Politics Essay Plans (UK Government)
(5) The constitution (4 plans)
ETE to which devolution has been successful
Criterion: successful = conducive to the aims of liberal democracy
(representation etc)
Conclusion: devolution has been partially successful: it has successfully
decentralised power to most nations (but not NI), has allowed greater
representation (at expense of coalitions), and increased referendum
participation (but not elections) so is limited on many fronts
P1- decentralisation of policymaking
SUCCESSFUL UNSUCCESSFUL
-> Quasi-federalism due to 1998 -> Asymmetric (no devo-max tax
Scotland/ Northern Ireland/Govt of powers in Wales or NI, which is unfair
Wales Acts means decentralisation of and undemocratic)
3 types of policy -> UK Parliament remains legally
-> Scotland Act 2016 gave full fiscal sovereign so can recall powers (NI
autonomy (devo-max) following close Parliament not functional for 35%
result of 2014 Scottish independence lifespan, suspended 2002-2007 due to
referendum IRA spying allegations) so not fully
POLICY IS SUCCESSFULLY decentralised
DECENTRALISED POWER IS ONLY DECENTRALISED DE
FACTO
P2- representative elections
SUCCESSFUL UNSUCCESSFUL
-> Nations use more representative -> Coalitions or minority governments
voting systems: Scotland, Wales, and (Scotland has had coalitions every
GLA use AMS; NI uses STV to ensure year except 2011, NI must have a
social representation coalition via Good Friday treaty)
-> In 2003, the Senedd was the first -> STV in NI designed to yield one
legislature to achieve a perfect gender unionist and one republican has not
balance (30 each) and Scottish been effective (leader resigned 2022
Parliament has 45% women and suspended 35% lifespan)
DEVOLUTION = MORE ISSUES WITH DIFFERENT ELECTORAL
REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEMS
P3- democratic participation
SUCCESSFUL UNSUCCESSFUL
-> Devolved referendums have high -> Devolved elections have
levels of participation (Scottish consistently low participation (highest
referendum 85% turnout, Good Friday Senedd turnout was 47% in 2021,
agreement over 80% turnout) NI/Scotland average of around 60%)
-> High participation gives democratic -> General sense of being
mandate and pluralism within ‘underwhelmed’ and ignorance over
democracy = legitimacy roles (PCC turnout 15% 2012)
REFERENDUMS LOW ELECTION TURNOUT NOT
LEGITIMATE/SUCCESSFUL DEMOCRATIC
ETE to which constitutional reform since 1997 has been effective
Criterion: constitutional reforms are ‘successful’ if they further the aims of a
,liberal democracy
Conclusion: reforms to further decentralisation and separation of powers
have enhanced liberal democracy in the UK somewhat, but reforms to human
rights have not, and are only superficial
P1- devolution = decentralisation in liberal democracy
SUCCESSFUL UNSUCCESSFUL
-> 1998 Scotland/Northern -> Ireland keeps having power
Ireland/Govt of Wales Acts created recalled (35% lifespan, suspended
devolved assemblies with autonomy 2002-2007, IRA spying)
to use PR electoral systems -> Asymmetric (no devo-max in Wales
-> Scotland Act 2016 full fiscal or NI, which is unfair and
autonomy (devo-max) following close undemocratic)
result of 2014 Scottish independence -> Turnout is very low (Senedd
referendum turnout always around 45%,
DEVOLUTION WIDELY NI/Scotland 60%)
SMOOTH/POPULAR DEVOLUTION IS
UNEQUAL/PROBLEMATIC
P2- human rights = protection of rights in liberal democracy
SUCCESSFUL UNSUCCESSFUL
-> Human Rights Act 1998 and -> Parliament is legally sovereign (not
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (in de jure protection and can be
domestic law, de facto binding on overridden) and vulnerable to
Parliament, good basis for complaint) demagoguery (Policing Bill)
-> Judiciary increasingly challenging -> Between 2010-2015, only 3
rights breaches since HRA: 29 during declarations of incompatibility,
2000-2010 showing unstable trend
HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE IMPROVED HUMAN RIGHTS ARE LEGALLY
SINCE 1997 PRECARIOUS
P3- House of Lords reforms = separation of powers in liberal democracy
SUCCESSFUL UNSUCCESSFUL
-> Constitutional Reform Act 2005 -> Outdated: 92 hereditary peers due
(Supreme Court instead of 12 law to Cranbourne Compromise, unelected
lords, Lord Chancellor dissolved to and elitist (cash-for-honours scandals,
minister so not all 3 branches) Jo Johnson)
-> House of Lords Act 1999 -> Lacks democratic legitimacy: 2015
(hereditary peers abolished, more Osbourne’s tax credit cuts blocked by
democratic) peers (he called this a ‘constitutional
GREATER SEPERATION OF POWERS challenge’)
HAS BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL SINCE HOUSE OF LORDS IS STILL
1997 UNDEMOCRATIC
ETE to which the constitution should be codified
Criterion: should be codified if it would enhance liberal democracy (eg
protection of rights)
Conclusion: constitution should be codified as it would enhance protection of
human rights, limit unchecked executive powers, and allow modern and
rational debate on constitutional issues
P1- flexibility/organic development
, SHOULD NOT BE CODIFIED SHOULD BE CODIFIED
-> Organic so allows appropriate -> Parliamentary sovereignty means
changes when societal events occur rights only protected de facto, not de
without lengthy process (such as post- jure (HRA 1998 can be overridden
9/11 counterterrorism measures and with Parliamentary vote)
conditions of the 2010-2015 coalition) -> System vulnerable to demagoguery
-> Rights strongly protected de facto and rights violations (Police, Crime,
in HRA 1998 and EHCR 1956 with low Sentencing and Courts Bill and
risk of change Terrorist Asset-Freezing Act 2010)
FLEXIBILITY IS NECESSARY AND NOT FLEXIBILITY = HUMAN RIGHTS
RISKY VULNERABLE
P2- executive power
SHOULD NOT BE CODIFIED SHOULD BE CODIFIED
-> Pragmatic to continue with current -> Excessive governmental power
powers as historically no violent with no real checks and balances can
revolution or political upheaval with inhibit democracy (Fixed-Term
an uncodified constitution Parliaments Act 2011 limited
-> Greater powers = more effective government powers but
and responsive governance, such as disregarded/repealed)
Coronavirus Act 2020 which imposed -> Unchecked power is dangerous:
emergency lockdown would prevent demagogue from
EXECUTIVE POWER IS CURRENTLY seizing power
EFFECTIVE EXECUTIVE POWER IS TOO UNLIMITED
P3- legal and rational
SHOULD NOT BE CODIFIED SHOULD BE CODIFIED
-> Would make constitution judiciable -> Debates would be legal not
in two-tier legal system (politicisation political: simple, clear, and rational
of judiciary threatens separation and decisions (no controversy over issues
independence) like voting convention on military)
-> Judges are unelected and -> Modernity in line with European
unaccountable, so political decisions democracy rather than arbitrary
should be made by elected gentleman’s agreements; greater
representatives, which is more public understanding and availability
democratic MODERN AND RATIONAL IN CODIFIED
JUDICIARY HAS SUFFICIENT POWER FORM
ALREADY
ETE to which the UK is now effectively a federal system
Criterion: federal system = irreversible devolution of powers to regional
authorities
Conclusion: the UK can never be fully federal as long as the primacy of
Parliamentary sovereignty exists and is not limited by some form of
constitution, though it is almost maximally quasi-federal
P1- autonomy over policy
FEDERAL SYSTEM NOT FEDERAL SYSTEM
-> Sewel Convention means UK -> Internal Markets Act 2020
Parliament will ‘not normally’ legislate bypassed Sewel Convention and was
in devolved areas without the enforced despite rejection by all
agreement of relevant authorities devolved legislatures: not viable
(5) The constitution (4 plans)
ETE to which devolution has been successful
Criterion: successful = conducive to the aims of liberal democracy
(representation etc)
Conclusion: devolution has been partially successful: it has successfully
decentralised power to most nations (but not NI), has allowed greater
representation (at expense of coalitions), and increased referendum
participation (but not elections) so is limited on many fronts
P1- decentralisation of policymaking
SUCCESSFUL UNSUCCESSFUL
-> Quasi-federalism due to 1998 -> Asymmetric (no devo-max tax
Scotland/ Northern Ireland/Govt of powers in Wales or NI, which is unfair
Wales Acts means decentralisation of and undemocratic)
3 types of policy -> UK Parliament remains legally
-> Scotland Act 2016 gave full fiscal sovereign so can recall powers (NI
autonomy (devo-max) following close Parliament not functional for 35%
result of 2014 Scottish independence lifespan, suspended 2002-2007 due to
referendum IRA spying allegations) so not fully
POLICY IS SUCCESSFULLY decentralised
DECENTRALISED POWER IS ONLY DECENTRALISED DE
FACTO
P2- representative elections
SUCCESSFUL UNSUCCESSFUL
-> Nations use more representative -> Coalitions or minority governments
voting systems: Scotland, Wales, and (Scotland has had coalitions every
GLA use AMS; NI uses STV to ensure year except 2011, NI must have a
social representation coalition via Good Friday treaty)
-> In 2003, the Senedd was the first -> STV in NI designed to yield one
legislature to achieve a perfect gender unionist and one republican has not
balance (30 each) and Scottish been effective (leader resigned 2022
Parliament has 45% women and suspended 35% lifespan)
DEVOLUTION = MORE ISSUES WITH DIFFERENT ELECTORAL
REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEMS
P3- democratic participation
SUCCESSFUL UNSUCCESSFUL
-> Devolved referendums have high -> Devolved elections have
levels of participation (Scottish consistently low participation (highest
referendum 85% turnout, Good Friday Senedd turnout was 47% in 2021,
agreement over 80% turnout) NI/Scotland average of around 60%)
-> High participation gives democratic -> General sense of being
mandate and pluralism within ‘underwhelmed’ and ignorance over
democracy = legitimacy roles (PCC turnout 15% 2012)
REFERENDUMS LOW ELECTION TURNOUT NOT
LEGITIMATE/SUCCESSFUL DEMOCRATIC
ETE to which constitutional reform since 1997 has been effective
Criterion: constitutional reforms are ‘successful’ if they further the aims of a
,liberal democracy
Conclusion: reforms to further decentralisation and separation of powers
have enhanced liberal democracy in the UK somewhat, but reforms to human
rights have not, and are only superficial
P1- devolution = decentralisation in liberal democracy
SUCCESSFUL UNSUCCESSFUL
-> 1998 Scotland/Northern -> Ireland keeps having power
Ireland/Govt of Wales Acts created recalled (35% lifespan, suspended
devolved assemblies with autonomy 2002-2007, IRA spying)
to use PR electoral systems -> Asymmetric (no devo-max in Wales
-> Scotland Act 2016 full fiscal or NI, which is unfair and
autonomy (devo-max) following close undemocratic)
result of 2014 Scottish independence -> Turnout is very low (Senedd
referendum turnout always around 45%,
DEVOLUTION WIDELY NI/Scotland 60%)
SMOOTH/POPULAR DEVOLUTION IS
UNEQUAL/PROBLEMATIC
P2- human rights = protection of rights in liberal democracy
SUCCESSFUL UNSUCCESSFUL
-> Human Rights Act 1998 and -> Parliament is legally sovereign (not
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (in de jure protection and can be
domestic law, de facto binding on overridden) and vulnerable to
Parliament, good basis for complaint) demagoguery (Policing Bill)
-> Judiciary increasingly challenging -> Between 2010-2015, only 3
rights breaches since HRA: 29 during declarations of incompatibility,
2000-2010 showing unstable trend
HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE IMPROVED HUMAN RIGHTS ARE LEGALLY
SINCE 1997 PRECARIOUS
P3- House of Lords reforms = separation of powers in liberal democracy
SUCCESSFUL UNSUCCESSFUL
-> Constitutional Reform Act 2005 -> Outdated: 92 hereditary peers due
(Supreme Court instead of 12 law to Cranbourne Compromise, unelected
lords, Lord Chancellor dissolved to and elitist (cash-for-honours scandals,
minister so not all 3 branches) Jo Johnson)
-> House of Lords Act 1999 -> Lacks democratic legitimacy: 2015
(hereditary peers abolished, more Osbourne’s tax credit cuts blocked by
democratic) peers (he called this a ‘constitutional
GREATER SEPERATION OF POWERS challenge’)
HAS BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL SINCE HOUSE OF LORDS IS STILL
1997 UNDEMOCRATIC
ETE to which the constitution should be codified
Criterion: should be codified if it would enhance liberal democracy (eg
protection of rights)
Conclusion: constitution should be codified as it would enhance protection of
human rights, limit unchecked executive powers, and allow modern and
rational debate on constitutional issues
P1- flexibility/organic development
, SHOULD NOT BE CODIFIED SHOULD BE CODIFIED
-> Organic so allows appropriate -> Parliamentary sovereignty means
changes when societal events occur rights only protected de facto, not de
without lengthy process (such as post- jure (HRA 1998 can be overridden
9/11 counterterrorism measures and with Parliamentary vote)
conditions of the 2010-2015 coalition) -> System vulnerable to demagoguery
-> Rights strongly protected de facto and rights violations (Police, Crime,
in HRA 1998 and EHCR 1956 with low Sentencing and Courts Bill and
risk of change Terrorist Asset-Freezing Act 2010)
FLEXIBILITY IS NECESSARY AND NOT FLEXIBILITY = HUMAN RIGHTS
RISKY VULNERABLE
P2- executive power
SHOULD NOT BE CODIFIED SHOULD BE CODIFIED
-> Pragmatic to continue with current -> Excessive governmental power
powers as historically no violent with no real checks and balances can
revolution or political upheaval with inhibit democracy (Fixed-Term
an uncodified constitution Parliaments Act 2011 limited
-> Greater powers = more effective government powers but
and responsive governance, such as disregarded/repealed)
Coronavirus Act 2020 which imposed -> Unchecked power is dangerous:
emergency lockdown would prevent demagogue from
EXECUTIVE POWER IS CURRENTLY seizing power
EFFECTIVE EXECUTIVE POWER IS TOO UNLIMITED
P3- legal and rational
SHOULD NOT BE CODIFIED SHOULD BE CODIFIED
-> Would make constitution judiciable -> Debates would be legal not
in two-tier legal system (politicisation political: simple, clear, and rational
of judiciary threatens separation and decisions (no controversy over issues
independence) like voting convention on military)
-> Judges are unelected and -> Modernity in line with European
unaccountable, so political decisions democracy rather than arbitrary
should be made by elected gentleman’s agreements; greater
representatives, which is more public understanding and availability
democratic MODERN AND RATIONAL IN CODIFIED
JUDICIARY HAS SUFFICIENT POWER FORM
ALREADY
ETE to which the UK is now effectively a federal system
Criterion: federal system = irreversible devolution of powers to regional
authorities
Conclusion: the UK can never be fully federal as long as the primacy of
Parliamentary sovereignty exists and is not limited by some form of
constitution, though it is almost maximally quasi-federal
P1- autonomy over policy
FEDERAL SYSTEM NOT FEDERAL SYSTEM
-> Sewel Convention means UK -> Internal Markets Act 2020
Parliament will ‘not normally’ legislate bypassed Sewel Convention and was
in devolved areas without the enforced despite rejection by all
agreement of relevant authorities devolved legislatures: not viable
