The UK executive is completely dominant in the UK political system. How far do you agree?
The executive in the UK is the branch of government made up of the prime minister and the cabinet,
and the collective bodies that are directed by them, who are responsible for executing and enforcing
laws that are implemented. Being comprised of the head of state and a parliamentary majority, the
executive can be seen to be the most powerful agent in the UK political system, with some saying it is
essentially an elected dictatorship (Lord Hailsham described it thus] since they can pass any
legislation they like, however upon further examination the extent of their overall power concerning
British politics, as well as foreign relations, can be shown to be sometimes constrained by several
other factors, such as the (although at times limited) powers that the judiciary, parliament and the
Brexit deals have. [be a bit firmer in the thesis, this is a bit wooly]
Possibly the most powerful branch in limiting the executive’s power can be seen to be within the
jurisdiction of the supreme court [Supreme Court] in being able to prevent certain legislation or actions
being done by the government through the process of judicial review. For example, in September
2019 the supreme court declared Boris Johnson’s 5 week prorogation of parliament unlawful and thus
null of no effect, which reinstated parliament, showing how the judiciary is able to limit the
constitutional powers the executive holds. This was also evident in the Miller case in 2017, whereby
the supreme court effectively ruled that the government could not initiate withdrawal from the EU
without an act of parliament, as originally joining the EU had been a decision enacted through
parliament, thus showing the power the judicial branch has in even being able to limit the scope of the
executive’s prerogative powers to do with foreign affairs. [could mention the difference between
procedural/substantive JR and mention Heathrow decision]
On the other hand, the judiciary cannot strike down laws, and the power of judicial review is
essentially at the mercy of parliament, as the government could always pass bills to reform the
supreme court and stop it operating in ways that curb the executive’s power. The current conservative
government has highlighted in their manifesto that they are considering way in which to reform the
system, which could include repealing the Human Rights Act of 1998 to prevent the court passing
declarations of incompatibility, which is of legal importance now that we have left the EU and no
longer have to abide by the ECHR. As well as this, reintroducing political control of judicial
appointments would also limit the court’s independence and place it in the hands of the current
government, which would decrease its ability in holding it to account. The various proposals being
considered, although they have not been put in place, showcase that whilst the judiciary may have a
considerable power through judicial review in limiting the executive’s power, the structure of the court
that enables it to do so rests entirely on the willingness not to reform it through an act of parliament,
which could change at any given time. [surely you could talk about national security and the Begum
case here. Be more specific re the reforms too]
However, passing acts [Acts of Parliament] is not an automatic power of the executive, even if they
have a majority, and parliament can be shown to be a reckonable force in providing the checks and
balances that stop the executive from exercising a role that would be comparable to an ‘elected
dictatorship’. The government’s own bills can be struck down by their own party, as shown by the
numerous rebellions in 2017 to 2019 during Theresa May’s premiership, including a defeat of 230
votes on her Brexit deal. The House of Lords also have the power to counter unpopular bills by
proposing amendments and even delaying non-monetary bills, and the work of select committees of
reviewing and investigating the government and work of their departments, whilst having no binding
power on the government, can be utilised by the media as a reputable source of information to stoke
public opinion against the government so that they are forced to reconsider actions. For example, the
work of the select committees on education in scrutinising the august 2020 exam grade system
helped the media and students understand where the government had gone wrong, enabling them to
protest, which eventually pressured gavin williamson into U-turning, showing how the work and role of
parliament helps the executive always remains accountable to the people. [be more specific about
The executive in the UK is the branch of government made up of the prime minister and the cabinet,
and the collective bodies that are directed by them, who are responsible for executing and enforcing
laws that are implemented. Being comprised of the head of state and a parliamentary majority, the
executive can be seen to be the most powerful agent in the UK political system, with some saying it is
essentially an elected dictatorship (Lord Hailsham described it thus] since they can pass any
legislation they like, however upon further examination the extent of their overall power concerning
British politics, as well as foreign relations, can be shown to be sometimes constrained by several
other factors, such as the (although at times limited) powers that the judiciary, parliament and the
Brexit deals have. [be a bit firmer in the thesis, this is a bit wooly]
Possibly the most powerful branch in limiting the executive’s power can be seen to be within the
jurisdiction of the supreme court [Supreme Court] in being able to prevent certain legislation or actions
being done by the government through the process of judicial review. For example, in September
2019 the supreme court declared Boris Johnson’s 5 week prorogation of parliament unlawful and thus
null of no effect, which reinstated parliament, showing how the judiciary is able to limit the
constitutional powers the executive holds. This was also evident in the Miller case in 2017, whereby
the supreme court effectively ruled that the government could not initiate withdrawal from the EU
without an act of parliament, as originally joining the EU had been a decision enacted through
parliament, thus showing the power the judicial branch has in even being able to limit the scope of the
executive’s prerogative powers to do with foreign affairs. [could mention the difference between
procedural/substantive JR and mention Heathrow decision]
On the other hand, the judiciary cannot strike down laws, and the power of judicial review is
essentially at the mercy of parliament, as the government could always pass bills to reform the
supreme court and stop it operating in ways that curb the executive’s power. The current conservative
government has highlighted in their manifesto that they are considering way in which to reform the
system, which could include repealing the Human Rights Act of 1998 to prevent the court passing
declarations of incompatibility, which is of legal importance now that we have left the EU and no
longer have to abide by the ECHR. As well as this, reintroducing political control of judicial
appointments would also limit the court’s independence and place it in the hands of the current
government, which would decrease its ability in holding it to account. The various proposals being
considered, although they have not been put in place, showcase that whilst the judiciary may have a
considerable power through judicial review in limiting the executive’s power, the structure of the court
that enables it to do so rests entirely on the willingness not to reform it through an act of parliament,
which could change at any given time. [surely you could talk about national security and the Begum
case here. Be more specific re the reforms too]
However, passing acts [Acts of Parliament] is not an automatic power of the executive, even if they
have a majority, and parliament can be shown to be a reckonable force in providing the checks and
balances that stop the executive from exercising a role that would be comparable to an ‘elected
dictatorship’. The government’s own bills can be struck down by their own party, as shown by the
numerous rebellions in 2017 to 2019 during Theresa May’s premiership, including a defeat of 230
votes on her Brexit deal. The House of Lords also have the power to counter unpopular bills by
proposing amendments and even delaying non-monetary bills, and the work of select committees of
reviewing and investigating the government and work of their departments, whilst having no binding
power on the government, can be utilised by the media as a reputable source of information to stoke
public opinion against the government so that they are forced to reconsider actions. For example, the
work of the select committees on education in scrutinising the august 2020 exam grade system
helped the media and students understand where the government had gone wrong, enabling them to
protest, which eventually pressured gavin williamson into U-turning, showing how the work and role of
parliament helps the executive always remains accountable to the people. [be more specific about
