Government and politics Unit 2

constituition - establishes the rules and principles that goveern an organisation 

set out 

• power relationships 
• limitations on powers 
• governement activities 

Purpose 

• provide legitimacy for those in power 
• protect freedom 
• encourage stability 
• draw attention to goals and values 
• can create a fresh start 

• uncodified (all constitutional rules arent written down in one document)
• flexible constitution (since not codifed) 
• unitary (all power is concentrated in the hands of the central gov) 
• monarchial (monarch reigns by hereditary right) (constituional principle) 
• parliamentary system (fusion of powers)
• soverignity of parliament (p = possess supreme power) (constituional principle)
• rule of law (No one above law) (constitutional principle)

• magna carta 1215- asserts view that a monarch could/should be controlled by their subjects. Influenced common law and documents 
• statues (acts of parliament) have impact on the constittuional structure- changed the way governed or relationships within the states 
• royal prerogative- comprimises powers performed by the monarch in the past are now performed by their ministers. Authority derives from the crown rathe than parliament = parlimentary authority is not needed for the exexcutive to carry out these tasks 
• law/customs to parliament set out by the Speaker of the HOC 
• Common law- body of rules that evolves over time
• case law-
• European union law- UK agree to accept a body of constitutional law 

constituional reform- those in favour suggest 

• Doubts about the effectiveness of a flexible constituion 
• UK signed up to the european convention on human rights- ministers acknowledging that decsions made in europe had an impact on the fate of political events in UK. Matter of the UK gov whether to accept the judgements of the european court of human rights 

Gov = more undemocratic - after 1979 fears about increasing centralisation of gov 

Quangos- publically funded bodies that operate at arms length from gov department, carry out executive nd advisory functions (members not elected) E.G - connected to the department of health = advisory committee on microbiological safety of food 

2007- economic research council = 883 Q in exsistence, collectively spent £170 B in 2005-2006

radical refomers = fundamental change was required- balance of constituion = undermined by con rule (1979-97) want to address centralisation, accountability, human rights, include PG charter 88, deomcratic second chamber, reform judicary 

charter 88- campaign PG set up to urge the case of constituional refrom (set up after the glorious revolution) 

Philip norton- Need for change but to 'strengthen exsisiting framework, not destroy it' to do so- need reduction of quangos, more power to citizens at local level 

Cons- dont embrace case for constituional change, 1997 emphaised 'strength and stability of our constituion' fear 'radical changes endanger 'whole character of the constitution' 

Lab/Lib Dems- interest most high here- want 'measured and sensible refom' open to improve democracy and decentralise power' 

Lab victory in 1997- human rights act of 1998 = passing. Creation of devolved machinery in scotland/wales, removal of hereditary peers 

• Freedom of information act- right to view information thats held about themselves
• creation of office for elected london mayor 
• useof proportional represenation for elections to devolved bodies in the UK 
• change to modernise HOC = more reasonable hours 
• principle of referndums to determine constituional changes

IN FAVOUR 

• Constitution in need of repair, need to tackle some criticisms 
• no other gov than lab attempted so much in consittutional arena 
• lab learnt from the difficulties of earlier admin e.g held referendums prior to parliamentary passage of devolution allow public to settle the substantive issue and parliament to fill in the gaps 
• adopted gradualist (step-by-step approach) over the HOL getting rid of hereditatries before embarking on discussion of the alternatives
• changes to legislation on human rights and free of information 

AGAINST 

• little intrest among the public on constitutional matters as subject to concern only to academics, political anoraks and groups e.g charter 88 
• dangers in interfering with a structure that has evolved 
• cons argue talk of decentralising power led to TB gaining more personal power 
• lab in office deternined to strengthen its strategic hold on gov and policy making = more personalised gov 
• wish to control evident in HOC attempt to impose strict party discipline, management = undermined 

FOR 

• UK evolved needs to be somewhere, where it can be easily seen/clear statement 
• strong tendenacy for executive dominance in British gov = elective dictatctorship. Gov of day can change its intrests 
• provides up-to-date statement of rights 
• entrenched 
• easier for courts interpret what is lawful behaviour and uphold their constituion 
• would have educative value highlighting values of political system 

AGAINST

• Constitution works generally well 
• no widespread demand for change 
• flexible = allows for adjustments when needed 
• protectio of rights good, strong record in respecting individual liberty 

Judicary- branch of gov responsible for adjudication of law and arbitration between parties in any legal disupte (3rd branch)

Roles of judges

• interpretation of the constitution 
• ensuring laws are passed in accordance 
• laws = unclear = judges interpret what/how applied 
• Division between politics and law is BLURRED = more involved as people trust their judgement and expertise 

Functions 

• preside over criminal trials, serious offences- all matters of criminal law- all rules applied
• deliver sentences- use expertise create sentence 
• peacefully resolve civil disputes within civil law 
• uphold will of legislature- take responsibility in applying the rules, securing liberties, ensuring governess 
• states with codified constitution = responsibility for judical review E.G in case for senior judges may be asked to chair enquires shown in the hutton enquiry in aftermath of the invasion of Iraq 

• criminal law- body law deals with crimes which are offences against the state
• civil law- body of law dealing with disputes between individuals or groups within society 

Role of courts expanding 

• gov = expand = more legislation
• more complex within gov = more conflict within branches 
• emphasis on rule of law/right of citizens 
• increase willingness grups etc to use courts to get their demands
• politicans unwillingness to deal with sensitive issues (moral) leave to the courts 

Admin of justice (new arrangements made from 2007)

• ministry of justice- sentences policy- responsible for dealing with people as soon as they are arrested until released 
• lord chancellor = roles under the constitutional reform act 2005 known as= secretary of state for justice and lord chancellor 
• home secretary - responsibility for police and security service oversight of crime reduction/any crime related areas 

judicial independence- enshrined in law CRA provides seperation of the judicary from 2 other branches. (no interference from gov of the day) Limit role of the lord chancellor,  establish new supreme court seperate from HOL, create new independent judical appointments commision 

J.I in Britain is protected as 

• way in which judges are selected 
• security of tenure 
• political neutality 
• sentences made by judges = not subject to parliamentary debate LORD HALISHAM parliamentary criticism 'subversive of the independence of the judicary' (however some irritated make views known in HOC)
• all involved in court proceedings = granted immunity from laws of defamation for any comments made in court that attack peoples reputation 
• judges = fixed salaries = not subject to parliamentary approval 

the bar- comprimises lawyers who are qualified as barristers 

Traditionally members picked 

• senior- pm after consulation with lord chancellor,  high court judges and magistrates = appointed by lord chancellor from ranks of senior barristers (queens council) 
• DANGERS, nepotism HIGH = meant could reward relatives,  people chose due to political leanings/partisanship

NOW- new arrangements- lord Chancellor in 2003 = framework for constitutional reform act 2005 = new judicial commision examines the way in which judicial appointments are made - nominations forward, restrictions for LC to reject. Appointments to Supreme Court = minister recieve 1 name from commison 

typical appointments 

• elitest, unrepresentative, middle class, educated public then oxbridge, wealthy, con thinking, white, pale, male 

• 1970's Lord denning 'blacks should not serve in british juries because of their alien cultural backgrounds
• case of **** judge said 'women who say no do not always mean no if she does not want it she only has to keep her legs shut and she would not get it without force and there would be marks of force used 
• shows backgrounds judges differs slightly white, male, upper class, middle aged 

security of tenure of judges- once in gov = retain their position 

• act of settlement 1701 judges appointed for life
• those in superior courts are only liable to dismissal on grounds of misbehavior - vote in HOP 
• 1983 judge dismissed for whisky smuggling 

judicial activism- courts be active partners in shaping public policy. Supporters- c have role in looking out groups who denied political influence. Opponents see them as pro criminal/soft on crime 

• J urged to be impartial and not vunerable to political influence/pressure. No support to 1 party
• 1955 Kilmuir Guidelines- silence since 'every utterance which he(judge) makes in public except in perfomance of judicial duties must necessarily bring him in the focus of criticism' 
• some have political role to do too-  meant to have no partisan manner 
• need to be kept neutral- if not fear that would undermine the public confidence in their impartiality = need to be beyong politics, committed to pursuit of justice 

• are they neutral- bench have own leanings/preferences
• left = critical and wary of their power = feel background attirude influences decisions = felt suffered e.g Taff Vale Case 1901 which the right of unions to take a strike was restricted
• john griffins 1997- 'judges by their education, training and pursuit in their profession as barristers, aquire a strikinly homogenous collection of attitudes, beliefs and principles whcih to them represents the publics interest' = judges unsympathetic/biased 

• judges more involved in politics than previusly that were restiricted- sine 1980's involved in local-national gov and industrial relations. 
• thatcher gov-left lab controlled authorities seeking clariffication with their place in the courts due to traditional rights being overridden.  Industrial relations = new laws restarined trae union action = judges decide issues e.g ballots prior to strike action 
• not always in favour of cons, 1990's- EU minded judges spoke out in favour of ECHR into British law, against ministerial policy on issues such as sentencing of convicted criminals = mind 19190's = hostility between politicans and judges 
• lab/blair gov- relations good incorporating ECHR into British law. HRA 1998 provided more opp for politisication of judicary(j more involved) 
• Judges TOO powerful
• B constituion Parl main protector of liberties = sovergin body, it alone should make decisons
• politicans = elected = sensitive to wishes of voters.  Judges = unelected = lack accountability
• narrow backgrounds = cant rep = pol shouldnt rely on them make decsions 
• NOT 
• Aware of what people vote in elections = not immune from what goes on in society 
• offer a view that commands resoect due to broad esteem in which theyre held/higher regard than politicians 
• secondary role- exec = issue law. Jud= react to law = reviewing = important to modern democracy

• ECHR- doc made by british lawyers. B citizens had accses to this 1965- not part of B law but if felt rights = denied could take case strasbrough = gain redress 
• Contents ECHR- 66 articles, 7 prorotcals. statement -> qualification= excpetions for it E.G Freedom ASK SIR 189
• NEED for HRA- takes on average 5 years to get in action in EU court av £30K. Bringing rights into B = B people argue rights in B courts without delay/cost 
• Human righst court in S = inerpretates convention in case.  Convention incorporated in B law via HRA in 1998 = B courts similar scope 
• BEFORE 1998- B gov in S = poor. Lost cases - Prisoners won right to consult lawyer/write to MP,  Armed forces criticised for acting illegally by banning gays from serving, Killers of James B = didnt recieve fair trial as couldnt have understood proceedings and wrong for Home Sec to decide final sentence 
• LAB HRA- 1997 NewL = white paper showing rights into B law. HRA passes 1998 = written statement of rights of B people 
• LIFE under HRA- J = more power hold gov/public bod account for actions. Now j  required interpret what law is in certain situ   (early impact HRA on e.g sheet)
• WILLIAM HAGUE argued power passed from elected parl -> j who not be dismissed.   TB overcame partys hostility to 'tory j' argued courts = power check exec  

• Legislature- rep bodies that reflect sentiments/opinions of the public. Consider public issues and pass laws on them 
• Unicameral Leg- 1 chamber- Sweden
• Bicameral Leg- 2 chambers, more common fed- UK  

• + of BiC-    act as check on 1st chamber   *more effective check exec   *allow scrutiny of leg *consituional longstop 
• - of BIC-    costly   *slows down gov tasks  *delay needed leg  *might not rep electorate  *conflict between 2 houses = gridlock 

Legislature roles (3)

• Legislation- majority of members need to vote and authorise passage of any law 
• Representation- elected rep public opinion/interets = link between gov and people
• Oversight of Exec- oversee political exec = scruitiny, regular checks to question whether exec acted properly in implementation of public policies = accountability ensured 

REFORM

• Life peerages act 1958- purpose to diversify membership of chamber bringing in people from all walks of life
• Parliament act 1911- removed the power of permanent veto over legislation. Bill which passed commons in 3 successive sessions = auto law 
• parliament act 1949 (still applies)- further delayed power of lords any bill that passed 2 successive sessions = law = delay power 8-9 months 
• october 1998- abolition of hereditary peerages. House voted to remove all but 92 
• HOL Act - left judicial membership of the chamber untouched (L compromise canter&york and 24 senior bishops = retain membership as long as hold church postions)

COMPOSITION

• 748 Peers in total (143 women.  Also including bishops etc)
• 491 party affiliated members 

• consideration and revision of bills from the HOC- HOL = power to examine leg and chose what to do. If amend then HOC has choice if diagree = negotiations. HOC can use the parliament 1949 act to get their way. Scrutiny in public bills (law applies to whole community) 
• power of delay- L can hold leg under parliament act 1949 time = reconsideration 
• Holding of general debates- peers conduct discussions on matters debates = 25% of time 
• lords scrutinise EU leg via select committees on EU around 70 peers.
• lords act as final count of appeal = role deal with cases raise important points in law - 2009 role trasnferred to supreme court 
• FURTHER REFORM?
• Gov say = unfinished. Membership still able inflict damage on elected centre left gov on some issues e.g fox hunting 
• situ not much better than what it was. Hereditary = not good but appointments are made my PM = HOL not have legitimacy to show much independence where as with democratic chamber real power could be exercised. With elected HOL fear = delay in leg hold ministers account = scrutinise treaties and public
• HOL should reflect B as it is today only 17% women 3.5% ethnic minority = not represnted fairly 
• NO 
• Valuable opp for scrutiny- JOHN MAJOR 'if it aint broke dont fix it'
• diversty of membership among life peers = normally someone who can speak with authority on any subject 
• chamber = useful work of revision = shows independence 

YES 

• No hereditary 
• elections = chamber which represnts the peoples choice
• HOL lacks democratic basis

NO 

• Fully elected second chamber = rival lower 
• specialist expertise = asset = might be lost if had to choose between standing in an election or playing part in parliamentary life 

• Main functions of HOC- Legislation (passing and debating bills that have already been passed) control spending of money, scrutinising the executive 
• public bills- alter general law of the land affect public 
• private bills- promote organisations outside the house- enable org to obtain power for themselves in excess/conflict with gen law
• MP's scrutinse 
• ensure voices citizens heard 
• focus national debate 
• recruit a gov 
• ROLES MEM OF P 
• party- due to party label that recieved the majority so expect loyalty, promote p policies, E.G TB irqa war = no loyalty 
• constituency- promote c interests, handle problems 
• Nation- expected attend house regularly = debate, vote ensure they consdider national intrest 
• conscience- have own prefs have to consider might into priv members leg
• CONFLICT
• Expected by constituents present local viewpoint without problem e.g industry decline fishing in south west 
• personal V party intrests = conflict = .EG Pro abortion MPs in catholic constituents

• MP's rep 
• elected by constituents whose intrests they represent 
• represent the intrests of the voters as understand them 
• socially representative (argued not as most = male , pale, middle class COUNTER  people releived that experienced and high levels education , full rep couldnt happen

SHOULD BE MORE WOMEN/ETHINIC M

• YES
• Dangerous in democ for groups with less wealth and power= unrepresneted = other types of action to get message across 
• fewer debates affecting groups that are unrep = media scrut of policy of such groups = absent 
• more W and EM = more role models to encourage others to come forward = p career
• parties = encourage equal opp = hypocritcial for leg not reflect principles
• NO
• not necessary to be a mirror imae of B society only need to be able to emphasis/advance viewpoint 
• dont all possess same needs/views e.g some pro abortion some not = not able to rep as group
• should elect caring people to rep looking at gender etc = discrimination against suitbale candidates for the job

• MP's rep 
• elected by constituents whose intrests they represent 
• represent the intrests of the voters as understand them 
• socially representative (argued not as most = male , pale, middle class COUNTER  people releived that experienced and high levels education , full rep couldnt happen

SHOULD BE MORE WOMEN/ETHINIC M

• YES
• Dangerous in democ for groups with less wealth and power= unrepresneted = other types of action to get message across 
• fewer debates affecting groups that are unrep = media scrut of policy of such groups = absent 
• more W and EM = more role models to encourage others to come forward = p career
• parties = encourage equal opp = hypocritcial for leg not reflect principles
• NO
• not necessary to be a mirror imae of B society only need to be able to emphasis/advance viewpoint 
• dont all possess same needs/views e.g some pro abortion some not = not able to rep as group
• should elect caring people to rep looking at gender etc = discrimination against suitbale candidates for the job

PS- p has absoulte ultimate authority.  Only P able to make and amend law 

CONSTRAINTS

• Membership of EU
• demands of international monetary fund 
• activities of pressure groups 
• media
• electorate ultimate power 

PS- p has absoulte ultimate authority.  Only P able to make and amend law 

CONSTRAINTS

• Membership of EU - when joined accepted 47 volumes of legislation = lawmaking influenced by decsions made by EU court 
• demands of international monetary fund 
• activities of pressure groups 
• media
• electorate ultimate power - gain and maintain public support = crucial limitation

Parliamentary System- executive governs in and through the legislature. Gov = chosen from the majority party in HOC- dependent on house for support/answerable/accountable to it  and is responsible to the elected assembly = fusion E.G UK       (Even though said to be balanced argued exec dominate leg due to party and electoral systems = produce strong majority gov-> LORD HAILSHAM 'Elective Dictatorship' (below)

• HE argued- flexible con, maj gov in control of sov parl = changes occur at will.  Imbalance in constitution = exec power at expense of parliamentary power 
• checks and balances into by AV Dicey nd lawyers = eroded 
• use of the whipping system to drive through Leg that other MP's dont agree with. Shown in 1974-79 Lab gov

E.G Accountability of ministers- expected to resign if commons pass a vote of no confidence in their performance occured in 1979 callaghan gov forced into calling general election after losing a vote over one vote. 

Question time = also account/scrutiny and by departmental select committees 

doctrine of ministerial responsibility ensures ministers have to answer for actions individually and collectively 

Presidential System- exec = seperatlely elected and in theory equal to the legislature E.G USA

Gov dominate 

• provide majority in the HOC - almost always win 
• They shape the agenda of the house 
• determine the legislative process in the HOC 
• shape the outcome as well as timing of legislation 
• control flow of info to parliament- ministers present when issues disscussed in cabinet and choose what info is made known to MP's 

• parliament supposed examine debate, gov actions etc hold up criticism overall act as a check on upon performance of ministers 
• scrutiny is conducted via debates, letters, early day motions \
• within HOC scrutiny highly adversarial - more so if issues under debate = political controversy = question time    (more info below)
• those Q not answered = get written reply
• PMQ- weekly 30mins on wed argued new format by TB = lets them off the hook.  Old = Harold Macmilian 15 mins 2x week 
• = high point of parliamentary week heated disscussin between party leaders 
• ROLE SELECT COMMITTEES
• Takes place on house floor = away from partisan atmosphere of the chamber = less dramatic, more thorough.  Most eff scrut = committee
• SC for each GovDep to monitor the work of gov 
• selected for the lifetime of parl = aqquire expertise on sub 
• GOOD 
• less partisan way, members well informed, but k back into HOC = inform others, gov more open, encourage gov/ministers act in pre-emptive way 
• BAD 
• Need more resources budget small, need more powers ministers attend but refuse answer Q civil S withdraw info in intrests of national security 

• official oppostion =largest party on opp benches. Challenges measures/actions of gov 3 main f 
• 1. opposes gov- do things differently in the way it reccommends = sustained scruitiny 
• 2. supports the gov where appropriate = responsible, constructive opp if ministers do things in national interest = opp be bi-patisan 
• 3. opp = alternative gov - criticisms have to be responsible to have credibility and not seem obstructive - produce alternative courses for action
• PROBLEMS FOR OPP
• Opp lacks info avaliable to gov- lacks help from officals etc no access to detailed info 
• gov set the political agenda and opp has to respond to it 
• opp reverse party policy too quick expose gov weakness = voters ask why didnt get things right when they were in gov 

• criticise policy during QTime,  by ballot on the motion for the adjourment
• initiate legislation
• convey their views through apperances and propaganda inside house and through media
• INFLUENCE EFFECTIVNESS MPS
• restricted due demands of party loyalty/increasing dom of  HOC by the day = limitation on freedom
• poor facilities- lack of office space and computerised equipment
• complexity of gov business- now = managed economy and welfare state, public hiugh expectations, global interests = more areas of ministerial activity
• growing burden of constituency- work has become more demanding. Most deal with correspondence for 2-3 hours 
• service on public bills- removes members from the floor of H - only place ministers = challenged 

whips- officials who manage supporters of their party in HOC. Responsibility for maintaining discipline, party organisation

Whipped votes = votes when party whips instruct memebers on the line theyre expected to adopt 

3 line whip- MP's expected to attend,  absence only approved if out country or parliam business, ill. Might be able to miss if they have an approved pairing arrangement (agrees with MP of another party not to vote) 

UNITY ESSENTIAL

• Splits = loss of governing partys majority 
• gov wish legislate programme need rely on backing of MP's 
• divsions = harmful = exploit differences 
• parties do face divsion = confusion for the public 

• MP's toe the line
• dont want endanger gov survival
• carrot and the stick- early MP's hope to climb the ladder way to keep them in check 
• REBELLION
• start 2003 labour members rebelled over the Iraq war (121 and 137) 
• fox hunting = dissent recorded 
• lab gov = voted against gov = more abstained 
• L = inflict 'bloody nose' on TB whose leadership/policies = disliked
• free votes- mps choose to reflect their individual opinions. EG- 2003 free vote on fox hunting 329 labour members rejected the PM option 
• SIGNIFICIANCE OF BACK BENCH MP
• Useful party members- specialise in specific area of policy, appear media dicsuss issues in which expertise contributes
• good constituency members- devote time to C work earn good rep for those they seek to serve 
• individualists- not easily contained within the political system- Richard Sheperd(con)- active in areas freedom nd info nd abuse of exec power = persistent 
• part timers- some seek to combine outside occupation with parliamentary activity 

critics of the house 

• HOC needs strengthening to = greater influence= more effective hold gov accountable for its work - act as watchdog over the executive. Back benchers = often adapt to approach as reform minded. Want to see reforms strengthen chamber 
• others see = debating chamber = more place to vent arguments then check on the executive- reforms = more efficient = welcome 

• modfiy the HOC timetable - hours made more family friendly = start/finish earlier
• provide more office space - portcullis house
• PMQ- now 30 min session each week instead 2 shorter
• more effective Q to PM- from 2003 TB = answer Q from select committee, commons liasion committee
• provide more pre leg scrutiny for leg- ensure bil produced = undertaken careful analysis nd recongised any possible problems
• MORE TO BE DONE
• More powerful select committees- powers make ministers answer, more attention/debate of committee reports
• better pay/facilitate MP's- some feel cant get secretarial nd research they need- need more constituency help/better computer links with local base
• full time MP's- jobs are getting done well enough when part time, memberS of P nd engagement in committee = too demmanding = constant attention. HOWEVER argued that outside jobs = house benefit from experience and knowledge. hard working = do both