Lecture notes
A-Level Politics Paper 2
- Module
- Paper 2
- Institution
- PEARSON (PEARSON)
Pearson Edexcel politics paper 2
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
Paper 2 plansUK CONSTITUTION
ETV that devolution should be further extended in the United Kingdom/Devolution has been a
success in Scotland, Ireland and Wales
Intro: Unquestionably, devolution should be further extended in the United Kingdom. To validate
this claim, this essay will focus on the ‘laboratories of democracy argument’ and how devo
creates responsive and representative governments. On the other hand, weaker arguments
relate to how devo it isn't necessary in some areas.
Para 1: Laboratories of democracy
- Allows for variance in policies.
- Scotland -> free higher education (address working-class underrepresentation), Wales
-> 5p levy on plastic bags (copied by UK parliament), AMS introduced (Scot+Wal), STV
(NI), scotland -> plastic bottle tax 2022.
- CORONAVIRUS = various governments implemented different approaches.
- If many policies are being introduced the UK as a nation benefits as we can see which
policies are successful -> other areas may copy (seen in the U.S.)
EVAL: Centralised evidence based approach driven by Whitehall may be more cautious and
successful. Experiments go wrong; for example, Oxbridge acceptances plummeted in Wales
after the abolition of Ofsted. Coronavirus policies were often contradictory and required
coordination (it’s more efficient to have one centralised authority).
Para 2: Responsive Government
- Problem with centralisation -> regions must wait for Westminster to solve local problems,
national distractions often mean that local issues are not on the agenda.
- Decentralisation = local legislatures (Scot+Wal), executives (Khan; London, Burnham;
Manchester) can act quicker to deal with issues in their areas.
- Government by Whitehall is often snail-paced (evident in the Housing Crisis).
EVAL: Although slow it's for a good thing -> Civil Service is evidence based that attempts to limit
costly errors that have negative political outcomes. More devolved power results in a more
populist approach that is successful electorally but fails to improve the quality of life for citizens
seen by Wales abolishing Ofsted was popular with teachers but damaged educational
standards.
Para 3: Representative Government
- The reason that devolution was introduced was because Wales + Scotland was
politically left wing but ruled by a right-wing government in London (18 years 1979-1997).
- Nationalists were ruled by Unionists in London.
- Devolving power means that the ‘democratic deficit’ is addressed, allows Scotland to be
ruled by left-wing or nationalist parties, NI to allow ‘power sharing’ between nationalists
and unionists.
- Devolving means that the democratic will of the people will be heard more often.
- The Government will become ‘democratically legitimate’ and will hold a stronger level of
‘social consent’ (Lockean perspective).
,EVAL: Views of the right wing spectrum become powerless in terms of influencing the political
process and elections become forgone conclusions (Burnham won in 2021 with 67% of the
vote).
Para 4: Devolution increases inequality
- Although some suggest ‘laboratories of democracy’ are positive, different policies often
produce different outcomes.
- Education standards are higher in England than in Wales due to Wales’ decision to
abolish Ofsted.
- In Scotland, young people aren’t burdened with university debt in the same way as
English and Welsh students.
- NHS outcomes on cancer are better in England than in Wales.
- In ‘laboratories’ experiments fail and political failure means a lower standard of living for
the people living under certain devolved governments. -> centralising power means one
equal policy is adapted for the entire nation.
EVAL: The system of centralised power also produces inequalities even when similar policies
are being used for the nation-at-large which was seen during the coronavirus pandemic in which
a tiered system of regulations was introduced.
ETV that the UK should repeal the Human Rights Act and introduce a British Bill of Rights.
Intro: To validate this claim, this work looks at the ‘Criminals Charter’ argument and how the
judicial review is out of control. Central to the analysis of the opposing case are arguments
regarding the HRA raising awareness and the ensuring avoidance of tyranny.
Para 1: HRA raising awareness
- HRA has raised political awareness.
- Liberty (a pressure group) argues it has raised awareness and states that if individuals
are more informed on their rights and how to challenge the government if rights are
infringed upon (UK courts or ECHR) it is a positive democratic development.
- ^Evident in the Poundland Case when the woman challenged the government after
learning about her right to be free from compulsory labour after the ‘back to work’
scheme.
- Even if a BBoR was introduced it may lead to further confusion around rights in the UK.
EVAL: Conservatives argue a BBoR would raise awareness of citizens’ rights while also raising
awareness of their responsibilities.
Para 2: Avoids tyranny
- Ensures avoidance of tyranny
- The HRA demands all statutes are compatible with the European Convention (which
entrenches a rights culture in the UK),
- When proposing legislation ministers must show how the bill is compatible with the HRA
which helps Britain remain culturally liberal.
- ALL major constitutional changes (Devolution, Brexit, anti-terrorism legislation) must
comply with HRA.
- HRA places an obligation on state authorities to treat everyone with fairness and
equality.
, - If a law is passed that is incompatible, judges can make a ‘declaration of incompatibility’
which forces the government to revise the law. -> Miranda case (definition of terrorist
was expanded to include journalists suspected of having state secrets).
- Since 1998, on 20 occasions the UK government has been forced to revise laws that
breached HRA.
EVAL: Small ‘c’ Conservatives believe that the HRA undermines parliamentary sovereignty as
parliament must comply with HRA. If this was repealed, sovereignty would be restored.
Para 3: ‘Criminals Charter’
- The doctrine of ‘natural rights’ for all has led to unpopular outcomes e.g. the prisoners’
votes case in Strasbourg won by a convicted axe-murderer, Islamists who praised
attacks on the UK such as Abu Qatada proved almost impossible to deport due to his
victories in the court system.
- Conservatives want to be more Leviathan when dealing with enemies or lawbreakers
rather than bowing down to them by the judiciary.
- BBoR could shift the balance of power from courts to government which usually has a
democratic mandate from the people.
EVAL: Liberals suggest this argument is advanced by right-wing media who take a small
number of high-profile cases and magnify them to shift public opinion against human rights
legislation.
Para 4: Judicial review cases are out of control
- The Government's authority has been challenged more often, and the judiciary has
become a growth industry (People suing NHS for breaching human rights, NHS paying
£2bn in litigation fees and compensation 2017).
- In 2017 there were 4,500 judicial reviews, now there are over 10,000.
- Pressure groups use Courts to undermine democratic will of the people (the RA case
demonstrated that the government can’t easily deport asylum seekers who have had
their application rejected).
- With HRA, if an initial case is lost, they can easily submit a further case based on a
different ‘right’ contained in law.
- There would be a clearer definition of rights through the new BBoR would reverse the
trend of rising judicial review.
EVAL: To liberal pressure groups, judicial review is the process of when the judicial branch
checks the power of the executive branch which is something to be celebrated (Baroness
Chakrabarti) as it makes the UK more democratic.
ETV that the UK’s constitutional reforms since 1997 have not gone far enough.
Intro: Unquestionably, the view that the UK’s constitutional reforms since 1997 have not gone
far enough is one that is weak. To validate this claim, this essay will focus on reform in the
House of Commons, in the executive branch, in the judiciary and in civil liberties. On the other
hand, arguments that support the view focus on the House of Lords reform.
Para 1: House of Lords (not gone far enough)
- The House of Lords Act 1999 reduced hereditary peers from 666 to 92 (introduced
HOLAC to veto nominations for peerages by PM).
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller ameliagarswood. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £9.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
78252 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now