Codification And Changes To The Constitution Since 1997 Flashcards
Why did new labour adopt policies of constitutional reform?
- constitutional reform had become a more prominent issue in UK politics in the late 20th century due to the growing popularity of the Liberal Democrat’s and Labour leader John Smith, who preceded Tony Blair.
- growth in support for nationalist movements in Scotland and wales created pressure for devolution.
- new Labour had promised not to increase income tax or massively increase public spending. They were therefore unable to appear as a party of radical change and hope in these areas.
- new Labour sought to present itself as modern, democratic and ‘new’ party, especially in comparison to the Conservative Party and government, which had countless ‘sleaze’ scandals.
Four key principles of new labours constitutional reform programme
- democratisation
- decentralisation
- restoration of rights
- modernisation
House of Lords reform: why did it need reforming?
- majority of peers where hereditary peers who were there because they came from aristocratic families.
- the House of Lords were unelected and therefore seen as undemocratic
- the House of Lords had a strong conservative majority due to its hereditary nature
House of Lords reform
- stage 1 remove hereditary peers:
Carried out in 1999 House of Lords Act - removed vast majority of hereditary peers (from 777 to 92). From 2000, the House of Lords Appointment Commission began to nominate ‘life peers’ who were experts in their fields. - stage 2 was meant to replace the HoL with a new second chamber but this never happened as many Labour MPs felt the key problems of hereditary peers and Conservative dominance had been dealt with, whilst there was a lack of agreement on what the new chamber should look like.
Positives of HoL reform
- undermined hereditary basis of the HoL and removed its built-in Conservative majority.
- New ‘life peers’ have made the HoL more professional and significant, which has allowed it to become more assertive and effectively constrain executive power, whilst still clearly remaining the second chamber.
In what ways were the HoL reforms limited
- never went the whole way - stage 2 therefore still undemocratic
- still 92 hereditary beers and 26 bishops
- ex PMs are still able to make appointments to the HoL which is seen as problematic.
Arguments for HoL being replaced with an elected second chamber
- HoL is fundamentally undemocratic. Second chamber should be based on popular consent.
- being elected would embolden the second chamber and result in more effective scrutiny of government legislation. The HoL unelected nature limits its ability to scrutinise legislation.
- if a new chamber was elected through proportional representation, it likely wouldn’t have a majority and would therefore be able to effectively challenge the dominance of the HoC and change the current system from being an ‘elective disctatorship’.
- if elected through proportional representation, a new second chamber would be much more representative of the electorate, especially in comparison to the HoL which is very unrepresentative in terms of demographics and the HoC which is unrepresentative due to FPTP.
Arguments against the HoL being replaced with an elected second chamber
- if second chamber was elected, it would be able to claim democratic legitimacy and be a lot more assertive. This would risk causing gridlock in Parliament and prevent important legislation being passed.
- current appointed nature can be seen as an advantage, as life peers have a lot of expertise in different areas and can therefore provide effective scrutiny.
- an elected second chamber would likely be more concerned with party politics than anything else, even if it was intended to represent different regions.
Potential further reforms for HRA
Bill of Rights
Dominic Raab argues that the HRA has led to lots of unjustifiably successful human rights claims in court.
The British bill of rights would make the SC the final court of appeal rather than the ECHR.
Electoral reform
Introduction of devolved assemblies also led to the introduction of various proportional representation systems in Scotland, Wales, London and Northern Ireland.
In what ways were electoral reforms positive and significant
- where these more proportional systems were introduced, they resulted in more proportional election results and fairer representation for small parties in particular.
- this electoral reform can be seen as a recognition that FPTP is a flawed system.
In what ways were the electoral reforms limited
- though Blair had briefly considered it before the 1997 election, the FPTP electoral system for UK parliament elections wasn’t changed.
- this was in large part because Labour had great success under FPTP in the 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections. They were resistant to changing a system that had granted them significant majorities.
Further reforms: more proportional system for UK Parl elections for and against
FOR:
- more proportional systems have been shown to be effective in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
- a more proportional electoral system would improve democracy in the UK by: improving voter choice and being far more proportional and representative, particularly by improving the representation of minor parties and limiting the dominance of the two main parties.
AGAINST:
- a more proportional electoral system (AV) was rejected in a 2011 referendum.
- MP constituency link is stronger under FPTP
- FPTP excludes extremist parties
- FPTP is easy to use and delivers quick results
Devolution: what reforms were introduced
Following referendums in 1997-98 devolved bodies were introduced in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Devolution: Scotland
Was given the most powers out of all of the devolved bodies, due to Scotland’s strong nationalist movement.
Including control over most public services: health, education, justice, agriculture and most transport. can therefore be seen as a ‘service devolution’.
Scotland has since gained even more powers
