UK govt essay plans
1. Evaluate the extent to which rights are effectively protected by the UK constitutional arrangements -
ANS - Common law (trad, custom and precedent/judge made) > precedent made by judges protecting
rights e.g. murder vs statute law can 'overturn' these or reform
- Statute Law > HRA 1998 (incorporated ECHR convention) e.g. whole life sentences deemed breach of
article 3 in convention 2013 vs not entrenched so can be set aside by parli e.g. over terrorism legislation
- Conventions (non-legal rule) > Salisbury Convention protects rights of people in govt voted in can fulfil
its promises from manifesto vs collective responsibility and whips/patronage = rights not protected??
---weak rights in part due to elective dictatorship
2. Evaluate the extent to which parli is effective in carrying out its various functions - ANS - Represent >
represent each constituent no matter how voted, 650 roughly equal, hold surgeries etc vs HoL not
elected, not demographically rep e.g. 32% women HoC and problem w/ electoral system/wasted votes
e.g. UKIP
- legitimation (as govt draft and legislate) > debate bill at second reading and committee stage (may
propose amendments), 25 acts passed by Parli 2017 vs legislative committees in HoC is whipped =
ineffective, usually govt aligned e.g. 2010 defence committee 5c and 4 ld
- Oversight/ scrutiny (of leg and govt) > HoL can scrutinise leg by proposing improvements or delaying +
expertise, PMQs, vote of no confidence e.g. Callaghan 1979 and 2019 but failed vs HoC too much power
as can reject improvements, pmqs a media 'event' = not serious, whips/patronage e.g. only 2 consv
against Iraq 2003, galloway forced to resign after opposing labour bill 2003
---diff between hol and hoc
3. Evaluate the extent to which the cabinet can act as a check on prime ministerial power - ANS -
Effectively remove PM from office > e.g. Thatcher, cabinet ministers resigned due to low poll ratings
(poll tax disputes)
- Ministers in charge of large departments, such as the Treasury, have their own power bases > e.g.
Blair-Brown vs can only be utilised when popularity already in decline
- only 'First among equals' > cannot command absolute power like president can, needs cabinet to
approve and hopefully support vs notion of pms becoming more presidential w/ short full cabinet
, meetings generally rubber-stamping decisions that had been taken elsewhere e.g. 'sofa govt' of Blair,
didn't include int development secretary in talks about Iraq
- Coalition govt >
4. Analyse and evaluate the factors that may undermine judicial neutrality - ANS - Process of
appointments > Lord Chancellor can reject candidates e.g. Michael Gove 2015-6 vs not permitted to
repeatedly reject names as power limited by const reform act 2005 which also created independent JAC
- Conservative bias in senior judiciary > mainly male, white upper-middle class and private school
educated, 3/12 women 2019, 70% private schooled 2016 vs becoming more diverse, number of women
had increased from years prior, plus job/trained to act objectively
- Growing trend on taking public stand on policy issues > lord Philips criticising wider use of mandatory
sentencing vs this is rare
esp w/ increased stories by media criticising judges e.g. after sc determined mps must vote on triggering
article 50, branded 'enemies of the people' by DailyMail
1. Evaluate the arguments for retaining an uncodified const - ANS - flexible > can evolve with the times
and implements new laws, conventions for modern day e.g. fixed term parli act 2011 vs
- historical and tradition > sense of pride in the historical aspect of const, no revolution vs outdated,
many modern countries have a codified const, could enhance legitimacy and functions of dem +
correlates w/ lib ides of setting out limits of govt and protections of citizens
- effective government > not written = govt decisions backed by parli can't be overturned by judiciary +
fusion of powers = govt usually get their way unless cation or small majority e.g. Thatcher govt 1979-90
which intro privatisation and reform of welfare state = strong, decisive action vs too much power,
'elective dictatorship' = apathy of citizens causing low turnout
2. Evaluate the effectiveness to which the HoL can act as a check on the HoC - ANS - delay passage for
up to 1yr > blocking bills such as hoc reform vs usually have to be backed by hoc backbenchers e.g. 91
consv mps 2012
- amend leg > acting as scrutiny on HoL vs can be rejected by commons
- national debate > may scrutinise actions of commons and bring up important issues e.g. effect of Brexit
on the union of the UK 2019 vs not really picked up my media
1. Evaluate the extent to which rights are effectively protected by the UK constitutional arrangements -
ANS - Common law (trad, custom and precedent/judge made) > precedent made by judges protecting
rights e.g. murder vs statute law can 'overturn' these or reform
- Statute Law > HRA 1998 (incorporated ECHR convention) e.g. whole life sentences deemed breach of
article 3 in convention 2013 vs not entrenched so can be set aside by parli e.g. over terrorism legislation
- Conventions (non-legal rule) > Salisbury Convention protects rights of people in govt voted in can fulfil
its promises from manifesto vs collective responsibility and whips/patronage = rights not protected??
---weak rights in part due to elective dictatorship
2. Evaluate the extent to which parli is effective in carrying out its various functions - ANS - Represent >
represent each constituent no matter how voted, 650 roughly equal, hold surgeries etc vs HoL not
elected, not demographically rep e.g. 32% women HoC and problem w/ electoral system/wasted votes
e.g. UKIP
- legitimation (as govt draft and legislate) > debate bill at second reading and committee stage (may
propose amendments), 25 acts passed by Parli 2017 vs legislative committees in HoC is whipped =
ineffective, usually govt aligned e.g. 2010 defence committee 5c and 4 ld
- Oversight/ scrutiny (of leg and govt) > HoL can scrutinise leg by proposing improvements or delaying +
expertise, PMQs, vote of no confidence e.g. Callaghan 1979 and 2019 but failed vs HoC too much power
as can reject improvements, pmqs a media 'event' = not serious, whips/patronage e.g. only 2 consv
against Iraq 2003, galloway forced to resign after opposing labour bill 2003
---diff between hol and hoc
3. Evaluate the extent to which the cabinet can act as a check on prime ministerial power - ANS -
Effectively remove PM from office > e.g. Thatcher, cabinet ministers resigned due to low poll ratings
(poll tax disputes)
- Ministers in charge of large departments, such as the Treasury, have their own power bases > e.g.
Blair-Brown vs can only be utilised when popularity already in decline
- only 'First among equals' > cannot command absolute power like president can, needs cabinet to
approve and hopefully support vs notion of pms becoming more presidential w/ short full cabinet
, meetings generally rubber-stamping decisions that had been taken elsewhere e.g. 'sofa govt' of Blair,
didn't include int development secretary in talks about Iraq
- Coalition govt >
4. Analyse and evaluate the factors that may undermine judicial neutrality - ANS - Process of
appointments > Lord Chancellor can reject candidates e.g. Michael Gove 2015-6 vs not permitted to
repeatedly reject names as power limited by const reform act 2005 which also created independent JAC
- Conservative bias in senior judiciary > mainly male, white upper-middle class and private school
educated, 3/12 women 2019, 70% private schooled 2016 vs becoming more diverse, number of women
had increased from years prior, plus job/trained to act objectively
- Growing trend on taking public stand on policy issues > lord Philips criticising wider use of mandatory
sentencing vs this is rare
esp w/ increased stories by media criticising judges e.g. after sc determined mps must vote on triggering
article 50, branded 'enemies of the people' by DailyMail
1. Evaluate the arguments for retaining an uncodified const - ANS - flexible > can evolve with the times
and implements new laws, conventions for modern day e.g. fixed term parli act 2011 vs
- historical and tradition > sense of pride in the historical aspect of const, no revolution vs outdated,
many modern countries have a codified const, could enhance legitimacy and functions of dem +
correlates w/ lib ides of setting out limits of govt and protections of citizens
- effective government > not written = govt decisions backed by parli can't be overturned by judiciary +
fusion of powers = govt usually get their way unless cation or small majority e.g. Thatcher govt 1979-90
which intro privatisation and reform of welfare state = strong, decisive action vs too much power,
'elective dictatorship' = apathy of citizens causing low turnout
2. Evaluate the effectiveness to which the HoL can act as a check on the HoC - ANS - delay passage for
up to 1yr > blocking bills such as hoc reform vs usually have to be backed by hoc backbenchers e.g. 91
consv mps 2012
- amend leg > acting as scrutiny on HoL vs can be rejected by commons
- national debate > may scrutinise actions of commons and bring up important issues e.g. effect of Brexit
on the union of the UK 2019 vs not really picked up my media
