to wonder what protections we have if the Government decide to break the law?

[cakeorwine]

Looking at what's happening in the USA at the moment.

What protections, checks etc and safeguards do we n the UK have should the Government (of any political persuasion) decide to break the law?

We have a Head of State. But that's a ceremonial role. We have the Courts and the Supreme Court. But what are the actual safeguards we have?

This is how the rule of law works. We have the separation of powers under our constitutional system. The government can be and regularly is taken to court for judicial review and can be ordered by the courts to quash decisions and legislation. There can be damages payments, mandatory injunctions etc. Contempt of court actions can be brought which have penalties for individuals including fines and prison

The courts are separate from the legislature and the executive. This is what separates us from police states and is why whilst our country may not be perfect it’s still a pretty good place to live

The courts have acted on many occasions to check the actions of the government in recent years. On the whole it works very well, and benefits from the essentially non-political appointment of the judiciary, despite the Blair government's constitutional meddling.

There's also the Head of State - it's not a ceremonial role - but politicians are expected to resolve disagreements without dragging the king in to politics, which is another unusual and effective part of our constitution.

There are also various international courts, which the government could choose to ignore. As a final backstop, there are the armed forces...

If it's LAs breaking SEN law...zero protection!

You've answered your own question. It's what the courts are for.

Is Tony Blair in prison for his illegal war yet?

The civil service, which is non-political and includes impartial officials with powers, is able to refuse to carry out action that's illegal.
We have courts which 'trump' the government... as seen in the initial Rwanda deportation case.
Other weaker checks and balances include the House of Lords, various cross-party committees which sign off certain things, the power of non-sitting party members, and civil society (e.g. expert groups who can speak up).
I think we have more checks and balances than the US, where the President seems to have more power than the PM.
I worked in public affairs for a couple of years and it was really interesting - recommend to anyone that they learn more about how our political system works if they don't already, it's amazing how little we are taught about it in school!

Agree it’s strange we aren’t really taught it at school. I found out about most of it for the first time at law school! I mean, surely it’s more important than hearing about the tudors over and over again!

Do the LA's have funds, resources and people to be able to carry out the SEND laws.

This has happened recently - look up Boris Johnson

The independent judiciary is the protection against this. The courts are able to hold the government to account. It is why the “Enemies of the People” headlines about the Supreme Court during brexit were grotesque and irresponsible, and should be seen as such regardless of one’s view in remaining.

Basically the supreme court, which came into play when Johnson tried to prorogue parliament.

The US has an equivalent.

In the UK it is a bit harder, because as far as I can tell the Supreme courts job in the US is mostly to interpret the constitution and how it applies.

Whereas in the UK we don't have a written constitution.

If not having the money meant you could get away with breaking the law, why aren't we all out stealing anything we can't afford?

It is interesting.

And we do need to have checks to ensure that a Government can be held to account and stays within the Law.