wouldnt ask that because there isnt enough to talk about.
if its civil liberties, and its unlikely because it was last year, it will be something about whether ministers or judges should protect them.
i predicted for judiciary it will either be power or neutrality/independence
God please let there be a question on neutrality/independence.
How would you answer "should ministers or judges protect civil liberties?"
Would it be like:
> judges are unelected so are unaccountable whereas ministers are essentially elected and are better placed to protect our liberties (proposals of a British B.O.R rather than ECHR to draw up rights on the govs terms, not an external court) - however, gov ministers are still appointed by the PM, so the extent to which we directly elect them is limited
>judges are more independent due to recent constitutional reforms (explain these) so are better placed to protect civil liberties whereas ministers are politically partisan. This can have an effect on the extent to which they uphold civil liberties (talk about sentencing debates)
>judges are able to uphold the ECHR in courts and so can go against the will of gov if necessary (ex: Freezing suspected terrorist assets) > however, parliament is sovereign and so has the last say, often highlighted after a declaration of incompatibility or when judges rule that the gov is acting ultra vires. This is because they often pass legislation shortly after to achieve their aims (Terrorist-Assets Freezing Act 2011)
>ministers are often held by collective responsibility which often has internal disagreements but they are forced to accept the decisions made in cabinet or resign. Decisions are often made outside of cabinet now so the level of influence cabinet ministers have is questionable now. Therefore if there was a case of rights/policy in there area to decide upon would it just be the "rubber stamp of approval"? ALSO cannot break the subjudice rule lest they be charged with contempt of court. This removes influence on judges from ministers during cases and so judges in a better place to protect our liberties > however ministers have begun to break the principle of collective responsibility (e.g. During the coalition) so may speak out on human rights as it is an important issue.
You would, I imagine. It'd probably be to do with the effectiveness, so give two sides to them. For example, backbench rebellions are effective in giving a direct message to the government that what they're doing isn't popular, and in many cases forces them to revise their legislation. However, they're also an ineffective method because most of the time, MPs vote with the party because of the whip system, thus showing that personal beliefs tend to be overruled by the agendas of the government, which subsequently enhances the power of the executive.
allows for MPs to ask free questions, essentially just a scrutiny session, televised therefore constituents can view, however it's more parliamentary theatre than actual scrutiny
-> Question Time. (E.g. PMQs, Ministerial Question Time) -> House of Lords. (E.g. Tax Credit Reforms rejected) -> Committees. (E.g. Health Committee) -> Legislative Powers (E.g. Vote of no confidence) -> Backbench Rebellions. (E.g. Gay Marriage; 134 Tories rebelled)
Would these be any good? I've always assumed 'checking' essentially means 'controlling' executive power.
Also, Sarah Wolloston MP (Chair of the Health Committee) defected from the Leave campaign and is now with Remain. Could we add that in to any topics/questions?
Do you do a two sided argument?
Perhaps you could say how each way of holding the government to account is effective and ineffective? Or you could split them into wholly effective and ineffective methods? idk
Perhaps you could say how each way of holding the government to account is effective and ineffective? Or you could split them into wholly effective and ineffective methods? idk
I would give the counter points to suggest they are ineffective.
1) Question Time - Often leads to 'punch and judy politics', ineffective questions, limited time means not every MP can have their say. Allows the government to operate with limited accountability.
2) House of Lords - Possesses no legitimacy because they're unelected, most of the time they abide by the Salisbury Convention and don't oppose legislation passed through the Commons.
3) Committees - The work of committees is often ignored due to a lack of publicity and time, therefore MPs are reluctant to listen.
4) Legislative Powers - In times of a huge government majority (E.g. Thatcher 1983; 144 seat majority), the opposition is essentially powerless to prevent government legislation from being passed, etc.
5) Backbench Rebellions - Most MPs just abide by the government agenda and vote with them, as opposed to going against the whip. Shows that personal interests are mostly overruled by the agendas of the government. Party disunity and rebellion in other parties can inadvertently enhance the power of the executive by crippling the power of opposition.
does anyone have any up to date (as in, in the last two to three years) judiciary examples? i've got plenty of AO1 for judiciary, but it's all relatively out-dated...
(sorry if this is already somewhere in the post, but i don't have the time to look through all 60 pages rn )
does anyone have any up to date (as in, in the last two to three years) judiciary examples? i've got plenty of AO1 for judiciary, but it's all relatively out-dated...
(sorry if this is already somewhere in the post, but i don't have the time to look through all 60 pages rn )
Yes someone please give examples of judges being independent from a politician, or where sub judice has been broken please!!!
need to know the success and failure of each constitutional reform since 1997 with a specific focus on reforms since 2010.
anybody?
successes: hra 1998 foi 2000 elected mayors reform of judiciary - constitutional reform act 2005 - introduction of supreme courty fixed term parliament 2011 recall 2015 further devolution powers granted to scotland and wales 2011/12 statutory register of lobbyists act 2014
failures: electoral reform - democratisation AV referendum 2011 hol reform removal of all but 92 hereditary peers elected second chamber: lords reform bill withdrawn 2012 deduction of commons to 600mps - gerry mandering 2013
I would give the counter points to suggest they are ineffective.
1) Question Time - Often leads to 'punch and judy politics', ineffective questions, limited time means not every MP can have their say. Allows the government to operate with limited accountability.
2) House of Lords - Possesses no legitimacy because they're unelected, most of the time they abide by the Salisbury Convention and don't oppose legislation passed through the Commons.
3) Committees - The work of committees is often ignored due to a lack of publicity and time, therefore MPs are reluctant to listen.
4) Legislative Powers - In times of a huge government majority (E.g. Thatcher 1983; 144 seat majority), the opposition is essentially powerless to prevent government legislation from being passed, etc.
5) Backbench Rebellions - Most MPs just abide by the government agenda and vote with them, as opposed to going against the whip. Shows that personal interests are mostly overruled by the agendas of the government. Party disunity and rebellion in other parties can inadvertently enhance the power of the executive by crippling the power of opposition.
Tell me if I'm wrong/not making sense.
Sounds good. Remind me what the Salisbury convention is - I can't remember :P is that the one where the Lords shouldn't block money or manifesto bills?
I would give the counter points to suggest they are ineffective.
1) Question Time - Often leads to 'punch and judy politics', ineffective questions, limited time means not every MP can have their say. Allows the government to operate with limited accountability.
2) House of Lords - Possesses no legitimacy because they're unelected, most of the time they abide by the Salisbury Convention and don't oppose legislation passed through the Commons.
3) Committees - The work of committees is often ignored due to a lack of publicity and time, therefore MPs are reluctant to listen.
4) Legislative Powers - In times of a huge government majority (E.g. Thatcher 1983; 144 seat majority), the opposition is essentially powerless to prevent government legislation from being passed, etc.
5) Backbench Rebellions - Most MPs just abide by the government agenda and vote with them, as opposed to going against the whip. Shows that personal interests are mostly overruled by the agendas of the government. Party disunity and rebellion in other parties can inadvertently enhance the power of the executive by crippling the power of opposition.
Tell me if I'm wrong/not making sense.
what about the other side? also will you have time to write all that?