COMPARATIVE POLITICS - UK vs US Flashcards

Question

Explain rational comparisons in relation to democracy and participation

Answer 1

RATIONAL COMPARISONS - The choices that voters make are most commonly determined by the party that is offering policies that will give the best outcome for them, demonstrated through some level of partisan de-alignment as experienced in both the US and UK: - Party line voting is often determined by the career aspirations of politicians - The party policies advanced in either country can be strongly influenced by personal political beliefs of the leading individuals within each party - The factions within parties are often a reflection of the personal beliefs of individuals within a party - IG action in both countries is characterised by many groups or lobbyists trying to achieve the best outcome for them personally through available access points - The methods of Interest groups are often determined by the resources available to them and what they need to do in order to achieve influence for their cause

Answer 2

Cultural Comparisons: There is some expectation that certain socioeconomic groups should vote for a certain party based on political history The expectation of party unity is high. Even in the US where historically this has not been as strong, there is a growing polarisation between the parties Very few independents are elected as the public in both countries expects the most powerful parties to be the two major parties The degree of internal party unity is often determined by national issues of the day, especially those which are of the greatest concern to the public generally The difficulty in achieving campaign reform in both countries is due to a lack of political motivation from those in charge Party polices are influenced by ideological beliefs in political principles The growing media pressure in IG action and vast numbers of people taking part in these group activities suggest not only shared beliefs in certain issues but also a shared belief in the effect and influence such groups can have

Answer 3

Structural comparisons - The number of access points for interest groups is determined by the political structure of each country, which also determines the methods and influence that the groups may be able to achieve The voting behaviour of party members can be determined by the process is which they find themselves, including party discipline and legislative and electoral processes The constitutional framework of both countries determines the electoral process and the resulting mandate gained from it for elected representatives The party systems in both countries are a result of the above of electoral process Parties in both countries hold conventions or conferences to inform develop and legitimise the policies they will go on to advance

Answer 4

Both the US and the UK have faced issues concerning campaign finance and party funding. In both countries this has often surfaced as a result of financial scandals relating either to electioneering or to one of the two major parties. In the US there was Watergate in the 1972 Presidential election and then 'Chinagate' during the 1996 campaign. Congress answered the legislation. Yet the amount of money associated with elections, parties and associated political groups continued to mushroom and the $1 billion election was soon to become a common occurrence

Answer 5

In the UK, there has been frequent allegations of party funding scandals. The Cs allege that the LP is in the pockets of the big unions while L accuses the Cs of being the poodles of big business - because each party is so dependent on these groups for funding their activities. As in the US, some changes have occurred. In 2000, the Electoral Commission was created by the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act. But according to Jones and Norton (2014) even after that had been around for more than a decade a report on party finance by the Committee on Standards in Public Life found that 85% of the LPs income came from trade union donations and that 51% of all CP income was coming from institutions or individuals based in the City of London. And in 2012, the chief executive of the independent electoral reform society wrote that it is big business and rich donors - not voters - whos opinions count

Answer 6

In the UK, there has been frequent allegations of party funding scandals. The Cs allege that the LP is in the pockets of the big unions while L accuses the Cs of being the poodles of big business - because each party is so dependent on these groups for funding their activities. As in the US, some changes have occurred. In 2000, the Electoral Commission was created by the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act. But according to Jones and Norton (2014) even after that had been around for more than a decade a report on party finance by the Committee on Standards in Public Life found that 85% of the LPs income came from trade union donations and that 51% of all CP income was coming from institutions or individuals based in the City of London. And in 2012, the chief executive of the independent electoral reform society wrote that it is big business and rich donors - not voters - who's opinions count

Answer 7

A pattern of established: scandal over election and party funding leads to widespread concern; widespread concern lead to changes in the law. But then something else occurs: parties, groups and individuals often find ways around the new regulations. In the US, there is a fourth stage to this: are the new laws and regulations constitutional? The SC has handed down a number of important decisions, the effect of which has been to weaken the laws that Congress has passed

Answer 8

Both countries have tried state funding as a way of trying to solve campaign and party funding problems. In the US, the 1970s saw the introduction of federal matchings, and these funds played an important role in presidential campaigns for some three decades. In the UK, there was the introduction of Short money and Cranborne money: state money paid to opposition parties to help them cover the administrative costs associated with their role of scrutinising the government. But in neither country has significant state funding of political parties been adopted and this is where the debate is to be had.

Answer 9

YES arguments - - It would end parties dependence on wealthy donors, corporations and labour groups and thus avoid the perception that donors are able to buy influence over a party's policies - It would enable parties to better perform their important functions in a democracy - organising opinion, representing the people, creating policy priorities - It would fill the significant gap created by the dramatic decline in party membership - It would help to equalise the financial resources between political parties - especially advantageous to minor parties' - It would make it easier to limit spending - It might lead to greater public engagement with parties if funding were linked to turnout at elections

Answer 10

No argument - - It would reinforce the financial advantage of the 2 major parties, especially under the FPTP system - It would further increase the disconnect and perceived distance between the parties and ordinary voters - It would make move political parties away from being regarded as part of civil society and towards being seen as an apparatus of the state - It would diminish belief in the principle that citizens participation in politics ought to be voluntary - It would lead to objections from citizens who would see their tax money going to parties which they not only do not support but whose policies they may strongly oppose - It would allow parties to have a dependable source of income without the need to pursue policies more in tune with the needs and wishes of voters - It would merely reinforce the parties role in a democracy, which is increasingly seen as something of an anachronism by many voter - especially that now many voter - especially that now many voters gain their political information not from parties but from the internet and social media

Answer 11

In terms of the three theoretical approaches, the issue of party funding could be interpreted in line with two of them. First one could see this in a structural sense. Structures create relationships within institutions and within political parties the relationships between the party establishment on the one hand and the party members and donors on the other hand may go some way to account for the ways in which parties wish to operate. Second, one could see this in a rational choice sense. The hierarchy of major parties will almost certainly be happy with the status quo: third and minor parties are more likely to favour change. Each favours the funding method that benefits their own party. Hence the American Libertarian Party and the UK Liberal Democrats, plus the Green Party in both countries are more likely to favour state funding

Answer 12

Theories of party systems tend to distinguish between three overlapping formats: dominant-party systems; two-party systems; multiparty systems. The dominant-party system may be applicable to politics within a few of the states of the US. This would refer to states such as Wyoming or Massachusetts in which, respectively, the Rs or the D's win almost every election, be it presidential, congressional, state or local. It might also refer to certain UK constituencies where only one party has such a stranglehold that is constantly winning the parliamentary seat and constantly winning any elections for local office too. But when comparing the party systems of the US and the UK, the other two formats need to come into play. According to Caramani (2011) a two-party system is one in which 'two fairly equally balanced large parties dominate the party system and alternate in power'. This describes the US political system. Whether in the White House, the two houses of congress, the governors mansions or the state legislatures of most states, the democrats and republicans do 'alternate in power', as Caramani puts it. True, there are state-based manifestations of these two parties. But, especially America has, and has pretty much always had a two-party system in which third parties attract very small proportions of the vote and rarely win office at any level of government

Answer 13

The difficulty arises when trying to characterise the party system in the UK. Half a century ago or more, the two-party label would be equally apt with the conservatives or labour alternating in government and in control of the HOC, with that chamber being dominated by the members of those two parties. In 1955, the two parties won 96% of the votes and only two other parties won seats in the HOC. But following the 2015 election, the combined Conservatives and Labour vote was just 67% and there were 11 parties represented in the HoC. Yet there was no change in the electoral system during this period. So, what caused these significant changes?

Answer 14

The answer lies in the cultural and structural changes that occurred in the UK during those six decades - principally the increase in support for nationalist parties. In 1955, there were nationalist parties in Wales and Northern Ireland but they accounted for only 1% of the national vote between them. The Unionist vote in Northern Ireland was included in the conservative vote - the conservatives and the unionist party as it was then titled. The labour party (as they were then) won 3% of the national vote. By 2015, six of the eight new parties in the HoC were nationalist parties from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, plus UKIP and the unionist parties in Northern Ireland which had split them from Conservatives in the 1970s. Nationalism in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland spurred on by the era of devolution, in the closing decades of the last century changed the Uk party system from a two-party system in to one that is difficult to categorise

Answer 15

In terms of control of the executive branch, it is still a two-party with labour and the conservatives still alternating control. But the party system in Parliament and in the country is a hybrid multi-party system in a considerable state of rapid change. After the 2005 election, the liberal democrats had 62 MPs but ten years later they just had 10. After the 2010 election, the SNP had just 6 seats; five years later they had 56. After the 1997 election, labour had 418 seats but 18 years later they had just 232. The British Party System - whatever label is used to describe it - is clearly in a state of flux

Answer 16

Cultural Changes: Until relatively recently, the US and the UK both had the same electoral systems and very similar party systems. Why then do they now have such different party systems although there has been no change in the electoral system at the national level? The answer is to be found in the changing cultures within the UK: First there were the troubles in Northern Ireland, which boosted support for nationalist parties in the province and split off the unionists from the conservative party. Then came devolution in Scotland and Wales and the increase in support for the nationalist parties in both countries. Third came the debate about the status of the UK in the EU, which gave rise to UKIP and its surge of support as a referendum on the issue approached and was then won by the Leave campaign. Furthermore, the structure of the UK has changed with the ending of direct rule in Northern Ireland and the creation of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament in the closing years of the last century. The structure will change again as Britain exits the EU and would change yet again were Scotland ever to vote for independence from the Uk

Answer 17

Meanwhile in the US, no such cultural or structural changes have taken place. In Washington, the party system works under a structure that allows one party to control the presidency while at the same time the other party controls congress. Hence, as Duncan Watts (2008) explains 'the British-style divide between government and opposition is absent'. Another institutional factor in creating the current party system in the US is the nature of the presidency - the ultimate prize in American Politics - which can be won only by parties that enjoy broad, national politics

Answer 18

Party Factions: In a party system dominated by two major parties, party unity is often a challenge such broad churches find maintaining internal unity much more difficult than one issue, nationalist or purely ideological parties such as the Green Party, the SNP or the Socialist party in both the US and UK. Hence the existence of party factions - both in the legislature and in the country. Members of these factions, stress the certain strands of ideology, certain traditions or certain policies over others. All believe in the party's biggest ideas, but perhaps in a different priority order and with different emphases - perhaps even different methods to achieve them. And these differences may be the product of an era (such as Reaganites or Thatcherites), or of ideology (neo-conservatives or compassionate conservatives) or of traditionalists v modernists (Old L v New L)

Answer 19

Party factions can be constructive: providing new ideas and policies, or they can be destructive as members of different intra-party factions struggle for control and indulge in party in-fighting. Party factions tend to shift all of the time, following Elections and as different issues present themselves on the national agenda, factions appear and disappear morphing into new allegiances and groupings - each with a new name. Hence, the world of party factions in the US and the UK is the world of the Blue Dogs, Tea Party, Momentum, Fresh Start or the Freedom Caucus. Some might be formal membership groups, while other might be just loose coalitions of the like-minded. Some might exist only among professional politicians, while other exist only at the grassroots. Some may exist at both levels, some for long and others for short periods of time

Answer 20

Aims of party factions: Eight aims and functions of party factions are identified here: - to accentuate certain policies (e.g. income equality, free trade/protectionism, low taxes, moral issues) - to focus on a particular aspect of ideology (e.g. conservative democrats, liberal democrats, hard-left, libertarians) - to reflect geographic, ethnic, economic, generational, religious or ideological groups within the party (e.g. Southern Democrats, Christian Right, one-nation conservatives) - to widen the voter appeal (e.g. Tea Party, Momentum) - To extol the party 'greats' of a previous era (e.g. Reaganites, Thatcherites, Bennites) - To offer personal support and encouragement to those politicians/voters of a similar view - to challenge the party establishment (e.g. Freedom Caucus, New labour, Tea Party, Momentum)

Answer 21

The existence of party factions can affect people's voting intentions in elections. If factions are destructive and the party as a whole appears disunited, then this may become a negative issue in an election. For example, the republicans appeared divided in 1992 when President George H.W Bush, an establishment, county club Republican - fiscally conservative but more moderate on social issues - fell out with paleo Conservative, Pat Buchanan, who was more in tune with social and religious conservatives within the party. Likewise, there were negatives for the democrats in 2016 in the fight with Clinton and Sanders wings of the party. During the Trump presidency, there has been a battle for the soul of the conservative movement within the republican party between the congressional wing of the party, what was the Steve Bannon and Breitbart News wing and the so-called Alt-Right. Polling evidence suggests that voters are reluctant to vote for divided factionalised parties

Answer 22

The same has been true for the two major British parties - the for the conservatives dividing into factions over Europe and Labour into factions between traditionalists and modernisers, New Labour v Momentum. When factions are truly destructive, party splits occur, as was seen in the Labour Party in the 1980s with the departure of the social democrat faction of the party to form the SDP, which would eventually morph into the Liberal Democrats. There is also the danger that party factions can be led by people who think of the organisation more as a 'movement' of protest than as a 'party' of government

Answer 23

Effect of factions on party memberships and principles: But factions within a party can be constructive, keeping people within the party who otherwise might leave, either for the other major party or for a third party. For example, the Blue Dog faction within the democrat party played an important role during the first decade and a half of this century in keeping conservatives within the party - both politicians and voters. The same was true of the Tea Party movement for the Republican Party during the Obama years. Once more, the same was true of the one-nation conservatism faction within the UK CP during the era when Thatcherism was the majority grouping within the party. It is also true that what is a party faction one moment can quickly become the party leadership, e.g. the switch from faction to leadership of the Trump America First, Alt-Right Republicans and the quick change from leadership to faction of David Cameron's Notting Hill, metropolitan elite within the UK CP following his replacement as party leader and PM by Theresa May in 2016

Answer 24

Finally, in an era when the accusation is often made that modern political parties are ideologically and philosophically lightweight, factions can keep ideological and philosophical principles alive, even allowing them to return to majority favour as the political climate changes. These issues concerning internal party unity can be understood as an outworking of structural factors - the relationships within parties, as well as between the party establishment and its grassroots membership - but also in terms of rational choice analysis as both politicians and members pursue policies and priorities that advance the political goals they seek

Answer 25

In comparing the policies of the two major parties in each country, the danger is to suggest simplistically that the Democrats policies match those of Labour as two left of centre parties, while the republicans match those of the conservatives as two right-of centre parties. But these two claims mask essential differences, which are best seen by remembering how each of the parties evolved. - Unlike the DP, the LP came out of the trade union movement and has been a truly socialist party for most of its life. Despite cheap jibes to the contrary by disgruntled Republicans during the Obama years, the DP is not and has never been a socialist party. Culturally, the appeal of socialism within the US has never been widespread and for decades had to compete with the fear of communism. - Similarly, the CP came out of British (19th Politics as a party dominated by the landed aristocracy and the establishment church. Nothing resembles that in the history of the republican party which was born out of the Civil War Such cultural differences have left very distinct marks on all four parties, making it dangerous to offer simple parallels of left and right

Answer 26

Policy agreements: However, there are policy areas where the left-right divide does provide a match between the republicans and the conservatives, as well as between the democrats and the labour party

Answer 27

Republican Party and Conservative Party: - Both dislike 'big government' - Both favour low taxation when the economy permits - Both talk of being strong on law and order - Both stress high levels of defence spending - Both talk more about equality of opportunity than equality of results

Answer 28

Democrat Party and Labour Party - Both put great stress on the rights of minorities: gender, racial, sexual orientation etc - Both stress the rights of workers - Both favour green environmental policies - Both want equality of opportunity, leading to equality of results - Both favour high levels of government - spending on health, welfare and education - Both tend to favour higher levels of taxation on the more wealthy to fund services for the less well-off

Answer 29

Policy Differences - It is important to recognise that ideologically, the centre of gravity in American Politics is further to the right than it is in British party politics, What this means is that, broadly speaking, the Republicans sit well to the right of the conservatives and the democrats sit to the right of Labour - certainly old labour and certainly Corbyn's Labour Party. In some policy areas, the conservative party has more in common with the democrats than with the republicans, Like the democrats, the conservatives oppose the death penalty, support same-sex marriage and support a central government-run healthcare system. The republicans support the death penalty, oppose same-sex marriage and opposed Obamacare as overly centralised. And on the issues of abortion, renewable energy and the role of central government in education, while the conservatives may not be as far to the left as democrats, they are certainly not as far to the right as republicans.

Answer 30

Whereas support for third parties in US elections be they presidential or congressional - is minimal, support for the third parties in UK parliamentary, local and European elections has been substantial, with third parties winning up to a third of votes in parliamentary and local elections. There are five key reasons why third parties are much stronger in the UK than in the US, even if the first past the post elections.

Answer 31

- The issues that Uk third parties reflect are mostly those associated with the four constituent parts of the Uk: England (UKIP then the Brexit Party, with some support elsewhere), Scotland (SNP), Wales (Plaid Cymru) and Northern Ireland (the unionist parties, the SDLP and Sinn Fein). The culture and history of the Uk affects its party structures - On the issue of Britain's relationship with the EU - the UKIP/Brexit Party issue - both the major parties were taking a mainly pro-EU stance, forcing those opposed to the EU to make the only rational choice of seeking a third party. The US has no such issues drawing votes away from its major parties - Minor parties in the US face significant problems because of the central position that the presidential election holds in the structure of US politics. On only four occasions in the (20th: 1912, 1948, 1968 and 1992 did a third party manage to mount a serious challenge in the presidential race. There has been no such challenge in the past quarter of a century - The structures of the major parties in the US are more flexible and responsible than their UK counterparts. The use of the direct primary makes the major US parties more responsive to ordinary voters, who therefore see less reason to seek out third parties for a protest vote in the general election. One can see how primary voters can change the policies and priorities of a major party by the way in which republican primary voters transformed their own party by selecting Trump as its presidential candidate in 2016 - Finally, elections in the US are so much more expensive and organisation on a national scale is so much more challenging than in the UK. This again makes it very difficult for third parties to compete in national elections

Answer 32

Interest groups methods are similar in the US and the Uk - actions such as electioneering, endorsing, lobbying and organising grassroots activities. Which of these methods is more successful in either country, however, does have some variation because although the actions might be similar, the political landscape is not.

Answer 33

In terms of electioneering and endorsing, there are simply far more elective posts in the US than in the UK. This is clear even at the federal level. In the US, there is a four yearly direct election, there is no comparable election in the UK. In the US, both houses of congress are directly election, whereas in the Uk, only the HoC is elected. In the US, the House of Representatives is elected every two years. In the Uk, the HoC is election at least every 5 years. In all these elections in the US - presidential and congressional - there is also the possibility of holding direct primaries. In the Uk, only party members have a say in candidate selection. In the US, there are all the elections at state levels: governors, lieutenant governors, state legislators - of which there is nothing on a comparable scale in the UK, except for elections to the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. All this means that US interest groups have far more opportunities points for access for influence than do their UK counterparts for these structural reasons

Answer 34

In the Uk, most labour MPs have some formal link, either through membership or donations to a trade union. For example, well over half of Labour MPs in the Parliament elected in 2015 had links with the super-union Unite. Indeed, before the election, unite had a campaign to secure safe labour seats for candidates affiliated to it. Many business groups and corporations maintain strong financial links with the conservative party. Given the very high levels of incumbency in US congressional elections, American Interest groups give their money overwhelmingly to incumbents not to no hope challengers. Business and organised labour gravitate towards the republicans and democrats respectively. The fact that the Uk LP was born out of the trade union movement means that the way labour groups organise and operate in the UK is quite different from how they operate and organise in the US. In both countries, labour and trade union membership is down from its peaks in the 1970s. In the UK, for example, trade union membership fell from 13 million in 1979 to just over 7 million by 2000, and is now under 6 million. In the US, labour unions peaked in the 1950s but they never managed to unionise anywhere near the proportion of the workforce which their British Counterparts achieved. The AFL-CIO- the US equivalent of the British Trade Union Congress - has more affiliated members than any other Interest Groups except for the AARP and millions belong to unions which are not affiliated to the AFL-CIO. Figures from 2000 show that for the UK 29% of employees were members of a trade union whereas in the US that figure was just 13%. This has significant implications for workers lobbying power.

Answer 35

In terms of lobbying, again important structural differences open up more opportunities for interest groups in the US than the Uk. - legislature - executive - judiciary - grassroots activity

Answer 36

Legislature - In terms of lobbying of the legislature, groups in the UK will be aware that the British Parliament is a much more controlled and disciplined body - largely controlled by the executive and under the discipline of political parties - than the US congress, over which the executive branch has little or no control, and in which parties have at least traditionally been less able to operate in a highly disciplined fashion. As Rod Hague and Martin Harrop (2010) observe: 'In the US, most IGs have learned that the surest route to the hearts of members of Congress is through their constituents, Therefore, groups follow a dual strategy: going public and going Washington'. Unlike, the US congress, the UK parliament has not traditionally proved to be a happy hunting ground for Interest groups. As Malcolm Walles (1998) explains: 'Operating as they usually do, under the tight constraints imposed by party whips, MPs are rarely swayed by the pleadings of groups if questions of a party-political nature are involved. They may occasionally be persuaded to raise a question in the House, perhaps to pursue a point which is embarrassing to their leaders: rarely will they go to extent of voting for 'the group; as opposed to 'the party' line. In recent years, with the HoL, coming more into the focus of the political debate, the unelected chamber has become more the focus of IG activity, as peers are not whipped to the party line as to the same extent as their commons counterpart

Answer 37

Executive: The dominance of the government in Uk politics means that most Uk IG activity is focused on the executive branch. Policy-specific IGs tend to focus their fire on the appropriate government department in much the same way as their American counterparts focus on the appropriate congressional committee - as well as the executive department or agency. This structural difference - the separation of powers and checks and balances in the US, as opposed to the fusion of powers and dominance of the government in the UK - is the most important factor that affects the different ways interest groups operate in the two countries

Answer 38

Judiciary: There is a significant difference in lobbying in the US and the UK because of the difference in political importance of the two judiciaries. As Watts (2008) points out: 'In countries in which the constitution provides the courts with a formal role of judicial review, activists will use the courts more readily'. It is clear that this method of lobbying is much more established in the US than in the UK. One way this is demonstrated is the time, money and energy that groups in the US spend in lobbying the state and federal courts given the power and influence of the judiciary in both levels of government. Moreover, Interest Groups in the US have a long and distinguished history of lobbying the supreme court and of being a major player in some and mark decisions - on equal rights for racial minorities, abortion, religious freedoms and freedom of speech, to mention just four. It clearly makes sense for interest groups to aim their fire at courts that have wide ranging powers to challenge federal and state law. But in the Uk, where the courts - even the new UK SC - must operate within a constitutional structure dominated by the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and which lacks a codified, entrenched constitution, there is no such tradition of lobbying of the judiciary. With the new SC, Interest groups in Britain may see new opportunities for lobbying, but because of the UK SC does not have the political clout of its namesake in Washington, the balance will doubtless remain much the same

Answer 39

Grassroots activity: Groups in both the US and the UK will continue to see organising grassroots activities as an important method of influence. In the Uk, where political parties are seen as more disciplined and dominant, this often means organising activities to influence one or two major parties. In the US, where parties area looser federation of state parties influence will be more aimed at the branches of government themselves. In both countries, interest groups will seek to influence in the mass media through the organisation of grassroots activities

Answer 40

What determines success? In both systems, interest groups success will be determined largely by the same factors: - Size of membership - Amount of money available - The group's strategic position in the political system - The balance of public opinion - Strength of Countervailing group(s) - Attitude of the administration (US)/ government (UK) - Ability to access the media But as Malcom Walles (1988) correctly observed, 'IGs are successful largely to the extent that those who control the authority of the state allow them to be successful'. In neither Washington nor Westminster does political power reside ultimately in Interest Groups or their activities, and their success and failure depends in large part 'upon the ability to make rational decisions after adequate consideration of all relevant information'. Therefore, the answer to those who worry about the power and influence that IGs have in either system is not necessarily to weaken the groups but to strengthen the institutions of government which they try to bend to their will

Answer 41

The Us supreme is as old as the nation and the esteem in which it is held reflects its relative antiquity. It has its origins in the writing of the constitution back in the late (18th when the framers wrote into the original document in 1787 that the judicial power of the US would be invested in the SC It first met in February 1790 at the Merchants Exchange Building in New York, before moving to Philadelphia and then Washington where far more than a century it occupied various rooms in the US capitol. In 1935, the court moved into its own purpose built building on Capitol Hill. Although, it lodged within the Capitol between 1800 -1935, there was never any doubt that it was structurally and politically separate from Congress

Answer 42

Origins of Uk supreme court - The origins of the UK SC could hardly be more different. Far from being one the nation's oldest institutions - it is indeed its newest coming into existence as a result of an Act of Parliament in October 2009 (when the US SC was in its 220th year), replacing the Appellate Committee of the HoL as the nation's highest court It did what the US SC had done three quarters of a century earlier - move out of the legislative building into the former Middlesex Guildhall in Parliament Square - thus, structurally and politically separated itself from the nation's legislature thereby emphasising the independence of its judges and increasing the transparency between Parliament and the courts

Answer 43

. Justices in both countries are guided by their own personal judicial philosophies. This may include advancing their own political philosophy through their rulings too. . Those fighting for rights are often doing so from a point of personal inequality and using whatever access points are available to them to do this. . Justices in both countries should be aware of potential legitimacy questions by an unelected and unaccountable SC, and they may therefore act to ensure their own power is protected.

Answer 44

. The cultural expectation of the protection of rights is far higher in the US than the UK. . In the US, there is an acceptance that SC rulings are a way of informally updating the US Constitution. This is a growing feature of UK SC rulings. . Neither SC has any power to enforce its rulings; the acceptance of the rulings is therefore largely based on cultural acceptance of the power of each Court even though it is unelected.

Answer 45

. The power that each Court has is highly determined by the constitutional framework in the country, as is the independence and neutrality of the SCs. . The nature of the justices in both countries is in part determined by the process by which they are appointed to the SC. . The entrenched and codified Constitution in the US gives a far stronger protection of rights than the statute law which protects rights in the UK.

Answer 46

. 9 justices . Appointed by the P with the consent of the Senate . All justices hear all cases (unless recused) . Justices have life tenure . Presided over by the Chief Justice of the US . Justices may be removed only by impeachment (House) and trial (Senate)

Answer 47

. 12 justices . Vacancies filled by a Selection Commission who recommend a candidate to the Lord Chancellor . Between 5 and 11 justices hear cases . Justices must retire at 70 if appointed to a judicial office after 31 March 1995; otherwise at 75 . Presided over by the President of the SC . Justices may be removed by petition to the monarch from both houses of Parliament

Answer 48

The powers of both the UK and US SC are identical – the power of judicial review. However, the location of sovereignty in each country is vastly different, which affects the impact the Courts have. * In the US, the Constitution is sovereign. As the US SC is created by the Constitution, and then interprets this document, the rulings that it issues have the effect of being sovereign. This makes them very difficult to ignore or overturn and gives the Court extensive power. * In the UK, in comparison, sovereignty resides in Parliament. While Parliament may choose to share this sovereignty, it also retains the power to take it back. The UK SC was only set up by an Act of Parliament, and therefore in theory Parliament retains the power to remove it. Certainly, the Court could be ignored by Parliament given its sovereignty.

Answer 49

The reality of the Court’s power, however, appears to be quite similar. * While the UK SC has only been operating since 2009, its role in judicial review and the acceptance of its rulings have become a part of everyday political life. This was evident in the R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union case in 2017. Gina Miller’s challenge to the government regarding the implementation of Brexit caused huge controversy when the Court ruled that the final say for Brexit had to be made by Parliament, given its sovereignty. Despite outrage and contradictions to this from within the CP, the Court’s ruling was accepted. * Similarly, rulings of the US SC have at various times been met with anger and outrage from the P, Congress and/or states. Yet almost always, the Court’s rulings are upheld.

Answer 50

Nonetheless, the breadth of impact of the US SC is currently far wider than that of its UK counterpart. * The UK Court can be overruled by simply passing a new Act of Parliament. Given the fused nature of UK powers, this should not be particularly difficult to do. * Overturning a US ruling, however, is hugely difficult, effectively granting it more power than the UK Court. * Equally, the extent of impact on government and policy of the UK Court has so far been more limited than the US. Some of this is due to the age of the UK SC and therefore the lack of time it has had to rule on cases. * This is also due to the more political role of the US SC. Justices in the US are more easily divided into ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ than the UK justices, referencing the impact they have on government policy.

Answer 51

However, power that both these SCs to some extent share, is power over the actions of the executive branch. * The US SC can declare actions unconstitutional, and the UK SC can declare actions to be ultra vires – that is, beyond the powers granted to government. * This is what is meant by ‘judicial review’ in the UK and it is in this area of declaring the action of ministers to be ultra vires that the debate concerning judicial activism is conducted, whereas in the US judicial activism centres on the SCs tendency to declare Acts of Congress unconstitutional. These differences are the consequence of structural differences in the way the two political systems are set up and the processes within them.

Answer 52

There is one further structural difference in terms of powers. Whereas in the US the SC is in all matters of rights and liberties the supreme authority, in the UK the SC can be subject to a higher authority – namely the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg – it is the duty of the UK SC to interpret all existing legislation so that it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Answer 53

US SC - . Final court of appeal for federal cases and also hears cases on appeal from state SCs . Rules on the constitutionality of federal and state laws . Rules on the constitutionality of actions of the federal and state executives . Rules on the meaning of the Constitution

Answer 54

UK SC - . Final court of appeal in the UK for all UK civil cases and for criminal cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – but can appeal to the ECJ and the ECHR . Cannot overrule or strike down the laws passed by the UK . Parliament – can interpret the laws passed by Parliament . Rules on whether or not actions taken by ministers are ultra vires

Answer 55

INDEPENDENCE OF THE SC: There are notable similarities between the US and UK that ensure the independence of the judiciary. Both countries allow justices security of tenure, meaning that they cannot be removed by the executive or legislative branches, except in rare and limited circumstances. In both countries, the Court’s independence is also protected through the separation of powers – both Courts have independent buildings, personnel and powers – allowing them to cast decisions over the actions of the other branches without interference. In the UK, however, this separation was not complete despite the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. It left the role of the Lord Chancellor somewhat unclarified; the holder of this role today acts as the secretary of state for justice, responsible for the funding of the SC.

Answer 56

Judicial independence was something that was much debated by the Founding Fathers. By giving justices life tenure and prohibiting Congress from reducing their salaries, the framers were showing a determination to insulate judges from political pressure. However, while this has been called into question by various rulings – there are probably more examples of the US SC exhibiting their judicial independence than of decisions that bring such independence into question. In the opening weeks of Trump’s presidency, the lower federal courts declared the Ps executive order relating to limitations on entry into the US from seven mainly Muslim countries to be unconstitutional. The P criticised the decision as ‘outrageous’, described the federal judge who made the initial decision as a ‘so-called judge’ and claimed that the decision ‘will be overturned’.

Answer 57

In the UK, the independence of the judiciary, though well established in the culture and practice of the nation, was for many centuries obscured by the upper echelons of the courts – most notably that the Law Lords sat in the upper house of the legislature and that the nation’s highest court was, in essence, a committee of that chamber. Further, there was a structural overlap in the post of Lord Chancellor, who was head of the judiciary, the presiding officer of the HoL and a member of the cabinet. While there is still a degree of overlap today (the Lord Chancellor doubles as the Secretary of State for Justice and other members of the executive also hold judicial appointments: the Attorney General and the Solicitor General), the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 changed this structural arrangement. Nevertheless, the British judiciary has come in for sharp criticism from members of the executive. In 2013, the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, criticised the judiciary over what she saw as the courts ignoring rules passed by Parliament aimed at deporting foreign criminals and accused the judges as ‘subverting’ British democracy, making British streets more dangerous and ‘ignoring Parliament’s wishes’: ‘It is essential to democracy that the elected representatives of the people make the laws that govern this country – and not the judges’. In response, Lord Neuberger, the P of the SC, called May’s criticism ‘inappropriate, unhelpful and wrong’ and stated that it risked ‘destabilising’ the delicate balance between Parliament and the judiciary. ‘For a minister to attack a judge, I think is wrong,’ Lord Neuberger added.

Answer 58

Therefore, in both the US and the UK, by virtue of the cases they hear and the decisions they are obliged to make, judges are inevitably drawn into the public debate on matters of great national importance. In both systems, members of the executive will often step in with criticism of judicial decisions.

Answer 59

However, the vast difference in appointment processes serves to undermine the US SCs independence far more than in the UK. ● The highly politicised nature of the US appointment process has meant that judicial ideologies have become confusingly political. The UK judges by comparison do not have a high-profile political understanding of their personal ideologies. ● The vast funding differences have also caused controversy. The US SC bid for an annual budget of nearly $80 million in 2017, which allows it to operate with judicial clerks and relatively free of the concern it may lose money for a decision that is disliked by government. The UK Court has been mired in difficulty almost since its opening, however. The 2017 funding was around just £12 million; Lord Philips, the first president of the UK SC, argued that the Court’s budget should be ringfenced and not dependent on what the Ministry of Justice felt was appropriate.

Answer 60

. Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-X of the Constitution) . Later amendments, e.g. Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, Twenty-Sixth . Laws passed by Congress, e.g.: - various Civil Rights Acts - Voting Rights Act (1965) - Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) - Fair Pay Act (2009) . Decisions of the SC, e.g.: - Roe v Wade (1973) - Obergefell v Hodges (2015)

Answer 61

. Acts of Parliament, e.g. Human Rights Act (1998), which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into British law . Decisions of the courts that protect citizens against unlawful acts of government, e.g.: - extent of government spying powers - length of time police can keep DNA of acquitted persons - whole life sentences must be reviewable - employers must respect religious beliefs of employees

Answer 62

The US SC has a wide ability to protect rights in the US. Not only can it use the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments to strike down congressional laws or presidential acts that do not protect rights, it is also able to interpret the Constitution to create new rights. As its rulings have the effect of being sovereign, it is able to exercise considerable power in this area. In the UK, the formal enumeration of rights is quite different. Without a codified constitution, people have had to rely on what the constitutional theorist A.V Dicey called ‘the three pillars of liberty’ – Parliament, a culture of liberty and the courts – which between them offered the effective protection of civil rights. Things changed in 1998 when Blair passed the Human Rights Act, which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. This added into the formal structure of British law many of the rights we find in the US Constitution – freedom of expression, freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial and the right to life.

Answer 63

The significant difference is that, in the UK these rights are not entrenched – they are enumerated in what is ordinary legislation, unprotected by special amendment procedures. This was highlighted following the 2015 GE, when the C government announced plans to replace the HRA with a British Bill of Rights. That could be achieved by simple majorities in both houses of Parliament. In this formal sense, civil rights in the US enjoy more protection and are consequently more secure than they are in the UK. The UK Court by comparison is less-well established in this role. It does not have the extensive power that the US Court has and therefore the rulings that it issues are easier to circumvent, most simply by the creation of a new Act of Parliament. While this has not happened in any landmark cases, the number of such cases so far in the UK has been far fewer than in the US.

Answer 64

However, the UK Court has a greater breath of law to interpret and protect rights. In the US, the SC is to some extent bound by the Constitution. This can mean that in some cases the Constitution allows for little interpretation, such as in the 2nd Amendment, or in other cases it requires considerable interpretation to be made relevant, such as in the case of Carpenter v U.S. In the UK, however, the Human Rights Act and Equality Act alone allow the Court a much broader basis to protect rights, let alone the vast array of other statutes that protect rights. Equally, while the US Court is the final court of appeal, UK citizens can also appeal to the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, which somewhat limits the significance of the UK SC

Answer 65

The key role of IGs in trying to protect rights is similar in both countries – they can bring cases or they can try and influence cases, directly and indirectly. The access points available to these groups, both through the judicial process and through the political process more generally, are more numerous and established in the US

Answer 66

. In both countries, however, groups have brought important cases to the Court to challenge their rights. In the US, many of the SCs most important civil rights cases have involved sponsorship by an IG where they submit amicus curiae briefs to the courts - meaning ‘friend of the court’, where groups who are not a party to the case can try to influence the court as it reaches it decision – and there is evidence that such briefs do influence court deliberations, so IGs hire top lawyers to write them. In two AA action cases in 2003: Gratz v Bollinger and Grutter v Bollinger, supporters of the University of Michigan’s admissions programmes deluged the Court with such briefs. One of the most influential civil rights IGs is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has three-quarters of a million members and a staff of some 200 attorneys and offices throughout the US.

Answer 67

It has however, been widely criticised for defending the rights of such groups as the American Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and Nation of Islam. But according to the ACLU: ‘We do not defend them because we agree with them; rather, we defend their right to free expression and free assembly. Once the government has the power to violate one person’s rights, it can use that power against everyone. We work to stop the erosion of civil liberties before it’s too late’.

Answer 68

Given the increase in the UK’s use of judicial review over the past three decades, similar patterns have begun to emerge in the UK and pressure groups have been encouraged to focus their campaigning on the courts and not just on Parliament. However, effective protection of the rights of one group leads to concerns over the infringements of rights of another group – with a resulting clash of pressure groups lobbying of the courts. This is evident where the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission challenged the abortion provision in Northern Ireland or the case of the Ashers Baking Company, which was backed by the Christian Institute’s Legal Defence Fund. In the latter, the Christian owner of a bakery, Colin McArthur was prosecuted under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations of 2006 for refusing to produce a cake for Gareth Lee bearing the slogan ‘Support Gay Marriage’ stating that it was contrary to his religious beliefs. The court found against McArthur. In the last two decades, particularly following anti-terrorist legislation passed by Parliament in 2005, the civil rights group Liberty, has come to play a prominent role in defending civil rights and liberties in the UK courts, campaigning on issues such as torture, the rights of asylum seekers, refugee children, modern slavery and members of the armed forces.

Answer 69

IGs in the US have a greater rage of accepted methods of influence over the courts and therefore over the protection of rights. The ABA has a direct influence over which justices get appointed through its provision of a rating, and groups have been active in campaigning for and against the appointment of both Kavanaugh and Garland in recent years. Groups are also well versed in using amicus curiae briefs to try and influence the Court, with Kennedy even referencing one in his authorship of the majority decision in Fisher v Texas (2016). In the UK, pressure group action in this way is less established.

Answer 70

-The actions of MPs and Congressmen and women can be viewed through what is best for them and their careers- in the UK this may engender party loyalty, while in the USA this means a keen focus on constituents -The actions of leaders within Congress and Parliament can be determined by likely outcome and how that outcome might affect their own personal power- a defeat might weaken their position politically, if not literally. -Both legislatures serve as springboards for future political careers. Therefore, the actions of individuals may be guided by their aspirations. -The unelected nature of the House of Lords compared to the elected nature of the Senate leads to different outcomes in part due to the freedom, or not, that this gives to individuals

Answer 71

-The actions of individuals within both Congress and Parliament are strongly guided by the individual’s ideological coherence to their party’s beliefs -The factions within parties, and the addition of caucuses in the USA, can sometimes lead to voting across party lines due to a cultural belief in an issue- this most likely occurs with moral and social issues -Both lower and upper chambers can also be compared in terms of the cultural expectations of how business is conducted. The lower houses are both more adversarial, while there are more cultural conventions about how business is conducted in the upper chambers. -There is a growing expectation in both countries that the representative bodies should reflect to some extent the descriptive make-up of the electorate

Answer 72

-The processes that guide the legislative output of both houses are fixed and rigid. The additional impact of other processes such as the electoral system and the separation of powers within each country serve to produce vastly different legislative outputs in each country -The ability to oversee the work of government is strongly affected by the structure of each legislature- Congress being directly elected and having direct checks on the president can achieve more than Parliament, which is dominated by the ruling party -The political processes within both countries limit the influence of third parties, thereby encouraging an adversarial two-party system within both legislatures.

Answer 73

On the surface, the UK and US legislatures look remarkably similar- both are bicameral, both have a two-party system, both have houses with differing powers, and both have oversight of the executive branch. However, beneath this surface, not only are the powers of these two branches somewhat different, their ability to exercise power is also different.

Answer 74

SIMILARITIES The ‘lower’ house in both legislatures controls taxation and the appropriation of money for government policies. The responsibility for the creation of legislation and indeed the legislative process is remarkably similar in both countries. Oversight of the executive branch through a range of checks exists for both branches. A range of representation exists in both legislatures- of the people, the constituency, the party and lobbyists-and both suffer from similar deficiencies in this area Power over foreign policy is relatively weak in Congress and Parliament, but both have attempted to regain control over policy in that are Both legislatures are able to initiate constitutional change The prevalent two-party system has helped to ensure oversight, but also worked to deepen partisanship

Answer 75

DIFFERENCES - Both houses of Congress are directly elected by the public whereas the UK House of Lords remains unelected and unaccountable The chances of ‘divided government’ in the UK are almost non-existent, whereas it is increasingly common in the USA. Party unity in the UK is relatively high, aided by powerful whips, whereas the US system of primaries prevents whips from enforcing strict party discipline. The speaker in the House of Commons is in theory an apolitical role, whereas the leadership in both houses of Congress is avoidably tied up with party politics Parliament is more efficient at passing legislation owing to the fusion of the executive and legislative branches, whereas Congress passes relatively little new legislation each session Parliament is sovereign, whereas sovereignty in the USA remains in the Constitution The executive of the UK can dominate the legislative branch, whereas the separation of powers in the USA limits the power of the president in this manner

Answer 76

Strengths - Two-year terms ensure accountability to the voters with most members representing a smaller area and population than their Senate counterparts -Power of initiation over taxation and appropriation bills -Effectively has the power to decide on what matter an official can be impeached -The two-party system limits the impact of third parties Weaknesses - -Power can become concentrated in the hands of the speaker, committee chairs and House Rule Committee -Partisan politics means that few bills are passed each session -Frequent elections mean a focus on short term change and allow for excessive influence of lobbyists -Relatively poor representation of women and minority groups

Answer 77

Strengths - - Dominance by the majority party and fused powers make passing legislation quicker -The speaker is an independent referee -Five-year elections give the house the power to effect real change -Use of Parliament Acts and the Salisbury Convention allow for strong government Weaknesses - -Dominance by the majority party can allow for an ‘elective dictatorship’ and limits the effectiveness of checks on the executive -It is possible for poor legislation to be rushed through the House -Strong whips make for only limited opposition, even increasing backbench rebellions are relatively rare -The two-party system limits the influence of third parties

Answer 78

Strengths - -Longer terms allow officials to focus on making good policy and enacting change -Unique powers to ratify treaties and appointments allow for greater oversight of the executive -’Unanimous consent’ and ‘unlimited debate’ result in weaker party control -The power of individual senators allows for every state to have a voice that is heard Weaknesses - -’Unanimous consent’ allows for undue influence of a single senator -It can only ratify or reject the treaties and appointments put to it, not create its own -The use of the filibuster can lead to gridlock and is difficult to prevent -Each state having two senators under and overvalues the importance of states across America

Answer 79

Strengths - -As an unelected chamber, the Lords can focus on the long-term interests of the UK -Allows for experts to be included in policy making, rather than the charismatic politicians -Being unelected, it is freer to challenge the will of the government -It is possible to nominate a range of people to the Lords to improve the representation of minority groups Weaknesses - -Lacking in legitimacy due to its unelected nature -Its power can be usurped through the Parliament Acts and Salisbury Convention -The large size of the Lords makes it cumbersome -The challenge it poses to the Commons is minimal as its suggestions and amendments can be ignored

Answer 80

-It is in the interests of the individuals within state and devolved governments to fight for their power over federal government to secure their positions -US citizens are used to having their rights protected through the Bill of Rights and therefore can more easily fight for them than their UK counterparts, whose rights have been determined by government -The separation of powers and checks and balances in the US Constitution allow its citizens greater individual influence (and a greater number of access points) than their UK counterparts

Answer 81

Cultural history explains the constitutions of both countries- the US Constitution codified as a result of a violent uprising and the UK constitution uncodified, the UK having remained relatively free of such events. -The cultural expectation of the protection of rights is far higher in the US than in the UK -Amendments to the UK constitution are very much a result of cultural acceptance, whereas in the US the cultural acceptance of necessary amendments must be demonstrated at the ballot box. -The flexibility of both constitutions is partly a result of cultural acceptance. In the UK there is no public pressure for codification, accepting the status quo, in the US, the acceptance of Supreme Court rulings as informal amendments updates the Constitution

Answer 82

-Political processes are outlined in the constitutions of both countries, despite the difference in the nature of these constitutions -The nature and strength of the government in both countries, and the limitations placed upon them, are a direct consequence of the political systems in each country -The vastly different amendment processes of the two countries are determined by the nature of their constitution -The location of sovereignty, with regard to both national and regional governments, is a direct result of political processes.

Answer 83

In terms of features, the US and UK constitutions are vastly different. Where the US Constitution is codified, the UK constitution is written across a vast range of documents including statute law, authoritative works, and European treaties. This is largely a result of the creation of each of the constitutions. In countries which have codified constitutions, the constitution tends to be as a result of civil, usually violent uprising. For the US this was the War of Independence in which Americans fought the British for their liberty; the resulting Constitution reflects the ideals for which they fought. Comparatively, the UK has never experienced an uprising. Despite the civil war in the 17th century, the UK political system has been comparatively stable and therefore the constituents reflects a slower, more evolutionary change. For this reason, sovereignty in the US is shared by the Constitution between the federal government and state government, while Parliament in the UK holds legal sovereignty alone.

Answer 84

US - Written: Single document created in 1787 plus 27 subsequent amendments amounting to approximately 7,000 words. Supreme Court rulings supplement these written sources with ‘interpretive amendments’. Unwritten: Conventions are still commonplace within the US interpretation of the Constitution. While Artice II refers to ‘principle Officer(s) in each of the executive departments’, it does not refer to the Cabinet, yet every president since 1789 has had a cabinet. Uk - Written: numerous written sources make up the UK constitution. Most important is statute law, due to the sovereignty of Parliament. However, authoritative works and EU treaties also form part of the constitution (at the time of writing), outlining specifically how government works. Unwritten: Conventions are also an important part of the UK constitution, from how the prime minister is chosen to the expectation that the monarchy will give royal assent to laws passed by Parliament

Answer 85

US - The Founding Fathers firmly embedded the principles of limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances, bipartisanship and federalism within the Constitution, even though these are not named within the document. UK - The UK operates on a principle of fused powers, with the executive being drawn from the legislature. Crucially, sovereignty resides in Parliament, which limits any truly effective checks and balances. While devolution has been developed in the past decades, the UK remains a unitary government.

Answer 86

US - The Constitution is sovereign but shares power between the federal and state governments. Over time the power of the federal government over the state governments appears to have grown. UK - The UK Parliament is legally sovereign and can therefore give out or take back political power. Political sovereignty may be said to reside in other places, however, for example the devolved governments or the Human Rights Act.

Answer 87

US - While the Constitution aimed to create three entirely separate branches of government, Neustadt suggested it was in fact ‘separate institutions sharing power’. UK - The creation of the Supreme Court in 2005 did create a limited separation of powers in the UK, but the executive and legislative are still firmly fused, allowing executive dominance

Answer 88

US - Clear checks exist between all branches of the US federal government. This can allow for well-scrutinised policy but also for political deadlock UK - The executive is drawn from the majority party in the House of Commons. This dominance allows for minimal chance of political deadlock, but also questionable effectiveness of scrutiny

Answer 89

US - The Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments to the Constitution firmly entrench the key rights of US citizens, with a powerful and independent Supreme Court able to rule and uphold these rights. UK - The Human Rights Act 1998 has gained moral authority and is judiciable, but the lack of sovereignty of the Supreme Court limits the extent to which rights protection can be enforced.

Answer 90

US - The amendments process for the Constitution is arduous but has been used effectively. The interpretative amendments of the Supreme Courts have also allowed the Constitution to be modernised as circumstances changed. UK - The lack of codification means that the UK constitution is very flexible and therefore can be modernised with ease, such as through new statute law. This does, however, leave it open to abuse by a government with a large majority

Answer 91

The dispersal of power in the UK and USA looks quite similar, in the USA states hold some power, in the UK devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland hold some power. But the basis for these two systems is entirely different. When Ronald Reagan addressed Congress in 1981, he said that ‘all of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States, the States created the Federal Government’. While it might not be that clear cut, certainly the Founding Fathers were both representatives of their states and worked to ensure states’ interests in the creation of the US Constitution. From this a ‘federal’ system emerged, one in which sovereignty was shared between a central federal government and the local state government, each having its own jurisdiction. At least originally, the states were therefore equal to the federal government. The shared sovereignty in the US means that power-theoretically at least- flows from the states to the federal government. Comparatively in devolution in the UK power flows out from the centre and is given to the regions, meaning it could also be taken back again by Parliament.

Answer 92

The UK for centuries has been ‘unitary’. Unlike a federal system, power is firmly centralised in one place, hence ‘unitary’. This centre of power was originally the monarch but over the course of time, especially through the 17th century, Parliament gained power at the expense of the monarch. In more recent times, Parliament has shared sovereignty that it has by creating devolved assemblies with jurisdiction over Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, Parliament retains this ability- at least in theory- to recall these shared powers back to Westminster. Compared to the US states, the devolved governments remain subservient to Parliament. This has been particularly evident through the problems that Northern Ireland experienced in 2017, leading to the closure of Stormont for well over 2 years.

Answer 93

There are similarities between these two governmental systems. Despite the differences in creation, both allow for government to be more directly responsible and relevant to the citizens under its power. The freedom of the Scottish Parliament to abandon tuition fees is similar to the power of the individual states to determine their education policies. Equally, both have found themselves being challenged by central government. The Scottish Parliament was not entitled to call a referendum on Scottish independence without assent from Westminster, while states have frequently found their policies challenged or overruled by either federal law or Supreme Court rulings.

Answer 94

Both systems are also somewhat flexible and evolutionary. While the system of federalism is codified within the Constitution, the changing nature of federalism over the past two centuries demonstrates the flexibility within this framework. States have fought for, and gained, more powers in landmark legislation such as Obamacare, while found themselves challenged through Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage and the death penalty. Equally, the UK system of devolution is flexible and continues to develop, with calls for more devolution in the forms of a ‘Northern Powerhouse’, or even Scottish independence, while at the same time removing power from the Northern Irish Assembly.