Essay planning and feedback

DO NOWWhat do we know about David Cameron? Working with a partner, make a bullet point list of everything you know about our current Prime Minister. Stronger responses will focus on his policies and principles rather than his personal biography. How do these relate to the ideals of the Conservative Party as a whole?

Essay question

‘Prime Minister Cameron is in a stronger position as the head of a coalition government with a comfortable majority than he would have been as head of a Conservative government with a narrow majority.’ Discuss.

(25 marks)

‘Prime Minister Cameron is in a stronger position as the head of a coalition government with a comfortable majority than he would have been as head of a Conservative government with a narrow majority.’ Discuss.

• AO1: Knowledge and understanding• AO2: Analysis and evaluation• AO3: Communication

General points about how Government works

Specific points about the named party or parties

Current developments

AO1: Knowledge and understanding

AO2: Analysis and evaluation

AO3: Communication

‘Prime Minister Cameron is in a stronger position as the head of a coalition government with a comfortable majority than he would have been as head of a Conservative government with a narrow majority.’ Discuss.

The British Political Spectrum

Tony Blairconservative Labour leader

David Cameronliberal Conservative leader

Between them, these two men have been in charge of the British political system for 14 of the last 17 years. What does this tell us about British voters?

General points about how Government works

Specific points about the named party or parties

Current developments

Larger majorities make passing laws easier—providing the leadership can control them

Coalition agreement provides clarity about which laws will command parliamentary support

The rise of UKIP has provided an alternative vehicle for right wing politics on traditional conservative issues such as immigration and the EU

‘All parties are coalitions’; this coalition is at least bound by a formal agreement

Cameron is a socially liberal Conservative; coalition protects him from his own right wing

Coalition represents wider spectrum of opinion/confers legitimacy

May help “de-toxify” the Conservative brand following 13yrs in opposition

Larger parliamentary party means deeper bench of talent

Allows Cameron to staff sensitive Cabinet posts with LDs; limiting his accountability before his own party

Re-draft your essay for Friday

‘Prime Minister Cameron is in a stronger position as the head of a coalition government with a comfortable majority than he would have been as head of a Conservative government with a narrow majority.’ Discuss.

(25 marks)

Reforming the House of Lords

• To understand the key functions of the House of Lords

• To understand the reforms implemented under New Labour, 1997-2010

• To understand the reforms proposed by the Coalition Government, 2010 onwards

What is the House of Lords?

What do the Lords do?

What do the Lords do?

Revising legislation• Revise bills from the House of Commons, which may

involve delaying their passage• Also involves initiating uncontroversial legislation

Scrutiny• Debate matters of public interest free from the time

pressures and factionalism that characterises the HofC• Scrutinise and hold the government to account

Do they do any of this well?

What is the rationale for reform?

• To limit the size of the second chamber

• To define the extent of its powers

• To make the second chamber more legitimate

Why could the House of Lords be said to be undemocratic ?

Main point• Undemocratic because it’s unelectedNeed reasons• Unaccountable, no recall• Un-representative• Doesn’t reflect the HOCAnd detail…• The PM can put his party in/ power of patronage• Information on current eventsAnd the other sides of the argument Reform proposals Reasons why it is arguably democratic

Key dates in the recent history of Lords reform

1999 House of Lords Act removes most hereditary peers from the House of Lords; replaces them with appointed ‘life peers’

2000 Royal Commission recommends the HofL should include a small elected element

2003 House of Commons votes against all proposals for reform; HofL votes for an all-appointed second chamber

2007 HofC votes for a second chamber that is 80-100% elected; HofL votes for an all-appointed second chamber

2011 Coalition government publishes a draft HofL reform bill containing proposals for 80% election

2012 Government introduces HofL Reform Bill. The bill is given a second reading but is abandoned because of a lack of support

Should we have an elected House of Lords?

• Take a full page and divide it in two.

• Write out two headings: ‘For’ and ‘Against’.

• Watch the debate and complete each column, summarising the key points in favour of and those against an elected second chamber.

Reforms so far…

• The Blair government moved to cut the number of hereditary peers down to 92 as part of a reform bill introduced in 1999, but many Labour backbenchers expected much swifter and more decisive measures and were disappointed by the government’s response.

Reforms so far…• A commitment to a vote on Lords reform was included in the Coalition

Agreement. • In 2011, the coalition introduced proposals for four-fifths of peers to be

elected. Peers were each to represent a specific region of the UK. They would have served 15-year terms of office, after which they could not run for re-election. One-third of seats would have been up for grabs in elections held every five years.

• The number of peers was to be almost halved, from 826 to 450. Of the remaining 90 members, 12 - rather than the current 26 - would have been Church of England bishops. The remainder was to continue to be appointed and all hereditary peers were to be removed.

• The proposals failed when 91 Tory MPs rebelled against the government in a vote on how to timetable the House of Lords Reform Bill - the largest such act of defiance since the coalition was formed.

What future for the House of Lords?

Option Implications

Retain No change

Reform Provide for a percentage of elected peers

Replace Replace the Lords with an entirely-elected ‘Senate-style’ upper house

Remove Abolish the second chamber and move towards a single-chamber Parliament

Retain

Those who advocate no change argue that the House of Lords has proved to be effective as it is (see list of recent action) - it would be unwise to make reforms which may have unknown consequences.Those who argue against this point to the fact that the HoL is unrepresentative and it is no longer tolerable to have such an undemocratic institution legislating in this modern age.

Reform

• Those who advocate reform generally envision an elected element to the House of Lords. These proposals range from having a second chamber that is mostly elected to one in which only a minority of peers are elected.

• There are two types of argument against this position. One group says the reform doesn’t go far enough and only a fully-elected second chamber is acceptable. Others argue that any element of election blurs the distinction between the Lords and the Commons, making government unworkable.

Replace

• Those that argue for a fully elected chamber point to the fact that this would be democratic and therefore more accountable. It would act as a more effective check on the Executive• Those who argue against it state that the new

HoL might simply mirror the HoC and therefore it would serve no purpose - if a Govt. had a majority in both houses it would have far too much power.

Remove

• It would be possible to remove the HoL altogether and to have a Unicameral system as they do in Denmark and in New Zealand.• The House of Commons has already

demonstrated that they are not in favour of a unicameral system (2007 votes = majority of 253 in favour of retaining a second chamber.

• Why would politicians oppose an elected second chamber

• The argument against an elected second chamber is essentially an argument against democracy.

• Lord Adonis

For Against

The current HoL compliments the HoC as it has a different composition

It remains undemocratic and lacks legitimacy and accountability

The expertise and experience in the HoL is essential for scrutiny

There is less party influence - this is crucial for scrutiny

The problem if it were elected at general election time under same voting system =

likely to have same composition = no conflict and would become a rubber stamping

institution HOWEVER if elected at a different time with a different system = likely to be

stalemate because both houses have democratic legitimacy

For Against

A second chamber is not needed in a unitary system and anyway it can

only delay

UK has too big a population for a unicameral system - New Zealand

has less than 10 million

A reformed House of Commons could be given more time for

scrutiny

Scrutiny needs to be carried out by a second chamber with less party

control/influence and it needs more time

It works efficiently in countries like Denmark and Sweden, New

Zealand and IsraelThere is little support for theis

option

For Against

Democratic legitimacy - it would be more democratic -It is the only way to guarantee that the

HoL would be accountable to the people – this is the only basis for legitimate rule.

Specialist Knowledge - Advantage of appointed 2nd Chamber = people can be chosen because they are

specialists/have experience

Wider representation - 2 elected chambers would widen the basis of representation (different voting

systems/terms/election dates/constituencies) = strengthen democratic process

Gridlocked Govt - Two co-equal chambers = paralysis. There would be rivalry between them and between

the Executive and Parliament.

Better Legislation - non elected basis of current HoL restricts its role as a revising chamber. If elected –

popular authority would enable it to exercise greater powers of scrutiny

Complementary Chambers - 2 chambers = advantage because can carry out different roles - only one of

these chambers needs to be popularly elected for this to work

Checking the Commons - Only an elected body can properly check another elected body

Dangers of Partisanship - Any elected chamber will be dominated by the Party ‘hacks’ - an appointed 2nd

chamber would have reduced partisanship

Ending Executive Tyranny - Exec dominates HoC. If HoL = elected (especially on basis of PR) it would be

more powerful/have greater authority = better check

Less Decisive Govt. - an elected HoL with more authority might impede decisive Govt.

For Against

Elimination of any corrupt practices/cronyism in appointment of Lords

Descriptive Representation - Elected Peers might have popular authority - but it would be hard to ensure

that they reflected society as a whole - this could be done through appointed Peers

Move with the times - a fully elected chamber could be changed at election time

Voter Apathy - Too many elections might lead to voter fatigue/apathy

elected on a regional basis = If this were the case it would enable the regions to have more

representation

Composition - if elected at same time as HoC and using same voting method = likely to be the same

composition = will become a rubber stamp HOWEVER if voted by different method at different time = different composition = likely to be stalemate

Another way of seeking redress for citizens - if their ‘Lord’ was democratically elected

Primacy? - If both chambers are democratically elected - which takes primacy?

More Responsive to public mood - therefore may increase public support for the govt. and faith in our

system after recent scandals

An All Appointed Chamber

• Those who favour this option argue that it would help to bring high quality members into the legislative process and avoid giving too much power to the second chamber (as this would obstruct effective government)• Those who argue against this option state

that it would merely preserve the undemocratic nature of the HoL and would also extend the patronage of party leaders

For Against

Opportunity to bring people into political process who would not

otherwise want to stand for election

Could put too much power into the hands of those who appoint the Lords - could lead to corruption

Membership could be controlled to ensure that all major

groups/associations in society are represented

It is undemocratic and holds back progress towards a modern system

It can bring more independents into the political process

it might lack legitimacy and public support because the people have

no part in its composition

Partly Appointed-Partly Elected Chamber

• Those who argue for this option claim that it would combine the advantages of the two systems • Those who argue against it state that it

would only be a compromise - the system would be only partially democratic and it would reserve the power of patronage

For Against

Legitimacy and democratic representation would be provided

without losing expertise

Still undemocratic and therefore lacking in legitimacy and

accountability

It would ensure a good gender/ethnic mix of Lords

It would retain the primacy of the HoC

EXAM FOCUS

Question 2: Parliamenta) With reference to the source, what changes to

the second chamber are proposed? (5)b) With reference to the source, and your own

knowledge, explain the arguments for a fully or partly elected second chamber. (10)

c) Make out a case against an elected second chamber. (25)

(Total for Question 2 = 40 marks)

Q2 ParliamentWhite Paper on reform of the House of LordsThis White Paper sets out the government’s proposals for a reformed second chamber of the UK Parliament. The proposals are based on the House of Commons votes for an 80% or 100% elected second chamber and follow cross-party talks on how this could be achieved. The White Paper makes proposals for reform in a number of areas:Role and compositionThe House of Lords plays a valuable role in holding the government to account and revising legislation. The reforms would strengthen those roles and make the second chamber more accountable. The House of Commons would continue to be theprimary chamber in the UK legislature.Membership of the chamberThe proposed reforms would create a second chamber with directly elected members, which would be smaller than the House of Commons. The remaining rights of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the second chamber would be removed.Powers of the new chamberThe government proposes no changes to the powers of a reformed second chamber.The possible role of appointed members to ensure independenceIf it is decided that there should be a 20% appointed element, the government proposes that its key purpose would be to provide a significant independent element in the second chamber. A statutory appointments commission would seek nominations and applications for membership. The government is also proposing changes to the arrangements for eligibility, remuneration and accountability.Source: White Paper, An Elected Second Chamber, July 14, 2008.

a) With reference to the source, what changes to the second chamber are proposed? (5)b) With reference to the source, and your own knowledge, explain the arguments for a fully or partly elected second

chamber. (10)c) Make out a case against an elected second chamber. (25)(Total for Question 2 = 40 marks)