Revision:Edexcel AS Level Politics Unit 3
From The Student Room
TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Politics > Edexcel AS Level Politics Unit 3
What is devolution?
- Involves the transfer of power from a central political body to a local or regional political body. It has three key elements:
- the transfer of power to a subordinate elected body
- the transfer of power on a geographical basis
- while power is transferred, sovereignty is not and this means that at any time power can be taken back by the central authority. e.g. Westminster, devolution introduced 1999
What are the three different types of devolution?
- Administrative – power to run services, allocate funds and organise administration. Present in all three of the current UK devolved bodies.
- Financial – the ability to raise taxes or vary taxation independently – only in Scotland.
- Legislative – power to make, repeal or amend laws.
What powers have been handed over to Scotland?
- Has full legislative powers over a wide range of matters. e.g Education, Environment, Agriculture, transport
- Can vary the rate of income tax 3% up or down.
- In addition, the Parliament uses the AMS to produce an executive – in effect the Scottish govt – which it then holds to account. The executive largely determines the legislative programme and is responsible for implementing policy.
- However many powers have been reserved by Westminster – the issues that go right to the heart of what it means to be a nation state e.g. Constitution, Defence, Foreign Policy
What powers have been handed over to Wales?
- The Welsh Assembly – not Parliament – has been given relatively restricted powers.
- It has no primary legislative or tax-varying powers. Rather, it can suggest legislation for Wales to the UK *Parliament and make and implement policy in the context of UK legislation.
- It also has oversight of “quangos” in Wales.
What powers have been handed over to Northern Ireland?
- As in Scotland, the N. Ireland Assembly has wide-ranging legislative powers.
- Although policing, security and the criminal justice system are specifically excluded from its remit, together with other major areas retained by Westminster.
Explain the impact of devolution on the UK political system
- Devolution was the major constitutional innovation of the first Blair government.
- Several key unresolved issues mean that devolution continues to be a matter of debate and controversy.
Significant developments as a result of devolution
- Government formation – LibLab coalition in Scotland was unexpected, Labour forming minority govt in *Wales was also unpredictable. In N. Ireland a power-sharing executive was planned and duly occurred.
- Scottish tuition fees dispute – Lib Dems in Scotland were faced with a dilemma b/c they promised no tuition fees but this would upset LibLab coalition. However, compromise was reached and Scottish students were spared the fees. Many argue that Scotland had become a socially more progressive place and this puts pressure on Westminster to follow.
- The Alun Michael affair – Labour leader in Wales and therefore Labour leadership’s (especially TB’s) preference for First Secretary of the Executive. The preferred choice of the Assembly members was Rhodri Morgan. Michael won narrow majority but at first opportunity a vote of no confidence forced him to resign. *Shows that a party’s central leadership in London might find it difficult to dominate devolved govt.
- Clause 28 – Section of the 1988 Education Act which Labour were committed to repealing. HoL reluctant at Westminster however single chamber system in Scotland found no problems and repealed Clause at first attempt. Therefore Scotland moved ahead of England in its reforming mood.
- The Mike Tyson affair – Members of Scottish Parlt opposed fight in Scotland b/c Tyson was a convicted rapist. Spurred on by women’s groups, attempts were made to persuade UK Home Secretary Jack Straw to ban Tyson. Straw decided to let him in and effectively ruled the Scots. Illustrates how key areas of sovereignty have not been transferred.
- New electoral systems – act as “laboratories for new politics.”
What are the criticisms of devolution?
- Scottish and Welsh nationalists say the do not have ultimate power b/c sovereignty remains in *Westminster’s hands – devolution has not gone far enough. Important issues retained by Westminster.
- Different devolved assemblies have different powers – this is unfair.
- TB referred to Welsh Assembly as “Parish Council” – Welsh Nationalists would be angry
- West Lothian question – Scottish MPs at Westminster are able to vote on legislation affecting England while English MPs are denied this opportunity in Scotland. To add to this problem, Scotland is significantly over-represented in HoC.
- At the moment Scotland is controlled by a LibLab coalition, so Labour hold the reins of government in both Scotland and England. It is not clear yet what would happen if the two levels were controlled by different parties. This could well be a recipe for disputes and conflict.
- Intra-UK differences – Scotland especially appears to be much more “liberal” than England in some matters e.g. scrapping tuition fees, more care for the elderly and the repeal of Section 28 earlier than England. These developments could suggest a departure from a long-established principle that there should be equal treatment for UK citizens, wherever they happen to reside. Also, some people better represented b/c of AMS.
How far has devolution disunited the UK?
| YES
| NO
|
| Asymmetrical nature of devolution – different assemblies have different powers.
| Sovereignty still at Westminster – powers that go right to the heart of what it means to be a nation state.
|
| Intra-UK differences
| Evidence suggests that nationalism is not on the rise – in fact on the decline.
|
| Finance – more money spent on people in Scotland – creates tension
| Turnout actually decreased – Wales 28%, Scotland 49%
|
| Part of devolution project not carried out – Joint Committee does not meet. It was meant to coordinate different assemblies, but this has not been effective. There has been no pull back to the centre in terms of what “Britishness” means.
| No support for devolution in England e.g. Autumn 2004 referendums – turnout was low and vote was “no”.
|
| -
| Same parties in power in both Westminster & Scotland.
|
What is the EU?
- An inter-governmental organisation. This means that it is a collection of nation states that have agreed to work together in certain aspects to achieve mutual benefits.
- There are many examples of IGOs in the world today e.g. NATO, UN, IMF, but EU is an example of perhaps the most highly integrated IGO currently in existence.
What are the functions of the EU?
- To create a common market and customs union – core function was economic. (Tariffs are the same for goods coming from outside EU, little or no tariffs within EU). Consolidating free market capitalism.
- Creating security and promoting welfare and prosperity. Argument of: trade = prosperity = peace
- To join, you must prove that you are a functioning, healthy democracy and respect human rights. If in EU and you fall beneath these standards you can be threatened with sanctions e.g. Austria
- Helping/supporting the economically disadvantaged European states e.g agricultural south of Europe – Spain, Portugal. Within UK, rural parts of Scotland.
- Sets rules and regulations for certain social practices (“The Social Chapter) e.g. employment
What are the arguments for the EU?
- Cooperation will make war and conflict less likely – it has been member states b/c common market and lack of tariffs.
- The single market offers European businesses a larger pool of consumers.
- Mergers and takeovers are creating world-leading organisations – especially in an era of globalisation, this is vital
- Greater freedom of cross-border movement within the EU e.g. travel and work
- A pooling of the economic and social resources of multiple member states e.g. USA put tariffs up so EU went to WTO about it and it was resolved – EU has more influence than a single state does.
- Poorer member states rising to standards maintained by more progressive states e.g. agricultural south, this would benefit the economy.
- Promotion of democracy and capitalism in weaker member states.
What are the arguments against the EU?
- Loss of sovereignty and national independence, therefore cannot act in best interests of country. Loss of national identity as laws, regulations and standards are harmonised, reduced powers for national govts e.g. Factortame
- Increased competition and job losses brought by the removal of market protection.
- Increased drug trafficking and crime arising from removal of border controls.
- Problems related to controversial issues such as Common Agricultural Policy – financial drain
- Integration promotes globalisation and its related problems e.g. less chance for smaller companies
What impact has EU membership had on UK sovereignty?
| UK has maintained sovereignty
| UK sovereignty has been curtailed
|
| EU law is limited to certain fields – UK maintains sovereignty over the issues that go right to the heart of what it means to be a nation state e.g. defence, foreign affairs, taxation, not signed up to Euro
| EU has power over significant amount of issues which should be in the hands of the UK govt. E.g. Trade, employment, agriculture, fisheries, consumer protection, competition, banking, health and safety, environment, transport
|
| Unanimity voting means that UK retains its sovereignty b/c every country effectively has a veto.
| Qualified majority voting can mean that the views of the UK govt are ignored. If EU Constitution adopted, this will be extended.
|
| The way that the UK joined the EU suggests UK sovereignty. i.e. b/c it is Statute it could ultimately be overwritten with another statute bringing us out of the EU b/c of implied repeal.
| Citizens of the UK can appeal to ECJ if unhappy about a UK court ruling. This undermines the authority of the judiciary and therefore sovereignty.
|
| Even in some areas that EU has influence over its concern is limited e.g. Criminal law (the European Arrest Warrant and some rules on insider dealing for example), contract law (except for consumer and employment law), family law, education, health
| If an EU law conflicts with a UK law the EU law overrides it. UK Courts must apply it irrespective of the wishes of Parlt e.g. Factortame
|
| -
| Democratic deficit – if further integration, sovereignty is going to European Council & Commission which are seen as secretive, unaccountable and remote institutions, not the European Parlt.
|
What is Constitutional reform?
- Any reform which alters the relationship between different parts of the state or between States and its citizens.
- It is about defining where power and sovereignty lie and setting out rules & regulations for govt.
- NL’s const. reform. is the biggest package of constitutional reform introduced by any part in the last century.
Why have NL introduced these reforms?
- V. much in line with NL’s idea of “modernisation”.
- Thought it would be popular in 1997 – people had got tired of Conservative rule – showed flaw of the system e.g. Maggy T never got over 50% of votes
- NL wanted to remove the obvious abuses, but retain what was good.
- Devolution – power too centralised e.g. not many Scottish people elected the Tories
- HRA – makes the law more accessible, make it more difficult for govt to erode civil liberties e.g. right to silence 1994 in Criminal Law Amendment Act
- Referenda – It is too easy for govt to abolish a layer of govt e.g. Maggy T abolished GLC without referendum. Also, would increase political participation and prevent “elective dictatorship.”
- HoL reform – members were hereditary so not there b/c of ability or expertise, but b/c of ancestry – poor quality of democracy b/c unelected.
- Freedom of Information Act – overcoming “secretive” govt – makes it easier for us to get info.
What are the major problems/criticisms of NL’s constitutional reform package?
- Devolution
- Based on political pragmatism – based on the idea that devolving greater powers will reinvigorate the unitary character of the state. It is not a transitional stage to complete separation.
- Govt made clear that sovereignty would remain at Westminster – contradictory elements
- Different models of devolution – e.g. Wales only has limited power.
- Reason for devolution here may have been to revitalise Welsh political participation and reinvigorate faith in UK political system.
- Momentum behind regional devolution seems to be declining. Only in London that there has been any devolution within England.
Electoral Reform
- Following the Jenkins Report’s publication, the govt did not formally commit itself either way to its findings.
- Party is “torn between the desire to have a majority… and realigning the party system.”
- Party faces the problem that proportional systems in devolved assemblies makes them have greater legitimacy than the Commons – did not think through the programme & the effects it would have
- Problems with multi-party govts/coalitions which would be more common if proportional system introduced.
House of Lords
- Second Chamber would be mostly appointed – causes problem b/c would probably be appointed by PM and therefore would appoint those who share his views.
- Labour “do not wish to see a newly constituted Upper Chamber with real power and democratic legitimacy capable of challenging the Lower House.”
- The Lords reform process has stopped in the middle.
Human Rights Act
- The Bill has been specifically designed by Labour so that parliamentary sovereignty is maintained.
- 27th Jan. 1999, Jack Straw signed 6th Protocol of the ECHR, part of which abolishes death penalty in UK. *Implications for PS – future Parlts will not be able to reopen debate on death penalty without first overturning entire ECHR.
- Anti-Terrorism Bill acts as an example to show how HRA did not restrict the govt or maintain civil liberties.
Freedom of Information Act
- The original White Paper was much more coherent, but even that said that individuals would have a legal right to see almost all information.
- The development of the Bill was passed to the constitutionally conservative Home Office – “a retreat from the radical proposals of the White Paper.”
- The guiding principle used to decide whether information should be disclosed is unless the authority in question could prove “substantial harm.” The commissioner who can decide on “substantial harm” is no longer independent.
- The Bill excludes any documents relating to policy advice. Problems: i) Policy advice can be used to cover much of the info that is passed through Whitehall and ii) process of policymaking can only be scrutinised if policy advice can be observed.
- Much of what FOI Act reveals was already available.
Describe the composition of the House of Lords
- 92 hereditaries
- Bishops of CofE
- 2 Archbishops
- 250 life peers – mostly former politicians e.g. Maggie T (this number could be wrong)
- 12 law lords
The House of Lords is undemocratic and therefore serves no function in a democracy. DISCUSS.
- It may not be elected/appointed democratically, but it may still be good for democracy.
- Lords can slow down govt and give pressure groups a chance to protest against a bill.
- Minorities in constituencies can be ignored. Lords can protect them b/c not as political. It does not have the same party organisation as HoC e.g. Whips
- HoL is a pool of expertise – the law lords especially have much legal expertise
- Act as the unofficial opposition – especially important in 1997 as Labour govt had massive majority, so it was difficult for parties to oppose them in the Commons.
- The Salisbury Doctrine – HoL should not oppose a promise made in govt’s manifesto if it becomes an Act.
Describe the stages so far in the process of Lords reform
- Stage 1 – House of Lords Act 1999 abolished hereditary nature of Lords. It was said that this would be a two-stage process, removing hereditaries and replacing them with new Lords. All but 92 were removed and political appointees increased to fill the gap. This was said to be an interim arrangement and stage 2 would follow.
- Stage 2 – Wakeham Commission decide: method of selection, composition of HoL
What were the Wakeham Commission’s Jan 2000 recommendations?
- A new largely appointed upper house of around 550 members – 80% appointed & 20% elected.
- Wakeham argued that HoL legitimacy should not come from an electoral mandate b/c this would place it in competition with the authority of the Commons.
- Elected members to be elected on a regional basis using PR system.
- Minimum of 20% crossbenchers to avoid domination of new house by any one party.
- New house to be the highest court of appeal – therefore 12 law lords survived.
- Representatives of other faiths in addition to C of E. The proposal is 16 C of E bishops (instead of 26), 5 for other Christian denominations and 5 non-Christians.
What were the government’s proposals in the 2001 Govt White Paper and the objections to them?
- Govt endorsed the Wakeham Report though they did not define the exact percentage of the elected element of HoL, although they they made clear that they favoured a predominantly appointed HoL.
- Parliamentary opponents argued an appointed House offended democracy as much as a hereditary House.
- Ld Strathclyde feared the appointed system would allow PM to dominate the Lords through patronage and argued for a greater percentage of elected members and an independent commission to appoint other Lords.
- The Lib Dems largely agreed and called for an 80% elected House. A vote in the Commons showed a majority of 332 supported this.
What was the govt reaction to the proposals of the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons?
- The Commons reject all the Joint Committee’s options on how to reform the Lords (Feb. 2003). This allows reform to be delayed and the interim HoL to be kept.
- In Sept. 2003 the govt brings out a new series of proposals – 1) the remaining hereditary Lords must be ejected on the grounds that they are an undemocratic anachronism 2) a fully appointed HoL must be put in place 3) an appointments commission will oversee but not appoint new Lords (who will be appointed by politicians) 4) No. of seats in HoL will be tied to no. of votes won by parties in HoC.
What was the reaction of the Lords, Commons and public?
- This was denounced by Lords, Commons and public.
- Ld Strathclyde called it an attempt by govt to extend their control of the Commons into the Lords.
- Robin Cook said a fully appointed HoL contradicted the will of the HoC (who had voted against it).
- Opposition groups argued that the 2nd stage of reform must be defined before the hereditaries are forced to leave, b/c they form an important non-political group in the Lords that should be retained to supervise the reform of the HoL. DEADLOCK.
- “It is impossible to think of such a chamber accepting that it could not legislate on taxation or that it could delay legislation, not throw it out." – Robin Cook
- "At worst we will have a continuation and indeed an institutionalisation of Tony's cronies, and the government should either withdraw the white paper or at the very least should refer it to the joint committee of both houses." – Eric Forth, shadow leader of the Commons
- "These are shoddy proposals cooked up in the Cabinet Office over a decanter of port, fit only to get a divided cabinet past the end of today." – Lord Strathclyde, Tory leader of the Lords
- "....to have a chamber in which anything less than a substantial majority of members are elected is completely unacceptable.......the government started the process of Lords reform in the name of democracy, but it now appears they are reluctant to give up their powers of patronage." Ken Ritchie, *Electoral Reform Society
What are the main arguments for a predominantly elected chamber (Ld Strathclyde, Lib Dems, sizeable section of Tory & Labour benches?
- In a democratic society the legitimacy of a government body, incl. HoL, came from the fact that it was democratic. Therefore, majority of members must be elected.
- It would ensure that the HoL was independent of the control of the majority political party in the HoC.
- This would enable the HoL to fulfil its functions more effectively, in particular enabling scrutiny of govt bills.
What are the main arguments for a predominantly appointed chamber (Wakeham)?
- HoL should have a majority of elected members if it is to have legitimacy and act as a restraint on the executive.
- Appointed Lords would represent the composition of British society overall.
- Lords would be experts in their field, giving them legitimacy.
- Lords authority does not derive from its electoral mandate (as with the Commons) but rather from its role as a subservient partner to the Commons in reviewing/amending bills and advising on legislation.
Comments
These notes are aimed at people studying for Edexcel A Level Politics, module 3.
Originally submitted by mellow-yellow on TSR Forums.
|
|
