How many marks would you give this Politics A-level essay? (Edexcel)
Evaluate the view that sovereignty now rests with government rather than Parliament. [30]
This essay will analyse whether parliamentary sovereignty, defined by A.V. Dicey as the principle in which Parliament is the supreme law-making body in the UK (therefore possessing authority to legislate on anything with no body being able to override its legislation), it still is held by Parliament itself, or now rests with the government (Prime Minister and Cabinet). On one hand, the source argues that Parliament remains sovereign as it states it can ‘make or unmake any law’, Supreme Court cases reaffirm Parliament’s sovereignty via judicial review (e.g. Miller v Brexit Secretary (2017)), and elected MPs retain the democratic mandate. However, despite this, the government whip means bills ‘rarely fail’, royal prerogative powers means that the government can make some decisions without parliamentary approval, and personal powers of the PM (e.g. spatial leadership, media dominance, and personality politics) means that it can be argued that some sovereignty has shifted to the government. Overall, this essay will argue that whilst Parliament retains legal sovereignty, in practice, the government often dominates Parliament, giving them political sovereignty — the real-world distribution of power.
One argument in favour of the argument that Parliament still holds sovereignty is the fact that they retain legal sovereign powers under the definition set out by A.V. Dicey — as per the source, Parliament can ‘make or unmake any law’ and ‘no body can override its legislation’. As a result, it is clear that Parliament still retains its authority as the supreme body in the UK, with no other body being able to override its legislation. MPs within Parliament are able to scrutinise and defeat government legislation, especially if the government in power is weak (e.g. if they operate as a minority government with 325 seats or less), as seen in 2019, where Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement was rejected three times by MPs due to her weak power, with her own Tory MPs voting against her. This demonstrates that the government cannot always impose its will, and MPs are sometimes able to wield immense amounts of power against the government. However, on the flip side, the source states that the prime minister has ‘control of the parliamentary timetable’, giving them significant powers over what Parliament debates and when, meaning they essentially choose what bills are introduced, and can prioritise the bills they want to pass, essentially giving them powers to manipulate what goes on within Parliament, potentially showing they wield more power. Furthermore, as per the source, party whipping and the payroll vote means that government bills ‘rarely fail’ — in the vast majority of cases, with Theresa May as a rare exception — the government holds a majority in Parliament, meaning they are able to essentially force their MPs to vote in line with the party whip, otherwise they may face their whip being suspended. This means that no matter what the consensus of the bill is in Parliament, a government with a majority will likely be able to force it through — creating an elective dictatorship. This could be seen with Keir Starmer in 2024, where he suspended seven Labour MPs for voting to scrap the two-child benefit cap, despite it being popular within Labour MPs. This essentially silences MPs and forces Parliament to listen to the executive. Overall, it is clear that whilst Parliament holds sovereignty in theory, in practice, the government is able to control what is debated within Parliament, and how Parliament votes on bills.
Another argument in favour of the idea that Parliament retains sovereignty is the fact that constitutional checks (via judicial review and declarations of incompatibility) means that royal prerogative powers ‘cannot bypass Parliament’ (as per the source), meaning government power has constraints to it, and Parliament can be seen as dominant. In 2017, for example, the Supreme Court ruled in Miller v Brexit Secretary (Miller I), that the PM could not use her royal prerogative powers to enact Article 50 to leave the EU. As a result of this ruling, the Supreme Court reinforced the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty, as they handed powers back to Parliament (as the Court declared that Parliament would have to pass an Act to enact the Article) from the government, who therefore had royal prerogative powers weakened. Furthermore, as per the source, the Lords provide ‘an additional check’, as they are able to analyse, amend and delay bills, which removes some power from the government to force bills through even if unpopular with the government. On the other hand, however, the government still retains its royal prerogative powers, as they are able to make treaties and deploy the military ‘without parliamentary approval entirely’. This gives them enormous powers over parts of the constitution, such as treaties, and they do not need any approval or feedback from Parliament at all — essentially meaning they are able to act independently of Parliament in many key areas. Overall, although Parliament retains some power over the government through judicial review (the Supreme Court), the government still nonetheless holds more power through their royal prerogative, as they are able to make large constitutional changes (such as making treaties) without any input from Parliament.
Democratic legitimacy is also an argument for the idea that Parliament remains sovereign. As per the source, elected MPs retain the democratic mandate, and collective parliamentary will continues to constrain executive action. This implies that Parliament, rather than government, remains the ultimate source of democratic legitimacy, as MPs are elected by the public and governments derive most of their power from a majority in Parliament. This means that the power of government relies heavily on Parliament — government can only remain in office, and have power if it has the continued support of a majority of MPs in the Commons. If an MP withdraws their support, as seen with Theresa May’s triple defeat in 2019, this can cause a government to fall — her constant defeats by her own party were a key reason behind her resignation. Furthermore, if a vote of no confidence passes (simple majority needed), a government can be essentially forced out, stripping their powers entirely. However, despite this, the source also argues that power has been increasingly given to the PM, and therefore government, through ‘spatial leadership, media dominance, and … personality politics’. This suggests that British politics is becoming increasingly presidential, with figures such as Boris Johnson dominating their party, and essentially becoming the face of it. As a result, more power is given to a single individual, therefore undermining ‘collective parliamentary governance’. As a result, whilst the elected Commons is still the more democratically legitimate body (and therefore parliament), a new era of presidentialism in government means that more power is handed to a single individual, and therefore strengthening sovereignty in government.
To conclude, whilst the source makes arguments for Parliament retaining its legal sovereignty through its elected mandate, the use of judicial review to curb executive dominance, and the ability for MPs to vote against the government, it is clear that in practice, the government hold political sovereignty, as they are able to decide what is debated on in Parliament, use the whip to control Parliament, still have royal prerogative powers, and have had an increase in presidentiality leading to more power being concentrated in the executive.
My teacher gave me 18/30