politics essay plans : government
Get a hint
Evaluate the view that the Supreme Court has too much influence over the executive. para 1: - ✔✔✔
The supreme court can only determine law not create it
However the supreme court can set judicial precedents which must then be followed in later cases-
supreme court is the final court of appeal giving them greater weight
Eg. 2016 r v Jogee the supreme court overturned the case on the principle of joint enterprise established
in common law
Despite this, parliament can still change laws to benefit them in the future showing they dont have great
influence as parliament can change laws to suit them due to parliamentary sovereignty
para 2: ultra vires - ✔✔✔deciding whether a public body has acted beyond its authority
The supreme court can decide when a public body has acted beyond authority making the government
amend these rules
Eg. 2016 justice secretary acted above authority when he amended the legal aid act to restrict civil legal
aid to people living abroad for 12 months which the supreme court declared above his authority as he
should have discussed with parliament
However, parliament can also give government legal powers exterminating the supreme courts laws
para 3: declaration of incompatibility - ✔✔✔parliament can introduce legislation to get around the
rules of The human rights act, limiting the supreme court
The human rights act allows judges to declare laws incompatible with the european convention on
human rights
However, If the supreme court declares incompatiblity between an act of parliament and ECHR-there is
significant political pressure on the government to amend the law
Eg. the 2004 belmarsh case were foreign terrorist suspect held indefinitely which supreme court
declared discriminatory as british terorists weren't treated the same and the government accepted the
ruling
Nevertheless, parliament can still manourvre around these rules
,Eg. parliament legislated to introduce new control orders enabling them to monitor foreign terrorist
suspects in another manner
Evaluate the view that since 2010 the UK has seen a return to cabinet government. para 1: - ✔✔✔
Prime ministers have control over minister's careers
They can hire and fire and use cabinet to promote loyalty
They control meetings and agenda and prerogative powers means pm can bypass cabinet on some
occasions
However the prime minister may have less powers during a coalition government with divisions within
the cabinet
Eg. cameron in 2015 coalition government who couldnt pick whoever he wanted and had to pick from
coalition party-members of the opposition
Despite this, cameron bypassed cabinet using the coalition quad made up of cameron, nick clegg, george
osborne and danny alexander for many laws showing the lack of cabinet government-the quad made
major decisions that were then passed by the cabinet-similar to tony blair sofa politics (informal bilateral
meetings criticised by lord butler in iraq inquiry
Undermines collective cabinet and cabinet government
para 2: majorities within government allow prime ministerial government - ✔✔✔allow prime
ministerial government
If a pm has support within his party cabinet cannot overrule them eg. tony blair who spoke to ministers
outside of cabinet and attended cabinet meetings with a clear agenda that needed legitmisartion
However recently with theresa mays small majority she had to be consensual with government
Her attempt to dominate government failed after losing her majority in 2017 and in the end she was
forced to resign following vote of no confidence initiated by her cabinet
Overall, theresa mays case was rare due to economic problems and polarising issues such as brexit. In
contrast boris johnson rules easily with a supermajority showing no cabinet government
para 3: fptp - ✔✔✔Fptp produces large majorities and single party governments
We continue to have this system in place despite failed av coalition vote
, However They were able to produce hung parliaments in 2010 and 2017
however This is unusual as fptp leads to strong governments such as boris johnsons supermajority
government
The state of affairs provides prime ministers unshackled from the restraints of bargaining with cabinet
Evaluate the extent that further devolution is required para 1: participation - ✔✔✔Devolution may
increase political participation.
Devolution has been successful and is now accepted by the vast majority of people in those regions
Scottish independence
Having devolved governments would ensure regional problems are better addressed.
Extra costs. New Parliaments have been built in Edinburgh and Cardiff. There is an extra cost in running
these and having an extra set of politicians
However, devolution could increase divisions in English society by promoting disunity.
Giving regional governments more powers may actually accelerate demands for independence- if these
regions are effectively controlling all of their legislation, they may wish to become formally separate to
reflect this. The demands of the SNP for Scottish independence have not been dimmed by the creation
of, and accumulation of powers of the Scottish Parliament
para 2: England - ✔✔✔-Westminster parliament fosters asymmetrical devolution as it allows Scottish
MPs to vote on laws which do not concern them.
-This has proved very problematic in the past, for example when Blair used Scottish MPs to push
through the law that introduced tuition fees in England whilst Scottish university would remain free.
-English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) have been abandoned as they seemed unfair and unnecessary.
-Currently, under the Barnett formula, England receives less funding from UK taxes per capita than other
UK regions.
-This could be addressed by having a devolved English Parliament-just under £2,000 more per head is
spent on the Scots which is completely unfair and something needs to be done to combat this
-English devolution would reduce Westminster sovereignty but provide means to deal with local issues
and solve the issue of asymmetrical devolution which would lead to the agreement that
-English devolution is overdue.
Get a hint
Evaluate the view that the Supreme Court has too much influence over the executive. para 1: - ✔✔✔
The supreme court can only determine law not create it
However the supreme court can set judicial precedents which must then be followed in later cases-
supreme court is the final court of appeal giving them greater weight
Eg. 2016 r v Jogee the supreme court overturned the case on the principle of joint enterprise established
in common law
Despite this, parliament can still change laws to benefit them in the future showing they dont have great
influence as parliament can change laws to suit them due to parliamentary sovereignty
para 2: ultra vires - ✔✔✔deciding whether a public body has acted beyond its authority
The supreme court can decide when a public body has acted beyond authority making the government
amend these rules
Eg. 2016 justice secretary acted above authority when he amended the legal aid act to restrict civil legal
aid to people living abroad for 12 months which the supreme court declared above his authority as he
should have discussed with parliament
However, parliament can also give government legal powers exterminating the supreme courts laws
para 3: declaration of incompatibility - ✔✔✔parliament can introduce legislation to get around the
rules of The human rights act, limiting the supreme court
The human rights act allows judges to declare laws incompatible with the european convention on
human rights
However, If the supreme court declares incompatiblity between an act of parliament and ECHR-there is
significant political pressure on the government to amend the law
Eg. the 2004 belmarsh case were foreign terrorist suspect held indefinitely which supreme court
declared discriminatory as british terorists weren't treated the same and the government accepted the
ruling
Nevertheless, parliament can still manourvre around these rules
,Eg. parliament legislated to introduce new control orders enabling them to monitor foreign terrorist
suspects in another manner
Evaluate the view that since 2010 the UK has seen a return to cabinet government. para 1: - ✔✔✔
Prime ministers have control over minister's careers
They can hire and fire and use cabinet to promote loyalty
They control meetings and agenda and prerogative powers means pm can bypass cabinet on some
occasions
However the prime minister may have less powers during a coalition government with divisions within
the cabinet
Eg. cameron in 2015 coalition government who couldnt pick whoever he wanted and had to pick from
coalition party-members of the opposition
Despite this, cameron bypassed cabinet using the coalition quad made up of cameron, nick clegg, george
osborne and danny alexander for many laws showing the lack of cabinet government-the quad made
major decisions that were then passed by the cabinet-similar to tony blair sofa politics (informal bilateral
meetings criticised by lord butler in iraq inquiry
Undermines collective cabinet and cabinet government
para 2: majorities within government allow prime ministerial government - ✔✔✔allow prime
ministerial government
If a pm has support within his party cabinet cannot overrule them eg. tony blair who spoke to ministers
outside of cabinet and attended cabinet meetings with a clear agenda that needed legitmisartion
However recently with theresa mays small majority she had to be consensual with government
Her attempt to dominate government failed after losing her majority in 2017 and in the end she was
forced to resign following vote of no confidence initiated by her cabinet
Overall, theresa mays case was rare due to economic problems and polarising issues such as brexit. In
contrast boris johnson rules easily with a supermajority showing no cabinet government
para 3: fptp - ✔✔✔Fptp produces large majorities and single party governments
We continue to have this system in place despite failed av coalition vote
, However They were able to produce hung parliaments in 2010 and 2017
however This is unusual as fptp leads to strong governments such as boris johnsons supermajority
government
The state of affairs provides prime ministers unshackled from the restraints of bargaining with cabinet
Evaluate the extent that further devolution is required para 1: participation - ✔✔✔Devolution may
increase political participation.
Devolution has been successful and is now accepted by the vast majority of people in those regions
Scottish independence
Having devolved governments would ensure regional problems are better addressed.
Extra costs. New Parliaments have been built in Edinburgh and Cardiff. There is an extra cost in running
these and having an extra set of politicians
However, devolution could increase divisions in English society by promoting disunity.
Giving regional governments more powers may actually accelerate demands for independence- if these
regions are effectively controlling all of their legislation, they may wish to become formally separate to
reflect this. The demands of the SNP for Scottish independence have not been dimmed by the creation
of, and accumulation of powers of the Scottish Parliament
para 2: England - ✔✔✔-Westminster parliament fosters asymmetrical devolution as it allows Scottish
MPs to vote on laws which do not concern them.
-This has proved very problematic in the past, for example when Blair used Scottish MPs to push
through the law that introduced tuition fees in England whilst Scottish university would remain free.
-English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) have been abandoned as they seemed unfair and unnecessary.
-Currently, under the Barnett formula, England receives less funding from UK taxes per capita than other
UK regions.
-This could be addressed by having a devolved English Parliament-just under £2,000 more per head is
spent on the Scots which is completely unfair and something needs to be done to combat this
-English devolution would reduce Westminster sovereignty but provide means to deal with local issues
and solve the issue of asymmetrical devolution which would lead to the agreement that
-English devolution is overdue.
