it retains all the same powers as its counterpart, the House of Representatives, while the Lords lacks considerable legislative functions, which could be seen to hinder its ability to hold the executive to account. Nevertheless, the Lords have been instrumental, at times, in holding the executive to account by utilizing the resources that is available to it. 

Extract from the main body of the Essay:

The ability of the Lords and the Senate to hold their executives to account can first be analysed in the context of their composition. The US Senate consists of 100 members, who all represent a particular state and have tenure of 6 years. For example, Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand represents the whole state of New York. The long tenure held by Senators in comparison to Representatives gives them a better chance to hold the executive to account, as they participate throughout a longer period of congressional sessions without worry of seeking re-election. However, the constant pressure of constituency work may hinder a Senator’s ability to hold the executive to account, as they do not want to take action that would upset or alienate their voters, such as gun control laws. The Lords consists of nearly 800 peers, who all hold their seats for life and do not face election as it is an entirely appointed chamber. Indeed, as Fairclough highlights ‘Lords are, therefore free from constituency pressure’. This can give the Lords more autonomy and freedom to hold the executive to account, especially on particularly contentious issues.