Unit 2 revision booklet

Question 1

4

Defining a constitution

Answer 1

• A constitution details the working arrangements of government in a country and the collection of rules, written and unwritten which regulate the government and inform the relationship between the government and the people.
• In most cases the Constitution is a written document. Such constitutions are usually described as codified. However, a few countries such as the UK operate without a specific codified constitution
• Constitutions can specify what the different powers of respective branches, and levels of government, are, as well as the relations between them. A constitution normally states the limits of governmental powers. E.g. in America government is limited by a strict separation of powers laid down in the constitution.
• A constitution also specifies the relations between the citizen and the state. Famously, the first ten amendments to the US constitution are known as the Bill of Rights, and include the right to free speech, bear arms, etc.

Question 2

2

Features of a codified constitution

Answer 2

• The roles of different branches and levels of government and the relations between the citizen and the state are brought together in a single document.
• Codification implies entrenchment, i.e. it is a higher law and requires a special procedure for amendment.

Question 3

3

Sovereignty

Answer 3

• Sovereignty refers to absolute power, i.e. the exclusive right to control of governance.
• In the case of the UK, sovereignty in legal terms is said to reside in Westminster since “Parliament has the sole right to make or unmake any law” (Dicey).
• The concept of popular sovereignty suggests that real power is merely on loan to legislators since the people exercise popular sovereignty every 4 or 5 years via the ballot box.

Question 4

2

The differences between a federal and a unitary constitution

Answer 4

• A federal constitution entails separate spheres of sovereignty between national and sub-national levels and each level is, in theory, autonomous. In the USA, for instance, federal government in Washington DC is supreme in areas such as foreign trade, but states are supreme in areas such as crime (e.g. some states have the death penalty, others don’t). This usually occurs where a country contains strong regional differences and identities ( e.g. Spain)
• A unitary constitution, on the other hand, draws all power into a central source. In the UK all legal power resides in Westminster since “Parliament can make or unmake any law” (Dicey). It is possible that some power may be distributed to regions and local government (e.g. Devolution) but this is NOT sovereignty.

Question 4

4

What is ‘elective dictatorship’?

Answer 4

In the UK this refers to the supreme power of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, once elected.

It occurs for as a result of the following:-

• Parliament has sovereign power due to the lack of a codified constitution
• The subordinate status of the Lords means that the sovereign power of Parliament is, in practice, exercised by the Commons.
• The FPFP voting system means that the Commons is usually dominated by a single majority party.
• Tight party discipline means that the government has majority control over the Commons, and so can use parliamentary sovereignty for its own ends.

Question 5

The difference between a codified and an uncodified constitution

Answer 5

• In a codified constitution the roles of different branches and levels of government and the relations between the citizen and the state are brought together in a single document. Conversely an uncodified constitution, as found in the UK does no such thing and instead draws upon multiple sources.
• Codification implies entrenchment, i.e. it is a higher law and requires a special procedure for amendment compared to normal law. In the UK our constitutional furniture can be rearranged by the same means by which the rules about what breed of dog a person can own are changed.
• Codification usually implies that the document is judicable, i.e. it is left to the highest court in that nation to determine ultimately what is and isn’t ‘constitutional’. UK courts meanwhile, in the absence of a written constitution, determine cases only in relation to Acts of Parliament. Even the introduction of the Human Rights Act does not permit judges to declare actions unconstitutional, merely incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Question 5

5

Where sovereignty is located in the UK

Answer 5

• Legal sovereignty is located in Parliament. Dicey stated: “Parliament has the sole power to make or unmake any law.” This means that it has ultimate legal power and its actions cannot be over-ridden by any other body.
• Some power has been transferred downwards to the new devolved structures, and upwards to the supranational EU – remember, we haven’t left the EU – yet!
• Political sovereignty can be said to be located elsewhere. The doctrine of popular sovereignty suggests that the people hold ultimate power and that they lend it to MPs between elections. Although the UK does not operate a system of recall elections, politicians must remain sensitive to the needs and wishes of the electorate (either locally or nationally) lest they get ejected.
• One could also argue that the use of referendums (Scotland/Wales 1997, London/NI 1998, Scotland 2014, EU referendum 2016) saw popular sovereignty triumph over parliamentary sovereignty.
• It would be difficult to argue that parliament is sovereign when so much power has flowed to the Executive in recent years. Centralisation by modern Prime Ministers like Tony Blair, exaggerated by the growth in personality politics, suggests real power, in terms of political sovereignty, lies at No. 10.

Question 6

The main features of the UK constitution

Answer 6

• The UK constitution is uncodified. It is drawn from a number of sources, much of which is written, and is not contained in a single authoritative document.
• Another core feature is that the UK operates according to the rule of law. This is a principle which states that law is applied equally to all citizens throughout the UK. Discussion in recent months about the possible introduction of Sharia/Islamic law in the UK highlighted how this would be incompatible.
• Another feature is that it is unitary, i.e. it draws all power into a central source. In the UK all legal power resides in Westminster since “Parliament can make or unmake any law” (Dicey)

Question 7

5

Ways in which Parliament is sovereign

Answer 7

• Dicey stated: “Parliament has the sole power to make or unmake any law.” This means that it has ultimate legal power and its actions cannot be over-ridden by any other body. This can be variously illustrated.
• Power which has been transferred either upwards or downwards can be reversed. Devolution can be repealed by a simple Act of Parliament. Law from Brussels/Strasbourg/Luxembourg may take precedence over UK law in certain policy areas, but the UK could withdraw from the EU at any time.
• No parliament can bind its successors. This applies not just to the constitutional changes outlined above, but to any Act of Parliament. Thus a future Conservative government could, if it so wished, repeal the ban on hunting with hounds.
• Much has been made about the erosion of sovereignty by the judiciary, principally in relation to the passage of the Human Rights Act and the creation of a new Supreme Court, which ended the function of the House of Lords as the final court of appeal. But in each case, these changes do not give power to the judicial branch to strike down actions of Parliament. In the highly controversial Belmarsh case, for instance, Parliament could have ignored the judgement declaring indefinite detention for foreign nationals. Hence the HRA has provided a moral rather than legal check on the legislature.
• In the absence of a written constitution detailing the outcome of a referendum as binding on our legislators, Parliament could ignore the so called will of the people. Technically, Parliament could ignore the Brexit result.

Question 8

5

Evaluate the view that the strengths of the UK constitution outweigh the weaknesses - strengths do

Answer 8

• Flexibility. Governments with a mandate are not limited in their ability to change governing arrangements by having to go through lengthy and complex procedures. As a result, the Labour government were able to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law via a simple Act of Parliament.
• The UK constitution provides strong government. Whilst not everyone agreed with the reforms to the UK economy of the Thatcher era, it was possible for her to undertake massive change to such things as employment laws.
• The constitution, although uncodified, cannot be ignored. E.g there is no special procedure for amending the governing apparatus but any future government would be unwise to attempt to reverse devolution without recourse to a referendum.
• The constitution is organic and has been allowed to adapt with time. Its uncodified nature has meant that we are not encumbered with relics of the past, like the right to bear arms, as is the case in America with the 2nd Amendment.
• The raft of constitutional reforms carried out since 1997 makes the UK a more open and responsive democracy. The Scottish Parliament, established in 1999, brings government closer to the people of that nation and has permitted the introduction of more region sensitive policies, e.g. the abolition of up-front tuition fees and then the decision not to introduce variable fees for Scottish undergraduates. The new election systems in the devolved regions afford greater representation in a number of ways.

Question 9

5

Evaluate the view that the strengths of the UK constitution outweigh the weaknesses - weaknesses do

Answer 9

• The lack of codification and the need for special procedures to amend the constitution make it too easy to change e.g. the government ignored public demand for a vote on the Lisbon Treaty.
• Despite introduction of the HRA rights are still not adequately protected since they lack entrenchment in our political system. That governments elected by just 1 in 5 of the electorate can alter the rights of the people on a whim underlines the need for codification.
• Since most of the constitution is unwritten it is unknowable. This means that citizens rely on government to play by largely unwritten rules. It would be far safer and far more democratic if our constitutional arrangements and procedures were defined and limited by law.
• Unlike citizens in the USA, who are able to buy a copy of the US constitution from almost any bookshop, since UK citizens lack a constitution which can be read and understood, they are less likely to claim their rights.
• The election system used for Westminster distorts representation politically and socially. In 2005 Labour were awarded 55% of the seats with only 35% of the national vote. Concerns are that there is very little consent for the government. Since turnout was just 61.3% it meant that only 21.6% of the entire electorate voted for the government. In 2010 the Conservatives achieved 47% of the seats on 37% of the vote.

Question 10

3

Evaluate the view that the Parliament has lost sovereignty in recent years. Introduction.

Answer 10

• The doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty is the cornerstone of the UK constitution. It basically states that the Westminster Parliament is the supreme law-making body in the UK. Parliament is the ultimate law making authority and this legislative supremacy is constructed around 3 propositions; legislation cannot be overturned by any higher authority, the Westminster Parliament can legislate on any subject of its choosing and no Parliament can bind its successors.
• These propositions theoretically give Parliament great power in the UK. In practice Parliamentary power has always been curtailed by a number of factors. Parliament has always been under significant executive control, influenced by external groups, the electorate and even other countries. In recent years there have been other factors that have seemed to curtail parliamentary sovereignty even further; the growing power of the EU and membership of supranational organisations and the post 1997 Constitutional reforms.
• In attempting to examine how Parliamentary sovereignty has changed a careful examination needs to be made of how far there has been a decline and which factors have contributed most strongly to any decline.

Question 11

7

THE PRED

Answer 11

• Treaties – Entering into treaties with foreign governments or international organisations has arguably undermined the sovereignty of the UK parliament, as they require the UK government and parliament to commit funds, abide by international rules and adhere to international law. An example of this would be the 2% of GDP that Britain has to spend on defence to maintain it’s membership of NATO, the commitments Britain has made to the Paris Climate Change Agreement in 2015. However, parliament does have the power to repeal these treaties if it so wishes, and it is not bound by it’s predecessors.
• Human Rights Act – The 1998 Human Rights Act has arguably challenged the sovereignty of parliament in recent years. The Act signed the European Convention of Human Rights into law and has given UK judges to issue ‘declarations of incompatibility’ when UK law breaks the ECHR. This was shown by the case of the Belmarsh Nine in 2004, when the Supreme Court ruled that the Terrorism, Crime and Security Act was incompatible with the ECHR. However, ultimately Parliament retains the principle of ‘Parliamentary Sovereignty’ because it is in fact Parliament that has the final say on whether legislation is reformed to be compatible with Convention 
• European Union - the growing power of the EU since the signing of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 has led to increasing numbers of areas falling under EU control. An example of this is that Britain has lost rights over its territorial sovereignty due to the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, in place since 1970, which allows European fishing vessels to fish in British waters. However, as of January 2020, Britain has left the EU, withdrawing from it’s rules, including the common market.
• Pressure Groups – Pressure Group activity in the UK could be seen as undermining parliamentary sovereignty by giving undue influence to narrow and elitist sectional interests. Groups such as the CBI and the Institute of Directors have strong financial influence within political parties and could be seen as undemocratically undermining parliament’s sovereign right to legislate independently. PGs with broader popular support may also force issues to parliament’s attention diverting them away from issues which are more pressing. However, it is still ultimately parliament which decides to pass a new law, regardless of the wishing of pressure groups, as shown by the failure of Hacked Off to achieve meaningful new legislation on press strandards during the Cameron era.
• Referenda – The increasing user of referenda to solve constitutional questions in British in politics undermines the sovereignty of parliament by challenging the fundamental basis of it’s omnicompetence. When decision making is outsourced to the electorate, parliament loses its right to make all decisions and decide new laws. In the words of David Davis MP, “the people are now sovereign.” MPs lose their purpose of representatives if the people make decisions. However, government’s decide when referenda will be held, and therefore cannot be seen as a permanent impediment to sovereignty, as they are within the government’s control.
• Executive – The power of the government of the UK has grown considerably in recent years, and the government traditionally dominates parliament. The government dominates the legislative process, controls the payroll vote, and usually has a majority in the Commons. The gradual increase in government power has led to a transfer of political but not legal sovereignty from parliament to the Executive. Boris Johnson’s big majority of 80 seats as of December 2019 has returned the UK parliament to an However, the lack of a strong majority, and the landmark Gina Miller Supreme Court case in 2017 has enabled parliament to regain some power from the Executive. The Lords also act as a weaker but important check on government power.
• Devolution – Finally, Devolution has essentially been a gradual process of diffusing sovereignty from Westminster down to lower legislatures and assemblies across the UK, including the Northern Irish Assembly, the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Greater London Assembly. This has resulted in independent powers for the devolved regions, including the ability to set their own income tax rates in Scotland, since 2016.

 

Question 12

4

Evaluate the view that the arguments for a written constitution are stronger than those against - FOR

Answer 12

• Clear rules which would be more clearly defined in a written constitution thereby creating less confusion generally.
• Limited Government. A written constitution would cut government down to size and safeguard the constitution from interference by the government of the day.
• Neutral interpretation. A codified constitution would be policed by senior judges. Because they are ‘above’ politics they would act as neutral and impartial constitutional arbiters.
• Protecting Rights. Individual rights would be more clearly defined and they would be easier to enforce.

Question 13

4

Evaluate the extent to which the constitutional reforms since 1997 have been successful in meeting their objectives - (ENHANCE DEMOCRACY) Yes, the demand has been met and here’s how…

Answer 13

• The Coalition put electoral reform back on the agenda with the AV referendum in May 2011 (although a big majority against!)
• The only place currently, where the desire for votes all carry equal weight is in the European election which uses a totally proportional system (Closed List).
• Fairer electoral systems have also been introduced for voting in the London mayor (SV) and in the devolved Scottish Parliament (AMS) + Assemblies in Wales (AMS) and Northern Ireland (STV)
• Elected Police and Crime Commissioners since 2012 has democratised the police forces of England and Wales, increasing democratic accountability.

-

Question 13

4

Evaluate the view that the arguments for a written constitution are stronger than those against - AGAINST

Answer 13

• Rigidity. Written constitutions are harder to change so can easily become outdated and fail to respond to an ever-changing political environment.
• Judicial tyranny. Are judges the best people to police the constitution? They are unelected and socially unrepresentative (Griffith Thesis).
• Legalistic. Codified constitutions can be overly legalistic, dry and not understood by the general public. Unwritten constitutions, on the other hand, have been endorsed by history and have an organic character.
• Political Bias. Codified constitutions can never be ‘above’ politics. They may therefore precipitate more conflict than they resolve.

Question 14

3

Evaluate the view that the advantages of a codified constitution now outweigh the disadvantages

Answer 14

• Firstly, a codified constitution would provide clear, written rules about how our country should be run. As most of our uncodified constitution is unwritten, derived from multiple sources including conventions, it is unknowable. This means citizens rely on government to play by largely unwritten rules. A codified constitution would collect all the rules into a single document, which would mean that they were more clearly defined and there would be less confusion. This may also provide an educative function, increasing engagement with politics. For example, in the USA, you can walk into a bookshop and buy a copy of the constitution, and it is taught in schools from an early age. However, who would write the constitution? It would be almost impossible to reach a consensus, and a codified constitution would inevitably reflect the political bias of the governing party. Recently a commission on a British bill of rights set up by the coalition to resolve political rows over the future of human rights in the UK failed to reach unanimous conclusions, revealing the difficulty of reaching consensus. Furthermore, a codified constitution would be dry and legalistic and therefore only properly understood by judges, undermining the educative argument, which may be better achieved by, for example, reforming the electoral system used to elect Westminster. Nevertheless, the greater clarity achieved by a codified constitution certainly represents a major advantage.
• Secondly, a codified constitution would protect human rights. Individual liberty would be more securely protected by a codified constitution because it would define the relationship between the state and the citizens. Despite the introduction of the Human Rights Act, rights in the UK are still not adequately protected as they lack entrenchment. The HRA cannot be used to overturn Acts of Parliament. This enabled Blair to pass a series of acts in the aftermath of 9/11 and 7/7, which expanded the powers of the state by allowing the government to detain people without trial. A codified constitution, or bill of rights, would prevent this from happening. Indeed, the Conservatives favour a British bill of rights to replace the HRA, although it is unclear whether this would enjoy entrenched status. However, arguably in the UK we have extensive personal freedoms without need for codification or entrenchment, for example we have only minor restrictions on freedom of speech. The Human Rights Act has also been shown to have ‘teeth’, and has increased access to the European courts, and so arguably is sufficient protection of our civil liberties. For example, the Belmarsh case demonstrated the HRA cannot be ignored by the government; nine terrorist suspects held without trial in Belmarsh prison were released. More recently, and controversially, the deportation of Abu Qatada to Jordan has been blocked on the grounds that evidence gathered by torture could be used against him. Nevertheless, an entrenched constitution would serve to constrain Parliament and protect the liberty of the individual against the power of the state, and therefore this argument for codification is strong.
• Thirdly, a codified constitution would introduce systems of checks and balances. A codified constitution would cut government down to size, and prevent elective dictatorships, a constitutional imbalance in which executive power is checked only by the need of governments to win elections. Once elected, UK governments can more or less act as they please until they come up for election. Parliament is ‘toothless’, i.e. unable to hold the executive to account, due to the fact that the governing party holds a majority in the Commons. This means that decisions can be made without full reference to Parliament or the public – for example, Blair’s decision to go to Iraq in 2003. However, a codified constitution may paralyse government. For example, in the USA, a complex system of checks and balances means that government decisions can be slow. Due to the separation of powers, the President may not have control over Congress. Trump has struggled to get his version of healthcare or plans to build a wall through Congress and his only significant legislative success in Congress is for tax cuts for the wealthy. His plans for the wall are being stalled by Congress who want to protect so-called DREAMERS, children of immigrants who were born in the USA. By contrast, in the UK we have strong, decisive governments able to implement change. Yet the lack of accountability of the executive between elections suggests that codification would be an advantage.

Question 15

4

Evaluate the extent to which the constitutional reforms since 1997 have been successful in meeting their objectives - (ENHANCE DEMOCRACY) No, the demands have not been met yet and here’s why…

Answer 15

• As far as electoral reform is concerned, the general election still uses the discredited First Past the Post. Votes here do not carry equal weight. The big parties are advantaged, and current boundaries actually favour Labour.
• There are many safe seats under the present system so there are a large number of wasted votes.
• When Labour came into power they examined this and the Jenkins report advised switching to AV Plus, but these recommendations were ignored.
• Electing PCCs cost millinos of pounds and turnout was very low in many of the electoral regions, at just 15% nationally in 2012.

Question 16

3

Evaluate the extent to which the constitutional reforms since 1997 have been successful in meeting their objectives - (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS) - Yes, the demands have been met and here’s why…

Answer 16

• The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the terms of the European Convention of Human Rights into UK law. This makes it easier for UK citizens to challenge any breach of rights. It came into effect in 2000.
• The Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 1998. The recent revelations about MP’s expenses came about because of the FOI, so it can be said to be doing the job of making MPs more accountable and obtaining increased transparency.
• The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 has led to greater independence of the judiciary.

Question 16

2

Evaluate the extent to which the constitutional reforms since 1997 have been successful in meeting their objectives - (MODERNISE GOVERNANCE) - Yes, the demands have been met and here’s how…

Answer 16

• The number of hereditary peers was reduced to ninety two, although since then reforms have stalled.
• Some minor reforms to the Commons relating to more family-friendly hours etc.

Question 17

3

Evaluate the extent to which the constitutional reforms since 1997 have been successful in meeting their objectives - (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS) - No, the demands have not been met yet and here’s why…

Answer 17

• There are still loopholes relating to FoI e.g. over national security matters and an exemption for the Royal Family! It is considered too weak.
• The HRA can be set aside by parliament and falls short of a fully entrenched Bill of Rights.
• There is much evidence to suggest the judiciary is still not fully independenT

Question 18

Evaluate the extent to which the constitutional reforms since 1997 have been successful in meeting their objectives - (MODERNISE GOVERNANCE) - No, the demands have not been met yet and here’s why…

Answer 18

• The House of Lords remains an almost wholly appointed house and the atmosphere of the Commons still remains somewhat like a nineteenth century gentlemen’s club with few women or ethnic minorities.
• Voting in the House of Commons is still archaic and time consuming, requiring the physical presence of MPs.

Question 19

5

Evaluate the extent to which the constitutional reforms since 1997 have been successful in meeting their objectives - (DECENTRALISATION) - Yes, the demands have been met and here’s how…

Answer 19

• Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland now have far greater control over their own affairs and they no longer complain of everything being done at Westminster. ‘Yes’ vote in Wales (early March 2011) to devolving further Westminster powers to the Welsh Assembly. Scotland has had further devolved powers since the referendum, including tax varying powers.
• London Mayor and Assembly. City Mayors (‘Metro Mayors’) established in Manchester, Liverpool and the West Midlands.
• The media kept government to account before 1997 to a very large extent, it is still the main body doing so now.
• The HRA (1998) has introduced a more rights-based culture into the UK
• More referenda since 1997 (on devolved assemblies, London Mayor and on electoral reform) – including on leaving the EU. Referendum in May 2011 on AV. Referendum on Scottish independence (for Scots only) in 2014. Referendum on Exiting the EU 2016.

Question 20

5

Evaluate the extent to which the constitutional reforms since 1997 have been successful in meeting their objectives - No, the demands have not been met yet and here’s why… (DECENTRALISATION)

Answer 20

• The West Lothian Question has still not been resolved. The English now have less representation than their Celtic counterparts.
• The potential for an ‘Elective Dictatorship’ still exists!
• Devolution has not been an equal process for all of the devolved regions, as it has been more extreme in Scotland, which is now achieved ‘Devo-Max’ as of 2016, compared to limited powers in both Wales and Northern Ireland.
• The media has not experienced increasing scrutiny and better regulations, following the failure of Cameron’s government to enact the recommendations of the Leveson inquiry.
• Due to the …disruptive… outcome of the 2016 EU referendum, it is unlikely for the regular use of referenda since 2011 to continue (barring a 2nd EU ref).

Question 21

# 3 Evaluate the view that the British Constitution is outdated - OUTDATED

Answer 21

- Prime Minister has the royal prerogative which gives them substantial powers of patronage. - Uncodified - FPTP – leads to unfair representation

Question 22

# 6 Evaluate the view that the British Constitution is outdated - NO

Answer 22

- Important aspects are codified. HRA protects civil rights. - There was a referendum on AV in 2011 with >60% voting to keep FPTP. The UK uses electoral systems which deliver fairer representation for European elections and those for devolved parliaments and to elect the London Mayor. - This has been amended with devolution and local mayoral elections. It would have been extended but the North East voted so overwhelmingly against a parliament that the idea was scrapped. Devolution has also been extended since 1997. Scotland now has ‘Devo Max’ - The monarchy is constrained by the constitution. The second chamber has been very hard to reform because there are valuable aspects to the way it is now and the parties have failed to agree a way forward. - This has been reduced now the head of select committees are elected by MPs. The PM also no longer sets the date of elections with fixed term elections. - The Freedom of Information Act and the Constitutional Reform Act have also contributed to a modernisation of the constitution giving more transparency and separation of powers.

Question 23

# 4 Evaluate the Extent to which Devolution has been beneficial for the United Kingdom - YES

Answer 23

- Despite the fears of many who campaigned against it, Devolution (particularly in Scotland, has not led to the break up of the United Kingdom. The referendum in 2014 on Scottish Independence saw the prospect rejected by 55% to 45% of voters. - The successful introduction of a Northern Irish Assembly and a Northern Irish government since 1998 has helped to maintain the peace in the region, allowing for the two sides, Republican and Unionist to work together. - In all three devolved regions, it has led to serious policy differences from the Westminster parliament. In Scotland, university tuition fees are free. In Wales, there are no published school League tables, whilst in Northern Ireland there are far greater restrictions on abortion. This reflects the political and cultural differences in the devolved regions. - There remains widespread support for continued devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and no serious attempts have been made to reverse it. This shows the strength of allowing diversity of opinion and governance in a liberal democracy.

Question 24

# 4 Evaluate the Extent to which Devolution has been beneficial for the United Kingdom - NO

Answer 24

- Scottish nationalism has not declined since 2014, and the fact that Scotland voted to remain in the EU in 2016, and is subsequently being dragged out against her will has reignited calls for independence. - The introduction of proportional representation systems has inhibited strong and decisive governance in the devolved regions, and the need for power-sharing in Northern Ireland has left NI without a functioning government since 2016. - All three regions receive a subsidy from the UK Treasury decided by the Barnett Formula, which means they are not financially independent and self-sustaining, this has actually left England receiving less money per head of population for healthcare and education than other regions. - Turnout in elections for the devolved regions is quite low, suggesting a level of political apathy for the prospect of increased power regionally. Turnout in the Welsh Devolution Referendum in 2011 was 35%.

Question 25

# 4 Evaluate the arguments in favour of extending Devolution to the English regions - YES

Answer 25

- The creation of an English parliament would increase democracy and improve democratic accountability, bringing communities closer to the decision-making process. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have far more representatives per head of population than England. An English parliament would redress the imbalance. - It may lead to increase in political participation across England, reversing long-term decline in voter turnout. - It may help to address excessive differences in living standards across the English regions. According to the Office of National Statistics The 50 local areas with lowest life expectancy at birth were in the North East and the North West. The top 50 local areas with the highest male life expectancy at birth were in the South East, East of England, South West, London and East Midlands. - Devolved governments can better work to improve on the specific issues facing their local areas. This could include specific issues regarding healthcare, policing or education policy.

Question 26

# 4 Evaluate the arguments in favour of extending Devolution to the English regions - NO

Answer 26

- An English Parliament would still not solve the tensions caused by the asymmetrical nature of devolution. An English Parliament can’t solve the English question, as if you had an English Parliament, it would hugely dominate UK governance, and potentially erode the authority of Westminster. - There is no correlation between the need for more elections and an increase in voter turnout. Turnout for the elections for the Welsh Assembly in 2016 was only 45%, suggesting a lack of accountability and legitimacy. - There does not appear to be any great demand for devolution across the English regions. Although it is a passion project for some politicians such as John Prescott, public perception is apathetic. In a referendum on a North East of England Assembly in 2004, voters in the North East rejected the proposal, in an all-postal ballot, by 77.9% to 22.1%, on a turnout of 48%. Every council area in the region had a majority for "no". EVEL has largely resolved the West Lothian Question. - It would create a new layer of government, and class of representative in the UK which would be highly expensive. The cost of building the Scottish parliament was £414 million pounds alone.

Question 27

# 4 Parliamentary Government:

Answer 27

- Government governs in and through the assembly or parliament - ‘Fusion’ of executive and legislative branches. The Cabinet and PM are drawn from Parliament. Executive and Legislature bound together in a way that violates the doctrine of Separation of Powers - Personnel of government formed as a result of assembly elections. Government is responsible to parliament in the sense that it rests on the assembly’s confidence and can be removed by the parliament. Government can dissolve the parliament - Because the head of government is a parliamentary officer, there is a separate head of state (e.g. a constitutional monarch or non-executive president)

Question 28

# 4 Presidential Government:

Answer 28

- Government office-holders are answerable to the president and not directly to the legislature - President is not dependent on a continuing majority in the legislature and can only be removed by the process of impeachment President is accountable not to the legislature (the Congress in the USA), but is elected directly by the voters - Members of the cabinet are not drawn from the legislature. President has full executive power - Principle of Separation of Powers is more rigid and there is no overlap of personnel in the three branches of Government

Question 28

Separation of Powers:

Answer 28

The doctrine of separation of powers proposes that each of the three functions of government (legislation, execution and adjudication) should be entrusted to separate branches of government (legislature, executive and judiciary). Its purpose is to fragment government power in such a way as to defend liberty and stem corruption. Separation of powers is applied most strictly in the USA. Based on the work of the French philosopher, Montesquieu.

Question 29

Fusion of Powers:

Answer 29

This occurs when the three key parts of the state – executive, legislature and judiciary – are all integrated, as they are in the UK. The prime minister and other ministers are all members of both the executive and legislature (i.e. they are ministers and MPs), while various members of the Judiciary are also involved with all three powers. Some writers argue that, because powers are fused, the UK is not a very democratic society.

Question 30

Representative government:

Answer 30

A system of government where the electorate has given an elected parliament the power to take the major decisions on its behalf. Under this system a decision, say, to legalise cannabis would be taken by MPs and peers, not by the electorate as a whole.

Question 31

# 6 Functions of the House of Commons:

Answer 31

- Legitimation - Scrutiny of legislation and deliberation - Accountability of the executive - Law-making - Redress of Grievances - Representation of interests

Question 32

# 6 Functions of the House of Lords

Answer 32

- Scrutiny of legislation - Accountability of the executive - Legislating and law-making - Delaying, Deliberation, Debate

Question 33

# 4 Composition of the Commons

Answer 33

- 650 democratically elected MPs representing geographical constituencies from across the UK - Approximately 16 different parties represented. - Comprises Frontbenchers and Backbenchers. - The Speaker

Question 34

# 5 Composition of the Lords

Answer 34

- 92 Hereditary Lords (elected from the ranks of hereditary peers and replaced by election when they die) - Approx 600 Appointed Lords – Life Peers. There are ‘people’s peers’ too. - 24 Church of England Bishops and 2 Archbishops - The Lord Speaker - Over 700 members!

Question 35

# 4 The role of the Monarch

Answer 35

- Appointing a government – the Queen chooses the PM, who in turn appoints the other members of the government. This is official only, as in reality the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons can only be the PM. - Opening and dismissing Parliament – Parliament is opened at the State Opening of Parliament usually in October/November. The Monarch dismisses Parliament at the request of the PM. - The Queen’s speech – this is delivered at the beginning of every session of Parliament and sets out the government’s legislative programme. The speech is written by the PM. - The Royal Assent – the final stage of the legislative process when the Monarch signs the bill to make it an Act. This is a formality as by convention the monarch never refuses to sign legislation.