Does anyone have an good legal cases/judges rulings examples? Of course there's the Belmarsh case, but in a 40 marker you'd obviously need more examples... Something to do with 'Ultra Vires', something to do with Rule of Law, something showing where their power is restrained.... Any help would be much appreciated (:

Two ultra vires cases are:

2009 Abbey national vs office of fair traading when the court ruled that the office had no power to investigate banks charging prices.

2010 Terrorist assets where it was ruled that government could not hold financial assets of terrorist suspects.

Hope this helps :smile:

Reply 926

mollyadtr

Original post by Jennifer Randall

How would I plan an answer for a wholly elected chamber?

yes:
increase legitimacy- more of a mandate to scrutinise the commons/bills as well as being democratically legitimate compared to unelected
if designed properly would look different from how hoc looks and would not be dominated/dictated by party politics eg could be elected on a long term basis eg 20 years of even elected for life, the long period between elections can also reduce the chance the electorate will be apathetic towards the idea of voting a lot
hoc would still remain the dominant chamber in legislative process- no veto vote, reduce the possibility of political gridlock
its the logical next step! many reforms have taken palae since 1997 eg devolution, echr etc and the start of reform of the lords by removing all but 92 hereditary peers

no:
election is not required for upper chamber to have legitimacy - look at it now, its doing a good job at putting forward amendments and scrutinizing bills isnt it?
could produce competition between two chambers and bring political gridlock, could argue the lords may end up wanting more power than just delay- may want their own legislative powers as theyre also elected
could end up reproducing the outcome of the hoc- what i mean is the distrust in politicians and mps after all the recent scandals
evolution rather than revolution, it shouldnt be a forced reform it should happen naturally like the transferal of prerogative powers from the monarch to the pm
could argue that new reform would create new problems

conclude:
it works well as it is? is there any need for reofrm?

hope this helped :smile:

Reply 927

DeafeningSilence

Original post by hw1221

Very helpful, thank you!! Much appreciated... Know any restraint on power cases? It's annoying they want so many examples when in reality, much of the theory remains theory.

Reply 928

LennyBicknel

Original post by Jennifer Randall

How would I plan an answer for a wholly elected chamber?

FOR an elected HoL -
> Representative
> Accountable/ More legitimacy
(Genuinely can't think of anymore - I'd add another for the sake of balance if you can think of one)

AGAINST an elected HoL -
> Lacks expertise (may be filled with career politicians; not experts as it currently is)
> Government gridlock (one chamber with one party majority; the other chamber has a different party majority - unlikely to ever agree on legislation)
> Less independent (increased influence of party whips)
> May be just as unrepresentative as the Commons currently is

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 929

xxvine

Original post by Hurbad

Its just the constitutional reform or attempted ones then you can argue against them by saying the AV wasnt achieved and could potentially lead to weak governments
Wales assembly given more power was the first step to welsh independence and futher fragmentation of the Union
Fixed-Term parliament can easily be undone as there is no codified constitution which entrenches these laws
MP recall was never successfully achieved.

I thought mp recall was an act?

Reply 930

xxvine

Original post by Hurbad

Advantages
Democratic
Accountable

Disadvantages
It might mirror the Commons
Voter Fatigue

Conclude
Weigh them up and then pick a side?

Don't you do 3 for 3 against
Your gonna get an A btw

Reply 931

alevelpain

> Removes anachronistic elements like Bishops which isn't reflective | Still a CofE country
> Legitimacy | political apathy could lead to lower turnout = less legitimate
>Accountability | could reflect the balance in commons which means wouldn't be accountable
> Represents/reflects interest | career politicians in Lords too, means like commons wouldn't work

Then a final paragraph on it works now, why change? conclude

Reply 932

Nightcall

Anyone planning to do the 40 marker first? Is it viable?

Reply 933

mollyadtr

Original post by xxvine

I thought mp recall was an act?

It is indeed

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 934

xxvine

Should we do the 40 marker first?

Reply 935

Hurbad

Original post by xxvine

Don't you do 3 for 3 against
Your gonna get an A btw

an A ? omg im lucky if i pass , the Democracy question hit my like a brick.
for a 40 mark question ? or 25 mark ? you only need 2 for 2 against for a 25 marker and a good conclusion or 3 short points for and 3 short points against and a conclusion xD

Original post by xxvine

I thought mp recall was an act?

Recall of MPs

Constituents to have the power to hold a vote on whether to ‘recall’ MPs if they receive a prison sentence of are found guilty of wrong-doing by the HoC * Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: could reduce public confidence in politics and hardly likely to happen

Abandoned

idk , i found some sources saying it was abandoned :frown:

Reply 936

xxvine

How does gov call parliament into account?

Reply 937

DeafeningSilence

Original post by Nightcall

Anyone planning to do the 40 marker first? Is it viable?

I like to do the smaller answers first, maybe rush them a bit so I know how much time I have, because part 1 is still half marks. But if you're sure about answering the 40 marker and want to get it over with then go for it.

Reply 938

hw1221

Original post by DeafeningSilence

Very helpful, thank you!! Much appreciated... Know any restraint on power cases? It's annoying they want so many examples when in reality, much of the theory remains theory.