Debates on Constitutional Reform

Question 1

Should constitutional Reforms since 1997 be taken further?

Answer 1

Some arguably have had success and resulted in democratic improvements, whilst others require further reform.

Question 2

Successful Reforms

Answer 2

Devolution and reform of the judicial systems successful

successful an suppoted in Scotland and Wales and ensured peace in NI, led to power being decentralised

2005 CRA established the SC which is independent from government.

Question 3

Success: Fixed-terms & electoral reform

Answer 3

Fixed-term election have meant a check on the power of the executive and prevented the PM from calling a ‘snap’ election to gain a political advantage

Proportional representation is used for elections to devolved assemblies, which has improved representtion of voters

Question 4

Failure: electoral reform

Answer 4

Not been electoral reform away FPTP for GE

Remains in-place which often results in outcomes which are unrepresentative (2017, the SNP won 35 seats but won 3% of the vote, whilst the LIberal Democrats won 12 seats and won 7.4% vote)

Question 5

Failure: House of Lords

Answer 5

Further reform is arguably needed, the chamber should arguably become a fully elected and more democratic chamber as it has power to check legislation and the government

HoL remains entirely unelected and therefore undemocratic

Question 6

Arguments for further devolution in England

Answer 6

Would improve accountability by bringing the government closer to people and communities

would prevent significant differences in living standards between different parts of the Uk

May increase political participation if interests are taken care of.

Question 7

Arguments against further devolution in England

Answer 7

Could increase divisions in english society by promoting disunity

Could result in to many elections which causes voter apathy

Not sigificant demand for greater devolution in England

Question 8

Arguments for codified

Answer 8

Protecting human rights, checks on government power and that there would be more clarity for citizens

Provides a stronger protection of human rights

1998 HRA adopted the ECHR and shows rights being codified to an extent however, it still remains weak as parliament can override the act

Question 9

For codified: checks & clarity

Answer 9

Written is far more clear, would improve understanding and public awareness of the constitution

Would ensure that written checks and balances would be in place to limit the power of the executive.

Parliament would have clear powers to control the executive

Question 10

Arguments for uncodified

Answer 10

Allows for a strong government, it is flexible so can react to sudden changes and issues, codified is not necessary to be changed.

Allows a strong governmnet that can carry out actions and deal with issues decisively.

Written constitutions can limit any effective government action because of the preventions it puts in place.

Question 11

For uncodified: difficult process

Answer 11

Could be a difficult process changing to a codified as it is not necessary as hasnt had any major problems…

It has many unwritten conventions, such as prerogative powers, which would require writing down into any codified constitutions.

Question 12

For uncodified: flexible & politicising judiciary

Answer 12

Uncodified constitution is flexible and can adapt more easily to changes in society. 2010 GE, an uncodified constitution meant it was easy to develop a new set of principles so that a coalition could be formed.

Codified could lead to SC dealing with disputes over the meaning of the constitution (like the USA), whihc means the unelected chamber becomes more involved in political issues