Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

politics paper 2, utopian: a state where everything is ideal/perfect -…

- - - - anarcho-feminism
      - pro-revolution and direct action
      - government exists to maintain special privilege and property rights
      - syndicalism
    - - anarcho-communist
      - all is for all
      - humans are good - sociable, rational, altruistic
      - people prefer to live and work cooperatively in groups
    - - sydicalism
      - political freedom without economic equality is a pretence, a fraud, a lie
      - people are born as blank slates but will be made good through education
  - - - human nature is self-serving
      - ego drives people to do what they want
      - cooperation is only to further individualist aims
      - egoism and nihilism
    - - humans are economically driven rather than socially driven
      - absolute freedom of economy
      - against collective ownership
      - pro-private property, which would be regulated by private insurance companies, and security firms
  - - - 'property is theft'
      - order without power
      - communism is the exploitation of the strong by the weak
      - syndicalism- transferring ownership of power of means of production and distribution to the workers
      - everyone is entitled to a home and tools for work
- - - - Magna Carta 1215
        
        the king of england agrees to govern his people by the customs of feudal law
        
        an attempt by land barons to stop abuse by the king
        
        basic rights such as trial by jury were established
      - bill of rights 1689
        
        guaranteed basic rights such as free elections
        
        laid out rights of parliament and limitations on power of the monarch
        
        established Parliamentary privilege (frequent parliaments and free speech in Parliament)
        
        no right of taxation without government intervention
        
        freedom from government interference
        
        just treatment of people by the courts
        
        right to petition
      - Act of Settlement 1701
        
        confirmed the power of Parliament to determine the succession to the throne - an attempt to prevent a Catholic monarch
      - Acts of Union 1707
        
        united scotland to england and wales, creating the UK of GB, Scotland retained their own legal system
      - Parliament Act 1911
        
        removed the House of Lords' power to veto a bill, except one to extend the lifetime of a Parliament. Instead the Lords could delay a Bill by up to two years
        
        reduced the maximum lifespan of a Parliament from 7 years to 5
      - Parliament Act 1949
        
        reduced Lords delaying power to 1 year
        
        define the powers of the Lords in relation to public bills
        
        Money Bills start in the Commons and must receive Royal Assent no later than a month after being introduced in the Lords, even if the Lords has not passed them. The Lords cannot amend Money Bills
        
        Most other Commons Bills can be held up by the Lords if they disagree with them for about a year but ultimately the elected House of Commons can reintroduce them in the following session and pass them without the consent of the Lords
      - European Communities Act 1972
        
        joined the UK into the European Community (now the EU) with the eventual effect that EU law takes precedent over UK law
    - - removal of hereditary peers: shifted power from parliament to government - allowed govt greater say over membership of the Lords
      - creation of backbench business committee: shifted power from government to parliament - greater control over parliamentary timetable to raise issues of concern to back benches
      - election of select committee chairs: power from gov to parl - MPs vote for select chairs, tend to select more independent minded MPs, whips lose control
      - fixed term parliament act: power from gov to parl - gives power to parl as to when next election happens
- - - - during crises PM must discuss all options with cabinet as the cabinet is the accumulated wisdom of the government
      - following the argentinian invasion of the falklands in 1982, thatcher called an emergency cabinet meeting to discuss all diplomatic and military options
      - april 2018 theresa may called an urgent meeting to discuss a response to the syrian govts use of chemical weapons. was important to rely on cabinet as she did not plan on consulting the commons. strong but undermines sovereignty
      - 2018 theresa may summoned whole cabinet to aceive a united approach to the sort of brexit they would pursue. this was defeated in parliament
      - cabinet can challenge the PM. 1969 a cabinet revolt stopped harold wilson from placing legal restraints on growing trade union powers
    - - Harold Macmillan had a clear political agenda. in 6 years he appointed 4 chancellors of the exchequer, closely monitored their economic policy. on the appointment of chancellor Reginald Maudling he noted in his (Macmillan's) diary "to my great pleasure and surprise the Treasury are now adopting my views"
      - harold wilson liked to make decisions through a small body of core advisors in his flat. known as 'the kitchen cabinet' they included his close friends and allies
      - Margaret Thatcher had a clear vision and pushed through legislation such as the poll tax with insufficient discussion.
  - - - yes has power and influence over the executive
        
        2010: supreme court ruled that parliament had not acted lawfully when insisting that convicted sex offenders should be registered with the police for life. This breached the offenders’ human rights, so instead, they should be given the right to appeal against the registration after 15 years since leaving prison. Sometimes, the court finds in the government’s favour
        
        Their position as ‘final court of appeal’ means they only deal with the most significant matters
        
        Declarations of incompatibility puts pressure on the government to act
        
        The increasing degree of judicial activism reflects an increasing willingness to challenge government
        
        The court’s independence makes it hard for the government to control (for example, the appointments, pay and security of tenure
        
        The introduction of the Human Rights Act makes it more possible for the court to uphold liberties and challenge government
        
        independence is guaranteed by law
        
        can set aside executive actions that contradict the echr of the rule of law
        
        it can interpret law and so affect the way its implemented
        
        judgements cannot be overturned by a higher court post-brexit
        
        cannot overrule parliamentary sovereignty but can declare proposed legislation incompatible with the echr which is influential
        
        2010 the supreme court ruled that the government did not have the right to freeze the bank assets of terrorist suspects. However, to overrule this, the government passed the terrorist asset freezing act giving the power to parliament
        
        judicial review has led to an increase in judicial activism. this began in the 60s with Ridge v Baldwin. judges have more power to challenge the processes by which govts behave and ensure processes are adhered to
        
        the 2016 and 2019 cases brought by gina miller highlight the willingness of the judiciary to challenge the power of the executive - for the rights of private citizens or parliament
      - no it doesn't
        
        They are bound by the law passed by Parliament- they cannot make law themselves. The government could use Parliament to change law to suit its own needs/actions
        
        A declaration of incompatibility cannot be used to strike down a law, just recommend that it be changed
        
        The court cannot be proactive- it must wait for cases to come to them
        
        There have been concerns raised over the extent to which the court is neutral and independent (e.g. the narrow social background, the fact that the Lord Chancellor still has some say in appointments)
        
        The Human Rights Act is not fully entrenched, so could be set aside by governments
        
        cannot activate its own cases but must wait for appeals to be lodged
        
        parliamentary means that its judgements can be overturned by pariamentary statute
        
        has no power to enforce rulings, relying on the executive and legislative branches to implement rlings
        
        power and status are granted by statute law, so could be overturned and altered by parliament - subjected to the whims of a potentially hostile government
        
        with the uk leaving the eu the hra could be overturned, removing a key component of judicial power and infuence in relation to the executive
        
        2016 three high court judges were labelled enemies of the people for ruling in favour that parliament must have a say in the triggering of article 50. although upholding the independence of the judiciary, the govt did nothing to condemn the vitriol of the papers
        
        the executive usually commands a majority in the commons and therefore controls parliament. it is easy for the govt to remove changes made by the supreme court, seen with the changes to judicial review proposed by the johnson govt
      - judicial review: when citizens feel they've been mistreated by a public body they can seek a judicial review. this may be procedural but it may also be where a citizen feels that the executive has not dealt equally with them and has exceeded its statutory powers (acted ultra vires)