Politics Paper2 Flashcards
A thinker that you can use to back max stirner(Anarchsim)
Murray Rothbard believes the state needs to be removed as it crushes the market and therefore he believes in a free market economy
What are anarchist view on the state(divided)
Max stirner believes the state is there to protect hierarchy and is there to force religion
Proudhon believe the state is there to protect private property
Evaluate the view that devoloution had been a success?
Intro: devoloution was included in Labour manifesto in 1997
For: it’s been a success
Devolution has been success as it has allowed for greater democracy and more effective local representation. The snp governent has introduced policies including free prescription charges, free tuition fees and a higher top rate of income tax. This was only possible as the Scotland act 1998 granted the Scottish Parliament control over health and education policy whilst the Scotland act 2016 gave Scotland control over taxation. Devolved body use more proportional systems. Scotland use AMS
Against:
Turnout is low. Eg wales general election in 2021 was 46%
For:
One of the key aims of devoloution was to keep the uk together. It was beloved by granting a lot of autonomy to Scotland it would prevent them from voting for independence. As no nationalist movement has came about and yet achieved independence, it can be argued devoloution has been a success
Against:
Asymetric nature devolution which may undermine equal citizenship.
Can be argued Devoloution has fuelled increased nationalism and calls for independence. The snp have been in power since 2007 and almost achieved independence in 2014.
Evaluate the view that devoloution reforms haven’t gone far enough?
For: there should be an English Parliament because the current system of devoloution is asymetric, witht England lacking the level to democratic representation compared to wales and Scotland….to represent and decide on important issues that just affect England. A English Parliament would make the system more symmetric. This would allow for policy preferences of English people to be represented. This would also solve the West Lothian question, which questions why Scottish MPs should vote on English matters that don’t affect them when English MPs can’t do the same in Scottish parliment.
Against: there is little support for an English parliment within England, with most English voters feeling sufficiently represented by the uk parliment and having little interest in devoloution.
For: there should be more devoloution to Scotland and wales.
Existing bodies have shown they can run public services and decide policies effectively, including during covid 19. Giving them greater power would increase their ability to reflect local opinions. Scotland for example could be granted further powers on transport and welfare policy. This would allow it to further reflect more left wing views on Scottish population in policy.
Against: in some devolved bodies there is little interest in devolved bodies and little support for further devoloution. Eg wales general election election had a turnout of 46% in 2021
Evaluate the view that constitutional reforms introduced since 2010 have had a significant impact on the UK constitution?
For: Brexit had a significant impact on the constitution. Now the uk has left the EU, there is no longer a higher court that can strike down laws passed by the uk parliment. This means that the sovereignty of parliment, a key cornerstone of uk constitution, has been regained. Parliment can now legislate on almost any area of policy it wants to, rather than having to draft legislation that is in line with EU law.
Against: it can be argued that Brexit had little impact on the constitution as the EU only had control over a limited number of areas of policy when the uk was a member. Eg EU controlled trade, competition policy and customs and import tariff. It can therefore be argued that Brexit hasn’t had a significant impact on the constitution, as parliment was largely sovereign when the uk was a member of the EU.
For: parliamentary reform has had a significant impact in the constitution. The fixed term parliment that was introduced by the coalition government in 2010, removed the power of prime minister to call for snap general election when it suited them.can only occur every 5 years. It can be seen as having a significant constitutional changes as it removed the royal prerogative power of the prime minister to call for snap elections.
Against: it can be argued that fixed term parliment had little impact as it was scrapped by Boris Johnson government in 2022. The prime minster was also able to call for snap general election in 2017 and 2019 by shaming the opposition into voting for an election, which they are unlikely to block or it would make them look weak.
Evaluate the view that new labour constitutional reforms had a positive impact on the uk constitution?
Intro:new Labour constitutional reforms refers to number of reforms introduced by lair like human right act, House of Lords and devolution.
For:positive impact.
It can be argued that the new labour reform of the house of lords had a positive impact. The House of Lords act 1999 removed all but 92 hereditary peers and replaced them with 92 life peers. This can be seen as significant as the system is now representative and based on accomplishment. Furthermore this meant the House of Lords was more proffesional. Many life peers are ex professionals politicians who are able to provide leadership in the House of Lords and have experience in parliamentary scrutiny. Eg lord John Walton is former head of BMA
Against: lords are still unelected and therefore undemocratic
For: devoloution has had a positive impact as it gave signifant powers to devolved bodies. Scotland was given the most power due to high demand shown in the referendum. This included control over health education and most transport. These reforms can be seen as having a positive impact on on the constitution because they created government closer to the people and therefore improved democracy. 2014 referendum shows this. 84% turnout
Against: asymetric devoloution, undermines equal citizenship
Evaluate the view that the uk constitution should be codified and entrenched?
Intro: the uk constitution is uncodified and unenchtrenched……….
For: should be codified and entrenched.
Problem of uk constitution is that it’s to easy to ammend, as any statue can be repealed by parliment. Entrenchment would safeguard citizens rights. There has been threats of conservative trying to repeal it. Eg Dominic raab
Against: provide flexibility. This has allowed British political system to evolve gradually and adapt to diffent circumstances.new Labour governent in 1998 demonstrates the major progressive changes can be made. Eg Labour introduced human rights act that protect people rights. If it was entrenched these changes would have been diffilcult.
For: it would better protect people rights better. Potentially introducing a new British bill of rights that would be entrenched means rights would not be infringed by governent. Eg USA(talk about USA). This is necessary as the human act does not protect rights effectively due to parliamentary sovereignty
Against: would increase the power of the unelected judges. May give the rise of “legislate from the bench”. They make act like political figures and drift from their role.
Evaluate the view that parliment is representative of the electorate?
For: the House of Commons can be seen as representative as its democratically elected, with each MPs representing constituency. This means voters are able to hold their representatives to account. Each mp had to win a plurality of voters in their constituency in order to get elected. Furthermore MPs can represent their constituency by expressing their voices and campaigning for them. Eg luciana Berger campaigned against food poverty
Against:(parliment is not representative)
The House of Lords are unelected, yet still hold signifant powers to influence policy and scrutine the government and delay bills. The priminister are selected by their parties rather than electorate with two most recent pm Sunak and truss. This can be seen as unrepresentative as the power of people are limited. The House of Commons is elected using Fptp which is very unrepresentative. Eg in 2019 conservative won 56% seats with just 43% of the vote to winners bonus system.
For: highly representative in terms of gender. 62 MPs in 2019 parliment are LGBT+, compared to an estimated 3.1% of the uk population.
Against: parliment is highly unrepresentative in terms of race. after the 2019 election just 10% of the House of Commons are from minority ethnic backgrounds, compared to over 18% of the general population. The lack of descriptive representation is a big problem because no only that it’s unjust, but also because it would lead to representatives not being able to understand the wishes of the public
Evaluate the view that parliment performs its function effectively?
Intoduction: key functions are passing legislation,scrutinising and representing electorate
For:(passing legislation)
Due its majority and the power of whips, the governent rarely has no problem passing legislation through the House of Commons and legislation is almost passed effectively. The Salisbury convention helps with this as it forces bills through the House of Lords. Further, if the House of Lords does a block a bill supported by the House of Commons, then the comment can use parliment act to overide their veto after a year.
Against:(innefective in passing legislation)
The House of Lords can delay bills up to 1year. This can be significant in delaying important bills forcing House of Commons to compromise and ammend legislation.
Depends if there is small majority. Eg both Theresa may and Boris Johnson failed to pass their Brexit withdraw agreement.
For: parliment can scrutinise government through select committees. They monitor each govenment department.eg home affairs select committee scrutinising suella braveman. Pmqs can be an important way to scrutinise govenment. Scrutiny can hold govenment to account and also force the government to address the public
Against:Pmqs is seen as point scoring and undermines the process.
Further the government accepts 40% of select committee’s recommendations but these are usually minor changes
Seen as Punch and Judy politics
Evaluate the view that parliment hold the government to account effectively?
For: select committees are groups or MPs that look in depth into issues in governent department. Scrutiny is therefore a lot of more proffesional and less partisan than PMQS. As a result it can be argued that select committees hold the goverment to account effectively. The work of select committees is eveidence based and the fact they hold televised hearing increases their influence.they are also permanent and more exteriors
Against: the government accepts 40% of select committees recommendations, but these are usually minor changes.
For: the leader of the opposition is able to give 6 questions. They have three opportunity to get the government to respond directly to their questions in PMQs, therefore giving them the ability to expose governent failure.its also televised every week and the most watched aspect in policies which can be highly important to encourage public engagement. eg Tony Blair described Pmqs as nerve racking
Against: can be argued that PMQS provide little scrutiny and is more focused on point scoring than proper detailed scrutiny. Eg in 8th may 2024 starmer first question to Sunak in PMQS was how many small boat crossings there had been since he announced victory due to passing the safety of Rwanda Act.
Evaluate the view that backbenchers exert signifance influence in parliment?
Introduction: they are MPs who don’t hold governent position and are seen as lobby fodders
For: they can rebel against government bills in order to defeat the governent and prevent laws being passed. Eg David Cameron the House of Lords reform 2012 was abandoned due to rebelling from the House of Commons.
Against: if governent has significant majority in the House of Commons rebellions are less likely succesfull. Eg Tony Blair was defeated just 4 times in his 10 years in office.
Back benchers may be incentives by sticks and carrot
For: select committees……..
Against: the govenment accepts about 40% of select committee recommendations, but there are usually minor changes.
They don’t have supoena power
Evaluate the view that the conventions of individual ministerial responsibility and collective ministerial responsibility are both still important?
Intro: Both individual and collective minesterial responsibility are conventions that are written down in minesterial code, which is published by the PM at the start of administration to make clear expectations of the government minister. IMR is where ministers are responsible for their own personal conduct.
Against: there not important.
Collective cabinet responsibility is a Convention included in the minesterial code. Ministers should support governent decisions collectively. It’s a way to promote unity. A minister must resign from government before publicly criticising government policy. The fact that collective ministerial responsibility has had to be relaxed on number of occasions in order for government to function effectively and not become to divided shows collective ministerial responsibility is not important. Eg during the Brexit referendum collective cabinet responsibility has also shown to to break down when the prime minister is weak and the governing party is ideological divided, with ministers(big beast) able to leak their dissatisfaction and even vote against government without being sacked by the pm.
For:(collective minesterial is important).
Collective minesterial can be important in the vast majority of time, especially when the prime minister is stronger. Ministers rarely speak out against government in the public even if they disagree with governent policy Collective minesterial responsibility can be effective as it helps secure loyalty from ministers. If ministers break collective minesterial responsibility the PM can force them to resign. Eg in November 2023 Sunak sacked suella Braveman as Home Secretary following a controversial opinion about the metropolitan police handling pro Palestinians protest accusing the police playing favourites. Her statement was seen as a direct challenge to Sunak authority and was criticised by the party.
For: Individual ministerial responsibility is important.
If cabinet minster personal conduct fall below what is expected by them, they are expected to offer resignation. Resignation over personal conduct includes ministers acting unprofessional, discriminating or inappropriate behaviour. Eg in 2021 Matt hanchok breached Covid rule due to having a affair with colleague
Against: it can be argued that individual minesterial responsibility is unimportant as it’s very dependent on the prime minister as a judge. When the priminister has low standards of personal conduct, IMR is therefore unimportant. Eg Boris Johnson party gate scandal. It revealed there were parties in number 10 which broke Covid rules. Despite this he didn’t resign. Furthermore Boris also revised the ministerial code in may 2022 to weaken the rules which mean minister who breach the code no longer have to resign
Evaluate the view that that the power of the prime minister has decreased since 2010.
For: has decreased.
One key argument that PMS power had decreased is due to frequent leaking and breaking of collective responsibility. Theresa may was unable to control her cabinet effectively, with major breakdowns in collective minesterial responsibility.
Agaisnt: pm power hasn’t decreased as Rishi Sunak now seems to be more effective when controlling his cabinet. Eg Sunak sacked braveman over comment on police. There are no big beast in the cabinet who can claim to lead a faction in the party.
For: pm power has decreased in relations to the pms prerogative powers. One of key pk powers are declaring war. It can be argued that this has decreased since 2010, with it now being a convention that House of Commons consent is required before enacting major military action
Against: the pm still has patronage powers. Eg David Cameron was appointed as foreign secretary by Rishi Sunak in 2023 making his return to frontline politics.
Evaluate the view that prime minister are able to domaine the cabinet.
For: pm can use their power of patronage to enhance their power and enable them to promote their policies and agenda and remove poor performers. This allows the pm to maintain their authority. Prime minister can also sack ministers if they seek to undermine there authority by breaking collective minesterial responsibilit. Eg in 2023 Sunak sacked suella braveman over comments about the metropolitan police accusing the police of playing favourites.
Against: priminister sometimes have to appoint big beast. Eg Tony Blair appointed Gordon brown
For: the priminister can use media and their personal popularity to reach out to the public and create a level of support that can help them achieve their policies. Eg Tony Blair was succesfull in getting support from the right wing press and developing his image. Due to his high popularity he was able to determine governent policies himself, for example in health and education.
Against: on the other hand the pm ultimately relies on the party in order to pass the governent legislative agenda and on the cabinet to deliver governent policy. If the Pm distances themself to much from cabinet cabinet can remove the pm. This happens in particular when the prime minister is no longer popular with the public and therefore would no longer help the party win the next election. The last 3 prime ministers- may, Johnson and truss were ultimately removed by their cabinet after becoming unpopular.
Evaluate the view that the Supreme Court operates with sufficient judicial neutrality and independence?
Intro: judicial neutrality is the idea that judges will excercise their functions without being influenced by external pressure(political opinion). Judicial independence is the idea that judges must be free from political interference.
For Para 1:the supreme courts operates with sufficient judicial neutrality.
Judges are not allowed to campaign for political parties and pressure group. These are the rules that Supreme Court justices have to follow to remain neutral. Furthermore to get into Supreme Court a judge has to have to served as as a senior judge for 2 years or been a qualified lawyer for atleast 15 years. Eg the current president of the Supreme Court is lord robert reed who has served a senior judge since 1998
Against: the supreme court court doesn’t operate with sufficient judicial neutrality as the Supreme Court may not be descriptively representative. It is argued that the court narrow composition leads to limited perspectives and the inability to understand certain issues. Eg there are 10 males, 11 are white and have studied at Oxbridge. This led to the times describing the Supreme Court in 2011 as pal,male,stale.
For:judicial independence is protected.
Judges salaries are paid automatically from an independent budget known as the consolidation funds, which can’t be manipulated by the government and they are paid well so that there is less incentive for them to be influenced. Eg the current salary of supreme court justice is £226,193
Against: supreme court justices are no longer as anonymous as they used to be, whilst various parts of the media and politicians have commented on and criticised the decisions of the court. This can be seen as putting under pressure on the supreme court and threatening its ability to make independent decisions
