UK Government - Question prompts

Pregunta	Respuesta
FOR UK constitution flawed	1) ACCOUNTABILITY (unaccountable Lords and judges, FPTP) 2) RIGHTS (HRA unentrenched ) 3) DISPERSAL OF POWER (executive controls legislature; elective dictatorship) [clarity; conventions/ precedents]
AGAINST UK constitution flawed	1) ACCOUNTABILITY (parliament + Lords + judges + electorate hold each other to account) 2) RIGHTS (judicial review, HRA, ECHR) 3) DISPERSAL OF POWER (devolution, HofL, supreme court)
FOR UK should have a codified/entrenched constitution	1) POLICY (reduce ill thought out decisions) 2) RIGHTS (gov. power restricted, people aware of rights) 3) LEGITIMACY (judges assess parliament on clear set of rules)
AGAINST UK should have a codified/entrenched constitution	1) POLICY (no longer flexible, extend process unnecessarily) 2) RIGHTS (no demand, gov. accountable, constrain policy) 3) LEGITIMACY (power to unelected judges, always open to interpretation)
FOR reform of the constitution has been successful	1) LEGITIMACY + ACCOUNTABILITY (HofL reform, electoral reform [in devolved]) 2) DISPERSE POWER (devolution, supreme court) 3) RIGHTS (HRA, judicial review, FOIA) 4) MODERNISATION (HofL reform, supreme court
AGAINST reform of the constitution has been successful	1) LEGITIMACY + ACCOUNTABILITY (more HofL, electoral reform) 2) DISPERSE POWER (devolution uneven; England, unelected judges) 3) RIGHTS (HRA unentrenched, unclear) 4) MODERNISATION (HofL, electoral reform
FOR devolution has been a success	1) DISPERSE POWER (decentralised, local issues) 2) DEMOCRATIC (PR in elections, referendums confirmed) 3) APPROVAL (settle NI violence + Scotland independence calls, referendums approve)
AGAINST devolution has been a success	1) DISPERSE POWER (uneven, Westminster still dominant) 2) DEMOCRATIC (West Lothian Question) 3) APPROVAL (Scotland still want independence, England left behind)
FOR preservation of parliamentary sovereignty	1) EU (could remove at any time [brexit], has been ignored) 2) DEVOLUTION (can be revoked, some reserve powers) 3) REFERENDUMS (can control when to call, can be ignored)
AGAINST preservation of parliamentary sovereignty	1) EU (EU law highest) 2) DEVOLUTION (power transferred, unimaginable to remove) 3) REFERENDUMS (appear to need direct consent, unlikely to ignore) [executive power]
FOR effectiveness of backbenchers	1) SCRUTINY (questions, debates, committees) 2) LEGISLATING (PAC, departmental committees, BBC, bills) 3) REPRESENTATION (linked by FPTP, accountable, represent own groups too) [change over time, different in coalition?]
AGAINST effectiveness of backbenchers	1) SCRUTINY (personal gains/corruption) 2) LEGISLATING (ineffective, party dominance in committees) 3) REPRESENTATION (party allegiance, not equal to society, unknown)
FOR effective scrutiny of executive	1) DEBATES (votes, amendments [HofL]) 2) QUESTIONS (individual to departments, PMQs require research + preparation, written questions give detailed response) 3) COMMITTEES (access to resources, scrutinise legislation) [opposition]
AGAINST effective scrutiny of executive	1) DEBATES (whips, HofL limited in power) 2) QUESTIONS (planted/cash 4 questions, PMQs theatrical) 3) COMMITTEES (party dominance, amendments rejected, rights unclear)
FOR elected HofL	1) MODERNISATION (unelected, PR? , create consensus) 2) ACCOUNTABILITY (no authority currently) 3) SCRUTINY (many passive lords, avoid cronyism)
AGAINST elected HofL	1) MODERNISATION (introduce party politics, mirror commons) 2) ACCOUNTABILITY (power limited, lose knowledge and experience) 3) SCRUTINY (vetting, not increase attendance, already effective)
FOR selection of ministers is PMs most important role	1) 2) 3)
AGAINST selection of ministers is PMs most important role	1) 2) 3)
FOR collective ministerial responsibility	1) UNIFYING (united and strong government) 2) CLEAR TO PUBLIC (media and parliament have single policy) 3) ALLOWS FOR DISCUSSION (frank discussions can occur without weakening public view of parliament)
AGAINST collective ministerial responsibility	1) UNIFYING (PM has too much power, resignation undemines gov.) 2) CLEAR TO PUBLIC (stifles debate preventing scrutiny) 3) ALLOWS FOR DISCUSSION (encourages leaking which is dramatic)
FOR PM dominates cabinet	1) AGENDA (can choose what to discuss & just use cabinet to legitimise) 2) PREROGATIVE POWERS (patronage keeps ministers in line) 3) MEDIA (viewed as national leader, personal mandate)
AGAINST PM dominates cabinet	1) AGENDA (some ministers have large influence) 2) PREROGATIVE (reducing) 3) MEDIA (loss of support serious)
FOR election results are the most important factor in PM power	1) ECONOMY (manifesto for healing the economy could seem strong) 2) MEDIA (poor election results present a weak front to the media, reducing trust) 3) PARTY (support from party with large mandate) 4) EVENTS (can handle things decisively and swiftly with large majority)
AGAINST election results are the most important factor in PM power	1) ECONOMY (seen as responsible, people enjoy the comfort) 2) MEDIA (favourable image can spin bad election results) 3) PARTY (united and strong) 4) EVENTS (if handled well can give personal mandate)
FOR PMs are becoming presidential	1) PREROGATIVE POWERS (some personal powers, definite superiority, controls armed forces etc) 2) DOMINATE CABINET (controls policy, selects cabinet) 3) MEDIA IMAGE (appears as head of state, negotiates and meets with other countries)
AGAINST PMs are becoming presidential	1) PREROGATIVE POWERS (requires parliaments approval for many of these) 2) DOMINATE CABINET (no personal mandate, can be removed by cabinet) 3) MEDIA IMAGE (viewed as less of a national symbol than presidents
FOR judiciary controls executive	1) INTERPRETS LAW (can change how it is applied in practice) 2) INCOMPATIBILITY (with ECHR, has influence if picked up by media [moral standing, neutral and independent]) 3) INDEPENDENT (independence in law, after brexit rulings cannot be overturned)
AGAINST judiciary controls executive	1) INTERPRETS LAW (expected to interpret according to gov. intention, parliament can make new legislation) 2) INCOMPATIBILITY (HRA unentrenched,m parliamentary sovereignty) 3) INDEPENDENT (has to wait for appeals, cannot make own cases)
FOR executive controls parliament	1) MAJORITY (usually commands a majority, whips keep in line) 2) SCRUTINY (decisions made in cabinet and legitimised by parliament, amendments can be rejected, lords restricted) 3) NO CONFIDENCE (MPs unlikely to discredit party like that)
AGAINST executive controls parliament	1) MAJORITY (MPs can rebel, esp. when majority is small) 2) SCRUTINY (can propose amendments, threat of exposure keeps ministers in line) 3) NO CONFIDENCE (can dissolve government, disunity makes executive appear weak)

Siguiente

UK Government - Question prompts

Descripción

Resumen del Recurso

Similar

	Creado por Alix Humbles hace más de 6 años