Politics Revision: November Mocks.
Parliament and scrutiny (likely 9 marks.)
House of Lords proposal
Elected by regions 2019
- - As of June 2019 43.6% of representatives lived in London or South East, whilst 9% (second highest was in Scotland.) (The
second lowest) was 2.7% in the East Midlands.
Move the House of Lords 2020
- The proposal was to move the House of Lords to York
- The proposal was seen as a way to modernise the Lords
- Moving the Lords to York would show that the government feels it must respond to complaints that the nations, regions and
localities are not being treated fairly in comparison with the capital.
Abolish the Lords 2003 and 2020
- Many legislatures do not have House of Lords including Scotland and Northern Ireland and instead scrutiny is carried out by
parliamentary committees. A minority of MPs voted for the outright abolition of the upper house in 2003, and it was Labour
party policy until the late 1980s. In January 2020, Rebecca Long-Bailey showed her support for the abolishment.
Greater regulation of appointments
- Assures representation t0 represent society
- Represents modern politics and that change of ‘Lord prerogative’ and exploitation.
Ability to restore or resign 2014
- As of 2021, 140 peers have either resigned or retired, whilst 8 removed due to attendance.
Fully elected Lords 2003
- Announced under the second public consultation.
- Worked by removing the last 92 hereditary peers.
- However, having high support, the proposal was not passed.
Scrutiny and accountability
- Parliament scrutinises legislative proposals from the government
- Parliament scrutinises general government policy implementation
- Ministers are expected to explain and justify their actions
- Individual ministers are accountable to parliament - individual ministerial responsibility
Financial Privileges/Confidence and Supply
- Lords cannot obstruct bills solely concerned with financial matters (such as national taxation.)
Financial bill over budget announcement = Expected based on the Lord’s traditionalism - ultimately prevented exploitation
and any chance of self gain
- Commons can also claim ‘financial privilege’
Reject Lords amendment if it has financial consequences for a bill i.e. identity cards 2010 = Public taxes and public spending
“Financial privilege refers to the special right of the House of Commons to decide public taxes and public spending. It may be
used by the Commons as grounds for overruling any House of Lords proposal that has cost implications.” - UK Parliament
- Lords do not vote on motions of no confidence
Only Commons can bring down a government in this way = 'That this House has no confidence in HM Government'. If such a
motion is agreed to, and a new government with the support of a majority of MPs cannot be formed within a period of 14
calendar days, Parliament is dissolved and an early General Election is triggered.
Powers of the PM (likely 9 marks.)
Power Explanation
Patronage allows a PM to demote, promote, appoint and dismiss
someone within Cabinet.
- enables PM to reward/promote loyal colleagues and
supporters - resulting in a more approving Cabinet to help
secure majorities on certain bills.
- The PM controls the careers of Ministers, ensuring their
loyalty.
- eg) Margaret Thatcher dismissed "wets" in her Cabinet,
promoting supporters to pass economic policies.
Dissolving parliament - decide when to call a General Election, when it is
dissolved every seat in the HOC becomes vacant
- PM can gain another 5 years in premiership, exerting
control
- Fixed term act 2011 - set an interval of 5 years between
ordinary general elections, with early elections only taking
place under special circumstances.
- Act did not alter the prerogative power to prorogue
Parliament
- 2017 May bypassed the Fixed term parliament act for a
GE - bypass backfired, May was secured a 2/3 majority in
the HOC
Reshuffles - Reshuffles can lead to disloyalty of certain and create
, political ministers
- in 2006 Blair's reshuffle was presented by the press as an
act of desperation - his sacked ministers criticised Blair in
books and TV.
Authority in the cabinet system - The PM has influential power within Cabinet as they chair
and manage the agenda of Cabinet meetings, control the
duration of such meetings, and can create Select/Cabinet
committees.
- eg) "sofa government" - introduced a relaxed/ informal
style of government, ministers were not consulted on
crucial decisions, allowing him, along with a few close
ministers, to solely determine policy, asserting his authority.
- eg) QUAD - 2010 , v effective - reducing cabinet
fractions,
- eg) Chairs report proceedings and decisions are taken to
the full Cabinet
- eg) In 2016, May made the decision to remove several
long-standing committees such as the public expenditure
and constitutional affairs committee and rearrange the
remaining sub-committees around four main policy areas -
all of which she chairs, enabling her to affirm overall
control and management
Maintenance of the party system - strong leadership at the start of the premiership
- strong majority
- eg). not the case with Gordon Brown 2007
- securing a personal mandate
- weakened by disunity eg) majors party contained
eurosceptics dislike maastricht treaty, caused rebellions
- 2016 Cameron - concede freedom from pro-brexit
conservatives campaigning for brexit
Appointing cabinet ministers -PM is unlikely to look over senior party figures who may
run against them (e.g. Blair made Brown Chancellor of
Exchequer so he wouldn't run)
- ideological considerations are considered. A cabinet that
only has one wing of the party will not be supported by
party (e.g. Thatcher had Thatcherites and o be nation
tories in 1st cabinet
- may also elect from all around the country and include
MPs with experience and new rising stars
Judicial independence (likely 9 marks.)
- Security of Tenure enjoyed by judges - Judges are appointed on an open-ended term with the only limitation of 75 year old
retirement age. The open ended term means that politicians cannot sack the judges or suspend them - meaning they can not
blackmail a judge. The only way a judge can be removed is from impeachment of both houses.
- Growing separation of power - The new Supreme Court has separated the powers of the senior judiciary and other
branches of the government as prior to the changes, Senior Judges sat in the House of Lords and the Lord Chancellor sat in
all three branches of government.
- Guaranteed salaries paid by Consolidated funds
- Judges are paid by an independent fund as they are ‘standing services.’ This means that politicians cannot bribe a judge by
manipulating a judges salary, as well as makes bribery unappealing. The annual pay of a judge is roughly £60,000.
1. Cannot be touched by government
2. Don't need to fear financial penalty
3. Makes them more impartial
- The offence of contempt of court - Under sub-judice rules, the media, ministers and other individuals are prevented from
speaking out during legal proceedings. This is done to prevent influence and guarantee that justice can be applied fairly
without pressure.
- Training and experience of senior judges - Most senior judges have served as barristers in experience and come to the
branch with a great experience and knowledge. This wiseness and respect of the judiciary suggests that judges will be more
devoted to fair trials and defer from public opinion as well as politicians.
- Independent appointment system - The Constitutional reform Act (2005) brought the creation of greater transparency to
the process of judicial appointments and served to address concerns that the system in place previously had been open to
political bias.
- Judges cannot be sued - Judges cannot be sued for the decisions they make. Absolute privilege - Sirros V Moore (1975)
Two party politics in the UK (most likely extract question - 25 marks.)
- In 1983, Labour won 27.6% of votes, whilst Lib Dems won 25.4% of votes - which has been the closest in votes since.
Although Lib Dems votes have grown, it can not be compared to either Conservatives or Labour votes (example of 1979:
Conservatives won by 43.9%, Labour came second at 36.9% whilst Lib Dems earned 13.8%) This has happened despite
how in 2005, votes dropped by 67% since 1918.
