Sum1 Mock Exam Read the exemplar ‘mini’ essays on Parliament and the EU. Pay close attention to the essay structure used in both cases. What does the author do well? What could you imitate in your own essays?

Discuss the extent to which party controls limit parliament’s ability to carry out its main functions. (25) Parliament has three main functions: representation, legislation, and scrutiny of the executive. Party controls affect Parliament’s ability to perform each of these functions to different degrees and in different ways. Party controls affect parliament’s representative function by exercising a high degree of control over who gets to stand as an MP. In practice, the leadership and ‘inner circle’ of all three major parties exercise considerable control over their constituencies’ selection of candidates. Sometimes these controls have been used for progressive ends, such as the creation of women-only shortlists or the sponsorship of ethnic minority candidates. These initiatives—though modest—may actually have helped increased the descriptive representation of parliament. On other occasions, however, party favourites have been ‘parachuted in’ to ‘safe seats’ in order to guarantee their place in government. Boris Johnson’s return to parliament in 2015 is a case in point. These cases have tended to limit parliament’s representativeness. On the one hand, party controls are necessary in order for governments to legislate effectively. The constitutional test of would-be government is that it can “command the confidence of the House of Commons”. In practice, this means that MPs must reliably be expected to vote along party lines in order to make a legislative agenda possible. Without such controls, it is highly unlikely that a group of 300 or more MPs would act in a coordinated manner. On the other hand, party controls can make it too easy for governments to force through controversial legislation that does not have the support of the general public. For example, security services gained greatly expanded surveillance and investigation powers in 2014, despite the objection of large sections of the population. Although a significant number of MPs from all major parties expressed reservations about the new powers, most voted with their party. Party controls limit Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the executive because they make MPs less independent. Party whips serve to direct individual MPs’ voting practices and to ensure their alignment with party policies. MPs who do so can see their careers advance; MPs who defy the party whip can lose access to ministers, support for favoured causes, opportunities for promotion and, in extreme cases, can face de-selection as parliamentary candidates. Given that the majority of MPs harbour ambitions to become ministers, these rewards and sanctions give the whips considerable influence. However, this influence is not total. The 2010-15 parliament witnessed more rebellions by Conservative MPs than any previous parliament—something which is partly explained by the relatively weaker controls exercised by a coalition government. Party controls have always been weaker in the House of Lords, where fewer members are party-aligned, and where those that are party members are generally less interested in promotion. Overall, party controls are essential to the operation of parliament. When taken to extremes, however, they can give the executive an inappropriate degree of control over the legislature.

‘Allegations of a “democratic deficit” within the European Union are more justifiable in the case of some of its institutions than in others.’ Discuss. (25) The EU is often accused of suffering from a ‘democratic deficit’, or a lack of democratic legitimacy and accountability. However, this deficit does not apply equally to all of its major institutions. The European Parliament has the strongest democratic credentials of any EU institution. MEPs are directly elected by voters in the 28 member states and function as their representatives. MEPs are subject to re-election every five years, providing a measure of accountability comparable to that found in most national parliaments. Since the signing of the Lisbon Treaty (2007) the position of the Parliament has been cemented and enhanced with the ability to exercise oversight of the Commission and with shared legislative authority with the Council. On the other hand, MEPs’ constituencies tend to be significantly larger than those of UK MPs, thereby weakening the level of accountability voters can exercise. Moreover, turnout in European elections has been falling for more than two decades. At only 34% in 2014, the level of political participation threatens the Parliament’s mandate and claim to represent a majority of citizens of the Union. On balance, however, the direct link between MEP and constituency guarantees a degree of democratic legitimacy that exceeds that available to any other EU institution. The European Commission has, arguably, the weakest democratic credentials of any major EU institution—although this is improving. Traditionally, the Commission, including its president, has been appointed by the heads of government of the EU member states acting in the European Council. This provided a form of indirect democratic legitimacy, since the Council members were all elected officials in their own states. Since 2014, the Council has endorsed candidates for the Commission that were sponsored by the larger party groupings in the European Parliament. This has gone some way towards addressing concerns about a democratic deficit, although the charge persists that the Commission’s workings remain mysterious to most citizens of the EU and is rarely accountable to them. The European Council and the Council of the EU both have an indirect democratic legitimacy, in that they are made up primarily of elected officials from the member states. In the case of the European Council, these are ministers; in the case of the Council of the EU, they are heads of state or prime ministers. The primary function of both institutions is to coordinate policy-making at the EU level while respecting the sovereignty of its member states. The greater democratic legitimacy of national governments relative to the supranational government is recognised in the principle of subsidiarity. The same principle governs the use of qualified majority voting in the Council, which ensures that key decisions are taken with the backing of representatives of the majority of the EU population. In conclusion, the EU’s democratic credentials have improved in recent years with greater powers for the Parliament and the beginnings of a link between voters’ wishes and appointments to the Commission. However, the democratic deficit has not been fully eliminated and is never likely to be. A more democratic EU would almost certainly mean a more federal EU. There is little support for that among its democratically-governed member states.

Parliamentary scrutiny Topic 2 Parliament Parliamentary scrutiny Select committees have proved effective at scrutinising the actions of the executive and holding it to account. Select committees decide which issues they are going to examine. They have wide powers to summon witnesses and to examine restricted documents. Committees spend much of their time questioning ministers, officials and outside experts. Membership of select committees reflects the party balance in the Commons. Chairs of committees are allocated to parties according to their relative strength. Candidates from that party are then elected by all MPs in a secret ballot using the alternative vote system. Successful candidates often have a reputation for independence. Members of select committees are elected by secret ballot within party groups. Since a unanimous select committee report is likely to carry maximum weight, members aim to strike compromises across party lines. Over time, committee members can become more expert in their chosen fields than the relevant ministers, who usually have short tenures in a specific office. Adapted from Lynch and Fairclough AS UK Government & Politics (2013) Define the term party balance as used in the extract. (5) Using your own knowledge as well as the extract, consider two ways in which Parliament can scrutinise the executive and hold it to account. (10) ‘The experience of coalition government has made Parliament a more independent body.’ Discuss. (25)

Appointment to the cabinet Topic 3 The core executive Appointment to the cabinet The prime minister may be left with rather little choice in appointing a cabinet. That is not to say that there is no room for manoeuvre. Some powerful figures have been kept out of the cabinet by their prime minister, or out of the cabinet post they really wanted. Thatcher and Blair contrived to put their own supporters into important government positions, and cabinet sackings and promotions are fairly frequent, as prime ministers try to balance the demands of political circumstances and groups jockeying for power. Equally, two very successful post-war prime ministers, Macmillan and Thatcher, seem to have signalled weakness rather than strength when they engaged in major ‘cabinet reshuffles’ in 1962 and 1989. Both were soon out of power. The prime minister’s powers to hire and fire government members are, as are many other functions of the office, a mixture of freedom and constraint. There is often little choice, and some ministers choose themselves by virtue of their political position and stature. At the same time, some prime ministers have juggled the careers of powerful people and have shaped governments to their own taste. Adapted from Budge et al, The New British Politics (2007) Define the term cabinet reshuffles as used in the extract. (5) Using your own knowledge as well as the extract, explain why a prime minister’s power to hire and fire government members is ‘a mixture of freedom and constraint’. (10) Discuss the view that the UK executive has too much power. (25)

Political groupings in the European Parliament Topic 4 Multi-level governance Political groupings in the European Parliament The members of the ‘European Parliament’ (MEPs) are elected by proportional representation from within member states to represent their countries, their constituencies and their parties. This means that they can be torn by conflicting loyalties. Although MEPs do not confront each other in the semicircular chamber like a government and opposition, they do form political groupings, ranging from left to right, that cut across national boundaries. Although often terming themselves parties, the groupings are not like the parties found in national political systems. They do not have mass organisations or fight elections with clear manifestos. However, in joining a political grouping, MEPs are expected to broadly accept its ideological position. The Euroscepticism of British Conservatives has often created major problems within the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) group. For example, after the 2009 elections, to some dismay of moderate centre-right leaders such as Germany’s Angela Merkel, David Cameron fulfilled a controversial pledge to leave the EPP and join a new anti-federalist grouping. Not all his MEPs were enthusiastic about this. Adapted from J Kingdom, Government and Politics in Britain (2009) Define the term European parliament as used in the extract. (5) Using your own knowledge as well as the extract, explain why Members of the European Parliament can ‘be torn by conflicting loyalties’. (10) ‘The case for an English Parliament is now overwhelming.’ Discuss. (25)

Final revision Get your facts straight Be able to define key terms and use them accurately Anticipate the questions Remember the basics