Paper 2 - UK Government and Non-core Political Ideologies

HOL ~ Check on Legislation (Current System)

1. Holding the government accountable for legislation and suggestions revisions or delaying the passing of it.

Non-controversial, typically just ensuring legal water tightness

2. Deliberative functions, members can discuss issues at length with several views represented.

   E.g. 2021 Assisted Dying Bill, 140+ members discussing potential outcomes, most of members had extensive experience on topic (Baroness Meacher - Chair of ‘Dignity in Dying’ campaign)

3. Select committees - focussed on certain themes (public services, defence, IR) and have all benefits of HOC SCs

HOL ~ Cash for Peerages (Elected System)

Due to party funding system, exuberantly successful individuals who donate in great amounts to parties gain great deals of influence, especially when donating to the party which wins the election

E.g. Tony Blair’s 25 donor peers donated £25mil = £1mil per peerage

Donors often inactive in HOL and contribute little to its functions, only using it to gain further influence, and their party ties undermine the party-less composition of the chamber

However, despite the attempt for PMs to “stuff” the HOL with their supporters, the chamber remains without a party majority

HOL ~ Largely independent from political parties (Current System)

Allows HOL to exercise their role of being a legislative check

Thatcher - “The true opposition”

No party has a majority and considerable numbers are cross benchers

Even party-aligned members don’t have to take the whip, and can decide their ruling without fear of their career - and many peers have already been incredibly successful outside of politics

2019-2024 Govt: 1 defeat in HOC vs 500+ in HOL

2014 Children and families Act Labour govt initially opposed the amendment to include a ban on smoking in cars with children but later agreed following HOL defeat

BUT not always received, Rwanda Safety Bill’s rejection in HOL ignored by Govt

HOL ~ Removal of hereditary and spiritual peers (Elected System)

Not appointed by elected official rather on their religious positions or familial standing

1999 HOL Act removed 90% of Hereditary peers and the current govt has pledged to remove the res

Spiritual peers are only bishops from the CofE and don’t leave representation for the rest of the electorate such as other churches or religions.

Both peers don’t align with elected nature of democracy but also fail at representation, as only minimal numbers live on hereditary peer-owned land and most people are not Anglican Christian or Christian at all

No space in a modern democracy

HOL ~ Expertise (Current System)

Given by system of appointment for life peers - generally appointed on grounds of their impact on the nation or a community

Charity work; success in business, law, politics etc

E.g. Baroness Meacher - Chair of Dignity in Dying

Enhance the function of HOL, esp scrutiny and deliberation - accurately predict policy outcomes and more easily spot loopholes.

Most of these peers would generally not run for election and would not contribute their knowledge and expertise in an elected chamber - unelected, appointments system gives them a platform

HOL ~ Electoral Legitimacy (Elected System)

HOL is without a doubt weaker than HOC, but has more power than given credit for, simply doesn’t have the authority to enact these powers.

E.g. Power to delay legislation for 1 year awarded in 1949 Parliament Act, hasn’t been used since Hunting Bill 2005.

However, this system could cause political gridlock - newly envigored HOL would be more likely to reject bills, with each bill requiring more and more time for deliberation and debate

As seen in US where it often takes multiple rounds of voting to pass a single bill

JUD ~ Too independent of government (CON)

Judiciary appears too independent of the government’s policy and thereby frustrates the will of the people

Opposition to government interest controversial for an unelected body

Increasing tendency to take on political cases, compromising apolitical stance. E.g. Pinochet Case 1998, judge and spouse had ties to Amnesty INT

E.g. 2017 Brexit Ruling - Parliament must be consulted to pass deal “ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE”, acting in overly political nature. MP Douglass Carswell: “shocking judicial activism” - many claimed it as a plot amongst ‘remainers’ to complicate Brexit’s passing

JUD ~ Act as executive check and uphold parliamentary sovereignty (PRO)

E.g. 2017 Brexit Ruling - Reduced chances of government dominating the political process, in process making the courts the true opposition to government - preventing an elective dictatorship

Independence from government simply means that the courts can perform their job more effectively and reduce government’s growing dominance - strengthens UK democracy

JUD ~ Too liberal (CON)

Courts are overly concerned with the rights of individuals and minorities, rather than the will of government and the public

Handicapped successive government attempts to combat the “war on terror”

E.g. 2004 foreign terror suspects detention was ruled unlawful by Law Lords as a violation of ECHR as it was discrimination based on nationality - Went against both HOP, govt, media, public ~ most claimed it should have been left to parliament to decide

E.g. + banning of freezing of terror suspects assets made it difficult for government to tackle issue of terrorism

Growing sentiment in the Conservatives post-Rwanda that UK should withdraw from the ECHR

JUD ~ Maintain Rule of Law (PRO)

Ensures that everyone, migrants, criminal suspects, or the public alike have insurance of human rights

ECHR established as WWII made clear that we cannot rely on governments to protect individual rights and uphold rule of law.

Terror suspect detaining was clear discrimination on grounds of nationality and violated common law principle habeas corpus

Plus, British public generally becoming more liberal esp on issues like euthanasia and abortion, as well as greater awareness and value placed on our human rights.

Liberality doesn’t create standards unto themselves, just represents the rights enshrined into domestic and international law, giving “too liberal” no foundation to prove the courts are too powerful

JUD ~ Increase in Judicial Deference (NOT POWERFUL)

There is an increased tendency for judges to be more deferential - faced great amount of criticism from government, media, public, even when it is usually Min of Justice’s role to protect them.

Judges simply more wary to fully comply with their legal mandate

E.g. Shamima Begum - Ruled a “significant threat to national security” and her citizenship was revoked leaving her stateless - judges sided with government on the issue despite what their record of accomplishment would suggest to government actions and policies, often prioritizing executive decisions over individual rights and can inhibit judicial independence.

Supreme Court - Neutrality

Conflicts of Interest - Judges must refuse to sit a case involving family, friends etc

Public Activities - Judges can involve themselves in charity and volunteering but must avoid politics

E.g. Pinochet Case 1998, Law Lords, predecessor to SC judge and spouse had ties to Amnesty INT

Concerns over narrowness of Court’s composition - no ethnic minorities, 10/12 are men, 10/12 went Oxbridge, maj went ind. schools.

Could present an overly biased view and lack of range of opinion leading to bias

Supreme Court - Judicial Independence

Terms of Employment - Judges cannot be removed from office unless they break the law, only limit being mandatory retirement age, 75 - Security of Tenure

Pay - Judges’ salaries are paid automatically from an ind. budget (Consolidated Fund) w/o possibility of ministerial interference

Appointment - transparent and free from pol. intervention (Judicial Appointments Commission and the Selection Commission)

2005 Constitutional Reform Act - Formally separated the judiciary from the executive (Cab. Min. of Lord Chancellor) and the legislature (HOL)

However some argue that the govt’s control over funding for the Supreme Court gives them some control over the judiciary in that they could limit their functions through funding

Supreme Court - Influence on exec and legi

Lack of codified constitution gives no clear standard that can judges can claim has been violated, cannot strike down leg. (Parliamentary Sovereignty)

Main role of court is to interpret 1998 Human Rights Act, expectation that parliament will modify a law to bring into line with the ECHR

Judicial Review - Court can inquire whether mins have followed procedure, can investigate whether public bodies have acted ultra vires (beyond one’s powers)

2017 Article 50 Case - Brought forward by businesswoman, Gina Miller, argued that govt needed permission of pt to leave EU, Court agreed 8 to 3, argued EU membership had granted statutory rights to Brits that only pt could remove.

2019 2nd Gina Miller Case ~ Proroguing Pt

HOC ~ Party Loyalty (Undermining Role)

MPs will tend to be loyal to their parties, especially if that party is in govt - deferential

Often goes against the will of their constituents

Majority party can ignore opposition knowing they have the backing of their MPs

MPs avoid dividing the party, a factor disliked by the electorate

E.G. Winter Fuel Allowance 2024 

Originally introduced by Labour, still supported by many

Despite this, vast majority of Labour MPs remained loyal to the party, only one voted against and over 50 abstaining

Passed by a majority of 120 votes

HOC ~ Role of the Whips (Undermining Role)

Job is to maintain party loyalty in Parliament, especially among backbenchers

Often use threats against MPs in order to command loyalty - no chance at ministerial post, or will guarantee spot in stable constituency

Ultimate Punishment - Removal of the Whip

E.g. Backbench Rebels in July 2024 Child Benefit Cap Debate

All 7 Labour MPs who sided with the SNP on removing the 2-child benefit cap lost the whip

HOC ~ Prime Ministerial Patronage (Undermining Role)

Prerogative Powers of PM - appointing members of government

MPs wish to advance through political ranks - MP job carries less pay, status and influence

MPs support PM and govt and refrain from criticising in order to ensure political success.

E.g. Boris Johnson rewarding Brexiteers by appointing them to ministerial roles in 2019

HOC ~ Payroll Vote (Undermining Role)

Ministers in govt are on govt payroll, non-negotiable support of govt in every vote - despite often in private disagreeing with govt or one another

More ministers than ever (1900 roughly 60 - 2010 roughly 120) increases size of payroll vote.

Convention of Collective Ministerial Responsibility - commands govt support from every member of govt, no matter how junior - only serves to back the payroll vote.

Profoundly undemocratic

E.g. 2010 - LDs said they would rid of tuition fees, every LD BB voted against, every minister voted for trebling the fees.

E.g. 2019 Prorogation of Parliament - Boris Johnsons said would prorogue Pt until UK left EU without a deal.

All mins against the plan before - Sajid Javid “trashing democracy” - When Pt was eventually prorogued, all ministers approved it - had to be settled by the Judiciary

HOC ~ Lack of resources for MPs (Undermining Role)

They don’t even have means to do their job - predominantly they lack the time and cannot know every single expert knowledge point 

So MPs simply just follow the govt or their party

Govt has expanded beyond being able to be controlled by Pt - 500k+ Civil Servants

Govt will also often purposely withhold information from MPs and purposely mislead them - Lack of Transparency

E.g. Iraq Dossier - Massive doubts from BBs, govt released Dossier with claims surrounding Iraq manufacturing WMDs - claims were hollow and lacked evidence to back them up - led to general confusion in the Commons 

HOC ~ Parliament sustains the Govt (Remains effective)

No govt can govern without support of Pt - nobody holds more authority than Pt

On controversial issues, MPs are much more likely to stick to their personal beliefs (Brexit, Welfare Reform)

Even if an MP doesn’t vote explicitly against the government, the withdrawal of their vote by abstaining can threaten a govt’s majority.

The whips help to find the BBs opinions and therefore cater it to their beliefs in order to allow it to pass

E.g. Welfare Reform Bill 2025 - BBs expressing strong disagreement with the plans led to a reform and near nullifying of the bill

HOC ~ Scrutiny of Executive by Debate (Remains Effective)

Allows for MPs to discuss a certain issue proposed in the House as a “motion” - can include issues pertaining to the Executive

After all who want to speak have spoken, a vote is held.

Allows for open and cross-party discussion of an issue

E.g. Syria Debate 2013 - Debate of whether to interfere in Syria after leadership used chemical weapons on Syrian civilians - 30 CON BBs and 9 LD BBs joined Labour opposition in defeating govt - No action taken in Syria

HOC ~ Scrutiny of Executive by Select Committee (Remains Effective)

Exists a SC for every govt dept - consists solely of BBs from any party - hard to ignore a cross-party unanimous consensus

Can summon peoples, papers and records before the committee and can talk with anyone at length

Chairs of SC are often former ministers, with more power than junior ministers and can therefore advance their career without undying loyalty to the govt and fear for their career

E.g. Foreign Affairs SC heavily criticised govt policy in Libya 2011 - Uk supported anti-Gaddafi rebels and imposed no-fly zone, yet left Libya without a govt nor control

Concluded that ultimate responsibility lied with David Cameron in a unanimous, all-party report - report released in 2016 and could arguably have caused Cameron’s resignation if not for EU Referendum

PM ~ Prime Ministerial Patronage (Powerful)

Power to decide composition of Cabinet - PM promotes key supporters into top jobs and side-lines the latter

Influences behaviour of Junior Ministers and BBs

E.g. Boris Johnson filled his Cabinet with his supporters and Brexiteers.

PM ~ Control of Government Business (Powerful)

PM decides:

. What is discussed in Cabinet meeting

. What issues are raised

. Sums up what is decided 

E.g. Iraq War 2003 - Despite disagreement amongst Cabinet, 100+ BBs, Blair’s personal leadership allowed him to push UK into the conflict anyway. Public enquiry later revealed the “psychological dominance” the PM held

PM ~ Prime Ministerial Support (Powerful)

The PM does not have their own govt dept - not a weakness, it has built up their own army of support over the years.

Could be to help carry out govt functions but also could be seen as a power grab from the PM, giving them more control over the govt

PM can call upon support and advice independent of their cabinet colleagues - not reliant on them

Usually people in govt temporary alongside PM - unelected and biased to party in govt

E.g. Theresa May called on her personal advisor to negotiate EU deal, without consulting Dept of Foreign Affairs or Dept of Leaving the EU

CAB ~ Political Heavyweights (Powerful)

Ministers who are powerful and influential in their own right

PM cannot afford to cross these ministers - especially in areas of policy they are responsible for

Have authority in their own right, not simply because they were put in the Cabinet - They had to be put in the Cabinet

E.g. Gordon Brown - Most powerful man in LAB govt other than PM, had to be ChofEx - More popular in LAB than Blair

Unthinkable for Blair to overrule Brown on economic policy

2017 - After disastrous election May reintroduced Gove to the Cabinet, served to neutralise a rival

CAB ~ Broadchurch nature of political parties (Powerful)

Political parties are better when they are large - parties have to appeal to a wide range of supporters - cannot afford to be ideologically pure

PM forced to reflect diversity in their Cabinet

If left on benches, not bound by Payroll vote or Collective ministerial responsibility and can openly criticise Govt

E.g. Theresa May couldn’t deal with divided party when trying to pass an EU deal, forced to reflect Remain and Leave in her cabinet - Weakened her personal viewed.

CAB - Individual Ministerial Responsibility

Convention defining relationship between mins and their dpts

Mins are responsible to pt for the actions of their dpt, can be scrutinised in MQT or select committees - may extend to resignation

Implies mins are responsible for the mistakes of their civil servants and vice versa

Mins are obliged to provide pt with accurate information and if they knowingly mislead pt they should resign

Many examples where this has degraded in recent years, mostly mins would only resign in the case of their personal responsibility for a blunder of the dpt

E.g. Gavin Williamson A level Results 2020 - Public outcry over the govt’s grade calculation algorithm led to many CON MPs calling for Williamson to resign, but he shifted blame and claimed responsibility lied with Ofqual

CAB - Collective Ministerial Responsibility (CMR)

Mins should support all decisions of govt in public

Maintains unity of govt against OPP and strengthens PM who can rely of the payroll vote of their mins

Mins are collectively responsible for all govt policies - in a vote of no confidence the whole govt resigns together

Mins must resign first before publicly dissenting against the PM - Streeting had to resign before challenging Starmer’s leadership

PM can dismiss CMR in rare cases - 2016 Cameron allowed mins to freely campaign for Brexit (against the govt who wanted REMAIN) 5 CAB mins did so

PM ~ PM lacks resources (Weakness)

Have a tiny staff - Even the smallest govt dept has more staff than PM

PM lacks time - often out of country so cannot oversee govt dept

Some would say this shows the PM is just the face of govt and the big decisions are actually made by dept ministers

E.g. Many saw the Blair govts as being led by Brown whilst Blair was just the PR-friendly face of govt

CONST ~ Uncodified = More flexible (PRO)

C can adapt to changing political circumstances and the changing needs of the people

Political pressures can create political turmoil - a flexible constitution can allow for quick solves.

E.g. Gun Control after 1996 Dunblane

E.g. C Reform Act 2005 - increased the independence of the Judiciary, removing them from the legislature

CONST ~ Uncodified = more democratic (PRO)

Uncodified constitutions mean that judges cannot strike down legislation as Parliament is the sovereign body - ultimately is more democratic

Prevents unelected, unaccountable, unrepresentative judges from getting too much power - unlike in codified constitutions like the US

E.g. 2017 Brexit Ruling - Judges just asserting the law

2024 Rwanda Safety Bill used by govt to ignore the judiciary

CONST ~ Uncodified have proved stable (PRO)

Despite the common law and conventions appearing fragile, they prove effective and robust in the current system

Convention - an unwritten rule followed by those at whom they are directed

E.g. Conservative Party conventions made sure that Truss and Johnson couldn’t remain in power after losing support of their party

CONST ~ Codified provides clarity (PRO)

People and leaders are aware of what is in the constitution and are therefore more likely to abide by its stances

Uncodified can prove unclear in areas of political discourse

E.g. Disagreements in 2017 whether or not Article 50 could be triggered without debate - May argued it was within her prorogative powers - Later had to be resolved in the courts

CONST ~ Uncodified are too easy to change (CON)

Play into the hands of an overly-powerful executive

Govts can interfere with the constitution solely for their personal benefit

E.g. 1999 HOL Act by Labour removing 90% of hereditary peers also removed most of the Conservative peers giving Labour the upper hand in the chamber.

Devolution - Definition

Transfer of power from the central govt to subordinate regional institutions

In the UK: Transfer of power but not sovereignty

1997: Wales and Scotland

1998: Northern Ireland

UK Govt retains their “reserved powers”: Defense, foreign affairs, immigration, social security etc

Devolution - Scotland

1997 Referendum - 74% vs 26% | 60% Turnout

1998 - Creation of a Scottish Parliament with primary legislative powers

Can establish new laws in all areas bar the “reserved powers” of Westminster

Inequality has been created with abolition of tuition fees and prescription charges in Scot

Some argue the Barnett Formula is overly generous to Scotland - All UK taxpayers fund Scottish public services

West Lowthian Question - Should MPs of the devolved nations be allowed to vote on England-specific issues when English MPs are not allowed vice versa?

Has arguably reduced arguments for independence (2014 - 55|45) though 2022 suggests otherwise - 2024 huge loss of support for SNP in Genelec

Scottish Pt arguably gives greater platform to SNP to campaign for INDY

2026 Scot Pt - Polls still place them as largest party

Brexit was far less supported in Scotland (38%), gave greater reason to ind. movement

Devolution - Wales

1997 Ref - 50.3% vs 49.7% | 50% Turnout

Less enthusiasm - given executive but not legislative powers initially

2011 Ref - 63% Yes | 36% Turnout

Granted primary legislative powers to the Senedd

Much less support for Welsh independence, still gives less argument for dissolution of the Union - Welsh nationalists have been given platform to promote Welsh language (2011 Welsh Languages Measure confirmed official status of Welsh beside English)

2026 Senedd Election hints at surge in support for Plaid Cymru, arguably could create support for devolution to be taken further

Police and justice are not devolved in Wales, unlike in Scotland

Devolution - Northern Ireland

1998 Good Friday Agreement - 71% vs 29% | 81% Turnout

Creation of a power-sharing executive between Nationalist and Unionist forces

Widely agreed to have been the defining end to The Troubles

Removes the controversy of direct rule by Westminster

Use of Single Transferable Vote ensures highly proportional representation of both sides

Executive headed by First Minister, Michelle O’Neill (SF) and Dep. FM, Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP)

Some “reserved powers” are granted to the Assembly with permission of NI Secretary (financial services, broadcasting, firearms, consumer safety)

UK Govt has had to suspend the assembly following failure for the two sides to cooperate (2002-2007) (2017-2020 following Renewable Heat Incentive scandal (£500mil cost)) (2022-2024 over disagreements on Windsor Framework)

Sinn Fein’s growing popularity in recent years has created concerns around growing Irish Republicanism.

Devolution - England

London has an elected with executive powers supported by the Greater London Assembly - Can make policy on: policing, transport, economic dev.

2003 - Livingstone introduced Congestion Charge for central London

Blair govt failed to gain support for elected regional assemblies

2004 Ref North-East Assembly - 78% NO, 48% turnout

Labour still tried developing regionalism by combining local authorities into “city regions” led by metro mayors

Seen by both LAB and CON as chances to encourage local development in traditionally underfunded areas

Very low turnout in mayoral elections, 2024 East Midlands just 28%

No major political party calls for an English pt - could argue much less national sentiment in England compared to other nations of UK

Nationalism ~ Culturalism

People have an emotional connection with their nation that draws them together

Emphasis on the distinctiveness and romanticism of these traditions

Cultural Nationalism - Culturalism helps to strengthen the desire for political self-determination

Welcomes outsiders to participate in traditions and customs, not requiring a single ethnic profile

Can be celebrated beyond the nation and the state

Nationalism ~ Civic Nationalism

Based on a rational approach to nationhood - a shared vision of individual duty to observe laws and receive legal privileges

Inherently political form of nationalism - Nation will often preach tolerance and inclusivity

Nationalism ~ Expansionist Nationalism

Idea that a nation’s unique spirit can be superior over other - justifying imperialism and domination

Chauvinism - belief that a nation is ultimately superior to others

Often includes a fear of minorities that they believe require “civilising” by the superior culture

Nationalism ~ Racialism

Belief that all members of each race possess qualities distinct to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to other

Leads to a racial hierarchy, theories advocating racial segregation to avoid “polluting” the blood stock of a “superior” race

Nationalism ~ Internationalism

People across the world should unite and connect across national boundaries, instead looking at what is best for the world

Socialist - Humanity isn’t divided into nations - divided by class

Nationalism is a capitalist tool to divide the proletariat to stop them from seeing that they share exploitation from the bourgeoisie - plays a part in false consciousness

Liberal - Sovereign nations should cooperate with levels in interdependency to avoid conflict

Liberal individual nations have a right to individuality just like people

Nationalism ~ Jean-Jacques Rosseau (1712-1778)

Father of civic nationalism - Key thinker behind the French Revolution

General Will - the collective interests of a nation should prevail over that of the monarch

Sovereignty lies with the nation and the people through elected institutions

Everyone in a nation-state is bound by the law and agrees to follow it - civic nationalism

Nationalism ~ Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744-1803)

Cultural Nationalist - every nation is distinct through its cultural character

Volksgeist - Each nation is motivated and united through a collective spirit

State institutions are key facilitators of the volksgeist and make nations distinct from one another

“Each nationality contains its centre of happiness within itself”

Nationalism ~ Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-1872)

Strong emphasis on self-determination - the right of the Italians to govern themselves free from Austrian interference

Republicanism is the favoured construct of the nation-state as it provides the good of all society - not just an autocrat

Each nation’s cultural and linguistic distinctiveness gives them a right to self-determination

Nationalism ~ Charles Maurras (1868-1952)

Critic of liberal character of the French Revolution and the rise of republicanism

Integral Nationalism - The interests of the individual are second to those of the distinct, unique nation - rejects idea of common humanity

Preserving the nation requires authoritarian control

Militarism - rejection of individualism so people rally behind the nation with hysteric patriotism and devotedness, often through serving in the military

Nationalism ~ Marcus Garvey (1887-1940)

Black Nationalism

Pan Africanism - All people of African descent are one people and should therefore unify, rejecting ethnic or cultural differences

Advocated racial segregation to allow black people to self-actualise

Created a shared interest and eventual cooperation with the Ku Klux Klan

Did not advocate for black supremacy but he vehemently denounced mixed-race peoples arguing they are “torn by dual allegiances” and are “traitors to the [black] race”

Promoted a global mass-movement and economic empowerment focussed on Africa - argued Africa had the power to keep itself self-sufficient