[MOSJohn]

Jan 2012:

1 (a) With reference to the source, why are legislative committees needed?

(b) With reference to the source and your own knowledge, explain the ways in which
backbench MPs can call government to account.

(c) To what extent has the formation of a coalition altered the relationship between
Parliament and government?

2 (a) With reference to the source, what is the rule of law?

(b) With reference to the source and your own knowledge, explain how the
independence of the judiciary is guaranteed.

(c) To what extent can judges check the power of the executive and the legislature?

3 To what extent have constitutional reforms since 1997 reduced the powers of
UK governments?

OR
4 Are UK prime ministers as powerful as is sometimes claimed?

IMO, 1 & 2 are very difficult questions.


-----------------

Do I need to revise all 4 areas? Ive only just started revising, because I was putting all energy into unit 1 (Is that bad?). Today, ive done the political role of Judiciary (Doing neutrality/independence/reforms tomorrow) and from page 169-187.

How much have you revised?

[Mcfly101202]

HEY ALL.
WILL DO THIS IN FOUR PARTS IF THAT'S OKAY. THERE IS A LOT.
PART ONE: CONSTITUTION....

The Constitution
• The uncertain result of the general election of 2010 produced an unusual outcome in the form of a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. This had major implications for constitutional change.
• The conservative party favoured the traditional, or Westminster approach to constitutional reform as it saw the Westminster system as fundamentally sound. It was not against some adjustment to the existing arrangements, designed to strengthen rather than destroy, but it was not inclined to give priority to changing the nation’s constitutional arrangements.
• The liberal democrats, on the other hand, did give priority to constitutional change. They were longstanding adherents to the liberal view of the constitution. They viewed the existing constitution as too centralising, vesting power in the centre at the expense of the individual. In their eyes, the constitutional system was broken. They favoured a new constitutional settlement for the UK, with a radical agenda including a new electoral system, fixed-term parliaments and a wholly elected second chamber.
• Although the conservative manifesto had included a commitment to work towards finding a consensus on a largely or wholly elected second chamber, David Cameron had made clear that he regarded it as a “third-term issues” – in other words something for the distant future.
• European Union Bill – This bill represented a nod in the direction of changes favoured by the conservatives. The liberal Democrats agreed to support a measure that provided for any further transfers of power from nation state to the EU to be subject to referendums. This bill gave effect to this agreement. There were some doubts expressed as to whether the bill would actually result in many or any referendums being held.
• House of Lords reform – It provided for a 300- member House, with either 80% or 100% of the members elected by a system of proportional representation, each serving for a single fixed term of 15 years. An accompanying White Paper revealed that much had yet to be decided, including whether to opt for the 80% or 100% elected option.
• As and when the bill itself is introduced, t is widely expected to clog up the parliamentary timetable, with extensive opposition expected in the House of Lords. A survey carried out by “The Times” found overwhelming opposition among peers to the proposals.
• The results of the AV referendum caused trouble for the coalition. David Cameron having campaigned for NO and Nick Clegg having campaigned for yes.
• Despite the negotiations in 2010 having favoured the Liberal Democrats on constitutional issues, the party ad failed to achieve its goal of a change in the electoral system.
• It was reported that the Chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, had drawn attention to the fact that the coalition agreement did not commit the government to getting the bill through, but only to bring forward proposals for reform
• The first year of the coalition government saw a substantial body of constitutional legislation being introduced.
• Although the government had pursued the agenda agreed in the coalition negotiations, the nature of the compromise meant that neither side was likely to be happy with the eventual outcome
• Following the changes achieved under the Blair government, Anthony King characterised the constitution as being descriptively “in a mess”
• The coalition, the product of a compromise between parties holding mutually exclusive positions, has pursued constitutional change but in doing so has not brought coherence to the constitutions of the UK. The constitution continues to change, but the ultimate destination remains far from clear.

[Mcfly101202]

PART TWO : PM AND HIS CABINET
Role of the prime minister and cabinet government
• Anthony Seldon has argued; “Cameron was…clear that his premiership would see a return to formal cabinet government”
• Cameron came to power promising a return to cabinet government.
• Under Cameron the cabinet would discuss issues of substance, and advice would be sought from the traditional civil service. He would be merely a chairman of the cabinet board, rather than an all powerful chief executive.
• Cameron unleashed what the author Andrew Ranwsley has called a “Maoist” revolution across the whole range of government departments. Cameron took seriously Blair’s own regret that he had not acted radically enough in his first term. Cameron’s government was quickly absorbed in a flurry of activity in almost every department.
• However, Cameron’s approach was to delegate and give cabinet ministers surprising latitude to initiate and develop policy on their own. For much of the first year of the new government, the dominant picture was of radically reforming ministers enjoying the freedom to run their own departments.
• The most important reason for the return to cabinet government was the reality of coalition politics. Cameron and clegg struck up an immediate relationship, which translated into a close working partnership at the heart of government.
• Senior civil servants quickly adopted the verb “to coalitionise” to describe the process by which decisions were made. Both parties would discuss proposals in a highly collaborative manner before they could be formally adopted as government policy. This necessitated the resurrection of formality at the heart of government.
• In the lead-up to the Comprehensive Spending Review in Oct 2010 the full cabinet discussed proposed spending cuts at least nine times
• The early months of the coalition some commentators argued that real power lay with these newly established committees.
• As the PM has become accustomed to power, the attractions of informal decision making have at least partly re-emerged. This is the result of several factors. First, policy discussions between two quite different parties can be potentially slow down decision making to the point of paralysis. For this reason alone there might be good reason to get policy initiated and debated in smaller, more informal groupings. A second possible reason is that this is Cameron’s opposition style brought into government.
• AT least one commentator has argued that David Cameron is the first prime minister to willingly relinquish control of part of his cabinet.
• The highly unusual political partnership at the heart of the current cabinet means that the normal arrangements for making decisions have been transformed
• NHS – reform bill – 2011 – The government’s plans for the NHS shuddered to a halt following a backlash from healthcare professionals and a media storm. David Cameron felt the need to step in and take control of the government’s message after being accused of not possessing sufficient grip of the policies being developed by his own ministers. The problems around NHS reform had followed previous so-called “U-turns” on the sale of public forest, school sports and school milk. Though Cameron may still envisage himself as chairman of the cabinet board he appears too have moved further towards acting like a chief executive.
• In an era when the prime minister is expected to be in command of policy across government, Cameron’s extensive delegation got the government into trouble.

[Mcfly101202]

PART THREE: PARLIAMENT

Role of parliament
• Just one in three people agreed that Parliament is “working for you and me”, a drop from 38% to 30% in a year. And 39% disagreed.
• Nearly half thought Mps should be spending their time representing the views of local people in the House of Commons, while just 10% believed they were doing so.
• According to the 2011 audit just 30% said Parliament was one of the top three institutions that made an impact on their lives.
• The house of Commons provides the constitutional basis for government; by providing a prime minister with the majority to win, and remain in, office – by providing most of the people who will become ministers – by approving legislation, especially on finance, necessary for an administration to function
• But apart from purely administrative matters, there is no corporate view, but rather an agglomeration of 650 individual opinions and interests, largely articulated through the party battle.
• MPs have many roles – to raise issues on behalf of their constituents – to support the party to which they belong – to scrutinise the actions of the executive – to examine legislation – to serve as ministers, or as formal opposition spokesmen – to serve as ministers, or as formal opposition spokesmen
• Moreover, voters expect too much of politicans. They look for absolute answers and shout betryal when politicans fall short of their pre-election promises
• The hosue of commons is the forum where these arguments are played out. iT is where differences of interests and opinion face each other and are reconciled in a non-violent way through the competition between political parties. Many purists criticise the whole idea of parties as imposing uniformity ad theorugh party whips, suppressing the independence of individual members f the Commons.
• But demeaning though PMQs can often be, it holds the prime ministr of the day to account each week on the issues of the day
• The other common myth about the Commons is that MPs are lobby fodder, just obeying the party whips and not really doing anything. This was never true but it is clearly wrong now. Today’s backbench MPs are more independent minded than in the past.
• The existence of the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition has made the Commons even more fractious as backbench MPs, particularly conservatives, have expressed their irritation and worse, about some of the compromises inherent in the coalition programme by rebelling on sensitive issues such as Europe.
• For all its defects the house of Commons is more assertive and active than it has beeen for many decades in holding the government into account.

[Mcfly101202]

PART FOUR: JUDGES ETC....

Power and influences of judges
• In recent years the UK’s senior judiciary has been thrust increasingly into the political limelight.
• In other words it was formerly accepted that these senior lawyers, who are neither elected not accountable, should confine themselves solely to issues of legal interpretation and the maintenance of the rule of law.
• Judges are expected to uphold human rights. Governments, on the otherhand, are expected to safeguard national security. Sometimes, governments may wish to infringe our individual rights in order to preserve national security. Examples have been: holding terrorist suspects for long periods without trial in order to interrogate them successfully, or bannng public demonstrations that might threaten public order.
• The best-known instance occurred in December 2004 when nine terrorist suspects held in Belmarsh Prision appealed against their detention without trial. The Law Lords (predecessor of the Supreme Court) ruled that their human rights were being abused and they should be released. The government was dismayed by the ruling and sought parliamentary approval for continuing to hold the men, but this failed. Since Belmarsh, it is well established that the government must secure the agreement of parliament if it wishes to overrule judges on human right issues.
• The Human Rights act –possibly the most significant development has been the introduction of the human rights act (HRA), which was passed in 1998 and came into force in 2000. For the first time the UK had a codified set of human rights instead of the higgledy-piggedly set of statutes, common law and judicial precedents (i.e. past rulings made by judges) by which the courts operated in the past. Judges now have amuch clearer set of guidelines when they are confronted with cases where citizens clai that their rights have been abused. Furthermore, the European Convention now appears to have much greater status and authority than the UK’s former arrangements for the protection of rights.
• Judicial review – since the 1990s especially, the use of judicial review has grown extensively in the UK. The courts have become increasingly willing to hear cases where a citizen or group of citizens feel they have been wronged by a public body of some kind. Judicial reviews usually arise from a claim that a [public body, such as a government minister, a civil servant, a local authority or any other state organisation has acted unlawfully.
• UK courts can now also enforce a wide range of EU legislation
• The constitutional reform act – 2005 – the most significant provision of this act was the introduction of the supreme court which began to operate in 2009. This court replaced the practice of sending legal appeals to the 12 Law Lords, senior judges, sitting in the House of Lords. Though the new supreme court has no additional powers to those of the Law Lords, it is now fully independent from Parliament and many commentators argue that ths new sense of independence has made the court more active and challenging of government power than its predecessor.
• Reasons why judges should have power – these are the main arguments which suggest tat the senior judges, who hear cases of political importance should be powerful –
- They play a key role, particularly when conducting judicial reviews, in ensuring that government and other public bodies operate within the law and do not abuse their power.
- They also have a role in ensuring that human rights and freedoms are upheld.
- Judges are not poltiicans and are independent from poltics. They are therefore in a strong position to prevent abuse of power by governments who may wish to gain policitcial advantage
- The uphold the rule of law, whereby all citizens are treated equally under the law. This prevents governments and publid bodies from treating people unequally for polticial gain.
- While politicans are often influenced by varyng public opinion, judges can operate strictly within the law and so prevent abuses of power or human rioghts which may take place merelt to satisfy the short-term public mood.
• Reasons why judges should not have so much power;
- Judges are not elected and are therefore not accountable. This means they may make decisions which take no account of the national interest or public opinion. Neither Parlaiment nor the public has any way of calling judges to account, so their power should be controlled
- Judges sometimes make rulings that may prevent the government from carrying out its functions and political mandate. In cases where there is a dispute between the power of government and the power of judges, it is argued that democracy demands that government should prevail.
- When upholding EU law or the European Convention on Human Rights, UK judges are sometimes challenging the soveriengty of Parliament, a key principle of the UK constitution.
- It has been argued by some commentators that the UK’s senior judiciary is out of touch because its members come from such a narrow social background, beign largely educated at private schools and Oxbridge.
• If you beleve that such issues as human rights protection, press freddom, privacy laws or sentencing policy should be subject to public opinion and be placed under the control of elected, accountable polticians, you may come to the conclusion that judges today are exercising too much power and are too often thwarting the public interest.
• But if you take the view that our tights and freedoms, the rule of law and legal justice must be protected at all costs, you may draw the opposite conclusion and wish to see even more power placed into judges hands

[Mcfly101202]

PART FIVE: "Lessons from Unit 2"

Lessons from Unit 2
• The most common mistake is failing to add some explanation to a five mark question
• Seven marks are reserved for identifying and describing key points and issues from the source and your won knowledge. The other 3 marks are for explanation and analysis (10 marker)
• In a part c question there are 8 marks for knowledge and understanding, effectively factual content
• In full length section B essays there are 20 marks for this assessment objective
• The main weakness in part c answers has tended to be a lack of analysis and evaluation
Topic Developments
The Constitution
• The 2010 coalition government’s proposed reforms – House of Lords, House of Commons, fixed terms
• Devolution changes – more powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
Parliament
• House of lords reform
• New backbench committees
• Fixed terms
• Power of recall
• Equal constituency boundaries
• Smaller house of commons
• Parliamentary activism with coalition government
PM and cabinet
• The PM in a coalition
• The cabinet in a coalition
• Strains on collective responsibility under coalition
• Cameron as PM
Judges and civil liberties
• Impact of the human rights act
• Impact of the supreme court
• Judiciary/government conflict over rights, privacy law, press freedom, sentencing policy
• Recent cases of importance

[Mcfly101202]

LASTLY - PART SIX: UK AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EU

The coalition and the EU
• Within the EU, successive UK governments have favoured intergovernmental cooperation and the single market, but opposed supranationalism and protectiobnism.
• Britian has often been reactive rather than proactive in the EU and has not developedenduring alliances with other member states.
• The soverieinty of parliament is the core principle of the British constitution
• The press and public opinion are eurosceptic
• Political parties are divided over the issue of Europe and have treid to reduce its importance
• Differences between the Conservative and Liberal Democrats on European intergration are pronounced, suggesting that the issue will again prove problematic for a British government
• The conservatives are a soft euroskeptic party – they support EU membership but voted against the Lisbon treaty and oppose membership of the euro
• The liberal democrats support closer cooperation with the EU and, until the euro debt crisis, believed that it was in Britain’s long term interest to join the Euro.
• In their election manifestos, the conservatives pledged a referendum lock - requiring any future EU treaty transferring powers from Britain to the EU to be put to a popular vote while the Liberal Democrats promised a referendum on EU membership should there be a fundamental change in Britain’s relationship with the EU
• Coalition negotiations – conservatives dropped their demands for the repatriation of powers
• The lib- dems accepted no further transfer of powers to the EU under the coalition
• Cameron’s pragmatism and desire to detoxify the EU issue proved more significant than his instinctive euro scepticism.
• Coalition policy – It supports the single market and deregulation, advocates further enlargement, seeks reform of the common agricultural policy and EU budget, favours greater cooperation between member states on climate change, but is wary of extending EU competences in social policy, defence and criminal justice.
• In Decmeber 2010, member states agreed to establish a permanent European Stability Mechanism form 2013 which may be used to bail out states if their debt threatens te euro-s stability. Cameron agreed to a treaty amendment confirming this because it will only apply to member states whose currency is the euro, and will not transfer power from Britain to the EU.
• With the euro zone crisis deepening, 23 member states agreed to the Euro Plus Pact in March 2011. It will bring abut further European action to foster competitiveness, employment, sustainable public finances and financial stability. The pact also marks a significant step towards fiscal union with members agreeing tougher rules on budget deficits and public debt, and greater coordination of their tax systems.
• Most conservative backbenchers favour a repatriation of EU powers and see the euro zone crisis as an opportunity to bring about a rebalancing of Britain’s relationship with the EU. George Eustice launched the Fresh start project of some 100 conservative MPs to represent this mainstream eurosceptism.
• William Hague once described Europe as a ticking time bomb for the conservatives. IT has yet to explode because euro sceptics are divided in their objectives and strategy and have found it difficult to pick the right fight. Moves towards European economic governance and the formalisation of a multi-speed Europe would bring about a major change in Britain’s relationship with eh EU. This could also be an issue on which Conservative euro sceptics and pro-European liberal democrats jon forces with Labour to threaten the government’s parliamentary majority.

[lace-rules]

Any guesses for whats going to be the 40 marker?

I have a feeling that it may be Parliament (probably something about the role and importance of HoC/HoL, reform of the HoC/HoL or how effective Plmt is in controlling executive power)

It's only come up once before, whilst PM and Judiciary have come up three times each and Constitution 6 times.

But then again, Edexcel do LOVE the constitution

[Mcfly101202]

Hopefully that helps everyone a lot, it's all copied directly from the magazine - the stuff I found useful or might give me an edge.
ALSO.....
Anybody know how to add an attachment onto a thread?

I have spent all day going through examiner reports shifting through the 40 MARKER good example previews and thought seeing as everyone was so keen for the notes on recent stuff - thought I might share my work.
So, anyone can show me how, and hopefully you'll benefit substantially (:

[fattysaid]

(Original post by LFS)
Do you guys think it is likely that they are going to ask a question on the Reform of the House of Lords, due to it being in the news at the moment? I'm not sure whether I need to revise this or not. I have just emailed my teacher so if any of you are wondering the same thing I will let you know as to his reply

EDIT: Here is what he said...
"There is a possibility of them asking about reform; though, probably of parliament as a whole e.g. boundary changes, 55% needed now for a vote of no confidence, prerogative powers and HoL and democracy is key.

Ensure you know the proposals of each party e.g. Clegg 80% elected and Cameron personally opposes reform but is supporting it in order to aid the constitution.

Milliband is just, really being a Milliband -he opposes reform currently just to spite Clegg!"

My teacher said exactly the same thing with regards to reform of the HoL so I am revising that. He said a question on the Judiciary is also likely to come up - could talk about influence of EU laws on UK's Judiciary especially with regards to recent case of Abu Qatada + a question on the coalition (something about cabinet meetings changing, not really sure) I am not revising the Judiciary though tbqh, that topic just baffles me

[MOSJohn]

^ What is this? Coalitions policies/events since 2010?

[MOSJohn]

(Original post by Mcfly101202)
Hopefully that helps everyone a lot, it's all copied directly from the magazine - the stuff I found useful or might give me an edge.
ALSO.....
Anybody know how to add an attachment onto a thread?

I have spent all day going through examiner reports shifting through the 40 MARKER good example previews and thought seeing as everyone was so keen for the notes on recent stuff - thought I might share my work.
So, anyone can show me how, and hopefully you'll benefit substantially (:

Go to "Go advanced" below, where you can reply.. then go to "Attach Files".

[fattysaid]

With regards to the Jan. 2012 paper: please find attached the .pdf files for Questions + Mark Scheme for Unit 2. I have the Examiner's Report as well but the files size is too large, is there another way of uploading it?

I also have them for other units if anyone needs them! Hope it helps

[fattysaid]

(Original post by MOSJohn)
^ What is this? Coalitions policies/events since 2010?

Not sure if this question is directed at me but in any case, yes! It's for the topic PM and Cabinet so it might ask a question about how the style of cabinet meetings have changed under the coalition if that makes any sense...?

[MOSJohn]

Could you upload some for Const change/Sovereignty/Parliament & HoL Reforms?

& Ty

[:)J]

does anyone have any A grade constitution essays they wouldnt mind sending me/uploading? i need an A in this exam

[LFS]

(Original post by fattysaid)
Not sure if this question is directed at me but in any case, yes! It's for the topic PM and Cabinet so it might ask a question about how the style of cabinet meetings have changed under the coalition if that makes any sense...?

Do you know of any good websites which would help with this information? Because the text book I have doesn't include such changes, only what their proposed policies were. I have to say it's the hardest thing about this course; having to write questions about current political issues. Not sure why, but that's what I find the hardest!

Edit: This contains pretty much everything about how the coalition has affected the PM and the Cabinet! WOOO! http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2011/969_477.pdf

[fimblesocks]

Could someone help me with this - "To what extent is the UK constitution outdated" (40)

Would you look at all the sources of the constitution and judge if they are outdated or not? thanks guys - and good luck on Monday!

[fattysaid]

(Original post by LFS)
Do you know of any good websites which would help with this information? Because the text book I have doesn't include such changes, only what their proposed policies were. I have to say it's the hardest thing about this course; having to write questions about current political issues. Not sure why, but that's what I find the hardest!

Edit: This contains pretty much everything about how the coalition has affected the PM and the Cabinet! WOOO! http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2011/969_477.pdf

haha, thanks for the link dude! Also, Have a look at the scans I've uploaded of an article regarding the topic of PM and Cabinet from past issues of 'Politics Review' (excuse my scribbles on the side ) through this link here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/w8485vqqlm...nt%20back.docx
+ read the article on pgs. 6-9 of this sample issue: http://magazinesonline.philipallan.c...lRev_21_1.html

Hope it helps! p.s. I also have another article on 'The Coalition Government: A new era of constitutional reform?' if you're interested

[fattysaid]

(Original post by fimblesocks)
Could someone help me with this - "To what extent is the UK constitution outdated" (40)

Would you look at all the sources of the constitution and judge if they are outdated or not? thanks guys - and good luck on Monday!

Firstly you should define the term "outdated". If you agree with the statement, how do you think you'd measure "outdated-ness"? That should be explained in your introduction. After you've decided upon those two things, start engaging in a relevant debate that always links to the question being asked: Write 3/4 points in support of the statement using contemporary examples to back your points up and the same with 3/4 points against the statement. You should definitely include something about the constitution being uncodified and assess the sources of the UK constitution like you've already mentioned as well recent constitutional reforms (or lack of) against your definition of "outdated". Finish off with a conclusion where you make a clear judgement linked to the question.

Hopefully that made sense