Politics Paper 2 Flashcards :)

The Development of the UK Constitution (3)

* **1215 Magna Carter:** created legal principle of liberty and right to due process
* **1998 HRA:** incorporated ECHR with UK statue law
* **1988 Good Friday Agreement + Scotland Act**- devolution established

The Nature of the UK Constitution (3)

* **Uncodified** - numerous sources- not one single document
* **Unentrenched** - can be altered relatively easily by a simple majority vote in parliament
* **Unitary** - sovereignty traditionally located at the centre with the component parts of the country all essentially run from London and treated in a similar way.

The Twin Pillars of the Constitution (2)

proposed by *AV DICEY*

* **Parliamentary Sovereignty**: no parliament can bind its successor- parliament can make law on any subject + this cannot be struck down by a higher body.
* **Rule of Law**: everyone is entitled to a *fair trial* and no one should be imprisoned without *due process*, all citizens are equal under + must obey law- the judiciary must be *independent.*

\

Sources of the UK Constitution (5)

* **Statute Law**: body of law passed by parliament. (^^1998 Human Rights Act^^).
* **Common Law**: legal principles laid down by judges in court ruling- set precedent for later judgements. (^^Habeus Corpus against unlawful imprisonment^^).
* **Conventions**: customs and practices that do not have legal force, but which have been broadly accepted over time. (^^Government will not order military intervention without parliamentary approval^^).
* **Authoritative Works**: textbooks that explain the workings of the political system. (^^Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practices^^).
* **Treaties**: agreements with other EU member states, which UK governments have signed since joining the EU. (^^Maastricht Treaty^^).

Why Reform in the 1990s? (2)

* **Demands for modernisation**: Blair’s New Labour was sympathetic toward the idea of *constitutional reform*. (^^open to ideas from groups such as^^ ^^Charter 88 -wanted a more open democracy and stronger guarantees of rights^^.
* **The experience of Conservative rule**: Conservatives had *failed to undertake constitutional reform*. The unpopular ^^poll tax, black Wednesday. Corruption and ‘sleaze’^^ levelled against Conservatives.

Constitutional Reforms under New Labour

* **House of Lords Reform**: *removal of all hereditary peers* bar 92. This removed the Conservative domination of the Lords. *Introduction of Life Peers, nominated by PMs*.
* **Electoral Reform**: various forms of *proportional representation* were introduced for elections to Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. These were systems of AMS and STV. **Devolution**: following referendums in 1997-98, *Devolution* was introduced to dampen SNP support. Created the ‘*West Lothian Question*’ and the *Barnett Formula*. 2004 devolution for regional assemblies in England were scrapped after bad public reception.
* **The Human Rights Act**: the *ECHR* was incorporated into UK statue law. However, ^^parliament are able to ‘derogate from’ article 5 of the HRA in the name of anti-terrorism.^^
* **The Creation of the Supreme Court:** the *2005 constitutional reform act* saw the implementation of a ^^Supreme Court in 2009^^. Highest court of appeal for UK civil cases and criminal cases. *Removal of the law lords and creation of separation of powers.*

Failed Reforms under the Coalition (3)

* **House of Lords and House of Commons Boundary Reform**: plans for a mainly elected Lords were dropped after a *rebellion of 91 Conservative MPs*. The Liberal Democrats made sure to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600.
* **Electoral Reform**: *2011* *referendum to gauge support for Alternate Vote,* a preferential not proportional voting system. ^^68% rejected it.^^
* **Rights**: Conservatives wanted to replace the HRA with *British Bill of Rights*- Liberal Democrats wanted to maintain it- ^^2023 proposal^^

Reforms under the Coalition (7)

* **Wales**: *2011 received direct law-making powers* in 20 policy areas.
* **Scotland**: *2012 Scotland Act*, established borrowing powers, right to set own income tax and control over landfill tax. ^^55% said no in 2014 IndyRef.^^
* **EVEL**: solution to the ‘*West-Lothian Question’* saw a ‘*grand committee’* consisting of English and Welsh MPs sign-off on English only laws. ^^Used in 2016 to pass housing bill.^^
* **The Fixed Term Parliament Act (2011):** must hold an election at a fixed date every 5 years. ^^Repealed in 2021^^
* **Chairs of Select Committees to be selected by MPs not the PM**.
* **Backbench Business Committee**: chooses topics for debate including those introduced through public e-petitions.
* **Recall of MPs Act (2015)**: custodial sentence or 21 day parliament suspension, *10%* triggers a by-election.

Devolution Referendum 2004

To expand devolution to England through *three regional assemblie*s as ^^rejected by a 78% ‘no’ vote.^^

Scottish Parliament and Government (4)

* Elected every 4 years via AMS. ‘Holyrood’ in Edinburgh.
* Vary income tax by 3p.
* Students do not pay for tuition fees.
* Taxation powers, including right to set a Scottish income tax rate. Borrowing powers. Regulation of air weapons. Drink driving alcohol limits.

Welsh Assembly and Government (2)

* Based in Cardiff, established in 1999. AMS.
* Since the 2011 referendum, they have received *law-making powers on all 20 policy areas.*

Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive (2)

* Following the *1998 Good Friday Agreement*
* Elected by STV

We Should Extend Devolution (4)

* England is the most prosperous and heavily populated part of the UK, but its the only one without a devolved body. ^^Barnett Formula on public spending- England worst per head.^^ A **federal solution would promote greater equality** between the different parts of the UK.
* **‘EVEL’ makes Scottish MPs second-class representatives at Westminster**, weakening the unity of the UK. It doesn’t really solve the *West Lothian Question*. ^^Repealed in 2021^^.
* Devolution been **effective**- led to policies that *meet the differing needs* of the Scottish, Welsh and Irish people
* There is **strong regional identities** in the UK, for example ^^Devon and Cornwall^^. This could be the *basis for regional assemblies* which might *co-ordinate local policies* and *attract inward investment*.

We Shouldn’t Extend Devolution (4)

* **England’s size and wealth** means it would **dominate a federal structure**. Also how would an English parliament relate to Westminster? For example, a *separate English executive could clash with the UK government* over the handling of domestic English issues.
* **‘EVEL’ may have resolved the West Lothian Questio**n. It was used by ^^Theresa May in 2016 to pass a housing bill.^^
* Most English people **don’t make a distinction between England and Britain** as a whole, and see Westminster as ‘their parliament’.
* The defeat of *Blair’s 2004 proposals* suggest that there **isn’t a strong enough sense of regional identity.**

There Should be Electoral Reform (3)

* **Representation Issues**: *FPTP favours large parties* and can lead to a situation where a party that receives a *minority of the popular vote can still form a government*. This means that the views of a significant proportion of the population may not be adequately represented in parliament. ^^2019 Johnson 44% votes^^
* **Encouraging Participation**: Many people feel that their *vote doesn't count* under the current system, particularly in *safe seats* where the result is a foregone conclusion. A form of *proportional representation (PR), could encourage more people to engage with the political process*, knowing that their vote will have a greater impact.
* **Promoting Fairness and Accountability**: With a more proportional system, *smaller parties would have greater chance of gaining representation- could help promote diversity and concentration of power in a few large parties.* It could also lead to *more coalition governments, which may be more accountable to the* electorate, as they would need to work together to achieve policy goals.

There Shouldn’t Be Electoral Reform (3)

* **Providing Stability**: current system provides stability and certainty- traditional system used in UK- familiar to voters and parties- provides clear and decisive result- change could lead to uncertainty, confusion, and potential instability.


* **Maintaining Constituency Representation:** Under FPTP, MPs represent specific geographic areas, which means that they are accountable to their constituents- system helps to ensure local issues are addressed and MPs are responsive to needs of constituents- change could lead to larger, more impersonal constituencies/ system where MPs elected on a party list rather than directly by voters.


* **Avoiding Fragmentation:** Proportional representation (PR) systems can lead to a situation where smaller parties hold the balance of power and larger parties have to form coalitions to govern- can lead to policy gridlock- parties in the coalition may have different priorities and agendas. It can also lead to frequent changes of government, which can be destabilizing for the country.

There Should be Reform in the House of Lords (3)

* **Enhancing Democratic Legitimacy**: *majority of HOL appointed rather than electe*d, which means that they have no *direct mandate* from the people. Reforming the House of Lords to make it more democratic, for example, by introducing a system of elections or reducing the number of appointed members, could help to increase public confidence in the political system.
* **Improving Representation**: Currently, the House of Lords is composed of *appointed members who may not reflect the diversity of the UK population*. (^^29% are women and only 6% are from minority backgrounds^^). Reforming the House of Lords to ensure that it is more representative, for example, by including more women, ethnic minorities, and people from different socioeconomic backgrounds, could help to ensure that the views and interests of a wider range of people are taken into account in the legislative process.
* **Increasing Accountability:** Currently, the House of Lords has *limited powers to hold the government to account.* (Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, being known as the ‘second chamber'‘). Reforming the House of Lords to give it *greater powers to scrutinize and hold the government to account*, for example, by strengthening its role in the legislative process or giving it powers to investigate government policies and decisions, could help to ensure that the government is held accountable for its actions and that the public interest is protected.

There Shouldn’t Be Reform in the House of Lords (3)

* **Preserving Expertise:** Many members of the House of Lords are appointed for their *specialist knowledge and experience* in a particular field, such as law, medicine, or academia. (^^Lord Owen, a doctor. Alan Sugar, a businessman^^). These members are able to provide valuable *insights and expertise* to the legislative process that might not be available in the elected House of Commons. Reforming the House of Lords to make it more democratic could result in a loss of this expertise.
* **Maintaining Independence**: Members of the House of Lords are appointed rather than elected, which means that they are not beholden to the government or subject to the same political pressures as elected members of the House of Commons. This independence can help to ensure that the legislative process is not dominated by the government or any one political party. Reforming the House of Lords to make it more democratic could weaken this independence.
* **Avoiding Gridlock:** Finally, reforming the House of Lords could lead to policy gridlock. The current system of a bicameral Parliament, with the elected House of Commons and the appointed House of Lords, provides a system of checks and balances that helps to prevent any one party or group from dominating the legislative process. Reforming the House of Lords to make it more democratic could upset this balance and lead to a situation where legislative gridlock is more likely, as different parties or groups could block each other's policies. ^^HOL blocking Public Order Bill 2022^^

There Should be Reform to the UK Rights System (3)

* **Strengthening Protections**: current system based on the ^^Human Rights Act 1998^^- incorporates ^^European Convention on Human Rights^^ into UK law- Act has not gone far enough to protect rights- *gaps in the protections provided*- Reforming system by introducing a new Bill of Rights, could help address gaps and provide stronger protections for rights. ^^2023 proposal^^
* **Addressing Criticisms:** *too much power in hands of unelected judiciary*, and that judges have been too willing to *interfere in political decision*s. They interfered in the ^^Belmarsh 9 case^^, stating that it was illegal to hold foreign prisoners indefinitely. Others argue that the system has *failed to protect certain groups,* such as refugees/ transgender individuals, who are particularly vulnerable to human rights abuses- ^^2022 refusal to ban conversion therapy for trans people.^^
* **Ensuring** Sovereignty: current system *undermines the UK's sovereignty by giving power to the European Court of Human Rights*- Reforming system could help to ensure that the UK maintains sovereignty, while still providing strong protections for human rights- ^^2016 decision to leave EU^^- clear that we should regain some sovereignty.

We Shouldn’t Reform the UK Rights System (3)

1. **Maintaining Stability:** Human Rights Act 1998= *established part of the legal system*. Reforming could introduce uncertainty and disrupt the legal framework- *harmful to the stability of the legal system*- no clear direction of where to take reform- many governments failing on promises to deliver new system- ^^2023 Tories still trying to pass British Bill of Rights^^
2. **Protecting Rights**: already provides adequate protections for human rights. Does not threaten parliamentary sovereignty, as recommendations can be ignored- provides a framework for protecting human rights- system may not be perfect, but has been *effective in protecting the rights of individuals and groups*. Reform could weaken protections and leave vulnerable groups at risk- ^^British Bill of Rights may be harmful- more power to government who can derogate from rights^^
3. **Avoiding Political Influence**: reform could be driven by political motives, rather than a genuine desire to improve the protections for human rights. ^^Conservative government Bill of Rights in own interest^^- could lead to situation where the *judicial system is subject to political pressure*, which would undermine judicial independence and protections of human rights.

Arguments For the UK Constitution to be Entrenched and Codified, with a Bill of Rights (3)

* Codification would **educate the public about constitutional issues and promote greater respect for political institutions**. Codification would mean **greater clarity surrounding citizens’ rights**, for example clearing up ^^uncertainty arising from conventions governing the power of the PM^^ - such as when a PM should resign or what happens in the event of a hung parliament.
* Entrenchment would not make it impossible to amend the constitution, but doing so would entail an **orderly and careful process**. This would *reduce the chances of a government pushing through ill-conceived legislation*, such as the ill-informed plans to ^^make maths compulsory^^.
* An entrenched Bill of Rights would provide *stronger protection of individual liberties than the HRA*, Uncodified constitutions allow *government to push boundaries* of what is politically possible- ^^student illegally searched 2021^^

Arguments Against the UK Constitution to be Entrenched and Codified, with a Bill of Rights (3)

* There is **no public demand for change**- numerous rejections of constitution changes via referendums, such as AV vote and Regional vote- *no consensus of where reform should take*. The current constitution is already written in acts of parliament, an American-style constitution would create many issues.


* An **uncodified constitution allows for greater flexibility**. The UK constitution is an *organic entity* that is able to adapt to political and social change. ^^1997 constitutional reforms.^^
* A **strong executive**, provided that it is answerable to parliament, is able to *make decisions rapidly in changing situations*, for example ^^counter-terrorism in 2005.^^ Government would be *unduly constrained by codified constitution.*

Parliamentary Scrutiny (4)

* **Questions to ministers**: may call for written or oral answers. *PMQs* is a weekly question-and-answer session in the chamber of Commons, has been *criticised for its unduly theatrical nature and point-scoring exercises dominated by the PM* and the opposition. (^^eg^^).
* **Select Committees** - evidenced-based committees that *investigate the actions of individual government departments.* (^^eg^^.)
* **Debates**: set-piece events- (^^2013 debate in HoC- Cameron defeated on his proposal to go to war in Syria.)^^
* **Backbench Business Committee:** gives MPs the power, since 2010, to *choose topics for debate once per week*.

Parliament Effectively Perform its Representative Function (3)

* **Electoral Mandate:** Members of parliament are democratically elected by their constituents to represent their interests and concerns. Elections provide a mechanism for voters to choose their representatives and hold them accountable for their actions. MPs are accountable to their constituents and must respond to their concerns and priorities. This means that parliament effectively performs its representative function by reflecting the views and interests of the electorate.
* **Diversity of Representation:** Parliament is made up of a diverse range of MPs from different backgrounds, political parties, and regions. This diversity ensures that a wide range of perspectives and interests are represented in parliament. MPs bring their own experiences and perspectives to parliamentary debates, which helps to ensure that a broad range of views are considered when making decisions.
* **Scrutiny and Debate:** MPs have the opportunity to question government ministers and hold them accountable for their decisions. This helps to ensure that government policies and decisions are scrutinized and debated, and that potential flaws or negative impacts are identified and addressed. The scrutiny and debate function of parliament helps to ensure that the interests and concerns of the electorate are taken into account when making decisions.

Parliament Ineffectively Performs its Representative Function (3)

* **Limited Voter Choice:** FPTP which can result in a limited choice of candidates for voters. In some cases, voters may feel that none of the available candidates truly represents their views or priorities. This can result in low voter turnout and a lack of faith in the representativeness of parliament.
* **Party Discipline:** Political parties often exert strong discipline over their MPs, requiring them to vote along party lines rather than representing the views and interests of their constituents. This can lead to MPs feeling that they cannot fully represent the interests of their constituents, as they are bound by party loyalty. Dominic Raab’s bullying allegations whilst he was a whip.
* **Limited Access to Parliament:** The UK parliament can be seen as an institution that is distant and inaccessible to many citizens. This can result in a lack of engagement with the political process, and a feeling that the views and concerns of ordinary people are not being heard. Parliament may also be seen as dominated by a narrow range of voices and perspectives, which can limit its representativeness - 29% of MPs in 2015 were female, rather than 51% of population, 6% MPs ethnic minorities, compared to 13%.

The Exclusive Powers of the House of Commons (4)

* The House of Commons has exclusive control over financial matters, including **taxation and government spending**. All bills related to taxation or government spending must *originate* in the House of Commons, and the government must *seek approval for its budget* from the House of Commons.
* **Confidence and supply:** when minority governments occur, they prop up other governments. Such as the DUP supporting the Conservative Party in 2017.
* The House of Commons has the power to **scrutinize the actions of the government** and hold it to account for its decisions. This includes the ability to *question government ministers, call for inquiries and investigations, and conduct debates on issues of national importance*. The House of Commons also has the power to pass *votes of no confidence* in the government, which can lead to the government's resignation and a general election.
* The House of Commons has the power to **pass legislation on any subject**, although bills relating to financial matters must first be introduced in the House of Commons. The *House of Lords can amend or delay legislation*, but ultimately the House of Commons has the *power to override any amendments and pass the legislation into law.*

The Powers and Restrictions on the House of Lords (6)

* Less powerful, known as the ‘second chamber’.
* Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 - cannot vote on financial legislation, only had power of delay for a year.
* Salisbury convention: cannot act upon things laid out in government manifesto.
* A revising chamber, proposing amendments to government legislation - up to government to decide whether these are accepted or rejected.
* **Can delay non-financial legislation for one year.**
* Lords can use veto if government remains in parliament beyond its legal maximum term of 5 years.

The House of Lords is a Powerful Body (3)

* **Legislative power:** The House of Lords has the power to scrutinize and amend legislation proposed by the House of Commons. Although the House of Commons is the primary legislative body, the House of Lords can still influence the legislative process by proposing amendments, which the House of Commons may accept or reject. Amendments to the Health and Social care bill. This power to amend legislation gives the House of Lords considerable influence over the content of bills, which can significantly affect the outcome of laws passed by the UK Parliament.
* **Appointment of members**: Unlike the House of Commons, whose members are elected, the members of the House of Lords are appointed. This means that the House of Lords is less subject to popular pressure and can act more independently of public opinion. Additionally, members of the House of Lords are appointed for life, giving them greater tenure than members of the House of Commons. This creates a sense of institutional stability and continuity, which can contribute to the House of Lords' influence and power.
* **Expertise:** The House of Lords is made up of a diverse group of members, including experts in various fields, such as law, science, economics, and international relations. These members bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to the House of Lords, which can be invaluable in scrutinizing legislation and holding the government to account. The House of Lords also has a number of select committees, which conduct inquiries and produce reports on various issues, further adding to its expertise and influence.

The House of Lords is Not a Powerful Body (3)

* **Limited powers:** Although the House of Lords has the power to scrutinize and amend legislation proposed by the House of Commons, its power to block or veto legislation is limited. The House of Lords cannot prevent the passage of a bill altogether; it can only delay it for up to one year. Additionally, the House of Lords cannot initiate financial legislation or make amendments that would increase the cost of a bill. These limitations on the House of Lords' power make it less influential than the House of Commons. (Parliament Acts of 1911, 1949 - couldn’t respond to Osbourne’s controversial austerity budget.)
* **Lack of democratic legitimacy:** Unlike the House of Commons, whose members are elected by the people, the members of the House of Lords are appointed, often based on their political connections, such as Boris Johnson attempting to appoint his father, or expertise in a particular field. This lack of democratic legitimacy makes it difficult for the House of Lords to claim a mandate to exercise significant power over legislation or government policy.
* **Public perception:** The House of Lords is often perceived as a relic of the UK's aristocratic past, with its members seen as out-of-touch elites. 92 of the hereditary peers remained after 1997 reforms. This perception can undermine the House of Lords' legitimacy and influence, particularly in a democratic society where elected representatives are expected to have the final say in matters of public policy. The House of Lords' lack of democratic legitimacy and public perception as an outdated institution can limit its power and influence over the legislative process.

Ways the House of Lords is Becoming More Important (4)

* Removal of Hereditary peers in 1999, down to just 92. House was now dominated by life peers, those from different walks of life. Increasing the Lords’ legitimacy.
* The end of the Conservative dominance. No party now has an overall control of the Lords, with many sitting as independents, such as Lord Sugar who choose neither Labour or the Conservatives.
* Arguably, it was Liberal Democrat peers who saw that ID cards were not introduced in 2005 due to arguments over the applicability of the Salisbury convention.
* Cross-bench peerage: Lord Owen, a former doctor, played leading role in opposing the coalition government’s controversial Health and Social Care Bill. Accepted his amendments.

How Does the Commons Maintain its Supremacy? (2)

* Have the ability to reject any of the House of Lords’ amendments. Coalition government rejected 7 amendments to its Welfare Reform and Work Bill in February 2012.
* If the upper house maintains its opposition to the Commons, the government can use the Parliament Acts to shove it through. Done by Blair 3 times in his premiership.

Examples of Backbenchers becoming more Significant (3)

* The creation of the Backbench Business Committee in 2010: choose the topic for debate on 35 days of the parliamentary session. Some of these are e-petitions. Harvey’s Law 2015 - inform owners their pets had been killed on the highway. BBC sees cross-bench support, incentivising MPs to work together.
* Backbench Rebellions: an act of defiance to the government of the day. 92 Cons against HoL reform, 100 Cons against Covid Passport. 35% increase in rebellions in 2010-15.
* Increase in Urgent Questions - allows MPs to raise questions to government ministers. 3000 questions in 2009-13.

Limits on the Role of Backbenchers (3)

* MPs can use various methods to draw attention to issues, but this does not mean they will succeed in getting any action taken. Often just an airing of an MPs concern.
* Public Bill Committees see MPs propose amendments, with each clause of a bill scrutinised. However the government has a majority on these committees and would use this position to strengthen the bill’s position.
* The power of patronage. Dominic Raab.

Backbench MPs are Significant (3)

* Scrutiny of government: Backbench MPs have a vital role to play in scrutinizing the actions of the government. They can ask questions, make statements, and participate in debates in the House of Commons, holding the government to account on issues of public concern. Backbench MPs can also participate in select committees, which scrutinize government policies and hold ministers to account. Patrick McLoughlin, mainline rail. Passport office in 2014.
* Influence over legislation: Backbench MPs can shape legislation through the amendment process. They have the power to propose amendments to bills, which, if passed, can change the content of the legislation. Backbench MPs can also work together across party lines to form a cross-party alliance to influence the direction of legislation, putting pressure on the government to make changes or concessions. Animal Welfare act of 2019.
* Representing their constituents: Backbench MPs are responsible for representing the interests of their constituents. They can bring local issues to the attention of parliament, advocate for policy changes that benefit their constituents, and participate in parliamentary committees that focus on issues affecting their constituencies. Those who voted against the HS2 project were from areas affected by it. This gives backbench MPs a direct link to the concerns of ordinary citizens, which can make them significant actors in the legislative process.

Backbench MPs are not Significant (3)

* Limited power: While backbench MPs do have the power to scrutinize the actions of the government, propose amendments to legislation, and represent their constituents, their power is limited in comparison to that of government ministers and party leaders. The government controls the parliamentary timetable and can limit the amount of time available for backbench MPs to debate or propose legislation. Only have 35 days through BBC. Additionally, party leaders and government ministers have more influence over the direction of policy and legislation, which can limit the impact of backbench MPs.


* Party loyalty: Backbench MPs are often beholden to their party and its leadership, which can limit their ability to act independently and challenge the government or party line. MPs who speak out against their party or challenge the leadership risk being side-lined or losing their positions within the party, which can limit their effectiveness as advocates for their constituents or as independent voices within parliament. Tory MPs who abstained from fracking had their whips threatened to be removed.
* Lack of expertise: Backbench MPs often lack the expertise or experience needed to effectively scrutinize government policies or propose alternative solutions. Many MPs have limited experience in government, and their knowledge of specific policy areas may be limited. This can make it difficult for backbench MPs to effectively challenge the government or propose alternative solutions, particularly on complex or technical issues. This will lead to them often being ignored when they raise issues.

Significant abilities of Select Committees (4)

* Their work is evidence-based. Hearings are televised and reported in the media, increasing their influence. They air issues of public interest. Transport Select Committee held Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin to account for controversy over the West Coast Main Line.
* Scope of committees’ work has widened in recent years to scrutinising legislation. The Treasury Select Committee has the right to veto the chancellor of the exchequer’s choice for the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility.
* Long-serving members can accumulate knowledge of particular policy areas. Margaret Hodge was the chair of the Public Accounts Select Committee for 5 years.
* Direct influence on government policy. 2014 Home office took back the Passport Office.

Drawbacks of Select Committees (5)

* Majority will be drawn from governing party and there is a traditions that MPs from government side chair the influential Treasury , foreign affairs and defence committees.
* Can only cover a limited range of topics in depth and there is a tendency to avoid investigations into more long-term, strategic issues.
* There is still a high turnover rate for membership of committees, with MPs failing to regularly attend.
* The government accepts only 40% of Select Committee recommendations.
* Committees power to summon witnesses is considerable but not unlimited. 2013, Theresa May blocked Andrew Parker, head of m15, from speaking.

Select Committees are Significant (3)

* Scrutiny of government: Select committees are responsible for scrutinizing the work of government departments and agencies, ensuring that they are operating effectively and efficiently. Patrick McLoughlin West Coast rail. Through their inquiries, committees can identify areas of concern, make recommendations for improvement, and hold government officials accountable for their actions. This oversight function is essential for maintaining a healthy democracy and ensuring that the government is acting in the best interests of the public.


* Expertise and knowledge: Select committees are made up of MPs or Lords who have specific areas of expertise, which allows them to ask informed questions and conduct detailed investigations. Margaret Hodge sat on the Public Accounts committee for 5 years. This expertise can help to uncover information that might not have been brought to light otherwise, and can lead to more effective policymaking.


* Public engagement: Select committees provide a forum for public engagement in the parliamentary process. Through their inquiries, committees can hear from stakeholders, experts, and members of the public, who can provide valuable insights and feedback on government policies and programs. This engagement can help to build public trust in government and foster a sense of transparency and accountability. They also publicise these findings through television.

Select Committees are Insignificant (3)

1. Limited powers: Select committees do not have the power to make binding decisions or enforce their recommendations. Only 40% are taken up. While they can make suggestions and recommendations to government departments and agencies, it is ultimately up to those bodies to decide whether or not to act on them. This can limit the impact of select committees and make their work feel less consequential. Andrew Parker blocked.
2. Political bias: Some argue that select committees can be subject to political bias, with members using their positions to further their own political agendas rather than pursuing impartial scrutiny of government. This can lead to a lack of trust in the committee's work and reduce their effectiveness. From the government so influence toward strengthening government policy.

* Limited public engagement: While select committees do provide a forum for public engagement in the parliamentary process, this engagement can be limited in scope. With long-term strategic issues ignored. Committee hearings are often held during the day, making it difficult for many members of the public to attend, and the topics being discussed may not always be of interest to the wider public. This can limit the impact of select committees and make them feel disconnected from the concerns of ordinary citizens. Many MPs to not attend regularly.

The Role of the Opposition (6)

* Opposition parties are not in strong positions to hold the government to account in parliament unless their majority is small.
* Opposition leaders may be perceived as weak and judged as ineffective if they do not perform well, such as William Hague in Blair’s first term.
* Opposition leaders have to criticise ministers whilst maintaining a statesman image.
* They take a leading role in responding to the government programme and the budget.
* 20 days given to propose subjects for debate.
* Short money offered.

Opposition parties in the UK are effective at scrutinising the government (3)

* Holding the government accountable: Opposition parties play a crucial role in scrutinizing the government's policies and actions, holding them accountable for their decisions. Keir Starmer’s criticism of the Tory party’s handling of the economy. Through their role in Parliament, they can challenge ministers and demand answers to important questions, highlighting any areas of concern or potential wrongdoing. Starmer raised queries surrounding Nadim Zahawi.
* Public pressure: By raising concerns about the government's policies, opposition parties can create public pressure and draw attention to issues that may have been overlooked or ignored. This can help to keep the government in check and ensure that they are making decisions that are in the best interests of the public.


* Influencing policy: Opposition parties can also have an impact on government policy by proposing alternative policies and ideas, forcing the government to consider other options and potentially leading to changes in policy direction. This can be particularly effective if the opposition party has a strong and well-articulated vision for the future of the country, which can attract support from voters and influence the government's agenda. Labour consistently advocated for a Windfall tax to generate wealth during the cost of living crisis. Government withdrew policy on dog hunting because of lack of SNP support.

Opposition parties in the UK are ineffective at scrutinising the government (3)

* Partisan politics: Opposition parties are often more concerned with scoring political points against the government rather than genuine scrutiny. They may use their platform to attack the government and criticize their policies, rather than engaging in constructive debate or offering alternative solutions. Continual mocking of Boris Johnson, yet lack of substance.
* Limited powers: Despite their role in Parliament, opposition parties have limited powers and may struggle to hold the government to account effectively. For example, they may not have the ability to launch independent investigations or hold ministers to account for breaches of conduct. They only have 20 days to propose their own legislation.
* Limited public influence: While opposition parties may have a strong following among their own supporters, they may struggle to gain traction with the wider public. This can limit their ability to create public pressure and hold the government to account, as their criticisms may not gain widespread support or attention. William Hague vs Tony Blair in 2001.

PMQs (4)

* Held once a week at 12pm on a Wednesday. Is heavily televised. The PM has to engage with opposition parties.
* Tony Blair called it “the most nerve-racking” thing he had to do in his political career.
* Critics dislike the ‘gladiatorial’ nature of the encounter between the PM and opposition. Cameron’s attacks on Corbyn’s suit.
* Deliberately planted questions from the PM’s party. Orchestrated heckling of Ed Miliband to create a ‘protective wall of sound’.

PMQs is an effective form of Scrutiny (3)

* Public accountability: PMQs provides a high-profile platform for the opposition to hold the government accountable in front of the public. This allows for transparency and scrutiny of government actions, as well as providing a forum for challenging the Prime Minister on their decisions and policies.


* Promotes debate: PMQs encourages lively debate between the government and opposition parties, allowing for a range of views to be presented and discussed. This can lead to a more informed and engaged public, as well as allowing for alternative perspectives to be considered and evaluated.
* Forces the Prime Minister to be prepared: PMQs requires the Prime Minister to be well-prepared and able to defend their policies and decisions in front of their peers and the public. This can encourage the government to be more accountable and transparent, as well as promoting better decision-making by ensuring that all options are considered and debated.

PMQs is an ineffective form of Scrutiny (3)

* Political grandstanding: PMQs is often seen as an opportunity for political grandstanding rather than genuine scrutiny. Both the Prime Minister and the opposition may use it as a chance to score political points or make soundbites, rather than engaging in constructive debate or genuinely holding the government to account.


* Limited time: PMQs only lasts for around 30 minutes each week, which may not be enough time to thoroughly scrutinize the government's policies and decisions. This can result in superficial or incomplete scrutiny, as there may not be enough time to fully explore complex \* issues or consider alternative perspectives.
* Limited scope: PMQs primarily focuses on domestic issues and may not be an effective form of scrutiny for international or complex policy areas. This can limit the effectiveness of PMQs in holding the government to account on important issues, particularly if they are not well-understood or require specialist knowledge.

Parliament is effective in carrying out its work of Scrutinising the UK government (3)

* Committee system: The committee system is a fundamental part of Parliament's scrutiny function, which allows for detailed investigation and evaluation of government policies and actions. Committees are composed of cross-party members and can call on expert witnesses, conduct hearings and publish reports, all of which can lead to greater accountability and transparency in government.


* Legislative power: Parliament has the power to introduce and pass legislation, which allows it to shape government policy and hold it accountable through the legislative process. This means that the government cannot simply ignore parliamentary scrutiny or pass legislation without proper scrutiny, as it must be passed through Parliament.
* Public accountability: Parliament provides a forum for public accountability and scrutiny of government actions, through mechanisms such as Prime Minister's Questions and parliamentary debates. These forums allow for direct questioning of government ministers and open debate on issues of public concern, which can lead to greater transparency and accountability in government decision-making.

Parliament is ineffective in carrying out its work of Scrutinising the UK government (3)

* Partisan politics: Parliament can be heavily influenced by partisan politics, which can undermine effective scrutiny of government policies and decisions. Members of Parliament may be more concerned with scoring political points against their opponents rather than genuinely holding the government to account. Whips and patronage.


* Limited time and no control of schedule: Parliament has a limited amount of time to scrutinize the government's policies and decisions. This can result in superficial or incomplete scrutiny, particularly for complex policy areas or issues that require specialist knowledge.
* Limited powers: Parliament's powers to scrutinize the government are limited in some areas. For example, it may not have the power to launch independent investigations or hold ministers to account for breaches of conduct. This can limit the effectiveness of Parliament's scrutiny, particularly in cases where there are serious concerns about government activities. The House of Lords limited in its scope.

Roles of the Executive (3)

* Proposing Legislation: introduces proposals for new laws or amendments to existing laws. It announces a new programme at the start of each parliamentary session in the King’s speech.
* Proposing the Budget: the government need to raise revenue in order to fund public services and meet its spending priorities. Created by chancellor of exchequer. 2010, George Osbourne delivered an ‘emergency budget’ only 90 days after the previous Labour budget.
* Making Policy Decisions: deliver the executive’s aims, such as streamlining the welfare programme as done by the coalition in 2010.

The Powers of the Executive (4)

* Royal Prerogative Powers: powers that historically belonged to the Crown but have been transferred to the PM. Based on the practices of previous governments.
* Initiation of Legislation: controls the majority of the parliamentary schedule, only allowing 20 days for opposition. Can use its whipping system and patronage to push through programmes.
* The guillotine, or the ‘allocation of time’ motion - curtails debates on bills. Cameron attempted this when debating constituency boundaries.
* Statutory instruments: passing new legislation without new acts of parliament. Thresa May fracking.

The Executive is too Powerful (3)

* Dominance in the legislative process: The executive branch of the UK government often dominates the legislative process, with the Prime Minister and their cabinet exerting significant influence over the content and passage of legislation. This can limit the ability of Parliament to scrutinize and challenge government policies, and can lead to laws being passed without sufficient debate or scrutiny. Only 20 days to opposition. The guillotine, David Cameron on boundary reform.
* Lack of accountability: The executive branch of the UK government often lacks sufficient accountability, particularly in cases where there is a lack of transparency or oversight. This can result in the government making decisions without sufficient scrutiny or consultation, and can lead to a lack of public trust in the government. Use of statutory instruments, Theresa May fracking.
* Use of executive powers: The executive branch of the UK government has extensive executive powers, including the power to make appointments, set policy, and make decisions on behalf of the country. The use of whips and patronage. While these powers can be necessary in some cases, they can also be used to bypass or undermine democratic processes, particularly when there is a lack of effective checks and balances in place.

The Executive is not too Powerful (3)

* Separation of powers: While the UK government does hold significant power, the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government means that the power is not concentrated in one branch alone. This helps to ensure a system of checks and balances, and prevents any one branch from becoming too dominant. **F**or example, the Prime Minister can be held accountable by Parliament, and the judiciary can review and challenge executive decisions. Additionally, the Human Rights Act 1998 places legal limitations on the government's powers, particularly with regards to individual rights and freedoms.


* Limited powers: The UK executive branch does not have unlimited powers, and is subject to various checks and balances. The UK executive branch is subject to a range of accountability measures, including scrutiny by Parliament, judicial review, and media scrutiny. This helps to ensure that the government is held to account for its actions, and that there are opportunities for scrutiny and challenge where necessary.


* Democratic accountability: The UK government is ultimately accountable to the people through regular elections and democratic processes. This ensures that the government is subject to the will of the people, and that power ultimately rests with the electorate. The government also has a duty to be transparent and accountable to the public, which helps to prevent abuses of power and ensure that government decisions are made in the public interest.

Collective Ministerial Responsibility (3)

* Convention that ministers must support all decisions of the government in public. Discussions in the Cabinet should be kept private. Meant to maintain unity within the party. Robin Cook in face of Blair’s 2003 decision to go to war.


* This sees ministers ‘leak’ dissatisfaction to the media rather than making a public stand.

Exceptions to Collective Ministerial Responsibility (2)

* There have been occasions when collective responsibility has been modified for political reason. Such as the four areas of policy the Liberal Democrats were allowed to abstain on.
* Collective Ministerial Responsibility was suspended within the Conservative party allowing those both pro-EU and anti-EU to campaign for their cause.

Individual Ministerial Responsibility

* Individual ministers are responsible for the running of their department and its policies. The Ministerial Code issued by the PM sets out the expectations of an MP.
* If an MP knowingly misleads parliament they are expected to resign.
* The business of the government is so large and complex that a minister cannot be expected to know about everything that goes on within their department, so would not be expected to resign over a minor mistake.

Examples about Individual Ministerial Responsibility (4)

* Alistair Campbell believed to have a ‘golden rule’, a minister would have to go if they were in the news cycle for prolonged time.
* Executive agencies under director generals have taken over from MPs. Doubt of who is accountable.
* Civil servants have been blamed for things carried out by Ministers. Patrick McLoughlin’s mistake on the West Coast Main Line’s sale and he fired 3 civil servants.
* Boris Johnson’s resignation over party gate, Liz Truss’ resignation over the mishandling of the economy.

Collective Ministerial Responsibility Has Value Today (3)

1. Encourages unity and accountability: Collective ministerial responsibility helps to ensure that all members of the Cabinet are united in their decisions and actions. This encourages cooperation and collaboration, which are essential for effective governance. It also holds every member of the Cabinet accountable for the decisions made by the government, ensuring that they are all responsible for the outcomes of those decisions. Tony Blair’s cabinet, beside Robin Cook, were united on the decision to go to Iraq and have suffered the consequences since.
2. Ensures consistent messaging: Collective ministerial responsibility helps to ensure that the government speaks with one voice, avoiding confusion and mixed messages. This is particularly important during times of crisis or when the government is communicating with the public on sensitive issues. Consistent messaging helps to build trust and confidence in the government. During the Covid pandemic, the Cabinet had to remain united in the advice they were promoting, Matt Hancock etc.
3. Promotes stability: Collective ministerial responsibility helps to promote stability in government. It ensures that the government can function even if individual members of the Cabinet disagree with certain decisions or policies. This helps to prevent internal conflicts and instability that can harm the government's ability to govern effectively. It also helps to maintain confidence in the government, which is important for economic stability and growth. Theresa May’s cabinet was composed of both remainers and brexiteers, yet under Collective Ministerial Responsibility they had to deliver on the Brexit promised.

Collective Ministerial Responsibility Doesn’t Have Value Today (3)

* Diminished individual accountability: Collective ministerial responsibility can diminish individual accountability for decisions made by the government. In some cases, ministers may feel less responsible for the outcomes of their actions because they are part of a collective decision-making process. This can weaken their commitment to making the best decisions for their respective departments and for the country as a whole.


* Limits freedom of expression: Collective ministerial responsibility can limit the freedom of expression of individual ministers. In order to maintain the appearance of a unified front, ministers may feel pressured to publicly support decisions or policies they do not fully agree with, or to remain silent on issues they feel strongly about. This can stifle healthy debate and result in suboptimal decisions being made. On divisive issues, such as Brexit, many ministers felt they had to hold their tongue.
* Discourages debate: Collective Ministerial Responsibility can discourage debate within the Cabinet. Members of the Cabinet may be hesitant to speak out against a decision or policy that they disagree with, for fear of undermining the unity of the government. This can lead to a lack of critical thinking and discussion, which can result in poor decision-making. Thatcher’s steamrolling approach silenced many of her government who opposed the Poll Tax.

The Principles of Individual Ministerial Responsibility are Still in Effect (3)

* Ensures accountability: Individual ministerial responsibility ensures that ministers are accountable for their department's actions and decisions. This means that if a department makes a mistake or a decision that harms the public, the minister responsible can be held accountable for it. This ensures that ministers are more likely to make responsible decisions, as they know that they will be held accountable for them. Matt Hancock was forced to resign following a video showing him breaking government lockdown guidance.


* Encourages effective governance: Individual ministerial responsibility encourages ministers to take their roles seriously and make decisions that are in the best interests of their department and the public. This helps to ensure effective governance, as ministers are more likely to carefully consider the consequences of their decisions and take steps to mitigate any negative impacts. Following cases such as Patrick McLoughlin’s handling of the West Coast Main Line, many have been scared to defy the rules.
* Builds public trust: Individual ministerial responsibility helps to build public trust in government by demonstrating that ministers take their responsibilities seriously and are willing to be held accountable for their actions. This helps to create a culture of transparency and accountability within government, which can lead to greater trust and confidence in government institutions. Chris Pincher’s resignation for allegations of groping. Boris Jonhson’s resignation over party gate.

The Principles of Individual Ministerial Responsibility are Ineffective (3)

* Difficult to enforce: While ministers are technically responsible for their department's actions, it can be difficult to hold them accountable in practice. This is particularly true when decisions are made by multiple departments or by civil servants. It can be challenging to identify who is specifically responsible for a particular decision, making it difficult to enforce individual ministerial responsibility. Boris Johnson clung on for ages following party gate allegations, Suella Braverman regained her position after sending sensitive files across email.


* May lead to scapegoating: Individual ministerial responsibility can sometimes lead to ministers being made scapegoats for broader government failures. In some cases, ministers may be held responsible for decisions that were made by their predecessors or by other departments. This can be unfair and can undermine the effectiveness of individual ministerial responsibility. Patrick McLoughlin suspended 3 Civil Servants for his handling of West Coast.


* May not address systemic issues: While individual ministerial responsibility can hold individual ministers accountable for their department's actions, it may not address broader systemic issues within government. This can include issues such as a lack of resources or ineffective policy frameworks, which can contribute to poor decision-making. Without addressing these underlying issues, individual ministerial responsibility may not be an effective means of improving governance.

Factors Governing the PM’s Selection of Ministers (5)

* Including individuals with ability and experience: there are natural backbenchers and those who have proved themselves. George Osbourne and Gordon Brown were both shadow chancellor before taking over.
* Establishing a PM’s authority: Remove the staples of old PM’s cabinet, such as Theresa May who removed George Osbourne.
* Rewarding allies and concealing enemies: Kwasi Kwarteng was put in Truss’ cabinet after his support. Blair appointed Brown, a known enemy, to keep the party united.
* Maintaining balance: MPs with different ideology must find place in cabinet, such as the Brexiteers (Johnson) and Remainers (Amber Rudd) in May’s cabinet.
* Diversity: to make sure the cabinet reflects the outside world. Margaret Beckett was made foreign secretary in Blair’s government. Sajid Javid, a leading MP of Asian background, served in Cameron and May’s government.

Factors that Affect the Relationship between PM and Cabinet (5)

* Management skills of the PM: A determined and astute PM will assert control over Cabinet. Right to appoint and dismiss ministers asserts dominance. Came back to bite Thatcher.
* Ability to set the agenda: most minister will be too busy concerned with their own department to challenge the consensus view on a matter of which they have limited knowledge. Can keep issues of the agenda, like Harold Wilson who denied conversations on the EU.
* Use of cabinet committees and informal groups: the PM chooses who chairs the most important ones. Theresa May herself chaired 3 committees, including one on Brexit. Informal groups, such as Brown and Blair’s handling of interest rates at the Bank of England.
* Cabinet office: PM’s office in No.10 staffed by civil servants and special advisors. Policy Unit to oversee departments. Press office.
* Wider political and economic situation: a PM with a large majority has more authority, like the 179-seat win of New Labour. Economic crash of 2007-08 weakened Brown.

The Cabinet is Important (3)

* The cabinet approves government decisions, so confers legitimacy on theme in the eyes of parliament and the public. Ministers who cannot accept this line, resign like Robin Cook.
* The PM needs the cabinet during times of important issues. Negotiations with the EU in 2016, Cameron presented the deal in full to his cabinet. In times of national conflict, such as the Falklands, a cabinet is needed to assist on day-to-day decisions.
* The UK does not have a ‘presidential’ system, the cabinet can cause the demise of the PM. Resignations under Boris Johnson, Thatcher.

Cabinet is not Important (3)

* Decisions are commonly taken by Cabinet committees, hand-picked by the PM, or in small groups and bilateral meetings. Blair and Brown decisions on the Bank of England. Cabinet ‘rubber stamps’ decisions elsewhere.
* The PM controls the cabinet agenda and length of meetings. Only meets once a week. Most ministers do not feel qualified, or are too immersed in their own departments , to offer an informed view on issues. Most are reluctant to challenge the PM. Harold Wilson, no issues of the EU brought up.
* The media focuses heavily on the PM, such as through televised leader debates in 0210 and years since. Modern PMs tend to project themselves as national leaders, such as Sunak meeting with Biden, Johnson at the G7, separate from government and feeling earnt of a personal mandate.

The PM is Too Powerful (3)

* Powers: The Prime Minister in the UK has significant royal prerogative powers, and statutory instruments which are a set of executive powers historically held by the monarch but now exercised by the Prime Minister. These powers include the ability to declare war, make treaties, and appoint government officials without parliamentary approval. The concentration of these powers in the hands of the Prime Minister means that they can make decisions unilaterally without adequate scrutiny or accountability. Theresa May used statutory instruments to allow Fracking in 2016.
* Control over Parliamentary Agenda: The Prime Minister has significant control over the parliamentary agenda in the UK. They can set the legislative timetable, decide which bills are debated, and use their powers to influence the outcome of parliamentary votes. This control can stifle opposition, limit debate, and prevent important issues from being properly discussed and addressed by parliament. Only 17 opposition days. They can use the allocation of time motion to shorten debate, as done by Tony Blair on many issues.


* Party Discipline: The Prime Minister in the UK is also the leader of the governing party and has significant powers to enforce party discipline. They can remove MPs from their position or discipline them if they vote against the party line, and can use their influence to secure the passage of legislation. This control can limit the independence of MPs, prevent them from representing the interests of their constituents, and create an imbalance of power in favour of the Prime Minister and the government. Margaret Thatcher had strong powers of whipping and kept the party in shape. Those who defied Blair, like Robin Cook were expected to resign.

The PM is Not Too Powerful (3)

* Parliamentary scrutiny: The UK Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament, and must answer questions from MPs on their actions and policies. Urgent questions, PMQs. Parliament can also pass votes of no confidence in the Prime Minister or their government, which can lead to their resignation or a general election. Theresa May, ousting of Liz Truss.
* Scrutiny by the Media: The UK Prime Minister is subject to intense scrutiny by the media, which can be a powerful check on their power. The media can expose wrongdoing, and can hold the PM accountable for their actions. This can limit the PM's power and influence. Boris Johnson coverage of party gate.
* Judicial Review and Fixed-Term: The Prime Minister's power is constrained by the requirement to hold regular elections at fixed intervals through the Fixed Term Parliament Act of 2015. which means that they cannot remain in power indefinitely and must face the judgement of the electorate. The Prime Minister's decisions and actions can be subject to judicial review by the courts to ensure that they are lawful and constitutional. Such as Blair’s ID cards.

John Major (6)

* Replaced the unpopular poll tax, with less-controversial council tax. Distanced him from the ‘uncaring’ Thatcher government.
* Handled the Gulf War effectively in 1991. National leader status.
* Persuaded Thatcher to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. ‘Black Wednesday’ in 1992. Interest rates rose to 15%.
* Collegial style of cabinet - allowed discussion, but made him seem weak.
* Unity of the Tory party - massive divisions over the EU and the Maastricht Treaty.
* Progress toward peace deal in Northern Ireland. 1993 Downing Street Declaration, ruled out a united Ireladn.

Tony Blair

* Created a PM of a more presidential nature, with a chief of staff. Cabinet ministers had less autonomy than they would due to a centrally managed agenda. Alistair Campbell, a 24-hour news media observer. Blair regularly used informal meetings, such as the ones with him and Brown over the Bank of England. ‘Sofa government’.
* Had many disputes with Gordon Brown. Brown denied Blair’s wish to join the European single currency.
* Constitutional reforms: devolution, removal of hereditary peers.
* Good Friday Agreement 1998: establishment of power-sharing institutions in Northern Ireland.
* Business sector to improve education and health. Reduced hospital waiting times. Introduced a minimum wage, free nursery places.
* UK’s support of the war in Iraq.

What is the Supreme Court’s Role? (4)

* Was opened in October 2009, following the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act from Tony Blair. It was created to disrupt the fusion of powers that saw the ‘law lords’ sit in the legislature.
* Removed the Lord Chancellor role, replaced it with the justice secretary.
* Final court of appeal for rulings made by the lower courts.
* Supreme court also hears appeals on arguable points of law where matters of public and constitutional importance are involved. Interpret law passed by the EU.

Appointment to the Supreme Court (3)

* Consists of 12 members, whilst only odd numbers sit on cases. The president is currently Lord Reed.
* Only 1 woman sits on the court, Lady Rose and the majority of justices are white. Leading to '‘pale, male and stale’.
* Nomination is made by an independent five-member Selection Commission. Appointment is confirmed by the PM.

The Supreme Court is Neutral (3)

* In terms of pay: the UK Supreme Court is paid automatically from an independent budget, without the potential of manipulation by ministers.
* Terms of employment: a judge is on the court for a life tenure, does not have a threat of removal so can make just decisions. The UK Supreme Court is committed to making decisions based solely on the facts of the case and the applicable law, without being influenced by political or other external pressures. Its judges are trained legal professionals who have a duty to apply the law impartially and objectively.
* Appointment: The Judicial Appointments Commission and the Selection Commotion for the Supreme Court are transparent in their procedure and free from political intervention.

The Supreme Court is not Neutral (3)

* Lack of Diversity: While the UK Supreme Court is composed of judges from a variety of backgrounds, there have been criticisms that it does not fully represent the diversity of the UK population. This lack of diversity could potentially lead to a lack of understanding of certain perspectives and biases in the court's decision-making, undermining its neutrality and impartiality. One woman justice, Lady Rose. When Lady Rose was on the court, a decision 8-1 on a gender bill was defeated.
* Some concerns have been raised over pay. Lord Phillips in 2011 stated that it was only by 'ring fenced’ funding that the UK supreme court could maintain its independence. Budget cuts, outlined by George Osbourne, had threatened the court. Lord Phillips believed that the ministry of justice was trying “to gain the Supreme Court as an outlying part of its empire.”
* Political Appointments: While the UK Supreme Court aims to be independent, the process for appointing judges can be influenced by political considerations. This could potentially lead to appointments that favour certain political interests or ideologies, rather than solely based on merit. Requires PM sign off.

The Supreme Court Protects Citizens’ Rights (3)

* The current HRA system allows for declarations of incompatibility to be made which protects citizens’ rights. If government legislation is seen to contrast the outlines of the 1998 Human Rights Act, it is expected that the government either alter or withdraw it. The Supreme Court rendered many of the 2005 acts aimed at the prevention of terrorism incompatible, which saw Blair withdraw and alter multiple. If the Court recognises right infringement in government legislation, public declarations are made which pushes the government toward creating legislation compatible with that of the HRA. For example, the Belmarsh 9 case saw the Court rule that the indefinite detention of foreign criminals was illegal, which led to major amendments of the Crime and Security Act of 2001.
* Judicial Review: The UK Supreme Court also has the power to review the decisions of government bodies and public authorities, such as the police or local councils, to ensure that they are acting within the law and not infringing upon citizens' rights. This can involve holding the government accountable for its actions, and can lead to changes in policy or legislation that better protect citizens' rights.
* The current system offers the Supreme Court the final say on constitutional legislation, which ensures citizens’ rights are protected. The 2005 Constitutional Reform Act named the Court as the highest legal authority in the UK and offered it the last say on constitutional issues. The Court forbade the triggering of Article 50 without that of a parliamentary vote, which ensured proper proceedings occurred for such a monumental change. The Court makes sure that all major constitutional changes undergo a parliamentary vote, which ensures that citizens’ rights are not dramatically changed without clear consensus. The current system places the Court as a safety net, making sure that no changes are made without the proper proceedings met. The Court overall restricts the government from pushing through ill-conceived legislation and ensures that citizens’ are heard when it comes to changes that affect the composition of the UK.

The Supreme Court Doesn’t Protect Citizens’ Rights (3)

* The court has limited scope. The Court can only vote and discuss cases that are brought to them. This leaves huge amounts of policy area left untouched by the Court. If the Court understands there to be an injustice in society, it is unable to call it out unless brought about via certain procedures. An entrenched constitution would introduce a framework that would allow the Court to call out discrepancies on citizens’ rights. A court with a wider scope would mean that citizens’ rights would be effectively protected in the UK, unlike the current system that offers the Court minimal room and say.
* Limited Enforcement Powers: Although the UK Supreme Court can interpret and apply the law, it does not have direct enforcement powers, meaning that it relies on other government bodies, such as the police or executive branch, to enforce its decisions. In cases where these bodies are unwilling or unable to enforce the court's rulings, citizens' rights may not be adequately protected.  Legislation forbidding prisoners from voting was challenged by the Court in 2007. The government received the declaration and ignored it.
* Proposals to alter pay. Cuts for funding, as proposed by George Osbourne in the 2010 budget, have been described as ‘threatening’ by Lord Phillips. The Court cannot claim independence if the budget is up for alteration by the government of the day, as this can create partisan bias. ’Ring fenced’ funding called for by Lord Phillips. ‘Male, pale and stale’ in terms of race, colour and age. Without a diverse Court, many question how minority rights can adequately be represented and upheld. In 2009, Lady Hale (the only woman on the court) was the only one to rule against a court case surrounding gender, which offered men more say on issues that concerned women. Lady Rose only woman. If court is not independent, how can it uphold citizens’ rights?

The Supreme Court is too Powerful (3)

* Judicial Review: The power of the UK Supreme Court to review the decisions of government bodies and public authorities can be seen as a significant expansion of judicial power. Some argue that this gives the court too much power to overrule the decisions of democratically elected officials and undermines the principle of separation of powers. Such as those on control orders in 2005.
* Precedent Setting: The UK Supreme Court has the power to set precedent, meaning that its decisions can have significant implications for future legal cases and government policies. This can be seen as giving the court too much power to shape the direction of the law and potentially limit the powers of other branches of government.
* Lack of Accountability: The UK Supreme Court is not directly accountable to the public, as its judges are appointed for life and cannot be removed by voters. Some argue that this lack of accountability gives the court too much power without sufficient checks and balances to ensure that it is acting in the best interests of the public.

The Supreme Court is not too Powerful (3)

* Limited Jurisdiction: The UK Supreme Court's jurisdiction is limited to legal matters, and it cannot make decisions that are outside the scope of the law. This means that its power is constrained by legal principles and does not extend to broader political or social issues. It also cannot bring cases up by itself. It cannot strike down primary legislation passed by Parliament.
* Declarations of incompatibility can be ignored, such as the case of the Belmarsh 9 and prisoners voting rights. The government is not bound to take up any of the reform suggested by the supreme court. They are only recommendations.
* Limited public awareness: While the decisions of the UK Supreme Court can have significant implications for UK law and politics, it is not always well-known or well-understood by the general public. This is partly because it is a relatively new institution, having been established in its current form in 2009, and partly because the UK's unwritten constitution means that the roles and powers of different branches of government are not always clear-cut. As a result, the UK Supreme Court may not be perceived as a particularly powerful institution by the general public, the cases do not have awareness.

The Supreme Court has Influence over the Executive (3)

* Judicial review: The UK Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, which means it can review and potentially invalidate actions taken by the executive branch of government. This includes decisions made by government ministers, public officials, and administrative bodies. If the UK Supreme Court finds that the executive has acted unlawfully or exceeded its powers, it can strike down the action and order the executive to take corrective measures. This power gives the UK Supreme Court a significant degree of influence over the executive. Control orders 2005.
* Constitutional conventions: The UK Supreme Court plays a role in defining and interpreting the UK's constitutional conventions, which are unwritten rules that govern the conduct of government. The Court has issued rulings that have clarified the roles and powers of different branches of government, including the executive. For example, in the case of Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union in 2017, the Court ruled that the executive could not trigger the process of leaving the European Union without first obtaining parliamentary approval. This decision had a significant impact on the Brexit process and demonstrated the UK Supreme Court's influence over the executive.
* Public scrutiny: The decisions of the UK Supreme Court are subject to public scrutiny and can have significant political implications. When the Court issues a ruling that goes against the executive, it can generate public debate and put pressure on the executive to change its behaviour or policies. For example, in the case of R (Miller) v The Prime Minister in 2019, the Court ruled that the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament was unlawful. This decision led to significant political fallout and increased scrutiny of the executive's actions. The UK Supreme Court's ability to generate public attention and influence political discourse gives it a degree of power and influence over the executive.

The Supreme Court does Not have Influence over the Executive (3)

* Limited enforcement power: While the UK Supreme Court has the power to declare executive actions unlawful or unconstitutional, it has limited enforcement power. It cannot directly enforce its rulings, and must rely on other branches of government, such as the executive or the legislature, to carry out its decisions. This means that the executive can choose to ignore the Court's rulings or delay their implementation, which can limit the Court's influence over the executive.


* Political accountability: The executive is ultimately accountable to Parliament and the electorate, not the judiciary. This means that the executive can choose to ignore the Court's rulings if it believes that doing so is in the best interests of the country or its political agenda. While the Court's decisions can generate public attention and scrutiny, ultimately it is up to the executive to decide whether or not to comply with the Court's rulings.


* Limited scope of review: The UK Supreme Court's power of judicial review is limited to matters of law, not policy or politics. This means that the Court cannot review executive actions on the basis of their merits or policy implications. Instead, it can only review actions to ensure that they are lawful and comply with the UK's constitutional conventions. This limited scope of review means that the Court's influence over the executive is circumscribed and does not extend to broader policy or political issues.

Why has Executive Dominance Risen? (4)

* FPTP tends to deliver single-party governments, sometimes enjoys the benefit of a large parliamentary majority on a small amount of the vote. Blair received 35.2% of the vote but 355 seats.
* The whip system and the PM’s use of patronage, which enforce party discipline and loyalty.
* Government domination of the legislative timetable, only 17 opposition days.
* The use of the Salisbury convention and the Parliament Acts to oppose recommendations from the Lords.

Parliament effectively scrutinises the Government (3)

* Parliamentary committees: Parliament has a system of committees that scrutinise government activity in detail. There are over 30 select committees in the House of Commons and House of Lords that cover a wide range of policy areas, from foreign affairs to health and social care. These committees have the power to summon government ministers, civil servants and experts to give evidence and answer questions. They also produce detailed reports that can influence government policy. For example, the Health and Social Care Committee's report on social care funding helped to shape the government's proposals for social care reform in 2021. 2021, the Public Accounts Committee published a report on the government's handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, which highlighted issues with the procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the NHS Test and Trace system.
* Backbench rebellions: Finally, backbench MPs can rebel against their own party and government, either by voting against their party or by abstaining. These rebellions can be a powerful tool for holding the government to account and can force the government to change its policies or compromise. For example, in 2021, Conservative backbench MPs rebelled against the government's proposed cut to foreign aid, which resulted in the government being defeated in a vote in the House of Commons.
* Questions to Ministers: MPs can also hold ministers to account through oral and written questions. Oral questions allow MPs to directly challenge ministers in the House of Commons, while written questions require ministers to provide written answers. These questions can be highly detailed and are often used to expose flaws in government policy or decisions. For example, in 2021, an MP used a written question to reveal that the government had spent £2.6m on an image consultant during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Parliament ineffectively scrutinises the government (3)

* Limited resources: Parliamentary committees and MPs have limited resources to undertake scrutiny, which can limit the depth and scope of their investigations. For example, in 2021, the Joint Committee on Human Rights criticised the lack of resources available to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which it argued was preventing effective scrutiny of government policies on human rights. 40% of recommendations are taken on board. Andrew Parker blocked from attending.
* Partisan voting: Party loyalty often takes precedence over scrutiny and accountability, with MPs from the governing party tending to vote in favour of government policies and MPs from opposition parties tending to vote against. This can result in inadequate scrutiny of government policies and decisions. For example, in 2021, the Conservative government's cuts to foreign aid were opposed by many opposition MPs, but were supported by Conservative MPs, despite concerns about the impact on the world's poorest countries.
* Government control of the parliamentary agenda: The government controls the parliamentary agenda, which means it can choose which bills and issues are debated and when. This gives the government a significant advantage in terms of controlling the narrative and limiting scrutiny of its policies. For example, in 2021, the government faced criticism for using its control of the agenda to delay a debate on the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill, which would have given the High Court the power to determine whether a country is committing genocide.

Parliament Influences Government Legislation (3)

1. Amendments: MPs can propose amendments to government legislation, which can change its content and impact. This gives Parliament a significant amount of influence over the final shape of government policies. For example, in 2020, the government was forced to accept an amendment to the Domestic Abuse Bill that would provide greater protections for migrant women.
2. Private members' bills: MPs can introduce private members' bills, which can become law if they receive enough support from Parliament. This gives MPs a significant amount of influence over the legislative agenda, and can allow them to introduce legislation on issues that the government may not be willing to address. For example, in 2019, Labour MP Diana Johnson introduced a private members' bill on abortion reform, which led to a debate on the issue in Parliament and increased pressure on the government to take action.
3. Select committees: Select committees have the power to scrutinise government policy and legislation in detail, and they can produce reports that can influence government decision-making. For example, in 2021, the Health and Social Care Committee produced a report on the government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, which criticised its decision-making and made recommendations for improvements. 2014, Post Office taken back over by Home Office following select committee findings.

Parliament Doesn’t Influence Government Legislation (3)

* Party discipline: MPs are often required to vote along party lines, which means that they may not be able to express their own views on government legislation. This can limit the ability of Parliament to influence government policy. For example, in 2018, Conservative MPs were required to vote in favour of a government amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill, despite concerns that it would give the government too much power.
* Government control of the legislative agenda: The government has significant control over the legislative agenda, which means that it can choose which bills to prioritise and which to delay or ignore. This can limit the ability of MPs to introduce and pass legislation that reflects their own priorities and concerns. For example, in 2020, the government was accused of delaying the Domestic Abuse Bill in order to avoid scrutiny of its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Guillotine used by David Cameron. Time constraints: Parliamentary time is limited, and governments often use procedural tactics to limit debate and rush legislation through Parliament.
* Government majority: The party in power typically has a majority in the House of Commons, which means that it can pass legislation without significant opposition from MPs. This can limit the ability of opposition parties and individual MPs to influence the outcome of legislative debates. For example, in 2019, the Conservative government had a working majority of 80 seats in the House of Commons, which made it difficult for opposition parties to block its legislative agenda.

Government Control over Parliament has Reduced (3)

* Rebellions: In recent years, there have been a number of high-profile rebellions against the government by MPs from all parties. For example, in 2019, Conservative rebels joined with opposition MPs to pass a bill that blocked a no-deal Brexit, despite the opposition of the government. This suggests that the government's control over Parliament has weakened, as MPs are increasingly willing to vote against their own party in order to oppose the government.
* Select committee scrutiny: Select committees have become increasingly influential in recent years, with MPs using them to scrutinise government policy and hold ministers to account. For example, in 2018, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee launched an inquiry into fake news, which led to the publication of a report calling for greater regulation of social media companies. This suggests that Parliament has become more effective at holding the government to account, even in areas where it lacks formal powers.
* The increased assertiveness of the House of Lords had led to several government defeats. No single party controls the Lords, making management of the House more difficult. Cross-benchers have become increasingly important. Lord Owen, a doctor, amendments on the Health and Social Care Bill.

Government still Retains a Large Degree of Control over Parliament (3)

* Majority in the House of Commons: The government currently has a majority in the House of Commons, which allows it to pass legislation with little opposition. This means that the government can push through controversial legislation, such as the recent Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which has faced significant opposition from civil rights groups and campaigners.
* Party discipline: The government maintains control over MPs through party discipline, where MPs are expected to follow the party line on key issues. MPs who break ranks risk being expelled from the party or facing other sanctions. For example, in 2019, 21 Conservative MPs had the whip withdrawn after they voted against the government on Brexit-related legislation.
* The Lords usually defers to the will of the elected House, after a period of ‘parliamentary-ping-pong’. The Salisbury convention and Parliament Acts also see government overcome any resistance.

The EU Aims (5)

* Economic Integration and the Single Market
* Economic and Monetary Union
* Enlargement
* Social Policy
* Political Union

EU Aim: Economic Integration and the Single Market (3)

* Member states want to promote economic growth by breaking down internal barriers to trade in order to create a customs union.
* Single European Act in 1986: four freedoms, free movement of goods, services, people and capital. Saw abolishment of customs controls at borders and product standards.
* Free movement allowed EU citizens to live and work in other members states. This saw temporary restrictions from states after 2015 migrant crisis.

EU Aim: Economic and Monetary Union (3)

* Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) was the eventual goal for most member states. Creation of the European Central Banks and a single currency - the Euro.
* Intention was to create cross-border trade and travel by eliminating the uncertainties caused by fluctuating exchange relations.
* Economic crisis in Greece, Spain, Portugal all required EU bailouts, in return for tougher budgetary rules.

EU Aims: Enlargement (4)

* Intention to expand its boarder to include eastern and central European states that had been under communist rule. Croatia in 2013. Ukraine’s application to be let in.
* Intended to further European unity and to create an expanded and more influential trading bloc, embracing 500 million people.
* New states could not be admitted unless they had evolved into liberal democracies.
* Caused issues as saw influx of eastern European workers into established member states, causing competition for jobs.

EU Aims: Social Policy

* To balance the economic freedoms of the single market, the EU created a social dimension to ensure workers did not suffer disadvantage and discrimination and to create a ‘level playing field’.

EU Aims: Political Union (4)

* Perpetual state of balance between institutions that operate in an intergovernmental way and those with a supranational character.
* Intergovernmental operations means that member states co-operate with each other in decision-making, protecting their respective interests and sovereignty while working together toward common goals.
* Qualified majority voting as the main decision-making procedure in the Council of the European Union. Each state has an allocated number of votes based on its population size.
* Lisbon Treaty 2009: European Council was given a permanent president, a co-ordinated and agreed EU foreign policy, a system of double majority voting was introduced, representing 55% of states with 65% of population. Charter of fundamental human rights.

The Negotiation of European Treaties (2)

* Treaties are legal documents that set out the power of the EU institutions and the rules for decision-making. The key body in negotiation is the European Council.
* The European parliament then votes on a treaty. It is ratified by each member state using it own procedure.

EU Directives

A directive sets out a goal that all EU members states must work towards. They are then expected to pass their own laws to achieve this. For example, 1998 working time regulations, passed in the UK to give effect to the Working Time Directive.

EU Regulations

A regulation is binding on all member states and is immediately enforceable, for example the 2015 regulation on common safeguards on goods imported from outside the EU.

The UK and EU Social Policy (4)

* The Social Chapter, which formed part of the Maastricht Treaty, is the most significant EU measure to protect workers’ rights.
* John Major’s Conservative government negotiated an opt-out since it did not want business held back by red tape.
* Blair committed the UK to the Social Chapter and then was cautious about market flexibility and protected labour, so was reluctant to support further change.
* Cameron’s government later took the side of business leaders.

How has the EU affected the UK’s political system and policy-making? (6)

* EU membership has heightened the profile of the PM, who regularly attends European Council meetings. David Cameron visited his fellow heads of government individually early in 2016, to negotiate.
* The foreign secretary plays an important role in supporting the PM.
* Parliament has the responsibility to examine EU legislation, ministers do not agree on legislation until it is debated in the Commons. House of Lords EU Select Committee.
* Devolution: powers have been devolved to the component parts of the UK. There are administrations in Cardiff, Edinburgh etc.
* All of this is set to change under the Brexit deal.
* Scotland has posed many issues due to demands from Sturgeon from a negotiation pertaining the Scotland’s position in the EU.

Different Types of Soveriegnty (2)

* Legal: is a concept defined by law. It belongs to the person or body in a state with unlimited legal authority. In the distance pat it was exercised by the monarch, but in the present day it belongs to the UK parliament. No higher legal authority than parliamnet.
* Political: stands above legal sovereignty. In a democracy, the legal sovereign body derives its authority from the people. When people elect a parliament they delegate their political authority to their representative. Parliament is accountable to their electorate in the way that it exercises this power.

The Movement of Sovereignty in the Branches (2)

* Although parliament is theoretically sovereign, real authority has moved to the executive. A government with a secure parliamentary majority, like that of Boris Johnson, can use the whipping system and control of legislative timetable to assert its dominance. Parliament Act to override Lords opposition. Royal Prerogative powers.
* Supreme Court challenges parliamentary sovereignty, as it ended the House of Lords being the final court of appeal. The court could be abolished by an act in parliament easily. It cannot strike down law.

Developments that have affected Parliamentary Sovereignty (4)

* Devolution: transfer of powers and functions to new bodies, giving them to make law on certain specified subjects. Not a federal settlement, which would mean formal legal sharing of sovereignty. Parliament could abolish devolved bodies, but with public support this will not happen.
* Referendums: increased referendums since 1997 threatens. Theoretically not a threat, as not legally binding. Political reality makes it extremely unlikely for parliament to ignore the outcome of a popular vote. Arguments over 2016 Brexit.
* HRA: Increased power of the judges to declare existing legislation incompatible with the act. Cannot compel parliament to change law. Parliament should implement ruling s of the ECHR but has rejected calls to allow prisoners voting rights.
* EU: Sovereignty has been ‘pooled’ with many member states volunteering sovereignty for an agreed common purpose. The UK gained influence it could not have gained. Globalisation, no state could truly be independent. Eurosceptic reclaim sovereignty by negotiating opt-outs. Hard-line Eurosceptic believe can only be restored by removing from EU.

Sovereignty remains with Parliament (3)

* Legal authority: The UK Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the country. This means that any law passed by parliament must be obeyed by all other institutions and individuals within the country. Recent example: In September 2020, the UK Parliament passed the controversial Internal Market Bill, which sought to override parts of the Brexit withdrawal agreement that had been agreed with the EU. Despite opposition from some members of parliament and the EU, the bill was eventually passed and became law in December 2020, demonstrating the legal authority of the UK Parliament.


* Political power: Parliament has the ultimate political power in the UK, as it is the institution that makes and implements government policy. Recent example: In January 2021, the UK Parliament voted on the government's proposed Brexit deal with the EU. While the deal was eventually approved by parliament, the process demonstrated the political power of the institution to scrutinize and influence government decisions.
* Democratic legitimacy: Parliament is the institution that represents the will of the people in the UK. Recent example: In December 2019, the UK held a general election in which all members of parliament were up for election. The election resulted in a significant shift in the balance of power in parliament, with the Conservative Party winning a majority of seats. This demonstrated the democratic legitimacy of parliament, as the election allowed voters to choose the members of parliament who would represent their interests in the institution.

Sovereignty Doesn’t Remain with Parliament (3)

**What is the source of political sovereignty in the UK?**

The political sovereignty in the UK is derived from the people, not from the Parliament. This power can be removed by the Recall of MPs act or at the next General Election.

* Parliament does not have sovereignty because it gains political sovereignty derived from the people. This power can be removed by the Recall of MPs act or at the next General Election.
* In the modern world, globalisation makes sovereignty a less meaningful concept, it is more realistic to think of sharing sovereignty with other international actors in order to maximise influence.
* The growing power of the executive, through whips, patronage an control of parliamentary schedule, means that parliament more adheres to the executive rather than as a cohesive body. Executive has sovereignty.