politics paper 2 PP essay plans

mark scheme 30 marks non-source

A01- knowledge and understanding, understanding of political institutions, processes, concepts, theories and issues, which are effectively selected in order to underpin analysis and evaluation. Makes convincing and cohesive synoptic points

A02- analytical views which support and reject the view presented. Perceptive analysis of aspects of politics, with sustained, logical chains of reasoning, which make cohesive and convincing connections between ideas and concepts

A03- evaluate the information and arguments presented. rank importance of the prior analysis. make and form judgments and reach reasoned conclusions, Constructs fully relevant evaluation of aspects of politics, constructing fully effective substantiated arguments and judgements, which are consistently substantiated and lead to fully focused and justified conclusions

• balanced viewpoint

mark scheme source 30 marks

A01- should use only knowledge and understanding from the source. thorough in-depth knowledge, understanding of political institutions, processes, concepts, theories and issues, which are effectively selected in order to underpin analysis and evaluation.

A02- comparison on analysing opinions in the source in terms of similarities and differences. different approaches and views that arise from political information and how these can form the basis for differing opinions. comparative analysis of political information, sustained, logical chains of reasoning, which make cohesive and convincing connections between ideas and concepts

A03- evaluate information and arguments presented. rank importance of analysis. make and form judgments based on the source and they should reach a reasoned conclusion. fully relevant evaluation information, fully effective arguments and judgements, which are consistently substantiated and lead to fully focused and justified conclusions

own knowledge cannot form basis for AO2 and AO3 points/marks.

analysis (AO2) and evaluation (AO3) should only be awarded where they relate to information in the source.

balanced arguement

mark scheme- ideologies questions

A01- knowledge and understanding. It should be used to underpin AO2 and AO3. thorough and in-depth knowledge, understanding of political concepts, theories and issues, which are selected effectively in order to underpin analysis and evaluation

A02- analytical views which support and reject the view presented by the question. Perceptive comparative analysis of aspects of politics, with sustained, logical chains of reasoning, drawing on similarities and differences, making cohesive and convincing connections between ideas and concepts

A03- evaluate information and arguments presented. importance of the prior analysis. make and form judgments and they should reach reasoned conclusions. evaluation of aspects of politics, constructing fully effective substantiated arguments and judgements, which are consistently substantiated and lead to fully focused and justified conclusions

to what extent do feminist agree over the nature of society they wish to create

1. Most feminists agree that we must challenge gender stereotyping and overcome gender inequalities. women can only be truly emancipated when they’re encouraged to allow their true nature to evolve (Gilman) (De Beauvoir) showing feminists agree that in order to change society gender roles must be challenged

2. Most feminists argue that patriarchy must be overcome a pervasive system of oppression, lies at the heart of societal problems (Millett, bell hooks) showing a clear agreement within feminism that patriarchy in society must be overthrown. Socialist feminists argue for radical change targets capitalism as promoter of patriarchy (Rowbotham) whilst radical feminists target patriarchy as the oldest and most pervasive form of oppression and must be overthrown first and foremost (Millett) showing a lack of unity within feminism over how society must be changed

3. Liberal feminists are reformist with a focus on the public sphere, campaigning for gradual change to secure political and legal equality in the public sphere whilst radical, socialist and postmodern feminists feel that radical change, that incorporates the public sphere and private sphere, is necessary to change, showing clear disagreements within feminism about how society must be changed.

4. Postmodern feminists disagree with other feminists on whether there is a single explanation for the oppression of women and so look to challenge all the intersecting forms of oppression. build on existing feminist ideas, arguing that intersectionality must be recognised and provide the framework for social change (bell hooks) showing a clear division within feminism as postmodern feminism brings new ideas to debate about how society must be changed

to what extent do feminist agree over human nature / patriarchy is based on HN

1. feminists agree that there is no difference between the human nature of men and women, agree gender distinctions are social constructs, Equality feminists, i.e. the majority of feminists across the different traditions, believe that humans are androgynous and that gender distinctions are not based on natural differences between men’s and women’s human nature (Beauvoir). Equality feminists argue that society requires women to adopt ‘feminine’ role in order to accept her position in the family structure, among others. These can and should be challenged (Millett) in order to improve the position of women- feminists challenge gender distinctions in society, argue are based on social constructs rather than human nature.

2. Most feminists agree that once patriarchy has been overcome gender distinctions will become largely irrelevant, Equality feminists argue that patriarchy instils gender stereotypes on women & men in society, imposing an artificial ‘nature’ on women to keep them in a subordinate position (Charlotte Perkins Gilman). agree that Patriarchy distorts the true nature of both men and women in society.

3. difference feminists believe that men and women have different natures and that gender distinctions are based on these_, different natures which are rooted in biology, known as essentialism. This puts them at odd with most strands of feminism.

4. Difference feminists argue that women should not try to be like men but should celebrate their differences and distinctiveness. An extreme form argues for separatism. against androgyny insisting that women should not try to be like men, celebrate their differences and distinctiveness, which are based on their distinct human nature. Separatist argue men are predisposed to oppress women and fixed. only option is for women to live separately, free from oppression. argue for society differences are celebrated, based on their belief in the different human natures of men and women. Therefore, feminists disagree over human nature.

to what extent do feminists agree on the role of the state / does it have a key role in securing feminist goals

1. Feminists recognise that the state serve some useful purpose for women but believe that the state could do more to enhance women’s position in society. the state protects women’s interests to an extent by outlawing discrimination and banning some practices that are harmful to women, unifying belief draws the strands together in accepting the useful purpose of the state

2. Socialist and radical feminists agree that the state does not primarily have the interests of women at heart (Rowbotham), Socialist and radical feminists agree the state serves some useful purpose for women, it is not structured to eradicate patriarchy, seeing it instead as providing minimal protection for women while allowing their unequal position to be maintained (Millet)

3. Liberal feminists believe that the state can play a role in promoting female emancipation which sets them at odds with other feminists, key to female emancipation, whereas radical feminists believe that the state creating an equal, legal framework is insufficient to remove patriarchy (Millett). Postmodern feminism argues that the state ignores women of colour (bell hooks), Radical feminists believe that primarily the state promotes patriarchy (Millett), whereas socialist feminists believe it serves capitalism first and then patriarchy (Rowbotham)

4. Radical feminists disagree with liberal feminists where the limits are to the state in protecting women, believing it has a role to play in both public and private spheres by outlawing pornography, ensuring harsher punishment for crimes against women (Millett), whereas liberal feminists believe the state should concern itself only outlawing discrimination in the public sphere, level of disagreement is fundamental and that it is an important distinction between the two about the way they see the role of the state.

to what extent do feminists agree about economy / in a future society

1. Feminists agree that the economy discriminates against women although in different ways and agree that gender equality in the economy needs to be achieved: women are discriminated against in the economic sphere (Perkins Gilman, Rowbotham) leading to clear inequality showing feminism is united. agree gender equality in economy via real change as part of the wider transformation of society (Rowbotham, de Beauvoir), so most feminists are united in their desire to promote gender equality in the economy

2. Most feminists agree that gender stereotypes play a key role in setting the economic role of women: gender stereotypes shape the role of women in the economy (Perkins Gilman, de Beauvoir) and these stereotypes need to be challenged as human nature is androgynous showing a clear agreement in their critique of the existing economy.

3. There are disagreements between liberal feminists and socialist feminists over the root of discrimination in the economy and how to achieve equality. Liberal argue for legal and political equality to achieve gender equality in the public sphere of the economy rather than the private sphere, whereas socialist feminists disagree, arguing capitalism is the root cause of female oppression, and that economic equality is vital to female emancipation (Rowbotham) reflecting a clear division within feminism

4. Socialist feminists see the root cause in capitalism whilst radical feminists see the root cause in the patriarchy. Socialist feminists argue that patriarchy is rooted in capitalism which must be removed (Rowbotham) whereas radical feminists (Millett) argue that patriarchy is the root cause of oppression and it is patriarchy that must be overthrown showing a very a strong division

should there be an elected house of lords

1. It would have increased legitimacy and accountability- a more legitimate check on the governments power, election increases consent and legitimacy- there were 92 hereditary peers, 676 life peers. able to hold the government to account more effectively. deals with a democratic deficit. reduced the size for the large house of lords.Lords is anti-democratic, especially in the case of Bishops, Archbishops and hereditary peers, vote on laws that impact the public but are unaccountable at the polling station

2. fairer representation and modernisation of the house of lords: the house of commons represent constituencies but lords dont, argued its not full of specilaists. but representation may have gone far enough through the house of lords reform act 2014, reduced life and hereditary peers- less London dominance in politics. could use STV/AMS. Peers are very controversial (Michelle Mone, Conrad Black, Lord Lebvedev) undermines their ability to do their job and faith in democracy

1. however, there could be a loss of expertise/ crossbenchers and a higher focus on politics instead as the lords plays a key role as a revising chamber: 26 lord spirituals. cant hold the government to account effectively through debates and committees. membership is its strength- less partisan than the Commons, is more specialist and has more time and this strength is a product of its unelected nature so it is fit for purpose and an elected chamber would be unable to fill this role.

2. may create constitutional issues as it creates a challenge to the house of commons- An elected Lords might challenge the supremacy of the elected House of Commons, creating a powerful, potentially gridlocked, second elected chamber. therefore providing a source of weak scrutiny to the executive. some form of appointed, and therefore unelected chamber is fit for purpose in the modern UK rather than an elected chamber

has constitutional reform since 1997 been a success

1. it has been successful- devolution. Scottish, welsh and NI devolution acts 1998, elected mayor in London. little demand for English Parliament or regional assemblies, EVEL and increasing number of city mayors has begun to solve the issue. delivered decentralisation has been widely supported by the public, a success across the UK by making politics more democratic

2. it has been successful- increased democracy enhanced/ embedded citizens rights: human rights act 1998, freedom of information act 2000, supreme court (constitutional reform act 2005). house of lords reform 1999- removed most hereditary peers. AMS and STV for devolved bodies has created far more democratic and representative bodies increasing their legitimacy whilst Voter ID will increase trust in general elections, constitutional reform has improved the quality of democracy and faith in democracy in the UK

3. it hasn’t been successful- demand for devolution to go further, disunite the union. England is the only nation in the UK without devolved parliament. west Lothian question. EVEL was not satisfactory making Scottish mps ‘second class’ members. more demand from areas with a strong regional identity (Cornwall, Yorkshire, north east). rise of support for independence since Brexit whilst the lack of representation for England, especially since EVEL was reversed, is problematic, deeply problematic rather than a success by creating new challenges to the constitutional settlement that have not been answered

however, 2004 referendum to establish a north east assembly was defeated 78% voted ‘no’

1. has not increased democracy- labours 1997 manifesto on doing an electrical system referendum lost interest and no referendum called- only introduced AMS for Scotland and Wales, STV for NI. many groups still heavily underrepresented through mps- government still over represented in parliament- labour has 404 seats with 33% of the vote share. Turnout in devolved elections has been lower than general election, little to improve legitimacy and democracy whilst Voter ID is likely to depress already low voter turnout in general elections, in particular lowing the vote within already marginalised groups reflecting that constitutional reform has so far done little to boost the democracy and faith in politics in the UK

however, further devolution to increased role of backbenches makes constituents more represented (the wright reforms)

evaluate the view that sovereignty does not lie in parliament alone

1. The UK Parliament remains the ultimate legal authority in the UK. It can pass laws on any subject and isn't subordinate to any other body in law: Brexit increased sovereignty. 2013, Cameron backed down from airstrikes in Syria after Parliament voted against them. but May carried out similar airstrikes in 2017 without consulting Parliament.
   Since 2010, weak government has increased the power of Parliament to scrutinise and effectively challenge the executive. always been legally sovereign, showed in passing of the EU Withdrawal Act to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and could at any time repeal the Acts of devolution and acts passed by devolved bodies can be vetoed if they contradict UK constitutional law passed by parliament and the recent EU Withdrawal Act has made it clear that sovereignty lies in parliament.

2. parliamentary is really executive sovereignty as the government can usually dominate parliament 'elective dictatorship' whips and majorities ensures they very rarely lose votes.
   - since WW2 over 99% of divisions (votes) in the House of Commons have been won by the government. Parliament’s legislative programme is determined by the government due to majoritarian, first past-the-post electoral system, control of timetable in the Commons and the whips discipline on the governing party’s majority showing that parliament is no longer politically sovereign as power has effectively passed to the Executive branch in UK

1. Devolved bodies have significant powers to make laws on a range of policy areas, including over certain areas of taxation, and therefore have a significant amount of sovereignty. Scottish, wales and NI 1998 acts established devolved powers. Scotland controls health and social policy, key welfare benefits, education, income tax rates and bands and the right to 50% of all VAT raised in Scotland. limits political sovereignty where devolved bodies have competency; become a quasi-federal system and devolved bodies created as a result of referendums can only be removed via referendum, showing that parliament is no longer politically sovereign as it is operating in a quasi-federal system where devolution is partially entrenched

2. The people ultimately have popular/political sovereignty, with which they grant Parliament and other bodies legal sovereignty through elections.
   In a democracy, the legal sovereign body derives its authority from the people. When the people elect a parliament they delegate their political authority to their representatives, referendums on key constitutional issues, including Scottish Independence, Brexit, the electoral system and devolution. parliament cannot realistically refuse to implement the wishes of the public whilst referendums are now expected for any significant constitutional changes reflecting that referendums have emerged since 1997 as a real limit on parliamentary sovereignty

however, referendums are advisory, governments are legally bound by results

evaluate the view that governments control of house of commons has weakened in recent years

1. Ministers and Prime Ministers have made use of the royal prerogative + conventions of IMR and CMR- maintain control of MPs as they have to stick to certain conventions. governments have a large payroll for mps who are bound by CMR and must vote with the government. May in Syria, the growing size of the payroll vote); this executive power is un-checkable by the Commons showing the government remains dominant over the Commons by using its powers in such a way that it can sideline the Commons

2. control lost as they are able to scrutinise the government more easily- select committees, MQs and PMQ’s, debates. vote of no confidence (major lost in 1993). PMQ’s moved from 30 minutes a week to 45 post 2009, increased use of Urgent Questions and Humble Addresses to hold the government to account. PMQs lengthened Urgent Questions granted grew under Speaker Bercow whilst the Official Opposition has used Humble Addresses in recent times; increased the power of the backbenches and Official Opposition showing that the Commons effective check on the power of the government

3. however, many people argue we are moving towards elective dictatorship with more stronger governments (Blairs sofa government, thatcher). The house of lords can be overridden by the parliament act and use Salisbury convention. the executive dominates parliament: whips and gains a majority in parliament so can easily control parliament. pm increasingly presidential, policy often communicated to the people rather than Commons and the increasing use of SPADs leading to a weakening of the normal channels of accountability to the House showing that the government remains dominant in recent times with power increasingly centralised in the PM.

4. however, many more rebellious back benchers; 2018 may lost several key votes in parliament over her Brexit deals. many minority governments 2010 Cameron’s coalition, Mays 2017 government relied on DUP to pass legislation. in Blair’s government majority of labour most voted against the war with Iraq. the wright reforms gave mps more powers and reduce whips power. discipline much harder to enforce (Brexit, Covid, Fire Safety and Police and Crime Bills) harder for governments to pass their legislation without listening to MPs from across the party showing government’s control has weakened in recent years as they have found controlling their parliamentary party extremely challenging

does that uk need an entrenched and codified constitution

the twin pillars of the UK constitution are parliamentary sovereignty and rule of law

1. entrenching constitutional principles protects them from government interference and adds more clarity on governments power- the government can overrule the human rights act if they find its in conflict with acts. entrenching citizens acts makes it harder to violate them. lack of clarity has caused problems, making political crises worse: Brexit in relation to referenda vs parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers in the Miller cases; this suggests that the lack of clarity is hurting UK politics so codification is needed to help bring stability and a clear set of rules.

however, it would become obsolete over time

2. it would reduce the executive power, codified clearly set out limits executives power - more consistent and rational constitutional as the evolutionary nature of the constitutions, features make little sense and need modernisation. HRA not entrenched, repealed with a majority, lack of codification doesnt give judges enough power to protect the rights of the people and allows governments to pass laws, some consider to remove rights (Anti-terror laws, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act). A Bill of Rights would protect human rights; this suggests that the constitution needs codifying and entrenching to effectively protect human rights

but, un-codified constitutions are more flexible and more responsive to social and political change (gun control in the US).

1. however it gives too much political power to judges who are un-elected and unrepresentative of British society. constitutional matters are left in the hands of rich white men ‘tyranny of the judiciary’. only 2/12 women judges, all of them are white. increase power of judicial review, increasing judicial activism by allowing judges to strike down Acts of Parliament taking judges into the role of making law, reflecting the view that the UK does not need a codified and entrenched constitution as it would tilt the balance of power too far in favour of judges and away from an elected House of Commons

2. constitutions do not guarantee rights: slavery, segregation and lynching all took place under the US bill of rights. key political debates around issues would be divisive and create more problems than they resolve- hugely problematic by opening up divisive debates so there is no need for a codified and entrenched constitution (rights, devolution and monarchy)

evaluate the view that power lies mainly in the prime minister rather than cabinet

1. Prime Ministers can use the power of patronage to promote politicians who are loyal and share their ideological preferences shape the Cabinet in their own image, rewarding loyalty, especially where they are popular and have won elections (Thatcher/Blair/Johnson) showing that PMs can use patronage to make it easier to dominate. (Blairs cabinet reshuffle in 1998 to produce a cabinet more in his image)

2. Collective ministerial responsibility can be used to keep ministers in line- have to agree so many decisions are taken beyond cabinet. in Inner Cabinets (Wilson/Cameron), Cabinet Committees (May, Johnson) and bilateral meetings (Blair) where the PM has far greater influence over decision making showing that power lies with the PM as they are choosing to use alternatives to Cabinet to make key decisions. (Robin cook over Iraq war)

however sometimes its suspended (EU referendum 2016)

1. Prime Ministers rely on the support of Cabinet to get their policies delivered and ultimately for their job (primus inter pares)- Unpopular prime ministers, with divided parties, need to maintain a balanced Cabinet. policies have to be delivered by departments, so the PM remains reliant so cannot bypass it whilst a loss of confidence in the PM within Cabinet weakens their ability to govern (May/Truss) and can lead to their removal from office (Thatcher/Blair/Johnson) PM relies on Ministers for delivery of policy and support in governing

2. Cabinet resignations and leaks from ministers to the press can all damage the power of the PM. resignations, by senior Ministers (Thatcher/May/Johnson/Truss) can severely limit the power of the PM and leaks reflect a Cabinet unwilling to accept the control of the PM (Major/May/Truss), reflecting that power still lies with Cabinet, as resignations and leaks can severely limit the powers of the PM.

evaluate the view that when it comes to fulfilling their perspective functions, the house of lords can be seen as more successful than the house of commons

1. the lords is more successful in scrutinising and debating legislation than the Commons: independent and specialist House ( the Blair reforms), with more time for scrutiny, main role as a revising chamber (Environment Act 2021, Policing, Crime and Sentencing Act) whilst the weakness of public bill committees and strength of whips nearly all amendments in Commons come from Ministers, Lords more successful than in its key role as a revising chamber

2. The Lords are more successful at providing scrutiny: less partisan approach, with cross benchers playing a key role, increased time available as there is no constituency work and has wide ranging select committees populated with specialists, more successful than the Commons at fulfilling its role of scrutinising the government. Peers represent their expertise whilst the number of human rights lawyers and freedom from electoral constraints allows Peers defend the rights of groups such as prisoners and asylum seekers that are not electorally popular, more successful than the Commons in representing rights and interests of marginalised groups

however, mps can defend constituents interests more easily as they have a more personal connection

1. commons have the power to reject amendments and more likely backbench mps can trigger amendments than lords: whilst the Lords may add amendments, these can be rejected by the Commons (Dubs Amendment to Brexit Bill) and pressure from MPs that encourages the government to propose and support amendments to its own legislation, more successful, than the Lords at scrutinising and amending legislation

2. The Commons is more successful at the scrutiny function due to their contrasting powers: PMQs takes place in the Commons- widely televised and Departmental Select Committees that only operate in the Commons, provide the greatest level of scrutiny and accountability of government ministers, especially since the Wright reforms , so the Commons is more successful

evaluate the view that select committees are the most effective way for the house of commons to hold the executive to account

1. power to set up inquiries, produce reports and request persons, papers and records and often operate in a bipartisan manner making them effective- interrogate witnesses at considerable length with forensic questioning. carry out detailed scrutiny, exposing issues in government policy and gaining significant media coverage – Amber Rudd and Windrush, most powerful way to hold the executive to account as they possess significant powers and receive a high level of media coverage

2. Since the Wright Reforms, Select Committees have become even more significant. The Official Opposition is not as influential as Select Committees in general in holding the government to account: independently minded, chairs elected and paid additional salary attracting high profile politicians (Jeremy Hunt, Yvette Cooper) whilst Committee members build up expertise increasing the effectiveness. reforms have increased the expertise, profile and independence of Committees making them even more able to hold the government to account.

however governments usually have majority in committees as they are representative of the composition so rarely challenge gov

1. no enforcement powers and limited time and resources, reducing their effectiveness: no legal power of summons. governments have to respond to reports do not have to act on them. many reports do not get the media coverage that would bring real accountability to government and so the lack of powers of Select Committees means that actually the reports make limited impact suggesting it is not the most effective mechanism. PMQs gains huge media attention whilst there has been an increase in the number of Urgent Questions used in parliament.

2. The Official Opposition is provided with both funding and a privileged position in parliament to hold the government to account. key role in PMQs etc and in Opposition days to allow them to hold the government to account and with an effective leader and united party can be very effective – Blair up to 97, Cameron in the Brown years, meaning that the Official Opposition can be more effective than Committees due to its powers especially with an effective Leader

evaluate the view that parliament is largely ineffective in shaping government legislation

1. government shapes and amends its legislation to maintain support of back benchers - suffers so few defeats as it shapes its legislation and makes concessions in the form of amendments to win over a majority of votes in both houses to pass legislation- effective at shaping legislation by forcing government to shape and amend the bills to win support. +increased rebelliousness of backbenchers (control of the Parliamentary timetable allows the government to restrict the power of the Commons to shape legislation)

2. Public bill committees trigger changes in legislation due to pressure from Opposition and nature of evidence from outside experts- allow non-government parliamentarians and experts to alert ministers about changes even if proposed by Ministers- amendments proposed by Ministers, the government is willing to improve legislation proving that parliament is effective. (separation of public bill committees from select committees reduces the chances of legislation being scrutinised by expert MPs)

3. more time for scrutiny in the Lords and specialism as Crossbenchers can succeed in getting support for amendments- (since the Reform Act of 1998) specialism means its effective at detailed scrutiny of legislation, amendments in the Lords can often gain support in Parliament, leading to amendment to legislation in response- expertise, time and non-partisan nature of crossbenchers often leads to amendments that force government amendments and changes

4. Lords has no party control, difficult for gov to pass legislation- gov generally more likely to suffer defeats which often trigger changes to government legislation as the government prefers negotiation to confrontation- the Lords is effective at shaping government legislation, by making government amend legislation to win over a majority in the Lords in order to pass legislation.

evaluate the view that devolution has created more problems than solved

1. A legitimacy problem in England: The lack of a devolved government for England, the lack of support for metro mayors and the issues around EVEL means that devolution is not working as there is a democratic deficit for England:

2. Devolution as a stepping stone to independence: a slippery slope to the end of the Union. This issue has been brought into sharper focus in Scotland and N Ireland due to issues raised by Brexit showing that devolution is not working- opened up the possibility of Scottish Independence and the reunification of Ireland

1. Northern Ireland, devolution has delivered increased peace and stability- Good Friday Agreement was designed to share power between unionist and nationalist communities leading to a massive drop in violence showing it has worked- popular in Northern Ireland and has been a success in delivering peace and stability

2. Devolution has helped maintained the unity of the UK- recognise the rights of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland to determine their own government so works to cement their constitutional role in the Union- constitutional settlement brings unity to the UK.

evaluate the view that the supreme court operates with sufficient judicial independence and neutrality

1. The passing of the Constitutional Reform Act in 2005 created a strict separation of powers- creating the Supreme Court, splitting out the role of Lord Chancellor and establishing an independent appointments process to protect the independence of the judiciary, principle of judicial independence has been strengthened by the Act so is supporting the rule of law in UK democracy.

2. The Supreme Court Judges sign up to principle of judicial neutrality, recognise in order to maintain the confidence of the public must practice neutrality by avoiding political activity and cases are live streamed to create a level of transparency and accountability+ more diverse, creating a clearer impression that the Court is neutral, so uphold the principle ensuring sufficient neutrality. (however media influence)

3. The Supreme Court lacks diversity leading to claims of bias, accusations that it undermines its neutrality whilst others see it as having an inbuilt liberal bias, seen by critics from both the left and right of politics as not being judicially neutral.

4. There has been a growing willingness of Ministers to criticise the Supreme Court whilst the courts are taking an increasingly judicially active role, seen in both the Cherry/Miller cases, Ministers criticise the Court and its decisions is a threat to judicial independence whilst increasingly the Court is taking a judicially active role taking in rights cases and constitutional cases, judicial independence is under threat from public attacks by the Executive branch and from the Court straying into politics due to judicial activism.

evaluate the view that individual ministerial responsibility and collective ministerial responsibility are both still important

1. Under CMR, ministers subject themselves to the combined restraints of secrecy and unanimity in decision making and are accountable to Parliament and must resign if they cannot support government policy+ proven to be incredibly adaptable, with it being suspended temporarily. expression of opposing views gives the perception of strong, united governance giving clear leadership to Parliament and the country whilst remaining collectively accountable for their actions. i.e resignations of Davis and Johnson over Brexit. key strength as it reflects strong leadership and clear accountability

2. IMR means ministers expected to maintain high standards of behaviour and to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety (i.e Alun Cairns, Michael Fallon, Dr Fox.)+ individually responsible for the work of their departments, works to maintain the highest standards in public life to there is accountability to maintain the legitimacy of the government, accept responsibility for failure in administration,injustice or policy criticised in parliament, whether responsible or not. i.e Amber Rudd and Windrush..(seen in Ministers Questions, Urgent question, select committees)

3. The temporary suspensions of CMR, in particular in 2016 and under the Coalition, reflects its growing weakness not its strength+ has weakened with ministers disagreeing in public and leaking to the media, showing it is not binding, so it is now a matter of whether the PM can enforce it. particularly in Mays government, with ministers not resigning or being sacked reflects that CMR has weakened.

4. IMR, ministers are now increasingly not accepting responsibility for the work of their departments, shifting the blame to others rather than accepting responsibility undermining accountability – i.e. Williamson 2020, Hancock 2020 and whether a minister resigns is now decided by the pressure from the media and the views of the PM. less important as Ministers are not accepting responsibility for their actions.

evaluate the view that the supreme court has strengthened parliamentary sovereignty

1. With no separation of powers or a codified constitution, the Court has helped rebalance the relationship between Parliament and the executive. establishment has led to a significant re-balancing of the powers between parliament and executive - the Miller/Cherry cases were not about Brexit but about where constitutional powers lie. shows that the SC can serve to strengthen and advance parliamentary sovereignty —> practices judicial restraint and does not challenge the will of the elected.

2. defends parliament against an over mighty executive, acting as guardian of democracy. As the executive has grown in power, it has been seen by some to be aiming to avoid scrutiny and accountability in Parliament for its actions undermining democracy. The Court’s decisions have helped to protect Parliament against this. significant re-balancing has strengthened parliamentary sovereignty against an over-mighty executive.

SC practices judicial activism so is increasingly becoming involved in creating rights – a role that should belong to the elected parliament.

3. Judges should not make judgements in political areas, such as Brexit. the SC has strayed into areas of ‘politics’ and this undermines parliamentary sovereignty and judicial neutrality. Politics should be left to the democratically elected House. form the judgement that the SC has not strengthened parliamentary sovereignty.

The Court is independent and neutral not political

4. Judicial reviews lead to un-elected judges challenging the will of the government and thus in effect Parliament. challenges to decisions taken by an elected government, whose democratic power is based in Parliament and should be held accountable by a democratically elected Parliament rather than an un-elected Court. use of judicial review by the SC has not strengthened parliamentary sovereignty.

however, there have been very few declarations of incompatibility and most are uncontroversial.

evaluate the view that devolution has been good for wales and Scotland but not northern Ireland and England

1. Scotland and Wales have both gained additional powers. Scotland has gained additional powers through the Scotland Acts; Wales has also gained additional powers since powers were devolved under Blair. In contrast, England does not have a devolved assembly and NI has not gained additional powers. since both Scotland and Wales have gained additional powers, devolution has been good for them.

2. Stormont has been suspended for long periods, including between January 2017- January 2020. The suspension of Stormont for an extended period over the ‘cash for ash’ scandal has meant the suspension of local control over policy, which has undermined devolution for N Ireland. devolution has not been good for Northern Ireland as the main institution of devolved government has been suspended for long periods of time.

3. Devolution has not satisfied demands for Scottish independence and devolution is not entrenched;The Scottish Nationalist Party remains a strong lobby for a second referendum on Scottish independence and has made electoral gains, including further successes in the 2019 general election. This issue has been compounded by Brexit. The devolution settlement. not satisfied the demand for more Independence, whilst Brexit has exaggerated further the divisions between Holyrood and Westminster

4. The Welsh parliament has fewer powers than the Scottish parliament and devolution is not entrenched. It has been a cause of resentment among Welsh nationalists that the Welsh regional body was granted less powers than Scotland to start with, and whilst it has had its powers increased, they remain less than the powers of the Scottish Parliament. support for further devolved powers, and for independence, shows that devolution has not been good for Wales.

• The role and importance of referenda in relation to devolution.

• The impact of the different electoral systems on the devolved assemblies

• The link to democracy - bringing the power to make decisions as close the people as possible.

• importance of minor and emerging parties - Plaid Cymru and the SNP.

evaluate the view that since 2010 the executive has dominated parliment

1. Parliamentary committee structures to oversee the work of the executive remain relatively weak. The lack of a fusion of powers gives the Executive control over the Commons and the un-elected second chamber weakens parliament’s ability to hold the executive to account. that the structure of the UK political system tends towards executive dominance over parliament.

however, Regardless of majority, committee structure is more effective since Wright Reforms. Select committee chairs are more independent and willing to challenge the executive. The Liaison Committee provides additional scrutiny of the PM

1. Structurally the nature of the UK constitution remains; the executive is drawn from parliament and the second chamber is un-elected. Compared to other countries, our parliamentary committees set up to ever-see the work of the executive are weak and lack ‘teeth’. For instance, Johnson avoided attending the Liaison Committee three times in 2019. parliament lacks powerful committee structures, that the executive will dominate parliament.

however, lack of legitimacy of an unelected second chamber.

1. Parliament has become more assertive after the election in 2010. Parliament has become more assertive over recent years, especially during the coalition (2010-15) and small majority/minority governments from 2015-2019 with backbenchers more likely to rebel. Governments have faced defeats in the Commons on key issues such as ‘Brexit’ and the reformed House of Lords has been more willing to challenge the government. conclude that the greater assertiveness of parliament means that the executive will not dominate parliament.

however, Divisions within the Conservative Party under Johnson remain – in Parliament. the role of the state in the economy and society, that mean it is hard for the Executive to maintain party discipline in the House.

1. The coalition and Conservative governments from 2010-2019 faced effective scrutiny and challenge from parliament. We have experienced almost a decade of a resurgent Parliament. Despite Johnson’s large majority, the executive can expect to face scrutiny and challenge from parliament and to be held to account for its actions. parliament will continue to challenge and scrutinise the executive, that it will not dominate parliament.

• The role and importance of the media in supporting/undermining scrutiny of the executive.

• The effects of FPTP in producing large government majorities.

evaluate the view that the principal role of backbench mps is to hold the government to account

1. Whips are weaker and MPs are increasingly willing to defy the whip to hold the government to account and force them to back down. The increasing number of backbench rebellions and cross party amendments shows that backbench MPs see their principal role as holding the government to account. the growth in cross party amendments and backbench rebellions that the principal role of backbench MPs is to hold the government to account.

2. Backbenchers have increasingly use their powers to hold the government to account. The Wright reforms have allowed more independently minded MPs to hold the government to account whilst MPs are more willing to use urgent questions. the growing use of their powers, the principal role of backbench MPs is to hold the government to account. Changes to the select committee system and the introduction of the Liaison Committee have strengthened the role of backbench MPs to hold governments to account.

3. Executive dominance will return. The electoral system is likely to produce future majority governments (as in the 2019 election) in which the role of backbench MPs will be less significant. due to FPTP, the principal role of backbench MPs is not to hold the government to account but it is a role they play alongside voting on new legislation and legitimising parliamentary decisions. Blair was very rarely defeated in the Commons. labour with 34% of teh vote share produced a large majority in 2024 showing how the nature of FPTP is to produce string governments and enhance executive dominance

4. Backbench MPs from the governing party tend to support the executive. governing party normally support the manifesto and are kept in line by the whip system and patronage. We can conclude from this that the principal role of backbench MPs from the governing party is not to hold the government to account but it is a role they play alongside voting on new legislation and legitimising parliamentary decisions. Governments can use patronage to discourage backbench MPs of the governing party to rebel.

evaluate the view that uks constitution requires major change

1. It is too easy for a government to make significant constitutional changes. Under our uncodified system it is too easy for a government with a majority in the Commons to make significant constitutional changes, including those which affect our fundamental rights. UK’s constitution requires major change, such as codification, since it does not sufficiently limit government power.

2. The UK is out of step with modern democracies.The UK’s system is out of step with other modern democracies, with an appointed rather than elected second chamber, because our system has evolved over a long period of time. that the UK is out of step with other modern democracies that the UK’s constitution requires major change. When ‘stress tested’ over events such as Brexit, some have argued that our system has shown it is unable to cope.

3. The UK’s uncodified constitution has successfully evolved. The UK’s uncodified constitution has gradually evolved over a long period of time, adapting and retaining relevant elements that make the system work and protecting our rights. the successful evolution of the UK’s uncodified constitution shows that it does not require major change. There is no wide-spread public demand to change our constitution

4. Parliamentary sovereignty means that parliament can respond flexibly to any situation. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that parliament can legislate to respond appropriately to threats, e.g. terrorism, or to changing realities, such as the desire for devolution, more quickly than in countries with rigid and codified systems. Parliament is able to respond flexibly to events, we can conclude that it does not require major change. Close referendum results, in Scotland and over the EU, show the need for minimum ‘super majorities’ to provide consent for major constitutional changes.

evaluate the view that the supreme court has too much influence over executive

1. It can set aside executive actions under judicial review if they are ultra vires or break the HRA. The SC can set aside executive actions if they are unlawful, irrational or made in the wrong way. E.g. in 2013, the quashing of Jeremy Hunt’s decision re the maternity and A and E departments at Lewisham Hospital as it was deemed beyond his legal powers. the SC has too much influence over the executive as it has the ability to quash actions of Ministers and government departments.

2. Increased judicial independence since the Constitutional Reform Act and the Human Rights Act have led to an increase in the use of judicial review. The increase in the number of judicial reviews, has slowed down decision making, added costs to public projects and made Ministers increasingly cautious for fear of litigation, that the SC has too much influence over the executive as it has limited the ability of the executive to deliver effective government

3. The SC can’t strike down an Act of Parliament. The court does not have the power to strike down a statute, only declare it incompatible. This is not legally binding on the executive branch and they can choose what action to take – e.g prisoners votes and civil partnerships. SC does not have too much influence over the executive as declarations of incompatibility are not legally binding

4. The majority of judicial reviews are not upheld and judicial review is used to ensure the rule of law is upheld. The SC upholds the rule of law, a key principle of the UK constitution – e.g UNISON case 2017, and in the majority of cases judicial reviews against the executive are not upheld, so its influence is limited. SC does not have too much influence over the executive; it is fulfilling its role as a constitutional court.

• The media reporting of important Supreme Court cases, such as on Brexit.

• Controversy over the issues of rights in Supreme Court judgements.

• Arguments for and against the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

• Differing views and tensions within political parties on the role of the judiciary and the Supreme Court, including in reference to differing views on the HRA and judicial review.

evaluate the view that since 2010 the uk has seen a return towards cabinet governments

1. Cameron led a coalition government rather than a single party, majority government. Cameron led a coalition government with cabinet members from another party and so cabinet became more influential in shaping policy. from Cameron’s experience of coalition government that we have seen a return to cabinet government.

however, Cameron was able to implement his austerity policies.

2. May’s lost her majority in 2017. May’s snap election in 2017 led to her losing her majority, losing the support of her party and seriously weakened her position as PM and cabinet taking more of a role in shaping policy. May’s minority government weakened her authority as PM and we can form a judgement from this that we have seen a return to cabinet government

3. PMs have used their positions as party leader, the power of patronage and the convention of collective responsibility to dominate their cabinet. PMs have used their position as party leader, the power of patronage and the convention of collective responsibility to dominate their cabinets. Boris Johnson has established a Cabinet of loyalists in a style similar to Thatcher post 1983. the position of party leader, the power of patronage and convention of collective responsibility means that we have not seen a return to cabinet government.

4. The PM increasingly bypasses Cabinet through the use of special advisers and Cabinet Committees. The bypassing of Cabinet, particularly with the perceived dominance of Dominic Cummings in the Johnson administration and the use of Cabinet Committees by Theresa May, increases the control of the Prime Minister over Cabinet. from the bypassing of Cabinet, that there has been no return to Cabinet government.

evaluate the view that devolution is in danger of undermining the unity of the united kingdom

1. The nations of the UK are stronger when united as one in a Union. The UK has and continues to be a vibrant and prosperous union. There are differences but these act to provide unity, stability and prosperity. conclude that there is far more to lose if we break up the union. The union gives us strength as a collective unit.

2. Power has been devolved asymmetrically – and it is uneven and unbalanced. All the regions where power has been devolved have different powers, scope and formats. We can form a judgement that this uneven distribution of power has had a backlash. In Wales and then Scotland more power was demanded and given. English backlash brought about EVEL. If you treat one unitary country with different rewards you can expect a backlash.

3. The process of devolution has run smoothly. Major constitutional change has been achieved and the UK remains a unitary state, uncodified and not federal. The changes that were introduced have considerable legitimacy as they came in via referendum and are thus democratic.

4. Policy divergence has strengthened local democracy and identity. It is clear to see that policy divergence has actually met national aspirations and feelings. As in education and health. Far from being badly thought out policy options there have been changes in which England has followed or been influence by– such charges for carrier bags (Wales) or changes to care charges (Scotland)

Devolution was essentially a New Labour project

Devolution has been/is very costly

Conservative Party would reverse devolution

Devolution was introduced with vast support

Devolution has created peace and unity in Northern Ireland

We now need further steps in devolution to England and the regions

evaluate the view that the prime minister has too much power

1. Prime ministers have huge powers of patronage. Prime ministers can appoint people to a vast range of posts and offices – from Government to Chairs of Public Inquiries. this power of patronage creates a subservience in others who wish to be rewarded out of the PMs gift. The PMs power over . PM power is untouchable if a small cabal of senior ministers stand firm behind the PM and that trouble emerges when splits appear the Cabinet is immense. PM has no serious rival inside the Cabinet this gives a real security of tenure. The Blair/Brown union, the Major/Heseltine union the Cameron/Osborne union

2. Prime ministers with large Commons majorities have few limits on their power. if a prime minister has a large Commons majority they are unlikely to lose votes and therefore they are able to pursue their legislative agenda. We can reach a verdict that prime ministers with large majorities can dominate parliament and thereby the political landscape

3. Prime ministers have limits on who they appoint to cabinet. In practice prime ministers do not have unlimited choice of who to appoint to cabinet. For instance, they need to have the ‘big beasts’ in cabinet. Thatcher had to have her ‘wets’ Blair had to see that Old Labour was present and a Coalition PM has vast restrictions. nce prime ministers do not have a free reign of who to hire and fire, there are clear limits to their powers of patronage and therefore they do not have too much power

4. Prime ministers are limited by Parliament + can be brought down by the cabinet. If the PM does not have a large majority (or even a minority) of MPs on their side their legislative power is restricted. A cabinet can and does exert its authority, limiting the PMs life and agenda. if a cabinet unites against a PM then that PM is doomed – as was Thatcher and May and We can conclude that without Parliament on their side the PM is really limited as with May over Brexit and Cameron over Syria

Media support makes PM power increase

A strong PM in foreign affairs makes a PM untouchable – such as sending troops to war

Opinion polls if in favour of the PM secure their position

The media has the potential to undermine a PM

A PM who is out of touch with public opinion is doomed

Failure to stand up for the UK abroad undermines PM power

evaluate the view that the membership of eu has undermined parliamentary sovereignty

1. EU laws take precedence over UK laws + The UK parliament has to abide by decisions of the European Court of Justice. The Factortame case showed that EU law takes priority over UK law in certain areas as was shown in the case of the dispute over fishing rights where European Court of Justice has jurisdiction over member states which must abide by decisions of the court. conclude that the superiority of EU law over UK law means that the sovereignty of parliament was undermined.

2. because of the fact that In some areas of EU decision-making, member countries do not have a veto. All EU members have to accept the conditions of the single market. Member states have to enable the free movement of goods, capital, services and labour. The issue of free movement featured prominently in the 2016 referendum campaign.conclude that as member states have to abide by these conditions, this undermined parliamentary sovereignty. absence of a veto in these areas shows that EU membership undermined parliamentary sovereignty

3. The UK can and has withdraw from the EU. parliament retains the right to withdraw from the EU, by a simple Act of Parliament, as shown following the successful leave campaign. onclude that parliamentary sovereignty has not been undermined by EU membership.

4. Sovereignty has been ‘pooled’ rather than undermined. The pooling of sovereignty within the EU gives the UK parliament influence on EU wide decisions which in turn have much more force on the world stage than they would have otherwise. The UK has retained the right of veto in important areas of policy, which are not subject to QMV. onclude that the pooling of sovereignty shows that EU membership did not undermined parliamentary sovereignty

The ideas and policies of political parties i.e. different views over parliamentary sovereignty.

The role and impact of the media i.e. some newspapers argued strongly that EU membership undermined parliamentary sovereignty.

How this issue featured in the EU referendum campaign i.e. the supremacy of Parliament was a prominent issue in the EU referendum campaign.

evaluate the view that although the house of lords has less power than the house of commons, it still exerts more influence on government decisions

1. The government does not have a majority in the Lords and it wouldn’t matter as Party loyalty is weaker in the Lords than the Commons. does not have a majority in the second chamber, they are constantly aware that they may face defeat in the Lords and are more likely to face hostile amendments to legislation. Peers are less likely to toe the party line and there are also crossbenchers in the Lords who do not follow a party whip. Lords exerts more influence on government decisions than the House of Commons. from the weaker ‘tribal’ nature of the Lords that the Lords is able to exert more influence on government decisions than the Commons.

2. The government suffers many more defeats in the Lords than in the Commons. The government is much more likely to suffer a defeat in the Lords than in the Commons. For example, the coalition government, 2010-2015, suffered 100 defeats in the Lords, compared to 6 defeats in the Commons. conclude from the assertiveness of the Lords that it exerts more influence on government decisions.

3. The Salisbury convention further limits the influence of the Lords. The government can usually reverse defeats in the Lords. the Lords does not oppose manifesto commitments. The Commons has no such limitations. The government can reaffirm the original wording in the Commons. The Lords will usually back down. On the other hand, once defeated in the Commons, the government will usually accept this. Lords is not able to exert as much influence on government decisions due to convention.

4. The Lords lacks the authority to challenge the government as The Commons is more powerful than the Lords. The Lords does not have the power to veto legislation or amend finance Bills. The Commons can veto any piece of government legislation or policy. The unelected Lords lacks the authority to wield greater powers and it is right that the elected Commons is dominant. exerts more influence on government decisions than the Lords + lack of legitimacy of the Lords limits its influence on government.

The impact of FPTP on party composition in the Commons i.e. governments will often have majorities in the Commons.

The democratic deficit represented by the Lords i.e. the Lords is an unelected chamber.

The electoral mandate i.e. by convention the Lords does not challenge policies in the government’s manifesto