Component 2 UK Government Essay
Plans and Questions
written by
folamiiyiola
www.stuvia.com
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
COMPONENT 2: UK Government
Chapter 1: The Constitution
Evaluate the view that the next logical step after devolution
to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is the devolution
of further power to England (30)
Point 1: Devolution arguably is the next logical step as the
elected mayor model has arguably worked and also the
1978 Barnett formula gives more money to areas such as
Scotland. ​Evidence: The institution of an elected mayor
was created by Blair in 2000, overseeing policy areas such
as development and policing. The first mayor, Ken
Livingstone, introduced a congestion charge in London in
response to increased traffic and environmental damage.
By 2015, a further 16 urban areas including Bristol and
Liverpool also adopted the mayor role. Its success
suggests that further devolution would be successful. ​Link
to democracy: This allows the people to have more
decisions over who influences their local factors, and also
hold them more accountable.
Point 2: Certain regions in England have strong identity,
such as cornwall and Yorkshire. ​According to a study by
‘The Question’, 72/100 people in Yorkshire and 76/100
people in Cornwall believed that they should have more
regional power given to them by the government. This
suggests that there is a strong desire for more regional
devolution in certain areas, with places such as Cornwall
having very strong regional identity (so much to the point
that they have registered as a minority group). ​Link to
democracy: Thus, it would be more democratic to suit the
needs of the huge demand for devolution in some areas of
England.
Point 3: Other areas have rejected further devolution,
which many see as pointless. ​Blair had a referendum in
2004, suggesting that there should be a regional assembly
and decision-making board, promoting economic
development on behalf of the government. This was held
in the North East, where the result was a resounding 78%
no, suggesting that the regional identity is not strong
enough across the whole of England to warrant further
devolution. ​Link to democracy: Thus it would be
undemocratic to have devolution, and not representative of
the whole country.
Evaluate the view that there are more advantages to
having a codified constitution than remaining with an
uncodified constitution (30)
Point 1: An uncodified constitution means that laws can
be easily changed without problems. ​Evidence: After
huge campaigning for the banning of high calibre
handguns after the 1996 Dunblane massacre, in 1997
they were quickly abolished and thus over 400,000
tonnes of ammunition were also surrendered to the
police. This suited the interest of the majority of the
public, with Blair’s government also adding 22. Calibre
handguns to the list shortly after coming into power,
showing that the constitution, as it is uncodified, can be
quickly changed to suit the needs of the people. ​Link to
democracy: This shows that an uncodified constitution is
more democratic as it can be more effectively changed to
suit the needs of Parliament and also the majority of the
people.
Point 2: An codified constitution also means that
unelected, unaccountable judges have too much power.
Evidence: With a codified constitution, judges can
effectively reinterpret laws to whatever they please, with
difficulty surrounding it being changed ,such as the
Obergefell vs Hodges case in 2015 that gave same sex
couples the right to marry. ​Link to democracy: Thus,
unelected judges can also act against the interest of the
sovereign parliament and democratic will of the people,
and instead dictate how certain laws works, which
arguably gives too much power to those who are
unaccountable and unelected.
Point 3: Codification and a constitutional court would be
able to assess the constitutionality of actions by
Parliament.​ Evidence: Parliament itself would be more
legally accountable, and would thus always have to
adhere to the rights of the people when making law,
rather than just have certain advice from judges. An
example of parliament being able to ignore legal
recommendations was Tony Blair’s government taking
away certain civil liberties after the 7/7 attacks and
introducing a system of control that enabled suspects to
be closely monitored through electronic tagging, removal
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
Point 4: English parliament is also fairly useless. ​The
establishment of an English parliament as part of
devolution would also be fairly pointless, with the vast
majority of people already seeing Westminster as ‘English
parliament’. Furthermore, the 1978 Barnett formula also
gives less money per person to people in England than
anywhere else in the UK, and a federal solution could
solve this. ​Link to democracy: Thus, setting up such a
programme would be largely not in the interest of the
population.
of mobile phones and internet access despite adverse
rulings from judges. ​Link to democracy: Thus, the judges
can be prevent totalitarianism in the state and Parliament
as they can ensure that the government always follows
legal procedures, and thus even a government with a vast
majority of seats cannot just pass through whatever laws
they please.
Evaluate the extent to which the reforms made to the
constitution by the coalition government (2010-15) were
significant. (30)
Point 1: Fixed term Parliament act. ​Evidence: The Fixed
Term Parliament Act, passed in 2011 attempts to ensure
that the Prime Minister can no longer exploit the system of
being able to call a general election when the opposing
party is low in the polls. The PM now has a fixed term in
Parliament which is fulfilled, rather than calling a general
election at some point in that time frame. However, this
can still be subverted, as seen in 2017 with May’s snap
election, in which two thirds of Parliament is needed to
vote through the general election and authorise it, which
Labour did.
Evaluate the extent to which the constitutional changes
since 1997 have been beneficial. (30)
Point 1: Human Rights Act and independence of judiciary.
Evidence: The 2005 Constitutional Reform Act led to the
establishment of the Supreme Court four years later,
which acted as the highest court of appeal in the UK for
civil cases and for criminal cases. This development is an
example of the separation of powers - the idea that
independent branches of government should be
independent of each other and hold government legally to
account.
Point 2: Recall of MPs. ​Evidence: The Recall of MPs act,
introduced in 2015, enables constituents to recall their
member of Parliament and call a by-election. If an MP has
violated the law and received a prison sentence or been
involved in an expenses scandal, they can be recalled by
a 10% vote by the constituents of that constituency. Kate
Osamor is likely to face such a vote after her scandal
involving lying to the police about speeding.
Point 3: Rejection of AV replacing FPTP. ​Evidence: The
Point 4: Codification would entrench law and thus make
law making a more well thought out process and educate
the public about constitutional issues. ​Evidence:
Codification would allow people to directly know and
educate themselves about their rights, such as in America
where they can refer to certain areas of the constitution
such as the amendment which allows citizens to own
legally licensed firearms to defend themselves against a
totalitarian state. ​Link to democracy: This is more
democratic, and encourages participation in the political
system, which has arguably been falling. Furthermore,
the law making process would take on a similar approach
to the US, in which 2 thirds of the state and 3 quarters of
the senate must agree before passing a law.
Point 2: Recall of MPs and Fixed term Parliament act.
Evidence: Recall of MPs (2015) ensures that MPs can be
held accountable if they are sentenced to a custodial
sentence or are suspended from the Commons for more
than 21 days, a by-election is triggered if at least 10% of
constituents sign a petition. This means that MPs can be
held accountable for breaking the law, with Kate Osamor
likely to face such a vote after her speeding and lying to
court scandal. The Fixed Term Parliament Act (2011)
prevents Prime Ministers from exploiting the ability to call
a general election at any point during their administration
(when the opposition is polling poorly) and instead a fixed
term of Parliament is given. This was subverted by
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
Liberal Democrats proposed a use of a referendum to
suggest potential electoral reform switching from FPTP to
AV. The UK emphatically rejected this by 67.9%, and thus
the Liberal Democrats in the government were unable to
substantially change the nature of the electoral system.
While the 2010-2015 government pledged to use more
referendums, this did not have any significant outcome on
the political climate.
Point 4: Lack of electoral legitimacy in the House of Lords.
Evidence: ​Under the 2010 coalition, plans for an elected
House of Lords were dropped after a rebellion from 91
Tory backbench MPs. There was no substantial change in
the nature of the House of Lords, who continue to be
elected amongst themselves and generally unaccountable
to the public.
Theresa May as the vote to hold a General Election
reached over two-thirds of Parliament as Corbyn
welcomed it.
Point 3: Point 4: Lack of electoral legitimacy in the House
of Lords. ​Evidence: In 1999, ​The House of Lords Act
receives Royal Assent, reducing the number of hereditary
peers by more than 600 and freezing the number which
remains at 92 until further reform. In 2000 The
independent House of Lords Appointments Commission
is established to recommend and approve suitable
candidates for membership. Yet it continued to lack
democratic legitimacy. Under the 2010 coalition, plans for
an elected House of Lords were dropped after a rebellion
from 91 Tory backbench MPs.
Point 4: Failure to change the electoral system despite
pledged use of more referendums. ​Evidence: The
proposal of switching to an AV electoral system rather
than FPTP was rejected heavily in 2011 with 67.9% of
voters rejecting the idea. While it could be argued that
this was more voting against the Liberal Democrats rather
than the actual idea, failure to implement any substantial
constitutional change to the electoral system undoubtedly
shows that not all constitutional changes were beneficial
as they did not even succeed. Pledges to hold more
referendums was arguably useful, with the 2014 indyref
arguably settling the argument of Scottish independence,
that is, until, the 2016 Brexit referendum in which
Scotland voted heavily to Remain and are being pulled
out of the UK regardless and thus campaigns for
independence grew popularity again.
Evaluate the reasons why pressure for constitutional
reform has grown in recent years. (30)
Point 1: Human Rights vs Bill of Rights. ​Evidence: Many,
particularly Brexiters, have called for a new British ‘Bill of
Rights’ to replace the current EU declaration on Human
rights. Many people believe that Britain should have their
own constitution and form of human rights, rather than
have it dictated to them by the EU courts. The prime
example of this demand for reform was Theresa May’s
inability to deport Abu Qatada as home secretary, with
Qatada opposing deportation since 2005 due to fears of
being tortured in his home country, Jordan, which violated
human rights. Theresa May eventually had him deported
in 2013 after she received assurances from Jordan, yet
the fact that it took Britain so long to remove a terrorist
from their country created more demand for a new Bill of
Rights.
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
Point 2: More representative election systems. ​Evidence:
In the 2017 General Election, it is estimated that up to
66% of the votes cast had no influence on the actual result
of the election due to the FPTP system. The Liberal
Democrats have campaigned for the reform of the
electoral system, putting forward a referendum on FPTP
vs AV, however this failed. Yet demand for a change in
electoral system especially after Brexit has been
supported amongst smaller parties in order to ensure that
people can have a more direct impact on UK politics.
Point 3: Devolution. ​Evidence: Many feel that Blair and
Cameron’s devolution did not go far enough in recent
years, with the SNP having a referendum in 2014 to
remain or to completely devolve from the UK. Areas such
as Yorkshire and Cornwall have high senses of regional
identity, and according to a study by ‘The Question’,
approximately 72/100 people in Yorkshire demand more
devolution as well as 76/100, with some Cornish people
even seeing themselves as a separate ethnic group.
Point 4: More democracy in House of Lords. ​Evidence:
Many people also believe that Blair and Cameron’s
reforms did not go far enough in terms of Lords reform.
The Lords are now chosen by a House of Lords
appointment committee, yet the PM can still appoint Lords
and they are not democratically elected by the public and
therefore both unrepresentative and not democratically
accountable. Many people believe that the Lords should
either be gotten rid of or reformed so there are indeed
aspects of democracy in the Lords, which are not entirely
prominent. The failure of any government to take up this
role has led to more campaigning for House of Lords
reform.
Chapter 2: Parliament
Evaluate the view that Prime Ministers Questions should
be abolished and replaced by other forms of Parliamentary
scrutiny of the executive (30)
Point 1: Iconic PMQs. ​Evidence: PMQs can significantly
impact the image of the government or even the
opposition. Tony Blair described the experience of PMQs
as ‘gut wrenching’, yet also famously branded Major’s
administration as ‘weak, weak, weak’ in the lead up to the
1997 election which he won with the largest majority ever
seen in Parliament, at 179 seats. It allows the PM and the
Evaluate the extent to which the House of Commons has
greater power and influence than the House of Lords.
(30)
Point 1: Use of the Parliament Act. ​Evidence: Usually, the
House of Lords backs down as it does not want to be in
direct opposition to an elected government or House of
Commons. However, the government has a final resort
which establishes the power of the Commons over the
Lords: the Parliament Act. If the upper house remains
opposed to a bill, it can be forced through, as seen when
used three times by the Blair government for the
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
leader of the opposition to show their personalities to the
public, with every debate televised.
Point 2: It also allows backbench MPs to voice concerns
regarding their individual constituencies. ​Evidence:
Backbench MPs can raise various questions to the PM
regarding issues in their individual constituencies, such as
transport or funding. The process thus involves the
entirety of Parliament to allow voices to be heard and
issues raised that are relevant across the country. David
Lammy famously pointed out that his own constituents
were being falsely accused of illegal immigration and not
being a British citizen during the Windrush scandal.
Point 3: The government is not directly held accountable
to anything by any sort of vote during PMQs. ​Evidence:
While PMQs allows MPs across the UK to air different
points of view, it does not actually hold the executive to
account with any form of vote or command to fulfil a
particular issue, and thus the government does not
necessarily face any legal obligations under their scrutiny
during PMQs, merely that they attend.
Point 4: The answers that the government give may avoid
the question. ​Evidence: It is debatable whether the PM
even actually responds to the question or they merely
avoid it. For example, Vicky Foxcroft, MP for Lewisham in
2018 questioned the PM on the impact that Brexit would
have on universities, only for her to be to referred to an
answer that Foxcroft argued did not share the same
details. The ability of the PM to simply dodge and avoid
the question hampers the point of PMQs and does not
successfully hold the executive accountable.
Evaluate the extent to which Parliament is effective in
carrying out its representative role. (30)
Point 1: It is fully elected in a working election by FPTP.
Evidence: MPs are all elected and have received the
largest amount of votes out of any candidate in their
constituency, thus representing their constituency in
Parliament. MPs generally try to serve the interests of their
constituents and vote for them on particular issues, such
as Chuka Umunna campaigning for a second referendum
on EU membership with his constituency, Lambeth, to
changing voting system for EU parliament elections
(1999), equalising the age of consent for gay and
heterosexual people (2000) and banning hunting with
dogs (2004).
Point 2: Representative role of Parliament and Salisbury
Convention and financial legislation. ​Evidence: The
Commons representative role through the use of general
elections gives it far more power and influence than the
House of Lords, which remains unelected. The Commons
is thus directly accountable to the people and also makes
up ministers of the government. Furthermore, the 1945
Salisbury convention ensures that the House of Lords
cannot vote against any legislation that was included in a
government’s manifesto, and thus decreasing its power
compared to the Commons which can vote against this.
Point 3: Lords experience. ​Evidence: It could be argued
that the Lords have gained more influence since the use
of an appointments commission and the removal of the
majority of the hereditary peers in the House of Lords,
meaning that it is now many people with financial
experience which can provide different insight to those
MPs in the House of Commons. However, the Lords still
fails to represent the population, as three quarters of the
members of the Lords are men and just 5% part of an
ethnic minority group.
Point 4: 2015 delay on cuts to tax credits. ​Evidence: The
Lords voted to delay planned cuts to tax credit and to
compensate those who were affected. This raised a
constitutional issue as many argued that the bill was a
financial one and thus the LOrds should not have rejected
it, yet it also showed the power of the Lords. The peers
were actually well within their rights because the tax
credit changes were incorporated into secondary rather
than primary legislation and the Lords was allowed to
reject a statutory instrument.
Evaluate the extent to which Parliament is an effective
check on executive power. (30)
Point 1: Sovereignty of Parliament. ​Evidence: Parliament
is fully sovereign and the government’s servant, thus, if
Parliament commands the government to do something
then it is legally forced to. An example of this was in
December 2018 when the government were found in
contempt of Parliament for the first time in its history as
they had failed to publish legal advice for business as the
UK left the EU. Thus, Parliament’s ability to check
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
vote remain in a larger majority than anywhere else in the
UK.
executive power with legal backing makes it an effective
check on executive power.
Point 2: The number of ethnic minority and female MPs is
also increasing. ​Evidence: There are 52 out of 650 Mps
that are minorities after the 2017 general election from just
27 in 2013. Furthermore, there are now 208 MPs out of
650 in Parliament that are female, up from 191 in 2015,
with 2017 creating the most diverse Parliament yet.
However, these numbers still do not fully represent the
population, as ethnic minorities remain grossly
underrepresented, with 400 men in Parliament.
Point 2: Hung Parliament and Brexit deal. ​Evidence:
Parliament has also held government accountable during
Brexit negotiations, in which Theresa May’s deal was
rejected by the largest majority in history in January 2018,
at 230 votes. The fact that the government must pass its
deal through a hung Parliament has proven extremely
difficult, and Parliament’s massive rejection of May’s
Brexit deal has led to the government returning to
negotiations with the EU.
Point 3: The Lords is completely unelected and
unrepresentative. ​Evidence: The House of Lords
appointment commission elects members to the House of
Lords, meaning that they are not accountable to or
representative of the public. Furthermore, the Lords is
even less diverse, with three quarters of the Lords being
male and just 5% being ethnic minorities. There are also
MPs such as Kate Hoey, which do not represent their
constituents on particular issues, as she has campaigned
for a no-deal Brexit despite her constituents of Vauxhall
voting to remain at 70%.
Point 3: Parliamentary government. ​Evidence: However,
a massively hampering impact on Parliament’s
effectiveness in holding the executive to account is
Parliamentary government. As all cabinet ministers and
secretaries are also MPs, it means that the very own
government can potentially vote through its own
legislation, as Parliamentary government ensures that the
government do not hold themselves accountable in
Parliament or effectively scrutinise the legislation. There
are approximately 21 cabinet ministers as well as MPs
that work in their departments.
Point 4: FPTP is undoubtedly flawed. ​Evidence: FPTP
does not actually represent the majority of votes due to
‘safe seats’ and the fact that different parties can count on
certain areas always voting for them, e.g. metropolitan
areas largely voting Labour. It has been estimated that up
to 66% of the votes cast at the 2017 general election did
not have any impact on the resulting Parliament, showing
that FPTP actually ignores, rather than represents voters.
Point 4: Overwhelming majorities. ​Evidence: It is arguable
that Parliament was proven to be an ineffective check on
executive power during Blair’s administration, in which he
possessed the largest majority ever seen in Parliament
and thus could fairly easily have any policy he wanted
voted through without fear of over 179 Labour MPs
rebelling. The government were not successfully held
accountable for their decision to go to war with Iraq, in
which Parliament overwhelmingly voted to go to war
despite their being little evidence of weapons of mass
destruction.
Evaluate the extent to which Parliament effectively carries
out its functions. (30)
Point 1: Representation. ​Evidence: Parliament represents
650 different constituencies, with every MP gaining the
most votes out of any candidate in their constituency. The
fact that they are elected also shows that they generally
represent the views of their constituents (e.g. A Labour
candidate is voted in to a more left-wing constituency).
However, as MPs are elected by who ‘passes the post’
first, rather than who gains a majority, it means that many
voters are left unrepresented. It is estimated that over 66%
Evaluate the extent to which the UK Parliament has
become an irrelevant institution. (30)
Point 1: Theresa May lobbying Labour MPs and
Parliamentary government. ​Evidence: After her Brexit
deal faced such severe rejection, in January and
February 2019 there were reports in the media that May
was looking to promise vast sums of money to various
constituencies with Labour MPs in order to get some of
them on side for the deal. Theresa May also has the
ability to bypass Parliament through parliamentary
government, in which herself and her cabinet
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
of votes in the June 2017 General Election did not alter
the nature of Parliament. Thus, Parliament does not fulfil
its function of representation. Furthermore, MP’s often fail
to represent the views of their constituents, with Kate
Hoey, MP for Vauxhall, being a virulent campaigner for
Brexit despite her constituency voting 70% to Remain. The
House of Lords are also unelected.
ministers/secretaries can vote through their own deal and
legislation.
Point 2: DUP confidence and supply agreement.
Evidence: The government was also arguably able to
bypass Parliamentary scrutiny by attaining a majority
through their confidence and supply agreement with the
DUP, costing them £1 billion. The fact that the
Point 2: Accountability. ​Evidence: With a hung Parliament, Conservatives lost their majority and a significant amount
the opposition has been able to hold the government
of seats during the 2017 general election yet still retained
accountable. An example of this is in December 2018, in
a majority due to their deal with the DUP arguably
which the Government were voted in contempt of
subverted the democracy of Parliament, making it an
Parliament for failing to publish legal advice for businesses irrelevant institution.
after the UK left the EU. The government was then forced
to push out legal advice immediately, which represented
Point 3: Brexit deal vote and contempt of Parliament.
Parliament’s sovereignty and control over the government. Evidence: Parliament, however, has held the government
However, accountability for the government where it has a accountable in recent months, as they found the
large majority is much less likely, such as during Tony
government in contempt of Parliament in December 2018
Blair’s tenure in which he had such a large majority in
for failing to publish legal advice for businesses as the UK
Parliament that it was difficult to hold the Government
left the EU, as well as rejecting Theresa May’s Brexit deal
accountable for various policies and effectively oppose
by the largest majority ever seen in Parliament at 230
them. This was also seen under Thatcher.
votes, forcing the government to attempt to renegotiate
aspects of the deal in order to crucially pass it through
Point 3: Legislation. ​Evidence: Parliament is arguably
Parliament.
successful with creating legislation, as all legislation must
successfully pass through Parliament in order to become
Point 4: Hung Parliament. ​Evidence: Parliament has
legal. Such legislation was seen by the passing of
become an increasingly important institution since the
triggering Article 50, which was passed by 498 votes to
2017 General Election, in which the Conservatives lost 13
114. Thus, Parliament effectively triggered legislation on
seats while Labour gained 30 and their majority and
the result of the 2016 EU referendum. However,
became entirely reliant on a much smaller party, the
Parliament has also proven to be ineffective regarding
DUP, to give them their majority in Parliament. Parliament
legislation, voting against no-deal in January 2018, yet
is thus far more divided and more cross-party consensus
also voting against Yvette Cooper’s amendment that
is needed to vote through policy, thus making Parliament
would actively seek to extend Article 50 in order to prevent a highly integral institution. The fact that Parliament held
no-deal. Thus, Parliament has arguably been inefficient
the government accountable for failing to publish legal
regarding legislation.
advice and their undesirable Brexit deal shows its
importance in current politics in the UK.
Point 4: Government. ​Evidence: Parliament is the main
way of establishing governments, and has been able to
create governments such as Blair’s which had a huge
Parliamentary majority and thus could implement effective
change, such as introducing the minimum wage. However,
Parliament has arguably been inefficient at establishing
governments in recent years, as the Conservatives were
forced into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats in 2010,
attained a small majority in 2015 and in 2017 were forced
into a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP in
order to retain effective administration. Therefore, it could
be argued that Parliament has recently become ineffective
at its function of producing a Government, as all
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
governments in recent years have been weak.
Evaluate the extent to which the arguments in favour of a
fully elected second chamber are convincing. (30)
Point 1: Accountability. ​Evidence: A democratically elected
House of Lords would enable them to be held
democratically accountable for their statements or votes
on legislation, which currently isn’t the case. The House of
Lords being democratically elected would enable greater
participation in politics. The Lords are currently appointed
by the House of Lords Appointments Commission, yet
they do not have to stand for public elections.
Point 2: Representation. ​Standing for public elections
would also make the Lords more representative of the
current political views that the population have, rather than
having been appointed years ago. There is a current
representation issue in the Lords as over three quarters
are men and just 5% are ethnic minorities. Allowing the
Lords to be democratically elected may lead to a more
representative second chamber.
Point 3: Lords expertise. ​Evidence: While the Lords are
unelected, the number of hereditary peers is now below
5%. The Lords are appointed by a commission and have
valuable credentials for their appointment, such as
experience in the field of law or business, which makes
them effective in scrutinising various bills put forward in
the Commons. An elected house would be more
representative, but it may be less effective at scrutinising
the government and legislation with experience that most
MPs do not possess.
Point 4: Unsettle the power balance in Parliament.
Evidence: The House of Lords is generally subordinate to
the House of Commons as it is convention to respect the
democratic legitimacy of the House. Thus, policy that is
opposed in the House of Lords will still be voted through if
the Commons decides to do so. An example of this was
the Lords voting to delay the Conservative government’s
cuts to tax benefits in October 2015 but chose not to
support a more controversial Liberal Democrat motion
which would block the changes completely, yet they
remained subordinate to the House. If the Lords were to
become democratically elected, their legitimacy may rival
that of the Commons, making legislation passing more
difficult and creating a rivalry of power challenging the
Commons.
Chapter 3: Prime Minister and Executive
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
Evaluate the view that the conventions of ministerial
responsibility no longer adequately account for the actions
of ministers (30)
Point 1: Ministers are quite often held accountable as
individuals for particular mistakes, recently involving
sexual scandals, and thus ministerial responsibility means
they behave better. ​Evidence: Mark Garnier asked his
secretary to buy him sex toys and also often sexually
harassed her, resulting in his sacking in Theresa May’s
cabinet reshuffle. Even despite a Cabinet Office
investigation clearing him of any wrongdoing, the media
scrutiny was enough to have him removed from his
position in cabinet, thus holding him adequately
accountable. ​Link to democracy: This shows that ministers
resign should the scrutiny from the public eye be too
much, which is democratic in removing unpopular
ministers.
Point 2: Collective responsibility take means governments
and parties take responsibility for policy, and thus are
more untied in decisions. ​Evidence: The collective
decision of the Conservative government to support 18+
voting rather than 16+ voting despite harsh scrutiny from
Jeremy Corbyn and the opposition in PMQ’s. Collective
responsibility was seen particularly with the Liberal
Democrats after their decision in 2011 to raise tuition fees
despite pledging against it, and thus publicly apologising
for their decision. ​Link to democracy: This is also more
democratic as it means that parties must unite on their
own policies and be held accountable for them as one
Point 3: Ministerial responsibility is only effective when it
comes into the eyes of the public, with the PM and parties
often ignoring misconduct from MPs. ​Evidence: The PM is
given a weekly list of updates containing the general
misconduct of MPs and only so much of it is revealed to
the public. Theresa May allegedly new about the
allegations surrounding Mark Garnier before they became
public, but chose to avoid them until public scrutiny arose.
Individual responsibility is also unpredictable, and some
MPs may receive unnecessary criticism for small errors,
and thus lose a job that they were competent at. ​Link to
democracy: Thus, this is undemocratic as MPs are
protected from the scrutiny of the public eye.
Evaluate the extent to which the prime minister controls
the cabinet. (30)
Point 1: The cabinet publicly support Theresa May’s
Brexit deal. ​Evidence: Theresa May arguably has control
of her cabinet, at least in the eyes of the media, as they
are united in support of her Brexit deal. Theresa May has
managed to successfully get onside important figures
such as Michael Gove in the cabinet, and the various
resignations, as ministers have been replaced with more
loyal MPs has led to Theresa May having a stronger hold
over her cabinet, at least in the public sphere.
Point 2: The cabinet are appointed by the PM to various
positions and can be reshuffled out of the equation
easily. The PM often chooses MPs who are loyal to her.
Evidence: The PMs hold over the cabinet is also
strengthened by the fact that she can appoint and
remove cabinet minsiters any time she desires, and thus
has chosen MPs who are more loyal to her than their
predecessors, such as appointing Stephen Barclay as
Brexit secretary in November 2018.
Point 3: In private, the cabinet are largely divided by
Theresa May’s Brexit deal. ​Evidence: The PM’s Brexit
deal apparently scraped through the cabinet vote, as she
also faced resignations from important ministers such as
Esther McVey, Dominic Raab and also junior ministers
such as Sam Gyimah for various reasons. It is alleged
that MPs such as Michael Gove are only on side for
May’s deal to disprove claims that they are unloyal based
from past events. The PM has thus largely been unable
to control her cabinet and has faced significant
resignations for this.
Point 4: Theresa May also faces potential leadership
challenges by other cabinet ministers. David Cameron’s
government was similarly divided. ​Evidence: It has also
been alleged that cabinet ministers such as Jeremy Hunt
and Gavin Williamson are planning to contest Theresa
May’s leadership within the party. Furthermore,
Cameron’s cabinet was similarly divided on the issue of
Brexit, with prominent MPs in Cameron’s cabinet such as
Gove and Johnson surprising Cameron in choosing to
support leave rather than remain. Thus, over the most
important socioeconomic issue since WW2, the cabinet
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
Point 4: Collective responsibility is also massively
undermined when individual ministers criticise their own
government/party. ​Evidence: Boris Johnson and David
Davis’ resignation in July undermined Theresa May’s
cabinet, and suggested to many there her Brexit
negotiations were going poorly. Ian Duncan Smith also
undermined the government when he resigned over cuts
to disability taxes by George Osborne, with individual
ministers resigning over disagreements in policy
undermining collective responsibility. ​Link to democracy:
However, this is also democratic as it allows MPs to voice
criticisms of their own government and party on behalf of
the people, such as Ian Duncan Smith.
has been divided for many years and continues to be.
There are also MPs who reportedly support a second
referendum on EU membership, such as Amber Rudd
who has hinted at such in various interviews.
Evaluate the extent to which prime ministers have become
more powerful in recent years. (30)
Point 1: Cameron had a majority in 2015 and a strong
majority under a coalition with Liberal Democrats.
Evidence: Cameron was able to attain a majority of 12
seats in 2015, and thus they were able to continue their
policy of reduced public spending and cuts in order to
attempt to recover from the global financial crisis of 2008.
They were also able to form a coalition with the Liberal
Democrats in 2010 which gave them 364 seats in
Parliament, enabling them to raise tuition fees among
other policies. Thus, Cameron and the Conservatives
during this period provided an example of the PM being
able to strengthen their powers from 2010-2015 with a
parliamentary majority.
Evaluate the extent to which UK prime ministers have
become more like presidents in recent years. (30)
Point 1: Increased scrutiny of personality, especially
since Gordon Brown. ​Evidence: A trope of
presidentialization is an increasing focus on the
personality of a PM rather by the public and media, and
less emphasis on their policies. Such a change has
occurred since Gordon Brown was not an electoral
success, arguably due to his lack of charisma and
appearance as boring. The more flamboyant Cameron
was thus able to have the Conservatives do considerably
better at the 2010 election. The BBC TV debate in 2010
racked up 9.4 million views, with polls suggesting that
Nick Clegg’s performance in the debate led to an
improvement in the polling of the Liberal Democrats.
Point 2: May has a majority in Parliament. Just. ​Evidence:
Theresa May has also been able to maintain a majority in
Parliament through her confidence and supply agreement
with the DUP after the 2017 general election. Whilst the
majority is extremely small, it has enabled the
Conservatives to vote through policy such as economic
migrants having to earn over £30,000 and above in most
cases. She was also, like Cameron, able to call a General
Election at any point she wanted in an attempt to increase
the Conservative majority in Parliament, whereas from
2020 there will be a fixed term that a government has in
Parliament.
Point 2: Rise of social media also responsible for scrutiny
of charisma etc. ​Evidence: The rise of social media has
also arguably increased the focus on the personality of
PM’s in a similar manner to Presidents as there is an
increased forum for discussion. PM’s with strong
majorities can also essentially bypass the issue of
cabinet, as they can vote through their own policy
extremely easily with large amounts of support. Blair,
who had high amounts of charisma in his earlier years
are a prime example of the growing presidentialisation of
the position as PM.
Point 3: Hung Parliament undermined May’s authority.
Evidence: While May was able to just about retain her
majority and thus gain her own electoral mandate, the
majority was severely undermined and Labour gained 30
whilst the Conservatives lost 13 seats. Theresa May’s
power thus decreased and she has become heavily reliant
Point 3: Cabinet approves decisions and the importance
of keeping the support of cabinet is key. ​Evidence:
However, the need to keep cabinet remains a highly
important issue that Presidents do not encounter as
much. The Cabinet, as seen with May’s Brexit deal, take
votes on the most important of decisions and thus the
PM must retain the support of cabinet. The cabinet were
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
on the DUP, which was shown in January’s no-confidence
vote in which the DUP essentially had a veto over whether
Parliament had confidence in the PM or not. Thus, May
has now become entirely dependent on the DUP to uphold
Conservative will in Parliament.
allegedly extremely divided regarding May’s deal and
resignations from Dominic Raab and Esther McVey have
been extremely detrimental to her reputation.
Furthermore, Thatcher was essentially ousted by her
cabinet due to her inability to control it.
Point 4: ERG have also undermined both Cameron and
May. ​Evidence: May has also been severely undermined
by her own party as well as losing her majority in the DUP.
In December, ERG members called a vote of no
confidence within the Conservatives. While May was able
to win, the ERG leader, Jacob Rees-Mogg called for her to
step down. The ERG’s rejection of May’s deal contributed
to the rejection by 230 votes, the largest ever seen in
Parliamentary history. Thus, May’s power as a PM has
undoubtedly decreased in the last couple of years.
Point 4: Parliamentary majorities means PM’s become
like Presidents. ​Evidence: Blair’s presidentialisation was
reinforced by his massive majority in Parliament, which
meant that he was essentially able to force through policy
regardless of any opposition or what his cabinet believed,
in a similar manner that the President can pass various
bills and legislation, bypassing the sovereignty of
Parliament.
Evaluate the extent to which the prime minister’s powers
are limited. (30)
Point 1: Power limited by Parliament. ​Evidence: The Hung
Parliament as a result of the 2017 general election has
significantly limited Theresa May’s powers, and as recently
as February 2018 the Conservatives have become a
minority even with the DUP after the resignation of 3
Conservative MPs joining The Independent Group. This
means it is significantly difficult for the Conservatives to
now pass legislation in Parliament, and thus anything
proposed by the PM may struggle to get through
Parliament. The 2011 fixed term Parliament act also will
prevent PM’s from calling general elections at any point
during their administration and instead ensuring that
Parliament has a fixed term.
Evaluate the extent to which prime ministers’
personalities and leadership styles are the main factor in
affecting their power. (30)
Point 1: Blair charisma and May being robotic. ​Evidence:
An arguable reason as to why Blair was able to achieve
the largest parliamentary majority in history was due to
his charismatic personality, in which he was presented as
a man with ‘middle england’ at heart while being
perceived as a leader who would reform the austerity of
the Thatcherite period. He had a strong hold of his
cabinet who were largely united (though perhaps his
rivalry with Gordon Brown led to conflict in the later years
of his leadership). May, on the other hand, is generally
seen as robotic and unconvincing, with an extremely
divided cabinet regarding Brexit, which was seen through
the resignation of cabinet ministers such as Dominic
Raab and Esther McVey in November 2018. Thatcher
also dominated her cabinet yet was eventually
overthrown.
Point 2: Power limited by party and cabinet. ​Evidence:
May has also struggled to pass policy through her own
cabinet, with allegedly large divided in the cabinet
regarding her Brexit deal, which was voted through by a
small majority. MPs such as Dominic Raab and Esther
McVey also resigned in November 2018 due to the Brexit
deal and thus the PM’s power is also limited by her need
to appease cabinet. Thatcher’s inability to appease cabinet
eventually led to her demise and resignation in 1990.
Point 3: PM can dominate Parliament. ​Evidence: However,
these limits on power are indeed temporary and can be
bypassed. This was largely evidenced by the Blair
administration which had such a huge majority (largest in
history at 179) that it did not hold the PM accountable or
provide any limitations to his power. Thus, Parliament only
succeeds in limiting the PM’s power if there is a small
Point 2: The media and campaigns. ​Evidence: Blair
managed to get The Sun behind his campaign, which
proved key to winning over Conservative working class
voters, with The Sun using headlines such as ‘Time for
Change’. Similarly, Theresa May’s electoral campaign
was fairly monotonous, and the Conservative manifesto
was not perceived to be particularly unique. Furthermore,
David Cameron’s overwhelming support in the media
compared to Ed Miliband was arguably a key for his 12
seat majority victory in 2015.
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
majority or a minority government. May also has the ability
to call a snap general election until 2020 where the fixed
term Parliaments act is introduced, and thus she can
attempt to gain a large majority as she did in 2017.
Point 4: PM can dominate cabinet and party. ​Evidence:
While Thatcher was eventually taken down by her cabinet,
she ruled as PM with a lack of consideration for her
cabinet for many years, thus providing an example of how
a PM can avoid power limitations by their own cabinet.
Blair was also able to dominated his cabinet and prevent
any challenges to leadership despite rivalries with MPs
such as Gordon Brown who was the Chancellor. Blair was
also able to dominate the party due to his huge electoral
mandate and so many Labour MPs being voted on the
manifesto that he commanded.
Evaluate the extent to which it is true to say that prime
ministers are only as powerful as their parties allow them
to be. (30)
Point 1: Parties voting against legislation can make things
much more difficult for PM. ​Evidence: The ERG largely
contributed to the massive rejection (230 votes) that
Theresa May experienced in the meaningful vote on her
Brexit deal in January 2019 and the difficulty that May has
had in appeasing them has been one of the key flaws of
her Brexit deal being able to get through Parliament. The
power of the ERG has highlighted the severe limitations on
the power of the PM. Additionally, the ERG also abstained
from voting for Theresa May’s Brexit strategy, which was
defeated without their votes.
Point 2: Parties can call a vote of no confidence in the PM.
Evidence: The faction of the ERG also showed some of
their power in successfully calling a vote of no confidence
in the PM within the Conservative party in December 2018
as Rees-Mogg publicly demanded that she ‘resign’
immediately. While May was able to win the vote of
no-confidence by 83 votes, it once again proved the
limitations on power for a PM by their own party.
Point 3: Use of whips. ​Evidence: However, the PM can
make use of a 3-line whip in order to bring their own party
Point 3: It is their policy. ​Evidence: Blair’s policy of
constitutional reform in 1997 went down well with Liberal
Democrat voters, and thus New Labour were able to
absorb a large portion of their vote, with estimates
suggesting that this contributed up to 25 seats to Blair’s
majority. Thatcher’s policy of lowering the power of trade
unions was also popular after the winter of discontent of
1978.
Point 4: It is political context. ​Evidence: After the winter of
discontent, it was a foregone conclusion that Thatcher
would be able to win the 1979 election. Similarly, Blair
was able to win by such a margin due to 18 years worth
of Conservatism and low public investment. Additionally,
the Conservatives in 2010 were effective in ensuring that
voters did not trust Labour to handle the economy,
accusing Brown of ‘doubling the national debt’ and
associating Labour policies with the impact of the 2008
global financial crisis, leading to their victory and thus
coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
Evaluate the extent to which coalition government affects
the power of the prime minister. (30)
Point 1: Holds back PM policy - ‘The Quad’. ​Evidence:
During the coalition from 2010-2015, the ‘Quad’
consisting of Cameron, Clegg, Osborne and Alexander
met frequently in order to resolve various disputes and
come to agreement between the coalition partners. Such
resolutions ensured that the Liberal Democrats voted
through various Conservative manifesto policies, most
notably raising tuition fees by up to £6000. A breakdown
of a working relationship could lead to the loss of a
majority in Parliament.
Point 2: Cabinet must be coalition too. ​Evidence: The
cabinet must include members from the coalition, such
as Liberal Democrat MP Danny Alexander as Chief
secretary to the Treasury. Support from the cabinet is
key for implementing policy, and resignations can be
hugely damaging to the image and power of the PM.
Point 3: The Prime Minister can still push through their
own policy. ​Evidence: The PM sets the agenda of
cabinet, allowing them to ignore prominent issues
regardless of the coalition, and Harold Wilson ignored the
growing issue of the devaluation of the pound, despite
cabinet ministers desiring to do so. Most ministers are
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
onside, making use of both threats and incentives to
various MPs to follow the policy of the PM. The use of a
3-line whip by the PM was seen when Tory MPs were
ordered to vote against Windrush transparency in May
2018 which defeated the Labour motion in the Commons.
Point 4: Majority in Parliament. ​Evidence: If a PM has a
huge majority in Parliament, it is difficult for various
factions in the party to rise up against them. This was seen
in the Blair era, in which further left-wing groups in the
party failed to seriously mobilise as Blair’s majority was too
strong with too many loyal supporters. If the PM has a
majority that is strong enough, worrying about their own
party is often not a concern. However, Thatcher ignored
various factions within her own cabinet which led to her
resignation in 1990.
unable to challenge the power of the PM, with Nick Clegg
unable to hold the Conservative government accountable
for raising tuition fees despite promising to vote against
it, showing the overruling power of the PM.
Point 4: The PM still has the largest amount of power.
Evidence: Disputes are often resolved outside the
cabinet, such as the 2011 clash between Energy
secretary Chris Huhne and Business secretary Vince
Cable on the carbon emissions targets. The media also
focus on the PM as an individual, rather than as part of a
collective coalition government.
Chapter 4: Relations Between Institutions
Evaluate the view that judges should not exercise control
over the government (30)
Point 1: They should not as they are an unelected and
undemocratic body. ​Evidence: Judges are unelected and
instead appointed, for example the UK Supreme Court
appoints judges if they are suitable for the job and have at
least 15 years experience as a lawyer. The Supreme Court
upheld a ruling in the favour of Gina Miller in regard to the
government needing a meaningful vote to pass through
Parliament in January 2017. Brexit voters were absolutely
outraged by the decision, yet this shows how the judiciary
was used to uphold, rather than undermine democracy by
exercising control over the government.
Point 2: They also should not as they are not legally
allowed to do so and unrepresentative. ​Evidence: In an
interview, Lady Hale argued for greater diversity of
background within the Supreme Court, pointing out that of
13 justices sworn in since her own appointment, all were
men, all were white and all but two were educated at
independent schools with all but two attending Oxford and
Cambridge universities. The courts can also only decide
whether the government or Parliament have gone ‘ultra
vires’ (beyond one’s powers) and can make legal
recommendations to legislation but cannot fully reject it if
passed through Parliament.
Evaluate the extent to which the UK judiciary is an
effective defender of civil liberties. (30)
Point 1: Parliament can subvert civil liberties. ​Evidence:
Blair’s administration was able to implement the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA 2000) in
order to give intelligence agencies the power to more
effectively counter-terrorism. In November 2017, ​The
UK's Court of Appeal ruled that the body that oversees
the nation's intelligence agencies cannot be held subject
to a judicial review under active laws. As Parliament is
sovereign and the judiciary has no veto over certain laws,
it means that violations of privacy can happen.
Point 2: The case of Private Jason Smith, the right of sex
offenders to appeal against registration for life. ​Evidence:
Private Jason Smith died of heatstroke in Iraq in 2003,
and his family brought a case against the ministry of
Defence in 2010, the Supreme Court held that the
jurisdiction of the Human Rights Act did not extend to
troops in combat situations on a vote by six to three.
Furthermore, also in 2010 the government believed that
serious sex offenders should have to register with the
police for life, yet the Supreme Court ruled that this
breached their human rights and that sex offenders had
the right to appeal after 15 years. Thus, it is questionable
whether the Court is successful in upholding civil liberties
and whether it is doing it for the right people.
Point 3: The UK judiciary has also upheld democracy.
Evidence: In 2017, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling in
the favour of Gina Miller, meaning that Theresa May
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
Point 3: However, they should be able to as they are an
expert body. ​Evidence: Appointments of judges being
extremely selective, as the justice will have served as a
senior judge for at least two years, and been a qualified
lawyer for at least 15 years with the justice secretary then
confirms or rejects the person put forward, where it is then
confirmed by the Prime Minister and the Monarch. Their
decision to uphold Gina Miller’s argument that the UK
government must seek a vote on their Brexit deal in
Parliament proves that they can uphold the democracy in
the UK and prevent the government from having too much
power.
Point 4: They also prevent any infringement on the rights
of the people. ​Evidence: Supreme Court having the power
of judicial review, where one of their most important roles
is to interpret the 1998 Human Rights Act, with any
infringements on the act resulting in a “declaration of
incompatibility”, with parliament modifying the law to bring
it in line with the convention, examining the public bodies
to investigate whether they have acted ultra vires (“beyond
one's powers”), with examples being the Al Rawi Case and
secret hearings, where the Supreme Court said the
government had breached the principles of a fair trial.
Evaluate the extent to which the Human Rights Act has
changed the relationship between the UK government and
the judiciary. (30)
Point 1: Judiciary holds UK government accountable.
Evidence: Rather than the judiciary acting out the will of
the government and their legislation, the Human Rights Act
has helped to separate the bodies of power. The judiciary
now holds the government accountable by scrutinising
their actions and legislation and deciding whether it works
within the framework of the Human Rights Act. For
example, in the 2011 Al Rawi case, the Supreme Court
ruled that the British government could not have secret
trials in which the evidence was not presented to all sides,
as it damaged the fundamental principle of a free trial. The
supreme court, however, took the side of the government
in the 2010 case of Private Jason Smith, who died due to
heatstroke in Iraq. The court ruled that the Act did not
apply to soldiers in conflict.
needed a mandate in order to push through her Brexit
policy. While some Brexit voters were outraged, it showed
the Supreme Court upholding democracy and the
sovereignty of Parliament, rather than merely allowing
May to push an unpopular deal through Parliament, which
she later failed to do.
Point 4: Judicial neutrality. ​Evidence: The UK judiciary is
also neutral, as Judges salaries are paid from an
independent budget known as the Consolidated Fund,
while the Judicial Appointments Commission are free
from political intervention and transparent in procedure.
The Supreme Court also upheld the right to a free trial in
2011 in the case of Al Rawi, as former inmates argued
that they had been sent to Guantanamo and that the
British security services had contributed to their
maltreatment. The government argued that in the interest
of national security, evidence must be presented in
secret, yet the court ruled that this violated a free trial in
which each side is able to see the evidence put forward.
Evaluate the extent to which the arguments in favour of a
British ‘Bill of Rights’ outweigh the arguments against it.
(30)
Point 1: British identity. ​Evidence: A Bill of Rights would
enable citizens to feel more control over legislation. Many
Brexit voters felt they had lost control due to law being
dictated down to them by the European Courts, as seen
with the Factortame case. Britain having control over its
own Bill of Rights would help to deliver on the Brexit vote
of 2016 and perhaps make the population feel more
control over their own laws. It would allow Parliament to
work with a set of British rules when setting British
legislation.
Point 2: British law. ​Evidence: A Bill of Rights would also
make law more applicable to British standards, rather
than the more global or continental laws of the UN or the
EU. A Bill of Rights would be directly voted on by
Parliament itself and thus directly represent the people of
Britain, rather than values across the entire world.
Furthermore, the Human Rights Act has also defended
the wrong people. In 2010
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
Point 2: The government can force through legislation to
end the jurisdiction of Human Rights Act as Parliament is
sovereign. ​Evidence: Government, however, remains
elected compared to a judiciary which is appointed.
Government, through Parliament, has the legitimacy to
revoke the Human Rights Act and instead replace it with a
British Bill of Rights, and thus while the judiciary has
achieved more power, Parliament remains sovereign and
can repeal the Human Rights Act, which some
Conservatives in particular have suggested would be a
good idea.
Point 3: Only judicial review can be used, as Parliament is
sovereign it means that legalities still cannot be imposed
on legislation they decide to pass. ​Evidence: After terrorist
attacks such as the 7/7 bombings, control orders were put
in place (despite adverse rulings by judges) that allowed
the government to survey suspected terrorists through
electronic tagging, banning of phones and a requirement to
report to the police. Judges can only judge whether
ministers have gone ‘ultra vires’ or beyond one’s powers,
yet their advice has no legal control, as seen with the
control orders put forward by the government in order to
prevent terrorism.
Evaluate the extent to which devolution in the UK has been
a success. (30)
Point 1: Certain areas within England feel that devolution
has failed them. ​Evidence: There are areas within England
that have high amounts of regional identity, such as
Yorkshire and Cornwall. In a study carried out by ‘The
Question’, it found that 72/100 people in Yorkshire and
76/100 people in Cornwall believed that more devolution to
regional bodies was necessary. The fact that local
communities often feel a lack of control over their local
bodies suggests that further devolution, within England is
necessary. However, this demand is not present across
the entirety of the UK, as shown by the referendum in 2004
under the Blair government proposing a new regional
financial assembly only to be rejected by a resounding
78% in the North-East.
Point 2: Many people in Scotland also feel they need more
devolved power. ​Evidence: The Scottish national party is
by far the most popular party within Scotland and the
Point 3: Government becomes too powerful. ​Evidence: A
Bill of Rights, however, would be less successful in
holding the government accountable. The Human Rights
Act and other legislation from IGOs has successfully held
the government to account. For example, in the 2011 Al
Rawi case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the
British secret services had violated the fundamental
principle of a free trial by presenting evidence in secret
before sending people to Guantanamo bay. Furthermore,
also in 2010 the government believed that serious sex
offenders should have to register with the police for life,
yet the Supreme Court ruled that this breached their
human rights and that sex offenders had the right to
appeal after 15 years. Thus, it is questionable whether the
Court is successful in upholding civil liberties and whether
it is doing it for the right people.
Point 4: Government loses international ratings.
Evidence: While the British would be well within their
rights to create their own Bill of Rights, the reaction this
may have from the international community is
questionable. Indeed, as a UN Security Council
permanent member, for the UK to move away from the
jurisdiction of the Human Rights Act would perhaps
remove the international kudos that comes with following
international law.
Evaluate the extent to which the UK has remained an
‘awkward partner’ within the European Union. (30)
Point 1: The UK has not signed up to Schengen or the
Eurozone. ​Evidence: The UK deviates from the general
membership of the EU by excluding itself from the
Schengen area, whereas 22 of the 28 member states are
indeed part of Schengen. Britain has stated that their
position is different due to the fact that they are largely an
island, and thus Britain has deviated from the general
membership of the EU.
Point 2: The UK has had various complaints about the EU
courts and impact their policy has on the country. ​Britain
has also shown frequent desire to have a particular deal
on the free movement of people enabled by the single
market, which Cameron sought out to negotiate before
the 2016 EU referendum. They have also shown disdain
for fishing laws placed on them by the common
agricultural policy, which has allowed Spanish fishing
companies such as Factortame to fish in British waters,
which has been highly unpopular especially in areas such
as Cornwall, which was decided in EU courts by 2000.
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
demand for further devolution is particularly high after the
result of the 2016 EU referendum, with many arguing that
Scotland should not be forcefully taken out of the EU due
to the decisions made elsewhere in the UK. Many have
argued that Scotland should have the power to be able to
refuse the Trident Nuclear defense weapons system being
located on the coast of Scotland.
Point 3: Devolution has ensured that Scotland remained
part of the UK. ​Evidence: However, the majority of people
in Scotland voted to remain in the UK in 2014 at 55%,
showing that further devolution did indeed satisfy the
majority of the Scottish public. Their government is able to
successfully have its own education system as well as law
(such as drink driving alcohol limits), policing and also
some aspects of transport. Devolution to other countries in
the UK such as Wales has also given reassurances about
national identity and culture, as well as the Northern Irish
Assembly also having power over economic development
etc. Thus, the reassurances that devolution provide in this
sense enables the UK to remain together.
Point 3: However, it is not unusual for countries in the EU
to be apart from Schengen and the Eurozone. ​Evidence:
19/28 member states of the EU are also part of the
Eurozone whereas Britain is again exempt and retains its
own currency. This is, however, not that unusual as other
member states such as Sweden, Poland, Romania and
Croatia are also not part of the Eurozone. However,
Britain is far larger than these states, and perhaps its
partnership with the EU being ‘awkward’ is shown by the
two most similar in size states, France and Germany, are
indeed part of the Eurozone. However, it is not unusual
for states to not be a part of the Schengen area, as
Ireland are also not part of Schengen as well as Bulgaria,
Romania and Bulgaria. Therefore, while Britain is in the
minority, there are still 5 other states that are not part of
Schengen and 9 other states not part of the Eurozone.
Point 4: The UK has also acted in a similar manner to the
majority of EU members by joining NATO. ​Evidence: The
EU is a typical member of the EU as seen through its
close relationship with NATO, as 23 out of 28 member
states of the EU are also member states of NATO. The
UK has an especially close with relationship with NATO
as it contributes the full 2% GDP requirement, joining just
5 other member states in doing so. Additionally, the UK is
Point 4: Devolved powers have introduced progressive and
also a typical member state of the EU in the sense that it
successful policy. ​Evidence: Mayors have now been
has been part of the Single Market since its formation as
established across metropolitan areas such as London and well as joining the EEC in 1973 with Ireland and
Manchester, and have established progressive policies. An Denmark, and thus has been a member of the European
example of this is the London congestion charge, originally since its formation.
introduced by Ken Livingstone in 2003, it has since been
developed by other Mayors of London in order to prevent
traffic jams and pollution. Sadiq Khan is seeking to build on
this by establishing an ‘ultra low emission zone’ from
October 2021 which will cost £12.50 and encourage
electric cars. Thus, devolution has also helped
metropolitan areas develop and have more control over
local policy.
Evaluate the extent to which the UK Parliament is
sovereign. (30)
Point 1: The uncodified form of the constitution allows fast
and simple changes to law through Parliament. ​Evidence:
After the Dunblane primary school massacre in 1996,
changes were quickly made in the constitution to gun laws,
as the Conservative government legislated the banning of
high calibre handguns in 1997, and after Labour came into
power in May they extended the ban to 22. Calibre
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
handguns. This overall resulted in 700,000 tonnes of
ammunition and over 160,000 firearms being surrendered.
Point 2: Parliament also holds sole sovereignty due to its
democratic legitimacy. ​Evidence: ALL MP’s are elected
through the FPTP system with the candidate who gains the
most votes securing a seat in Parliament. This form of
representative democracy is held with the judicial
challenge to sovereignty, as judges are unelected and thus
do not have authority over Parliament.
Point 3: Parliament arguably does not hold sole
sovereignty due to the increasing use of judicial review.
Evidence: Judicial review has risen from around 4240 in
2000 to 15,600 in 2013, with significant challenges to
government policy such as Gina Millar’s challenge to
Brexit, where Parliament were ordered to secure a
Parliamentary mandate before going ahead with their deal.
However, this also shows that the law actually reinforces
the sovereignty of Parliament. Although, Parliament can
still be challenged by EU law on human rights, as seen by
Supreme Court ruling that sex offenders should not have
to register for life with the police, and could appeal against
registration after 15 years.
Point 4: Parliament also does not retain sole sovereignty
due to Parliamentary Government. ​Evidence: Pressure
Groups are able to lobby the government, who employ
over 4000 people to deal with lobbying and spending £2
billion on it a year. Policy to favour these companies can
then be passed through Parliament through the
introduction of a 3 line whip, forcing MPs to vote in line
with their party instead of the interests of their constituents,
which thus undermines Parliamentary Sovereignty. This is
emphasised by the fact that the Prime Minister and her
Cabinet also all have seats that they must represent, and
can thus vote through their own policy.
PART 2: ANARCHISM
To what extent do individualist and collectivist anarchists
agree over the economy? (24)
Point 1: Anarchists are not in agreement over the
economy due to disputes regarding as Egoists and
Anarcho-Capitalists believe in competitive free market
To what extent do individualist and collectivist anarchists
agree about human nature? (24)
Point 1: Anarcho capitalists believe that human nature is
self-serving. ​Evidence: Anarcho-capitalists such as
Robert Nozick and Murray Rothbard believe that humans
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
forces. ​Evidence: Anarcho-Capitalists such as Murray
Rothbard advocate free markets, in which individuals are
free to succeed or fail. They believe that the market is an
essential form of humanity and allows individuals and
companies to pursue their own objectives.
Point 2: Egoistic anarchists also believe in private
property. ​Egoists, in particular, believe that the constant
state of competition will create a dynamic tension,
resulting in economic harmony. Stirner suggested that
humans are only concerned with what is theirs, and thus
individuals are entitled to everything in the world.
Point 3: This differs to collectivist mutualists such as
Proudhon and Goldman. ​Evidence: While Proudhon
recognises the importance and necessity of possessions,
he believes that ‘property is theft’, with Proudhon and
Goldman arguing that goods should be exchanged on the
basis of the value of labour put into making the, rather
than their market value. Kropotkin and Proudhon agree
that there must be an absence of exploitation, which is
made absent by cooperation and private property being
abolished.
Point 4: Anarcho-Communists believe that private
property leads to exploitation and the economy should be
equal. ​Evidence: Bakunin advocated no private property
and total economic equality, with a system of federations
trading with each other on mutually negotiated terms,
based on the labour value of goods instead of market
value. Kropotkin agreed, suggesting that communities
should trade with each other on mutually beneficial terms
in his work ‘Fields, factories and workshops’, with the
creation of small communities.
To what extent do anarchists agree on the nature of a
future anarchist society? (24)
Point 1: They do not agree over whether people should
have private property. ​Evidence: Anarcho capitalists such
as Murray Rothbard and Egoists such as Max Stirner
believe that people should have private property, as they
are self-serving individuals, who should be self-sufficient
and avoid excessive social interaction.
Anarcho-Capitalists do agree with Anarcho-Communists
that human interactions should be both peaceful and
mutually beneficial to be worth anything.
Anarcho-Capitalists such as Robert Nozick believe that
human nature and the need to self-serve mean there
should be completely free markets with no intervention.
Point 2: Similarly, Egoists also believe that human nature
is self serving and egoistic. ​Evidence: Stirner suggested
that all people are naturally egoistical, and will serve their
own interests. Humans naturally feel a sense of personal
entitlement for all the fruits of the earth (this is also his
justification for private property) which they should be
able to pursue at their own liberty.
Point 3: However, mutualists believe that humans should
instead work together and cooperate, rather than be
individuals. ​Evidence: Proudhon and Emma Goldman
both argued that small collective organisations should
operate normally on the basis of similar crafts, with
mutualism being based on the idea of ‘brotherhood’ which
arises from working together. Thus mutualists believe in
the same cooperation than individualist anarchists reject.
They are simply similar in the fact they both believe that
humans are naturally entitled to certain possessions.
Point 4: Furthermore, Anarcho-communists suggests that
humans are naturally cooperative, not competitive.
Evidence: Kropotkin believed that humans were naturally
social, and advocated humans joining voluntary
communities. Kropotkin had a theory of mutual aid, in
which humankind worked and evolved best in a race of
natural survival when cooperating. Bakunin also
suggested that federal communities that trade with each
other should be formed, again reflecting the
anarcho-communist view of human cooperation.
To what extent is anarchism more united than divided?
(24)
Point 1: They are divided due to views on private
property. ​Evidence: Anarcho capitalists such as Murray
Rothbard and Egoists such as Max Stirner believe that
people should have private property, as they are self
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
are self interested and competitive, with Stirner positing
that all humans feel an entitlement to the fruits of the
earth. They believe that individuals are allowed to pursue
their own goals, with anarcho-capitalists such as Nozick
emphasising the importance of free markets. Mutualists
such as Proudhon do not believe in markets, and instead
suggest that the value of something is judged by the
amount of labour put into it, and also suggests that
‘property is theft’.
interested and competitive, with Stirner positing that all
humans feel an entitlement to the fruits of the earth. They
believe that individuals are allowed to pursue their own
goals, with anarcho-capitalists such as Nozick
emphasising the importance of free markets. Mutualists
such as Proudhon do not believe in markets, and instead
suggest that the value of something is judged by the
amount of labour put into it, and also suggests that
‘property is theft’.
Point 2: They do not agree over whether there should be
communities or individuals. ​Evidence: Egoists and
individuals believe that while humans are social, they are
also individual people who pursue their own interests,
which is argue by Stirner. Henry Thoreau points out that
humans should only interact with each other when strictly
necessary. This differs to collectivists such as Kropotkin
and Bakunin, with both suggesting that small communities
and federations should be formed, which trade and work
with each other in a mutually beneficial manner.
Point 2: They are divided due to views on human nature.
Evidence: Individualist anarchists such as Henry Thoreau
believe that human interactions should be kept to a strict
necessity, and that while humans are social, they are also
individuals. This is also common among
anarcho-capitalists such as Robert Nozick, who reject
welfare and believe that humans should be self-serving.
Stirner in addition posits that humans simply are
concerned with what is theirs, their own egos and needs.
This differs to anarcho-communists who believe that
humans are cooperative, such as Kropotkin, who
suggests in his idea of human aid, that humans win the
race of evolution if they work and cooperate together.
Mutualist anarchists such as Proudhon and Goldman also
believe in cooperation being more successful than
competition.
Point 3: They do agree that there should not be a state.
Evidence: Anarchists such as Emma Goldman suggest
that the state is massively oppressive, and uses violence
against its citizens to maintain control, with the quote ‘the
club, the gun, the prison cell is the essential mechanism of
the state and should be overthrown through revolution.
Furthermore, anarchists such as Kropotkin believe the
state is 1 of 3 pillars that reinforce the exploitation of
capitalism. Stirner also posits that ‘there is no one but
myself who can decide whether i am right or wrong’ and
that the state prevents individuals from pursuing their own
liberty.
Point 3: They are divided over a future anarchist society.
Evidence: Egoists and individuals believe that while
humans are social, they are also individual people who
pursue their own interests, which is argue by Stirner.
Henry Thoreau points out that humans should only
interact with each other when strictly necessary. This
differs to collectivists such as Kropotkin and Bakunin, with
both suggesting that small communities and federations
should be formed, which trade and work with each other
in a mutually beneficial manner.
Point 4: They are united against the state. ​Evidence:
Anarchists such as Emma Goldman suggest that the
state is massively oppressive, and uses violence against
its citizens to maintain control, with the quote ‘the club,
the gun, the prison cell is the essential mechanism of the
state and should be overthrown through revolution.
Furthermore, anarchists such as Kropotkin believe the
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
state is 1 of 3 pillars that reinforce the exploitation of
capitalism. Stirner also posits that ‘there is no one but
myself who can decide whether i am right or wrong’ and
that the state prevents individuals from pursuing their own
liberty.
To what extent is anarchism a utopian creed? You must
use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your
answer. (24)
Point 1: Never been used before on a state level.
Evidence: Anarchism has never been used to govern on a
state level. There are concerns that Anarchism would not
be successful as it is simply unrealistic. Critics, notably
fundamentalist socialists, argue that there is no scientific
basis for an anarchist utopia, that it is based on
unrealisable dreams. Critics have called into question the
contrasting ideas surrounding human nature, when
comparing ideas of Stirner with other Anarchists such as
Kropotkin and their highly contrasting ideas, making them
question the rationality of Anarchists.
To what extent is anarchism strong on moral principles
but weak on political practice? You must use appropriate
thinkers you have studied to support your answer. (24)
Point 1: Never seen before on state level. ​Evidence:
Anarchism has never been used to govern on a state
level. There are concerns that Anarchism would not be
successful as it is simply unrealistic. Critics, notably
fundamentalist socialists, argue that there is no scientific
basis for an anarchist utopia that is based on unrealistic
dreams. Critics have called into question the contrasting
ideas surrounding human nature, when comparing the
ideas of Stirner to other Anarchists such as Kropotkin with
their highly contrasting ideas leading to questions
regarding the rationality of Anarchists.
Point 2: Has been used before. ​Evidence: The Zapatista
movement highlights that Anarchism has indeed been
politically present, declaring itself to be in a state of war
with Mexico since 1994. They oppose economic
globalisation and imperialism, and are thus an example of
Anarchist prominence in the modern day. Additionally,
during the Spanish revolution of 1936, Anarchists set up
communes in Spain, the Fascist coup led by General
Franco created a revolution to oppose the coup. However,
the Anarchists refused to take control of the government
leading to sporadic Anarchist communes, which were
crushed by the Fascists. The POUM called for a proper
army to be created, yet the Anarchists refused and were
destroyed killed commune by commune.
Point 3: Has been used before. ​Evidence: The Zapatista
movement highlights that Anarchism has indeed been
politically present. They oppose economic globalisation
and imperialism, and are thus an example of Anarchist
prominence in modern day. The Zapatista movement has
also inspired other movements globally. Additionally,
during the Spanish revolution of 1936, Anarchists set up
communes in Spain, the Fascist coup led by General
Franco created a revolution to oppose the coup.
Anarchists grew in prominence yet refused to take over
the army, leading to sporadic Anarchist communes being
set up across Spain. These were gradually crushed by
the Fascists after the Trotskyist POUM argued that they
should form one collective army, yet the other Anarchists
refused to do so and were picked off one by one.
Point 3: Criticisms of Anarchism such as the needs for a
state. ​Evidence: Another issue with Anarchism is the idea
of foreign interference. Without a global revolution, if an
Anarchist state were to be set up, there are concerns
surrounding foreign invasion ruining the Anarchist utopia.
Neoliberals such as Rand and Nozick have argued that
one fundamental necessity of a state is to protect its
citizens from foreign invasion. An Anarchist society that
Anarchists such as Stirner, Kropotkin, Bakunin or
Point 3: Anarcho-Capitalism common in American
society. ​Evidence: Promotion of the idea of completely
free market capitalism is prominent in America, and was
seen throughout the 1980s in both America and Britain
with Reagan and Thatcher’s privatisation programmes
and freedoms for companies. Anarcho-Capitalists such as
Nozick and Ayn Rand have had their ideas put into
mainstream politics, such as lowering taxation and the
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
Proudhon argue for, unless global, would not be able to do
this.
‘rolling back of the state’ and stringent government
spending, with little spent on welfare in the 1980s.
Point 4: Reasons for Anarchism such as freedom.
Evidence: However, if the Anarchist view of human nature
is accurate, then this could create an ideal society with
peace. Kropotkin arguably does have scientific evidence
behind his idea of ‘mutual aid’ as he argues that species
that have adapted the fastest have made use of
community and help in order to achieve survival, and thus
calls for humans to do the same in order to develop. They
believe that modern societies are corrupted by the state, in
a similar way in which revolutionary socialists such as
Marx argue that workers have been ‘deformed’ by
capitalism.
Point 4: Stirner’s ideas are more of a lifestyle. ​Evidence:
While Stirner does incorporate some vision of an
Anarchist society, such as arguing for a workers bank in
which there is no hierarchy, it is arguable that his work
actually reflects more of a lifestyle recommendation than
a full-on argument for Anarchism. He called religions and
ideologies ‘spooks and ghosts’, meaning they were
illusions and distortions of truth, which can arguably be
interpreted as Stirner not being committed ot an ideology,
and instead recommending an ‘egoistic’ way of life, as he
calls for ‘intercourse’ (friendship) between people, with no
rules. Many critics suggest that this is unrealistic in terms
of political implementation.
To what extent can anarchism be described as nothing
more than socialism without a state? (24)
Point 1: Anarcho-Capitalists fundamentally disagree with
socialism. ​Evidence: Revolutionary socialists argue that
capitalism should be abolished as it leaves the worker
‘deformed’ (Marx) while almost all socialists agree that
capitalism should be reformed and have investment into
equality of opportunity. Anarcho-Capitalists such as Nozick
fundamentally disagree with this idea, instead calling for
the state to completely withdraw itself from the economy
and allow total free markets.
To what extent can anarchism be seen as nothing more
than an extreme form of liberalism? (24)
Point 1: Anarcho-Capitalist are an ultra form of classical
liberalism. ​Evidence: Robert Nozick is in agreement with
classical liberals such as Smiles and Spencer, as Ayn
Rand similarly calls for the ‘rolling back of the state’ in the
same way that classical liberals such as Locke argued for
a small state. They similarly disagree with welfare and
believe that one’s position in society is entirely down to
them. Anarchists also oppose the tyranny of the majority
in a similar manner to classical liberals such as J.S. Mill
arguing for representative, rather than direct democracy.
Point 2: Egoists disagree with socialist principle on human
nature. ​Evidence: Stirner’s view of human nature ois highly
individualistic, as he advocates that all individuals pursue
their own ‘ego’ and self interest, and that people are
entitled to all the fruits of the world. He argued for a ‘union
of egoism’ to spread individualism so that the state and
religion would be destroyed and replaced. While he
similarly argued for revolution, like revolutionary socialists
(though also disagreeing with democratic socialists,
third-way and social democrats), he did not agree with the
socialist view that humans are altruistic and co-operative.
He agreed that the worker was repressed by the state in a
similar manner to Marx, as they were both taught by
Hegel, yet disagreed with the socialist view of human
nature.
Point 2: Egoists are also extremely liberal. ​Evidence: Max
Stirner’s individualistic view of human nature is also
similar to neoliberalism, as he argues that people should
be autonomous, and that they are capable of making their
own decisions, and that they are entitled to all the fruits of
the earth. Similarly, Ayn Rand also argues that the state
should not infringe on individuals negative liberties such
as drug taking or abortion, or their economic liberty, also
believing in ‘objectivism’ in which people are autonomous,
rational and individualistic. Stirner, however, argued that
workers should find their own identity in a capitalist
society.
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Harrison Sylvester
Politics
Point 3: Mutualists believe in socialist principles. ​Evidence:
Proudhon has argued that ‘property is theft’ and that the
means of production should come into the hands of
ordinary workers, much like Marx and democratic
socialists (though disagreeing with social democrats and
third-way socialists). He and Goldman hold a similar view
of ‘fraternity’ in which we regard other humans as siblings
rather than as rivals, as they work together in mutualist
societies with similar jobs. Proudhon’s theories are often
considered ot be a form of decentralised socialism without
a state.
Point 4: Anarcho-Communists are socialists. ​Evidence:
Kropotkin and Bakunin were largely in agreement with
Marx, as they both advocated the eventual abolition of the
state and a turn toward people living in communes.
Kropotkin’s idea of ‘mutual aid’ is based off the
fundamental socialist principle of cooperation and altruism,
while they all seek to abolish private property in the same
manner as Marx.
Point 3: Mutualists believe in some form of regulation.
Evidence: Proudhon argues that ‘property is theft’ which
is not entirely similar to any form of Liberalism, which
seeks to preserve private property, especially classical
liberalism. Goldman also developed the concept of
mutual love to replace capitalism, which is once again
dissimilar to liberalism, with modern liberals arguing for
capitalism to be reformed, rather than abolished.
Goldman was also a feminist, yet strongly disagreed with
the likes of Betty Friedan - Goldman argued that women
would only be emancipated when the state was abolished
while Friedan did not see the state as the principle vehicle
of the patriarchy, instead looking at dominant social and
cultural values.
Point 4: Anarcho-Communists believe in total equality.
Evidence: Both Bakunin and Kropotkin argued that
people move into some form of commune, which is once
again dissimilar to any form of liberalism. They both
believed in total economic equality, which classical
liberals are vehemently opposed to. While Kropotkin’s
‘mutual aid’ also agrees with the liberal principle of
cooperation, Yet Liberals believe in a limited state
compared to Anarchists who argue that under no
circumstances are people justified in giving away their
personal sovereignty to the power and authority of the
state.
Downloaded by: qasimkhan050904 | qasimkhan050904@gmail.com
Distribution of this document is illegal
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)