Constitutional Change since 1997

Question 1

What were nine criticisms of the UK Constitution in 1997?

Answer 1

• Prerogative/executive powers of the PM and were not restrained by Parliament/ a Codified Constitution
• Continuation of hereditary privilege (monarchy/peers in the Lords)
• Unrepresentative electoral system
• Parliamentary Sovereignty: governments were allowed to force constitutional change
• Government too secretive
• Lack of independence for local bodies (councils)
• Excessive power of unelected bodies
• Population had no clear conception of the limits of the government, distribution of power and the rights of citizens
• No entrenched and superior Bill of Rights

Question 2

Why did Labour support Constitutional change from the late 1980’s onwards? (6 reasons)

Answer 2

• Long years in opposition (desired different democratic arrangements)
• Protect previous Labour reforms
• Demand for change among the electorate
• UK into line with Europe (Tony Blair)
• Perceived reduction of civil liberties by conservatives in 80s
• Wanted to appear modern

Question 3

What Constitutional change did Labour enact from 1997-2010?

Answer 3

Democracy:
- referendums on devolution for Scotland and Wales/ directly elected Scottish Parliament and National Assembly in Wales
- Mayor for London

Electoral Reform:
- STV in Northern Ireland, AMS in London, Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly

Devolution:
- elected assemblies for Wales, Northern Ireland and London - English devolution failed

Civil Liberties:
- HRA (1998), Freedom on information act (2000), Equality Act (2010)

Parliament:
- removal of all but 92 hereditary peers from House of Lords, commons got parent friendly hours, committees strengthened

Supreme Court:
- Constitutional Reform Act (2005) created supreme court, more independence for judiciary

Prerogative Powers:
- Constitutional Reform and Governance Act (2010) reduced PM’s prerogative powers.

Question 4

What were the criticisms of Labour’s reforms from the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats?

Answer 4

Conservatives:
- Opposed all reforms
- Wanted to keep traditional constitution
- Incoherent changes
- Disliked HRA
Lib Dems:
- Reforms did not go far enough
- Executive too powerful
- Uncodified
- FPTP for Westminster
- Devolution was uneven
- House of Lords unelected

-

Question 5

What changed were made to the constitution during the Conservative-Liberal Democrats coalition from 2010-15?

Answer 5

• Fixed term 5 year Parliament
• Recall elections - Constitutions can force a recall election to unseat the MP if they are bad e.g Fiona Onasanya after she was sentenced to three months in jail
• Petitions to Parliament - if petition over 100,000 signatures it must be debated
• Reform Parliamentary Committees - select committee were strengthened to improve scrutiny
• Devolution for Wales and Scotland - further law making powers for Wales

Question 6

What attempted changes to the constitution failed and why?

Answer 6

• Reform of House of Lords - most/all would be elected through a PR system - failed due to lack of conservative support
• Referendum on Alternative Vote - replace FPTP - not a PR system and so was defeated heavily in May 2011 referendum

Question 7

What Constitutional change have the Conservative party enact from 2015-now?

Answer 7

• English voted for English laws (abolished in 2021)
• 2016 Brexit Referendum
• Devolution - gave Waled further financial powers
• Voter photo ID
• Ended fixed term Parliaments

Question 8

What are the arguments for constitutional change?

Answer 8

• Greater certainty in the UK’s constitutional arrangements. Easier to find and understand, for example people will be able to know their civil liberties e.g freedom of speech and association
• Aspects of the constitution could be modernised (clarify and confirm necessary changes, for example electoral reform from FPTP to a PR system to improve representation
• Piecemeal evolution left us with an incoherent constitution. Through referendums and the HRA, the constitution has already been semi-codified, so why not fully codify it. Formal ‘tidying-up’
• Protection against change.For example, It would be more difficult to impose authoritarian government or remove the civil liberties of citizens as the codified constitution would be entrenched

Question 9

What are the arguements against constitutional change?

Answer 9

• Loss of flexibility, codified are difficult to reform even when change is needed (archaic and unwanted rules) risk being undemocratic and unrepresentative in the future. (however government is also considered unrepresentative (2019 GE 50.6% Labour voters saw their voted go unrepresented) /undemocratic now, so change must be made)
• Too many limits on government reduce decisive government supposed to be strong and stable and have a working majority allowing them to fulfill their duties E.g implement manifestos with limited opposition. (Limits on government may be good as the government can do what it wants for 5 year)
• Too much power to unelected judges - non-democratic decisions being made limits democracy
• We have semi-entrenched rights - HRA so our rights are protected rights and do not need a bill of rights and codified constitution (Only semi-entrenched)