Unit 2 quick notes II

Question 1

4

Parliamentary Sovereignty

Answer 1

• Legal Principle: Sovereignty lies with Westminster; Parliament can make or unmake any law (Dicey).
• Human Rights Act (HRA): Allows courts to issue declarations of incompatibility, e.g., Belmarsh Nine case (2004), but cannot override Parliament.
• EU Membership: Eroded sovereignty (e.g., Common Fisheries Policy); however, Brexit (2020) restored full legal sovereignty.
• Treaties: Require parliamentary compliance with international standards (e.g., NATO, Paris Agreement), but Parliament can repeal them.

Question 2

3

Electoral System & Representation

Answer 2

• FPTP Distortion: 2005 – Labour won 55% of seats with 35% vote; 2010 – Conservatives won 47% seats with 37% vote.
• Turnout & Legitimacy: Low turnout (e.g., 61.3% in 2005) undermines consent; only ~21.6% of electorate voted for the government.
• Referenda: Used more frequently (e.g., AV 2011, Brexit); undermine parliamentary supremacy but are still controlled by government.

Question 3

4

Accountability & Scandal

Answer 3

• Weak Oversight: Strong majorities (e.g., Blair, Thatcher) “railroad” laws through Parliament.
• Expenses Scandals: MPs’ misuse of public money (e.g., duck houses, moats).
• Ministerial Resignations: Rare for policy errors (e.g., Estelle Morris, 2002); more often personal misconduct (e.g., David Laws, Huhne).
• Collective Responsibility: Key resignations (e.g., Heseltine 1986, Cook 2003, Johnson 2018); Callaghan govt collapse (1979) after confidence vote loss.

Question 3

4

Devolution

Answer 3

• Establishment: Scottish Parliament (1999), Welsh Assembly, NI Assembly, Greater London Authority.
• Powers: Includes tax-setting (Scotland, since 2016), tuition fee policies.
• Challenges: Low turnout in referendums (e.g., 35% in Wales, 2011); apathy in England (North East rejected regional assembly in 2004).
• Impact: Does not threaten UK unity (e.g., Scotland rejected independence in 2014); resolved some issues (e.g., EVEL addressed West Lothian Question).

Question 4

3

Executive vs Parliament

Answer 4

• Executive Dominance: Controls Commons via majority, payroll vote; PMQs & committees attempt accountability.
• Gina Miller Case (2017): Parliament reasserted power over executive.
• Recent Reforms: Fixed Term Parliaments Act (2011), Right to Recall (2015), shorter recesses, PM appearances before Liaison Committee.

Question 5

3

Lords & Reform

Answer 5

• House of Lords: Unelected, lacks legitimacy; shows independence (e.g., defeats on ID cards, 2005–10).
• Parliament Acts: Rarely used override tool; e.g., age of consent equalization (2000), hunting ban (2004).
• Reform Issues: Lords reform repeatedly stalled; “Cash for Honours” scandals hurt credibility.

Question 6

3

Participation & Political Engagement

Answer 6

• Low Turnout: PCC elections (2012) – 15%; Welsh Assembly (2016) – 45%.
• Electoral Reform: AV rejected in 2011; devolved systems use PR, increasing fairness.
• Pressure Groups: Influence policy (e.g., CBI, IOD) but Parliament retains legislative power (e.g., Hacked Off failure).

Question 7

2

Constitution & Codification Debate

Answer 7

• Arguments For Codification:

Better protection of rights (e.g., limits on post-9/11 anti-terror laws).

Constraint on over-powerful executives.

Greater accountability between elections.

• Arguments Against:

Risk of gridlock (e.g., US system blocking Trump’s wall).

UK allows strong, decisive governance.

Question 8

3

Individual Ministerial Responsibility:

Answer 8

• Scandals and Ministerial Responsibility
  Labour Scandals: Peter Mandelson resigned twice over financial issues. David Blunkett survived an affair scandal but later resigned for allegedly helping fast-track a visa for his lover’s nanny.
• Policy Failures or Incompetence:

Edwina Currie (1988) – salmonella scare.

Estelle Morris – admitted she wasn’t up to the job.

Priti Patel (2017) – unauthorised meetings with Israeli officials.

Amber Rudd (2018) – misled Parliament on Windrush.

Nadhim Zahawi (2022) – over tax issues.

• Personal Misconduct:

Peter Mandelson – resigned twice under Blair.

David Laws – expenses scandal.

Chris Huhne – speeding points scandal.

Damian Green – inappropriate ICT use and lying.

Question 9

3

Prime Ministerial Power

Answer 9

• Rooted in Royal Prerogative: PM technically acts on behalf of the monarch (e.g. declaring war), but in practice holds real power.
• Power of Patronage: Appoints Cabinet ministers, civil servants, media figures (BBC), and even religious leaders (e.g. Archbishop of Canterbury). This power ensures strong influence over MPs.
• Media and Personal Mandate:

Blair used media to project a ‘presidential’ image (e.g. “People’s Princess” after Diana’s death).

PMs exploit media via photo ops and press conferences (e.g. Blair’s monthly briefings, Brown with Obama).

Question 10

2

Influence in Parliament

Answer 10

• Parliamentary Majority:

A large majority enhances PM power (e.g. Blair in 1997 & 2001).

MPs often loyal due to career dependence on PM’s success.

• Opposition & Internal Party Pressure:

Cameron’s rise challenged Blair and Brown.

Corbyn’s divided Labour weakened opposition until Starmer restored unity.

Internal party factions often challenge PMs (e.g. Thatcher’s fall, splits under May and Cameron).

Question 11

6

Cabinet Management

Answer 11

Why PMs Choose Ministers:

• Loyalty: (e.g. Johnson’s ‘leave’ Cabinet; Pickles & Osborne under Cameron).
• Big Beasts: Gove, Braverman (ERG), Johnson under May – hard to sideline.
• Balanced Cabinet: Gender, region, ideology (e.g. May balancing Brexiteers and Remainers).
• Party Management: Prescott (Blair), Hague (Cameron), Rees-Mogg (Johnson).
• Competence: Philip Hammond (Treasury).
• Personal Ties: Cameron’s ‘chumocracy’, May and Damian Green.

Question 12

4

Functions of the Cabinet

Answer 12

• Policy Approval: Formal mechanism, though often bypassed (e.g. Blair and Bank of England independence) and Policy Coordination: Prioritises and connects departmental policy (‘joined-up government’).
• Dispute Resolution: Especially where Treasury involved.
• Debate: Rare, but notable on big issues like Syria, HS2, Libya.
• Crisis Management:

Examples: Black Wednesday (1992), 9/11, Salisbury Poisoning, COVID.

Emergency meetings (e.g. Blair on Iraq, COBRA sessions).

Party Strategy: Manages election timing and backbench opinion via whips.

Question 13

3

Debate on Executive Power: PM vs Cabinet

Answer 13

• Collective Cabinet Government: Traditional view – power lies with the whole Cabinet, not just the PM.
• Challenges to This Model:

Blair & Thatcher: Dominated Cabinet, made unilateral decisions.

Cameron & Johnson: Centralised power (e.g. Cummings’ influence, pre-COVID reshuffle threats).

• Presidentialism: Rise in PMs acting like US Presidents.

Blair, Thatcher, and Cameron appealed directly to voters.

Developed personal ideologies (e.g. Thatcherism, Blairism).

‘Spatial leadership’ – distancing from Cabinet (PM becomes party’s “face”).

Question 14

2

Limitations of PM Power

Answer 14

• Not All PMs Are Presidential:

Brown lacked charisma and mandate.

Cameron governed in coalition; limited power 2010–15.

May lost majority in 2017, reliant on DUP; unable to reshuffle Cabinet freely.

Johnson’s power was curtailed by COVID and Cummings’ controversies.

• Cabinet’s Continued Importance:

Cabinet is vital when PM is weak or lacks majority (e.g. May, coalition under Cameron).

During COVID, power was shared more visibly (Raab stepping in for Johnson).

Question 15

4

Ministerial Responsibility and Resignation

Answer 15

• Collective Responsibility: Ministers resign if they can’t support government policy:

Heseltine (Thatcher), Cook, Denham, Short (Iraq War).

Over 28 ministers quit under May due to Brexit disagreements.

62 ministers quit under Johnson (Partygate & Pincher scandal).

Question 16

5

Charisma and Leadership Style

Answer 16

• Thatcher and Blair: Charismatic, transformational leaders with strong conviction; accused of ‘messiah complexes’. Highly effective communicators across platforms (TV, Commons, interviews, speeches).
• Boris Johnson: Charismatic but lacks the trust and ideological clarity of a conviction politician. Leadership is personality-centric.
• Major, Brown, May, Truss: More transactional. Lacked charisma or media presence. Truss’s personality seen as a major factor in her rapid downfall.
• Cameron: Attempted transformational leadership but limited by the coalition and poor handling of constitutional issues (e.g., Brexit referendum).
• Corbyn & Starmer: Corbyn struggled with party unity until 2017; Starmer seen as a more forensic and effective Leader of the Opposition.

Question 17

5

Cabinet Management and Decision-Making

Answer 17

• Thatcher & Blair: Reduced role of Cabinet; rise of ‘sofa government’ and informal decision-making. Blair was criticised for sidelining the Cabinet.
• Cameron: Restored some Cabinet importance through the Coalition and use of the ‘Quad’.
• May: Depended more on Cabinet due to Brexit divisions; managed a delicate balance between Remainers and Leavers.
• Johnson: Faced significant Cabinet resignations; Cummings had significant influence.
• Kitchen Cabinets and Special Advisers (SpAds) have grown in influence—e.g., Alastair Campbell (Blair), Dominic Cummings (Johnson).

Question 18

4

Media and Personalisation of Politics

Answer 18

• Media mastery is a critical tool. Blair held monthly press briefings and had higher personal ratings than the Labour Party.
• Cameron & Johnson also benefitted from personal appeal. Johnson dubbed ‘Mayor of Britain’ due to showman-like leadership.
• Event manipulation: Blair after Princess Diana’s death; Johnson during early COVID-19 response.
• Media backlash: May post-Grenfell; Brown’s “bigot-gate”; Johnson’s “Partygate” damaged their public image.

Question 18

4

Party Management and Parliamentary Support

Answer 18

• PMs require strong party backing. Backbench rebellions brought down Thatcher, destabilised Brown, May, and Johnson.
• Blair faced resistance from the Campaign Group but maintained overall control.
• Theresa May’s Brexit defeats post-2017 show the vulnerability of PMs with weak majorities.
• Cameron & Coalition: Required constant coordination with Clegg. Dubbed a “dual presidency”, with some saying Osborne acted more like VP.

Question 19

3

Role of Events (‘Events, dear boy…’)

Answer 19

• Blair’s Iraq War and Cameron’s Brexit Referendum undermined their leaderships long-term.
• Johnson’s COVID-19 response and Partygate became defining moments.
• PMs can benefit or suffer based on response to national crises (e.g., May’s poor Grenfell handling vs strong response to Salisbury poisonings).

Question 20

3

Institutional Limitations

Answer 20

• The PM’s power is not presidential. The Downing Street staff (~30) pales in comparison to the US West Wing (~400).
• Parliamentary Sovereignty remains supreme—e.g., parliamentary vote blocking airstrikes on Syria (2013); judiciary asserting that assisted dying laws are for Parliament to decide (Nicklinson case).
• Spatial Leadership (Foley): PMs adopt presidential techniques—media focus, outsider status, dominance over departments.

Question 21

3

Foreign Policy and Prerogative Powers

Answer 21

• PMs act as chief foreign policy-makers, inheriting monarchic prerogative powers.
• Examples: Thatcher in the Falklands, Blair in Iraq, Cameron in Libya.
• Since 2003, PMs increasingly seek Parliamentary approval for military action (a legacy of Iraq).

Question 22

3

Parliamentary Majority and Legislative Power

Answer 22

• Strong majorities empower PMs: Thatcher lost one vote in 11 years; Blair only two post-2005.
• Johnson (2019) had a majority of 80, giving him legislative dominance—until scandals undermined support.
• Minority governments (May, 2017–2019) lose control of the legislative agenda (e.g., Parliament took control of Brexit process in 2019).

Question 23

# 3 Patronage and Collective Responsibility

Answer 23

- PMs use patronage to build loyalty (ministerial appointments). - Collective Responsibility enforces Cabinet discipline—the ‘payroll vote’. - High-profile resignations can be fatal (e.g., Johnson in 2022, Thatcher in 1990).

Question 24

# 3 🧑‍⚖️ Judicial Review & Key Legal Cases

Answer 24

- 1. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU (2017) Supreme Court ruled Parliament must authorize triggering Article 50. Reaffirmed parliamentary sovereignty. Limited government's prerogative powers on treaties. - 2. R (Miller) v Prime Minister & Cherry v Advocate General (2019) Supreme Court ruled Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament unlawful. Asserted that prerogative powers are justiciable. Major assertion of judicial oversight of executive power. Reinforced rule of law and parliamentary accountability. - 3. Heathrow Third Runway Case (2020) Court of Appeal: gov’t acted unlawfully by ignoring climate commitments. Victory for environmental pressure groups (Friends of the Earth). Example of courts influencing policy and judicial activism.

Question 25

# 3 ⚖️ Judicial Independence & Reforms

Answer 25

Constitutional Reforms: - 2005 Constitutional Reform Act: Ended Lord Chancellor’s role as head of judiciary (now Lord Chief Justice). Lord Chancellor now swears oath to uphold judicial independence. - Judicial Appointments Commission (2006): Took power from PM and Lord Chancellor. Promotes merit-based appointments. - UK Supreme Court (2009): Separated judiciary from the legislature (end of Law Lords' dual role).

Question 26

# 2 🏛️ Political Interference in the Judiciary

Answer 26

- Examples: Theresa May (2013): Criticized judges over HRA interpretations (foreign criminals & Art. 8). David Blunkett: Criticized judiciary over Asylum Act 2002; called judges "dictators in wigs". Michael Howard (1993): Criticized Bulger killers' sentencing. John Hemming MP (2011): Broke superinjunction re: Ryan Giggs. David Cameron (2014): Publicly backed Nigella Lawson during trial ("Team Nigella"). - Concerns: Politicians challenge or undermine judicial neutrality and independence. High-profile interventions erode public trust in judicial impartiality.

Question 27

# 3 🧪 Judicial Neutrality Criticisms

Answer 27

- ‘Griffith Thesis’: Judges' elite, conservative backgrounds (70% privately educated, 78% Oxbridge) influence rulings in favor of the establishment. - Superinjunction Bias: Alleged male judges’ protection of male celebrities. - Lord Hoffman: Conflict of interest in Pinochet case due to Amnesty International links.

Question 28

# 3 ✊ Judiciary and Civil Liberties

Answer 28

- Macpherson Report (1999): Identified institutional racism in Met Police after Stephen Lawrence's murder. - Sara Cox v The People: Right to privacy upheld (press intrusion case). - General Pinochet case (1998): Lords ruled in favor of extradition based on human rights – major step in universal jurisdiction.

Question 29

# 4 🧠 Judicial Leadership Commentary

Answer 29

- Judges using status to critique policy: - Lord Woolf: Slammed gov’t over prison overcrowding. - Lord Judge (2009): Criticized over-legislation. - Judge Richard Bray: Attacked immigration laws as problematic.

Question 30

# 3 📉 Challenges to Judicial Review

Answer 30

- Judicial Review Act 2022: Made it harder for JR claims to be heard. - Undermines checks on executive power through judicial process. - Reflects ongoing tension between government and courts.

Question 30

# 5 📊 Parliamentary Sovereignty vs. Government Control

Answer 30

- Post-2019: Johnson’s 80-seat majority allowed swift passage of Brexit legislation. - Party whips, payroll vote (160–170 MPs), and government control of committees = weak legislative scrutiny. - Liaison Committee: PM dodged appearances, reducing accountability. - Backbench rebellions (e.g., Syria, EU referendum) show some resistance. - Select Committees (e.g., Margaret Hodge, PAC): Growing power and public profile.

Question 31

# 3 Parliamentary Power Defeating the Government

Answer 31

- December 2017: Backbench MPs defeated the government by 309-305 on a meaningful vote amendment to the EU withdrawal bill. - October 2012: Labour Party + 50 Conservative MPs defeated the government by 307-294 on EU spending cuts. - Conclusion: These are rare examples of Parliament overriding the Executive’s decisions, demonstrating the potential for Parliamentary power to be greater than Executive power.

Question 32

# 3 Party Whip System

Answer 32

- Party Whip: MPs are often forced to follow party lines to progress in their careers (especially for promotion within the Party). - Blair’s Era: Only 2 government defeats due to strong party discipline. - Conclusion: While Parliament can resist the Executive, the whip system means that government policy is typically supported by MPs, limiting parliamentary challenges.

Question 32

# 4 Free Votes and Backbench Rebellions

Answer 32

- Free Votes: MPs can vote independently on certain issues (e.g., Gay Marriage Bill), which allows rebellion. Example: 136 Conservative MPs voted against the Gay Marriage Bill. - Payroll Vote: Ministers (e.g., Hunt, Hammond) must support government policy due to collective ministerial responsibility. - Rebellions: Ministers like Robin Cook resigned in protest against the Iraq War in 2003, but such resignations are rare. - Conclusion: While free votes and rebellions show some Parliamentary power, the payroll vote ensures the Executive’s dominance.

Question 33

# 5 Rebellions Against Government Policy

Answer 33

- Tuition Fees (2010): 21 Liberal Democrat MPs + Conservative and Labour MPs voted against government legislation. - Increasing MP Independence: More MPs are career politicians and better educated, leading to more vocal rebellions. - Coalition Government: Faced many backbench rebellions, suggesting a diminishing power of the Executive over Parliament. - Promotion Pressure: Many MPs stay loyal to the government to advance their careers (e.g., Ed Balls remained loyal to Gordon Brown). - Conclusion: Rebellions show Parliament’s growing independence, but most MPs prioritize career advancement, making widespread rebellion rare.

Question 34

# 3 There are several members of the Executive (the government) that play judicial roles.

Answer 34

- The Attorney-General (Jeremy Wright) is the government’s legal adviser. He is supposed to provide independent legal advice but is also a member of the Cabinet (c.f. Iraq War advice in 2003). - The Home Secretary is responsible for law and order. This can lead them into judicial territory. For example, s/he has the power to detain suspected terrorists under house arrest for 28 days without trial. - The Justice Secretary is responsible for the smooth running of the court system. This can lead him into judicial territory. e.g. under the last Labour Govt when Jack Straw wavered about releasing details of Jon Venables’ trial.

Question 35

Judiciary legislative role

Answer 35

- The judiciary does still play a legislative role in the making of Common Law (this is law set by precedent by Judges). Therefore it is difficult to argue that the judiciary is completely independent. - Politicians appoint judges to head up Judicial Inquiries which often examine the functioning of government! (e.g. Tony Blair appointed Lord Hutton to head up the inquiry into the death of scientist, David Kelly + Chilcott Inquiry). The Lord Chancellor also still formally appoints Judges. - The HRA has brought the Judiciary into conflict with the Government illustrating a lack of independence again. Especially in cases where judges use the HRA to overrule acts of parliament (e.g. deeming house arrest to be a deprivation of liberty and also effectively creating ‘new privacy laws’ with respect to super injunctions.

Question 36

Judiciary biases

Answer 36

- Lord Hoffman & General Pinochet (1998) Lord Hoffman fails to disclose his links to human rights group, Amnesty International, and the Law Lords ruling to extradite Pinochet on grounds of war crimes is overturned. - ‘Griffith Thesis’ The idea that judges have an inherent and tacit bias towards the establishment due to their conservative background (75% of judges are privately educated). - Alleged bias of male judges to preserving the privacy of male celebrities’ infidelity. Series of super injunctions for the likes of Ryan Giggs and Andrew Marr in 2011 raised issues of a gender bias.

Question 37

Backbench sprung

Answer 37

Backbench rebellions are increasingly common, the coalition government faced the most rebellious parliament since 1945, with 37% of divisions facing a rebellion. In August 2013, Cameron faced a rebellion on military intervention, over Syria. In May 2013, 37% of the Conservative party staged a rebellion on the Queen’s speech, supporting an amendment regretting the absence of a commitment to an EU referendum.

Question 38

Life expectancy

Answer 38

According to the Office of National Statistics The 50 local areas with lowest life expectancy at birth were in the North East and the North West. The top 50 local areas with the highest male life expectancy at birth were in the South East, East of England, South West, London and East Midlands.

Question 39

The Parliament Act

Answer 39

Changing the voting system for the EU parliament elections (1999) Equalising the age of consent for gay and heterosexual people (2000) Banning hunting with dogs (2004)

Question 40

Lords getting sprung

Answer 40

- Lib Dem peers showed great independence in the Labour government of 2005. They argued that the Salisbury convention did not apply as the government had been elected in on 35.5% of the popular vote. They therefore voted against the Labour scheme for id cards (which was in the party manifesto). Peers were also emboldened by the Coalition government as they too felt that the Salisbury convention did not apply to the Coalition Agreement. - The Labour government of 1997-2005 faced 528 defeats in the House of Lords. The coalition government faced 60 defeats.

Question 41

Ministers

Answer 41

The most senior ministers will be in charge of an entire department, such as Philip Hammond at the Treasury. - Junior ministers will be in charge of a more narrow range of policy, such as Damian Hinds, the minister for Education. As such they seek to develop policy and legislation in line with the government’s aims – which is usually outlined in the manifesto at the preceding election.

Question 42

Cabinet prospects

Answer 42

Reward Loyalty e.g. Cameron’s appointment of loyalists such as Eric Pickles or George Osborne (also a personal friend). Johnson’s Cabinet = a cabinet of ‘leavers’. - Need for ‘Big Hitters’ or ‘big Beasts’ e..g Johnson’s appointment to May government (US President, Lyndon Johnson said of his rivals that it was, ‘better to have them inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.’). Arguably Gove’s position in Johnson’s cabinet. Suella Bravermann = dominant member of the ERG wing of the party & arguably cannot be fired due to Sunak’s reliance on them. - Need for a balanced Cabinet. Both ‘wings’ of the Party often need to be represented. E.g. within May’s government she is balancing off the Euro-sceptics and the pro-Europeans. There is also a need for a mix of men and women and for various regions of the country to be represented (and also backgrounds). Johnson hasn’t observed this. - Need to placate parliamentary party (or the ‘grassroots’) e.g. John Prescott was important for Blair as the ‘diplomatic envoy of the working classes to the Labour Party’. William Hague played a similar role for Cameron. Johnson has appointed popular figures from the backbenches like Rees-Mogg.

Question 43

Judges attacked by politicians

Answer 43

Michael Howard & Jamie Bulger Case (+ Straw on Venables Case) Home Secretary, Michael Howard, criticises the sentences of the two children found guilty in the Bulger case. Jack Straw decides not to inform the public on the recent offences committed by Jon Venables, one of the Bulger killers. Blunkett & Maxine Carr (2005) Blunkett, arguably in response to public pressure, intervenes in the debate as to whether Maxine Carr should be allowed early leave from her sentence Theresa May & the HRA (Right to a Family Life (2013) Theresa May publicly criticised judge’s interpretation of the HRA which wrongly allowed (in her view) for some criminals to have the right to stay in the country (and not be deported) after they had served their sentence (due to their, ‘Right to a Family Life’ Art. 8). David Cameron & Nigella Lawson (2014) During the trial of Nigella Lawson’s housekeepers (accused of stealing) Cameron said that he was on ‘Team Nigella.’

Question 44

Judges finding civil rights

Answer 44

Sara Cox v The People DJ Sara Cox awarded damages for a breach of her privacy when photos of her on a private beach are published by ‘The People.’ Macpherson Inquiry into death of Stephen Lawrence. Lord Macpherson finds evidence of ‘institutionalised racism’ within the Metropolitan Police Force. They subsequently review all their procedures to do with dealing with ethnic minorities.

Question 45

Media against judges

Answer 45

Right wing critics say that it has an inbuilt liberal bias especially after the miller cases in 2017 and 20 19 where it ruled against the government Media has undermined neutrality - judges faced extreme scrutiny from the press during the 2017 miller case - the Daily Mail found that 6 justices had personal relationships with people who had been openly supportive of the EU and 5 had expressed sympathetic views towards the EU Politicians have attempted to politicise the judiciary - Johnson, after the 2019 miller case, announced the creation of the Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission to look into reforming the SC and the judiciary, one proposal that was floated was that each justice should be confirmed by parliament like in the US where SC judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate Johnson threatened "consequences" after the SC forced him to reopen parliament in 2019