Evaluate how far and to what degree the UK still has ‘Cabinet government’
The purpose of the source material is to compare and contrast the idea of prime ministerial government compared to cabinet government. There is also a link to a governmental website which gives statistics and further background on the issue.
In the source information there are three suggestions as to how prime ministerial government works. From this information one can conclude that the term applies to a system of governance rather like an American president win which the PM governs alone in front of his cabinet. For one he’s has a lot of media attention associated with the nature of his position as the principal governmental figure in the houses of parliament and that with this position comes a great deal of power and authority such as appointing the members of the government of the UK. There are also no limits on the PMs powers according to the UK constitution giving him full control to audit and control the day to day workings of the civil service and other government agencies.
The case for a cabinet government is one in which the PM has rivals and important colleagues as well as governing himself. The cabinet is constituted by senior government members with weekly meetings to heir their views on the runnings of government with senior secretaries of state and other important dignitaries and that the decision making is a communal one made up within the group of cabinet their ministers and political allies rather than purely on the basis of one individual being the PM. These government ministers are appointed from Houses of Commons and Lords Members as well as the PM and they are responsible for the the political and operational success of their departments themselves. So responsibility is delegated from the PM to cabinet and ministers. This occurs within a system where political factions political parties and various ideological influences are all represented in cabinet.
We can see from the supporting source that the evidence is for at least some of the responsibilities of government being delegated in this way There is one PM but 23 cabinet members 101 other ministers around them making up a combined primary legislature of 125 members that make the decisions together even though the buck stops with our PM Andy Burnham. Some of the rest of the source information here tends to back that up repeating the language contained within the first two sources I mentioned above about responsibilities being delegated to cabinet. Indeed delegation goes even further into the 23 ministerial departments 20 non ministerial departments and 400+ agencies and public bodies.
That said there is no evidence to suggest that these positions aren’t packed in drover of the ruling party if they appoint the ministers they are not necessarily equally representative of all the views within the house of commons or parliamentary private members as a whole as they are in other countries with different voting systems that permit greater co operation between political parties in government and the formation of coalitions as a normal occurrence such as PR.
The prime minister certainly does have more media coverage as at the head of state than other cabinet ministers and is the executive decision maker where the buck stops. This gives him ultimate power in theory but it is unclear or not as to whether this occurs in practice.
So do we still have cabinet government in practice? Certainly the PMs ultimate responsibilities are delegated to lesser members of the government such as cabinet members but they are not concentrated in the cabinet in my opinion but further delegated down into the departments themselves. So ultimately there are more people involved in government than you think albeit not necessarily elected members of the commons where the buck stops. The total responsibility of the British government probably can’t be given to one man due the size of it’s nature as we can see from the stats above. So, even though the PM has ultimate responsibility and his cabinet are ultimately in charge, responsibility for printing peoples driving licences for example is not the PMs business as we can see from the supporting source in which civil servants are also involved.
Evaluate how far Parliament is sovereign within the UK political system. In your answer you should draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of the study of Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas. You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way (30 marks).
What do we mean by parliament? What do we mean by sovereignty? Is parliament sovereign?
Parliament is the assembly of MPs or members of parliament. These people are responsible for making decisions about the running of the country on a macro level as well as a micro level that means according to short as well as long term goals. MPs are elected by means of a general or by-election for each constituency they represent.
The general election is usually held every four years yet each MPs position can be held for a maximum for five years per term of office. The timing of the general election is generally determined by the ruling party. Should an MP stand down, resign for political reasons or die a bi-election is held to determine the new MP for the remaining time of that parliament. All seats are contested together at the general election.
Although technically each member has one vote. The system of whipping or taking the party whip means that MPs normally vote the way their leaders inform them to to ensure a system of governance. If an MP rebels he or she risks consequences for his or her career for example in progressing to a decision making position of junior or cabinet minister within the government or it’s shadow position in opposition. So it is in vested interests of the MPs to vote with the whip and flow of the party line. Most policies are whipped with either a 1st, 2nd or 3rd line whip depending on the importance of the issue but a free vote on some issues can be declared on discretion of the ruling or shadow body.
Additionally, the piece of legislation must be approved my a second chamber in the UK the house of Lords. This contains mostly life peers now usually superannuated political dignitaries form the house of commons. Technically the aristocracy still rule but in practice the power lies with the house of commons not the lords any more. Peers are aristocrats. Lord this and Lady that with titles. Some time ago in the 90s a lot more of them were hereditary peers now only 90 or so of these positions are left. When I was a boy the aristocracy still sat in a revising capacity in the house of lords and were allowed to review each piece of law up to three times and send it back to the commons for review and amendments. Their right to do so was then determined largely by birth and not on any particular social or political merits but this system changed under Blair and still is in a period of transition. Ultimately new laws can be send directly to the king for signing if the Lords fail to pass it a fourth time to ensure power lies firmly in that hands of the people.
These days laws are sent for trivet review to the supreme court for analysis to determine whether they are constitutional in accordance with our interpretation of international law and our own legal internal UK compliance mechanisms. Despite the fact that written only has an implied and not written constitution they can be declared unlawful and thus sent back for review without being passed as laws.
On occasions that national sovereignty is at stake such as Brexit the parliament make call a referendum to allow the general population to vote on an issue. This is far more common in Switzerland where the general population have some kind of limited rights to request one.
The king also has to sign the laws off and he has no political role any more he is still aware of everything that is going on and is obliged to read everything that is passed or have it read to him.
What is sovereignty? Well this is generally thought of as independence to rule. So is parliament sovereign? The primary answer must lie in the whipping system. Basically parliament is rigged as a whole institution with the real decision making powers lying with the ministerial positions and cabinet positions who broadly decide on policy and enforce voting via the whips. The ruling party nearly always wins if it gets the policy and whipping right because it holds a majority of the total number of seats.
So although the shadows get to discuss policy amongst themselves they have enough real power to oppose laws just debate them and provide a critical eye in the media frenzy around the scene, so the media have to share some power too and can be biased. For example of the major papers the Guardian and Mirror are the only openly leftest once with the IPaper being liberal in stance and the Mail, Times, Sun, Telegraph and Express steering the debate largely to the right. The role of social media like Facebook and X in recent years has impacted on the role of traditional media the printed press and TV. The legislation can be revised three times by lords and delayed it can also be denied by the supreme court and declared unconstitutional in it’s current form. Referenda can also be held so the final decision for petter or worse in the care of Brexit lay with the people of the UK rather than parliament. Is parliament sovereign. It is in theory but in practise many institutions have a say in politics form pressure groups and lobbyists to the PM on a constant basis whilst the system of whipping probably means the unelected mogul Rupert Murdoch probably has more power in our system than a regular back bench MP in practice which is hardly independent and fair.
To what extent is Nationalism a progressive ideology? (24 Marks)
A nation can be defined by a unified entity or group of people who share the same qualities, such as ethnicity, and language, with a right to self determination i.e. being capable of self governance. Exclusive nationalists would argue in favour of racial or cultural nationalism. That is when these traits and similarities of a nation are apparent in the genetic likeness of it’s people or common language . Inclusive nationalists feel the opposite namely that one can originate from anywhere and still feel the same sense of belonging to a host nation for example in which they reside. A nation is also a nation state in charge of it’s own economy and itself. So, nationalism might pertain to a feeling of political nationhood based on emotional ties between its people who share a common set of societal or political values as first discussed by Rousseau (1712-78) to describe the sense of unity and belonging behind the French revolution. This is also known as a civic nationalism.
. Internationalism relates to the socialist nationalist principle behind the idea that the whole world should be united behind the common goal of furthering an interest in human society, some forms of nationalism pertain to this perspective and others don’t. The EU and UN in which all participating nations are members of a larger federation or conglomerate are that. In particular, in the case of the EU states are equal partners with the right to political vetoing of decision making.
Liberal nationalism is strongly associated with the idea of internationalism. In examples such as Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points after WWI and Nehru demanding independence in India liberal nationalism is seen as both rational and progressive in an attempt to allow nations to co exist peacefully having endured such great hardship and sacrifice. It focuses on the idea of working together for the progression of trade an mitigating circumstances that lead to military conflict in the formation of organisations such ask the UN and EU. Great thinkers in this dept include Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744-1803) who coined the phrase Volksgeist or spirit of the people to renationalise Germany and galvanise all it’s city states back into one under Prussian rule after the sectarian wars of Germany’s reformation. This was a lighter and more positive version of what what led to Hitler’s notion of expansionism. It was essentially defensive based. France was unified and had an empire and Germany’s neighbour and had expansionist aims towards colonising the German speaking area under Napoleon. It ultimately led to the 1815 revolution which failed after the defeat of Napoleon and ultimately led to German unity in Germany’s second empire, the Prussian empire of the 1850s. Giussppe Mazzini (1805-1872) did the same for Italian nationalism and it succeeded between 1848-1870.
Conservative nationalism was born of the 80s and the West’s need to end the stand off of the Cold War. It belongs to the politics of former American Actor Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher the British prime minister. Thatcher won the nations heart with her own form of interventionism in defeating the socialist leaning Argentinian state in the Falklands War which was an enormous gamble and was won on the toss of a coin.
Neo nationalism occurred when the emphasis had been on internationalist sentiments in European co-operation. Stability and social glue was also a trait of Charles de Gaulle time as French President after WWII, though cooperating to form the EU his stance was decisively more pro proudly French and less about atonement for past crimes. Some of the political groups connected with this political influence such as the French National Front and the British national party can be inward looking regressive and sinister. This form of nationalism is often romanticised and can lead to more extreme forms of nationalism taking root. Ultimate thinkers in this category include Charles Maurras (1868-1952) who engaged in a a revolutionary movement called Action Francaise being monarchist, counter revolutionary and anti parliamentary under the guise that ‘a true nationalist places his country above everything’. Some consider the views extreme and fascist in sentiment.
Then there is expansive or chauvinistic nationalism that pertains to the concept of conquering other nations and subsuming them into their rule ultimately enslaving their people and or treating them as second class citizens relative to your own examples of this include the roman empire, the British and Spanish empires of the 19th century and the attempt of the Nazis to create a 3rd Empire. It rejects the rights of others to self determination.
Then there is postcolonial nationalism which is the ultimate rejection of the aforementioned values of throwing the colonists out of your country. Thinkers in this dept including Marcus Garvey of Birkbeck college London form 1887-1940 who conceived the idea of Black Nationalism that lead to the developments in 20th Century US race relations such as Malcolm X and the black panthers who believed black citizens were ‘better than the white man’.
All in all to conclude if nationalism is truly progressive I feel that it is on balance. It’s ultimately driven by a less compassionate will for that nationalistic sentiment to prevail over tolerance even at the expense of initial instability. It normally drives away from a system of the politics of consensus and a drives towards the self discovery of a nation trying to come to peace with itself and away from world politics towards isolationist ideology. Maybe these days due to economic pressures and competition it ultimately fails.