Constitution Flashcards
Constitution
Body of rules that defines the manner in which a state or society is organised. It sets out the way in which sovereign power distributed between the government and the people, and between governments and constituents parts
National constitution
Fundamental political principles, establishes structure, procedures, powers and duties of government
What does a constitution set out?
- division of governmental activities outlining which structure will perform which task
- power relationship between various institutions and their interdependence
- constraints on the government as well as the freedom of individual citizens and the benefits that they are entitled to
How does a constitution form?
There is a major internal dissension, then an upheaval, which then leads to a civil war and then revolution
What are the purposes of a constitution?
- Provides legitimacy (gives it legality)
- Protect Freedom (restrains behaviour of those in power and defines the limit of their power)
- Encourages governmental stability (Everyone understands the rule of the political game)
- Proclaims commitment (Goals and value which characterises a particular state)
- Sets out spheres of influence (influence of central and regional provisional tiers in federal countries)
- Provides a fresh start (after a long period of upheaval)
What is the standard format for constitutions?
- preamble (stirring a declaration of principle, perhaps the aim of the state)
- Organisational section (main institutions of government)
- Bill of rights/amendments
Evolution
Comes around through times
What did Kenneth Wheare stress in 1963?
Rather than having an unwritten constitution, Britain lacks a written one
Codified: Main provisions are brought together in a single authoritative document
Uncodified: less tangible constitution drawing upon a range of written and unwritten sources. Constitutional rules are written down but may not have been gathered together
Flexible or rigid
Flexible constitutions are very rare as they can be altered via the law-making process as in the UK and New Zealand. No law is regarded as fundamental law and there is no formal process for amendment
Rigid constitutions, principles and institutions assume the character of fundamental law. Process of amendment made difficult on purpose
Unitary or Federal
Unitary: Suitable in smaller countries whereby there is no significant ethnic, linguistic or religious differences. All powers are concentrated in the hands of the central government
Federal: division between a federal (central) government and various regional units that may be called states (US), lander (Germany) or province (Belgium). The federal countries, the power, and functions of the central authority and regional unit are clearly defined in written constitution
Monarchical or Republican
Not a key distinction as monarchy in democratic states tae the constitutional form. Britain, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Norway, Sweden
Monarch rules by hereditary right
Presidential/Parliamentary
Parliamentary: Distinction that informs us about the relationship between the executive and the legislature. Executive is chosen from and accountable to legislature
Presidential: Two branches of government function independently on the basis of separation of powers
Parliamentary sovereignty or people sovereignty
Parliamentary sovereignty: Parliament formally possess supreme power
People power: (US) opens with “We the people of the US” Lincoln’s idea of government of the people
Uk constitution (quasi-federal)
It has accumulated over many centuries of traditions, customs, conventions, precedents and acts of parliament that serve as a complex framework within which those who exercise power must operate
Basics of a constitution
Uncodified
No single document whereby the rules concerning the government of the country are brought together
Basics of a constitution
Unitary
Parliament @ Westminister make laws for all parts of the UK. Although devolved powers do exist, all parts of the UK are subject to the legislative supremacy of parliament
Basics of a constitution
Flexible
Constitution can be amended easily. An act of parliament can amend this however, a referendum is needed for fundamental changes
Basic elements of a constitution
Sovereignty of parliament
Parliament possesses and exercises unlimited authority. Constitutional experts AV Dicey have proclaimed Parliament as having legal sovereignty meaning absolute and ultimate authority. Supreme law-making body in Great Britain and only Parliament can make or unmake laws and no other institution can override this decision
Basic elements of a constitution
Rule of Law
No one is above the law: Ministers, public authorities and individuals are all subject to it. AV Dicey saw it as a cardinal principle of government in a democratic system which seeks to equate law and justice.
- Equality before law: Everyone is subject to the same law
- No one should be punished unless they breach the law: No one is above the law and laws are clearly published and made accessible so people know what it is.
- The laws cannot be removed liberties are now covered by HRA 1998
Basic elements of a constitution
Walter Bagehot observed the key to success lay in the fusion of powers. Although cabinet makes decisions, derives from parliament
In favour of changes
- Constitution in need of reform
Subject of reform neglected. Labour government
only government
to express constitutional change
-Changes made to the constitution has not caused controversy
Labour government had a majority however it has avoided the mistakes made by the previous premiership. They have held referendums to settle issues
constitution does not need reform
- Political right may argue that it was unnecessary, unwanted and undesirable
- Interferes with structure and tackling one issue may lead to another. labour government gained personal power
- Labour government determined to strengthen strategic hold on government and policy making
- Wish to control showcased by HOC and party discipline as well as management
- Reforms do not have one consistent overall theme.
Arguments for a written constitution in the UK
- Evolved over centuries and sources have been added.
- would allow clarity about what is constitutional and what is not
- There is a strong tendency to have a dominant executive which has lead us to question whether we have an elected dictatorship
- Government can pass controversial measures if they have a majority. Tony Blair removed one session of PMQ’s without consulting other parties
- Up to date and allow citizens to know what their rights are. ECHR more than 50 years old
- Key provisions would become entrenched
- work as an educational tool which highlights the values of the political system and ensure politicians are taking actions and there is no unconstitutional behaviour
Arguments that UK does not need a written constitution
- Constitution already works well having provided the country with hundred years of stability
- No widespread demand for change
- Flexibility of current constitution enables us to make changes according to circumstances
- protection of rights have been pretty good in comparison to other countries
- difficulty in devising a new constitution which commands general approval, hard to guarantee due to variety of sources
- written constitution does not guarantee rights
- written constitution is inflexible
- written constitution does not always prove durable
SOBC- Statute Law
Acts of parliament that play a key role in defining the relationship between the government and the people or different elements of government
- Wales Act (1998) Established Welsh National Assembly
- Human Rights Act (1998)//Parliament Act 1911
Supreme source of UK constitution due to parliamentary sovereignty. Due to parliamentary sovereignty, parliament can pass a new statute law or make or unmake any existing law and overturn any constitutional practice
SOBC- Common Law
“Case-law”// “judge-made law” refers to established custom and legal precedence that have developed through actions of judges. Traditional basis of British society and evolved over a long period of time
- Freedom of Speech
- Free Assembly
Royal Prerogative is rooted in Common law and allows the PM to hold a number of powers and privileges which were performed in the past by the monarch but now is performed in their name. Derives from the crown
- Right to exercise mercy (prerogative of Home Secretary)
- Declare war, make treaties
- Dispense Honours (PM does this)
SOBC- Conventions
Traditions or customs that have evolved over time and have become the accepted rule of behaviour. Have no legal standing and easily overturned by an act of Parliament
- PM choice should be from HOC
- Proceedings from cabinet should be kept a secret
- Concept of individual and collective responsibility
- Monarch will always give consent to any bill that has passed through parliamentary stage
SOBC- EU Laws & Treaties
European communities Act (1974) meant that UK incorporated Treaty of Rome (1957) which allowed European Law to take precedence over national laws however Parliament retains the right to repeal 1972 Act.
Primary legislation- Treaty of Rome
Secondary legislation- EU Regulation and Directives
Factortame Case
Judicial review case taken by Spanish fishermen against UK government upon the claims that they had breached EU law by requiring ship owners to be majority british owned.
- This led to Merchant Shipping Act (1988) which confirmed the primacy of EU law over UK law
SOBC- Authoritative works
Scholarly texts which serve to codify practices not outlined on paper elsewhere. They have persuasive authority and have been used for years:
- Walter Bagehot: The English Constitution (1807)
- Erskine May’s: Parliamentary Practice (1844)
- A.V Dicey: Introduction to study of Law
Wade and Phillips (1998)
Constitution embraces laws, customs and conventions hammered out, as it were, on the anvil of experience
- British Approach has been empirical based on practical experience which makes adjustments necessary
Why are constitutions often re-written and revised?
Bring formal documents up to date and in tune with country’s governing arrangement
When did constitution renewal become a topic of interests?
1960s onwards
Is flexibility really a good thing?
Seems less effective at delivering the “goods” if it’s flexible. Rise of nationalism in Scotland and Wales and disruption of Northern Ireland
Undergoing challenge anyway
ECHR allowing people to appear to Strasbourg, ministers were ultimately saying that decisions made in the EU would have a huge impact on Britain
Centralisation of power which was prominent during Margaret Thatcher’s premiership. Erosion of functions and powers of local government
Attitude to change: the debate for change and against
Radical reformers took the view that fundamental change was required. The balance of the constitution had become undermined by a long era of Conservative rule (1979-97)
Wanted to address:
- Centralisation
- Accountability
- Human Rights
Pressure groups such as Charter 88
Wanted to introduce a package of constitutional measures ranging from written constitution to reformed democratic second chamber and from a bill of rights to reformed judiciary
Philip Norton (Moderate reformer)
Concluded that there was a need for reform however to strengthen it, not destroy it.
- abolish/reduce quangos
- more power to citizens @ local level
Andrew Adonis (moderate reformer)
Britain is appallingly governed and barely democratic however Britain is actually well governed. Since WW1 inflexibility has been the rule
Conservative government did not want constitutional change and they saw little scope for improvement in our constitution
What did the 1997 conservative manifesto stress?
Importance of the “strength and stability of our constitution- the institutions, laws and traditions that bind us together as a nation”. They feared that radical changes may endanger the whole character of our constitutional balance” and unravel what generations of our predecessors have created.”
What did Labour criticise in 1997?
Centralised, inefficient and bureaucratic. It wanted “measured and sensible reform” to open up government, improve quality of our democracy and decentralise power
What did people expect when Labour came into power?
- codified constitution
- UK Bill of rights
- Elected upper chamber
- Proportional system for election to Westminster
- State funding of political parties
- Reform of the monarchy
House of Lords Act (1999)
Saw all but 92 hereditary peers lose the right to sit and vote in the chamber. The second stage of Lord Reform stalled in 2003 when Parliament rejected all 8 models for a reformed chamber
2007: Commons vote for an entirely selected second chamber whilst Lords also gave supports in appointed model
Jenkins Commissions Suggestion
AV+ should be adopted for GE and although this was not followed through. Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly now use AMS. Labour established an independent Electoral Commission under PPERA 2000 which monitors elections, party funding and expenditure
Rights & Reform of Judiciary
HRA (1998) incorporated most of the European that citizens can seek redress in UK courts as opposed to going to Strasbourg
Freedom of Information Act (2005)
Citizens have the right to view information held above them as well as work of the government
Creation of an office elected London
Mayor + Greater London Assembly
Due to referendum, other cities have elected city mayors
Changes to HOC
Creation of more reasonable hours and payment of select committee chairperson.
Judiciary
Branch of government responsible for the adjudication of law and arbitration between parties in any legal dispute. The term includes those individuals and bodies (primarily judges and the courts) involved in administering and interpreting the meaning of laws. Judicial system can operate without any interference from government of the day
What are judges involved in?
Interpretation of the constitution and in countries with judicial review ensuring laws passed are in accordance with wording and spirit.
Meaning that there is often ambiguity which may have political implication
What roles do judges play?
- Preside over criminal trials for serious offences
- deliver sentences
- Peacefully resolve civil disputes between individuals
- Uphold the will of the legislature
- Responsible or judicial review of particular law and administration
- Senior judges, they may asked to chair enquiries
- Law lords ist in parliament
Role of the courts
- Expanding role of government
- Increasing complexity of governmental machinery which means that there is more likelihood of conflict between branches and levels of government
- Increasing emphasis on rule of law and the rights of citizens
- Unwillingness on part of the politicians to deal with sensitive issues
Administration of justice in the UK
Argued the case for having a ministry of justice, They pointed out the inadequacies of the judicial system and difficulties in obtaining information in HOC. They wanted a single “Minister of Justice”
What were the changes from 2007?
Lord Chief Justice—System of courts/justices
Ministry of Justice department:
Responsible for sentencing policy, probation, prisons and prevention as well as re-offending in England and Wales. Responsible for dealing with all suspected offences from the time they are arrested until the convicted offenders are released
- Head is Lord Chancellor .
Retain the roles and responsibility for the police and the security service as well as the oversight of crime reduction, counter terrorism. - Home Secretary
Retains responsibility for the police and the Security service as well as the oversight of crime reduction, counter terrorism
Key elements of the legal system
- Magistrates’ court: made up from three people who are from the local communities who have no legal qualifications and unpaid (lay magistrates)
- receive training to give them sufficient knowledge
- Court clerk advises them on laws and procedure
- some circumstances, district judges preside over magistrates courts
- legally qualified and salaried
- judges preside over crown and county court
- assisted by Jury in Crown courts
What are the six pillars of Judicial independence?
- Consolidated fund
- Security of training
- Contempt of court
- Growing separation of powers
- Independent appointed process
- Training
Creation of regional machinery
Votes in the North East give the chance to opt for establishment of an elected assembly in their region (which they rejected)
Constitutional Reform Act (2005)
Creation of supreme court who took over the work of House of Lords and reduced the role of Lord Chancellor. Appointments to the Judiciary made by JAC
Who has traditionally appointed judges?
Government of the day
Senior judges: Prime Minister after consultation with Lord Chancellor
High court judges, circuit judges and magistrates appointed by Lord Chancellor, mostly from ranks of senior barristers known as QC’s (Queen’s Council)
What were the dangers of appointing judges before the creation of JAC (2003)?
- Nepotism
- Not chosen based on Judicial merit but on political learnings and known views on matters of public life (partisanship)
Mid 2003/ CRA 2005
JAC examine the way that judicial appointments are made. Put forward nominations which will clearly restrict ability of Lord Chancellor to reject them. For appointments to the new supreme court, minister should only receive one name from Commission
What sort of people are appointed as judges?
- Practiced @ the Bar
- Born into professional middle class
- Educated @ public school then oxbridge
- Wealthy/Conservative in their thinking
- Middle age when first appointed but 60S when they attain powerful position
** Critics argued that they are not relatable and out of touch.
Security of tenure of judges
Once in office, they remain there on subject to good conduct. Not liable to removal on the whim of particular governments or individuals
What solidified the security of tenure of judges?
Established that judges should be appointed for life. They’re very hard to remove and serve until the time of their retirement. Toda, those who function in superior courts are only liable to dismissal on the grounds of misbehaviour.
Name the three judges that were removed after viewing pornography at work and one that resigned
- Immigration judge Warren L Grant
- District judge Timothy Bowles
- Recorder Peter Bullock
- Recorder Andrew Maw
What judge has been found guilty on three instances of lying to the police?
Constance Briscoe faces prison after a jury found her guilty on Thursday of intending to pervert the course of justice in the Chris Huhne speeding points scandal.
What are judges and what are they involved in?
Political beings who interpret but do not make laws.
• They are involved in passing judgement in numerous cases such as governmental secrecy, industrial relations, police power and political protest
Do judges pass laws passively and if not, what are they involved in?
Judicial activism
How can judges remain impartial and not vulnerable to political influence and pressure?
- Refrain fro. Partisan activity
- Refrain from commenting on matters regarding public policy
1955 Kilmuir guidelines
A
What are judges and what are they involved in?
Apolitical beings who interpret but do not make the law. Judges have said that their roles are much more creative than it seems
Involved in:
- Passing judgement in numerous cases such as governmental secrecy, industrial relations, police power and political protests
Do judges pass laws passively and if not, what are they involved in?
No, involved in judicial activism
How can judges ensure that they remain impartial and not vulnerable to political influence and pressure?
- Refrain from partisan activity
- Refrain from matters regarding public policy
1955 Kilmuir Guidelines
Urged them to silence “every utterance which he (a judge makes in public, except in actual performance of his judicial duties, must necessarily bring him within a focus of criticism”
- Later, guidelines relaxed which allowed judges to give interviews
Why might the separation of judges not be as clear cut as the concept of independent judiciary?
Lord Chancellor
Attorney General
Solicitor General
They all hold judicial office as well as a political role. Judges may also be involved in political controversy.
Lord Hutton
Asked to enquire into death of David Kelly (former weapons inspector) who committed suicide in 2003 after suggestions that the case for military action had been sexed up
Why should judges remain politically neutral?
- Utter partisan, it is felt that it would undermine public confidence in their impartiality
- Need to be beyond party politics and committed to pursuit of justice
Can judges truly be neutral?
Real doubts as to whether judges can ever be totally neutral as all members of the bench have their own learnings and preferences
-Left in Britain is critical of judges and ary of power they exercise. Labour have felt that their party suffered from the decisions made on the bench
Taff Vale Case (1901)
Turn of the 20th century whereby the right of unions to take strike action was seriously restricted.
1980s: number of sequestration cases heard, union fund taken away is a result of judicial decision
- suspicion arose that the unfavourable verdict had been reached when it concerned labour (judges biased)
What does judicial review allow judges to do?
Override the decisions and laws of democratically elected government :
- whether specific law is constitutional
- resolve conflict between state/citizens over civil liberties
- Resolve conflicts between institutions or levels of government
Does Britain have a weaker judicial review than UK?
Yes. It allows courts to monitor the way public officials carry out duty and nullify actions considered illegal and unconstitutional
Judge over your shoulders (1987)
Government lawyers produced a document for civil servants and it showcased how to avoid pitfall
-1981-1996: no. of applicants for judicial review rose from 500 to 4,000
(1, 748 immigrant applicants//340 homelessness)
Why was there resentment under major government for judicial review?
There was an increasing resort to review for decisions judges made in cases
What did the Home Secretary, Michael Howard?
Made many decisions declared as unlawful by senior judges which caused major tension. Judge bashing occurred.
Labour and Judicial review
Several cases in which the verdict of judicial review has gone against the minister issues such as immigration and the rights of asylum seekers,.
What did ministers express concern about publicly?
Activities in court scrutinising government action
What did ex-minister, Paul Boateng say?
“the judges job is to judge, government’s job is to govern.”
What did home secretary David Blunkett say?
Accused judges of routinely recruiting the laws that parliament had passed and bluntly made it clear that they did not agree with fundings
- tired of Parliament’s debated issues and judges overturning them.
Review of Anti-terrorism crime and security act (2001)
Detention of foreign terrorist suspects without trial unlawful both disproportional and discriminatory.
- There were ministerial attempts to amend original legislation by the introduction of control orders which applied to UK foreign nationals
Incompatible with articles 5 and 8
Judicial activism
phrase which describes situations in which judges and courts take a broad view as well as an active one whereby their role includes being an interpreter of the constitution and reviewers of the executive and legislative action
What is another aspect of judicial activism?
Willingness of judges to venture beyond narrow legal decisions which influences evolution of public policy
What is judicial review?
Conservative philosophy and approach, Maintains that judges should simply apply the law irrespective of policy implication or own values
There is a growing involvement of judges
Western world: Judicial intervention in public policy has become more common. Increase in the way that judges operate and their power
Has there been a growing involvement of judges in Britain?
Yes, importance of judges and the courts. Although previously this had been limited and sporadic whereas now it i central and constant
British courts and the Thatcher/Major administration (1980s)
Conservative government was very centralised, Labour- controlled authoritites seek clarification and redress or defending in their position in courts, as their traditional rights overdriven
Industrial relations
New laws restricted trade actions meaning that judges were involved in deciding issues such as ballots prior to strike action, secondary picketing and sequestration of assets
What organisations received financial penlities for technical breach of law?
- Print Workers’ Union
- SOGAT 82
What has increased use of judicial review lead to?
Judges conflicted wih ministers
What has increased use of judicial review lead to?
European-minded
- greater willingness of more European-minded judges to speak out in favour of incorportation of more of the ECHR into British law and against ministerial policy on issues such as sentencing of convincted ciriminals and prison conditions
What has increased use of judicial review lead to?
Decision of courts on Human Rights (Strasbourg)
- decisions of courts on Human Rights (strasbourg) against British added to ministerial misgiving during major administration, so by middle 1990s there was clear hostility between politicians and judges
(Politicisation)
Courts and Blair administration
- Tony Blair (2005)
Legisalate further including if necessary amending the Human Rights Act in respect of ECHR
Under Labour governemtn it was anticipated that relations between Blair administration and judges would have been better
- Judges more embroiled in the political arena as they seek to dedcide on intrepretation and validity of a parricular piece of legislation.
Who drew up the European Conventions?
British lawyers in home office and the body responsible for implenting this was was European comission on Human Rights and the European Court of Human RIghts
Contents of European conventionn
Each entitlement the basic statement will be followed by a series of qualifications and expectations
Freedom of Expression
Limited by consideration such as those “necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, for the prevention of disorder or crimes or for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the rights of others”
Britain and the convention: the situation prior to the passage of HRA (1998)
Record of British government in Strasbourg for many years poor, especially prior to incorporation of ECHR into British law. They lost many cases in which the judgement came down on the sides of the aggrieved individual, as a result:
- prisoners won the right to consult a lawyer or write to an MP
- capital punishment in school was ruled out of order it parental view had not been taken into consideration
- Armed forces criticised for acting illegally by banning gays and lesbians from serving
- Child killers of James Bulger did not receive a fair trial as they did not receive a fair a trial as they could not understand proceedings and it was not right for Home secretary to have the final say on sentence
Labour (early 1990s) what did leader incorporate?
John Smith incorporated convention, He and Tony Blair recognised that the status of convention in Britain was unsatisfactory. Although bounded by it, Britain had difficulties implementing it.
- Strasbourg justice court is slow and takes 5-6 years to get a court decision
Labour: the Human Rights Act 1998
October 1997: New Labour produced a white paper showing the declaration of fundamental human rights would be enshrined into British law.
- Judges were able to declare if a certain law was compatible with convention, enabling government and parliament to change it, if they wished and provided a fast track procedure to do so. proposed Act would not pose a threat to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
When did HRA pass?
When did HRA become operative?
What did it allwo judges to secure?
1998
2000
Allowed judges to use the convention as a means of securing justice in the British courts
How is life under the HRA (1998)?
- Judges required to interpret the law in particular situation and when a citizen brings a case under “broad bush” of constitution in favour of judges
Bagdanor (2003)
Measure “considerably alters the balance between parliament and the judiciary…for in effect the HRA makes the European Convention the fundamental law on the land)
Who quoted cases to showcase failure of the HRA?
Michael Howard
What cases did Michael Howard list to showcase failure of HRA?
- schoolboy arsonist allowed back into classroom as engorcing disicpline denied his right to education
- convicted rapist given £4,000 compensation as his second appeal delayed
- Burglar given taxpayers’ money to sue the mans house who he broke into
- Travellers allowed to stay on greenbelt land as they have occupied in defence of planning laws
- Convicted serial-killer allowed his hardcore pron in prison because of his right to informationand expression
- October 2005 election, Conservative Howard vowed to overhaul or scrap the HRA and Cameron also promised to scrap and replace it with Bill of Rights
May 2016, Guardian and the bill of rights
House of Lords’ EU justice committee urges ministers to rethink plans to scrap HRA and it highlights the fears highlighted by Irish government that the policy could damage Northern Ireland peace process.
Early impact of HRA
- decisions amde my parliament, a local authority or other public body must not infringe the rights under the Act. If there is a clash, court will decide where the balance resides
- expected that there would be a lot of cases however between 2000 and 2002, only 431 cases involving human rights held in high courts, claims upheld in 94
What did the barrister Keir Stramer conclude?
Hand on heart, HRA changed the outcome of a few cases
What does cabinet refer to?
Formal meetings held each week. It could be argued in the recent years, it has been more concerned with the exchange of information and ratification of decisions made elsewhere
Inner cabinet
Informal gatherings of leading departments/departmental ministers among whom there is normally an established pecking order
Who is in cabinet?
Deputy Prime Minister, Chancellor of Exchequer and Foreign Secretary
They aim to strengthen PM dominance as it allows the PM to have a small body of like-minded individuals
Kitchen cabinets
PM have hidden cabinet consisting of their own trusted advisers who may be cabinet members
Cabinet Committees
PM determines the chair and composition of Cabinet Committees.
Includes:
- departmental ministers
- representatives of treasury as well as some officials
- ones considered important to the direction of government policy chaired by PM
- Chancellor of Exchequer
- Lord chancellor
Bilaterals
Meetings between PM and relevant secretary of state
What did Gillian Peele notice in 1997?
- Increase use of subcommittees
- greater use of less-formal policy coordination devices including working groups, task forces and ad hoc meetings. Although they have no formal authority and cannot make binding decisions
What lead to the present day cabinet structure?
WW2 and the expansion of governmental activity in post 1945
Key events in cabinet
1970s and 1992
1970s: existence denied
1992: membership published
Type of committee:
Standing committees
- Named, permanent committees
- Responsible for particular policy area
- Most important economic and domestic policy (EDP) chaired by PM
Type of committee:
Ad Hoc Committees
- vary according to preference and style for PM
- Concern themselves with certain policies
- ad hoc committees disbanded
What type of work is done in committees?
Deliberative and consider issues in more detail than cabinet
Which two prime ministers have a key in strengthening prime ministerial power?
Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher
- Creation and composition of committees
Doctrine of collective responsibility
Convention of cabinet responsibility means ministers collectively responsible to HOC for governmental policies. In the public they are required to stick to agreed cabinet
19th century Prime Minister, what did Lord Melbourne state?
It doesn’t matter what we say, as long as we all tell the same story
What did Lord Salisbury say?
For all that passes in cabinet, every member of it who does not reign is responsible
What are all members of government bound by?
Official policy. Even unpaid parliamentary private secretaries expected to toe the line. Some of them may not even be in meeting however they are bounded by collective responsibility
What use does doctrine have?
- ensures that ministers all portray the same views and opinions (policy is clear and coherent)
- Maintains a united front in public which increases public confidence that government is in control
- Avoids confusion that can arise when different members of administration say different things as this happens sometimes under same administration
Collective government responsibility lacks the force it once had
- Some get round obligation by leaking their views perhaps in coerced language
- others make speeches containing thinly veiled criticisms of government policies or express personal views:
Michael Portillo on EU policy under John Major - In the face of evident disunity in 1973 Harold Wilson and 1997 James Callaghan allowed ministers to agree to differ on aspects of EU policies
What has weekly cabinet undergone?
Downgraded in recent years
What did the chancellor under Margaret Thatcher, Nigel Lawson, write about cabinet?
Normal cabinet meetings has no chance of becoming a grave forum of statesman like debate. 22 people attend a 21/2 hour meeting and can speak for 61/2 meetings. Small wonder then that most ministers just keep quiet on issues
What has been recognised about cabinet in the recent years?
Rather than providing detailed discussions, the main roles of the cabinet is to facilitate cohesion and coordination of governmental policies
What links to the idea of Cabinet merely just rubber stamping?
Most policies decided in cabinet committees and reported back to cabinet for approval
What occurred in Thatcher/Blair premiership?
Key decisions had already been made prior to full meetings of cabinet
Peter Hennessey (life under Blair)
- Cabinet no longer central organ of government
- Cabinet meetings no longer count
- not a collective system
- centralised system directed by 10 downing street
Hennesey (2005)
Confirms the idea of very few decisions made in cabinet. Final court of appeal for ministerial and departmental disagreements and the place whereby formal approval is given for decisions made elsewhere and from where crisis management at the time of national emergencies and political controversy is likely to be conducted
Butler (ex-cabinet secretary) on the Cabinet
Believed there was too many sofa chats and too many occasions whereby minutes not taken which caused lack of clarity
“informalised and circumscribed procedures” which marginalised cabinet’s role in the decision-making over iraq and the run up to law
What was Butler’s conclusion?
Without papers circulated in advance, remains possible but much more difficult for cabinet outside the circle to bring political judgement and experience
