Debates over further reform Flashcards
1
Q
What were the aims of the New Labour reforms ?
A
- Increase democracy
- Power-sharing
- Protect citizens’ rights
- Make Britain more modern
2
Q
What were New Labour’s manifesto pledges for constitutional reform in 1997 (7 reforms) ?
A
- House of Lords reform
- House of Commons reform
- Replace FPTP
- Freedom of information
- Devolution in Scotland and Wales
- Elected London mayor
- Regional devolution in England
3
Q
Should the 1997 reforms be taken further ? (the 6 areas)
A
- reform the judiciary
- Devolution
- Freedom of info act
- The House of Lords
- The House of Commons
- Electoral reform
4
Q
Should reform of the Judiciary be taken further ?
A
- Constitutional reform act 2005 and HRA 1998 established the SC as genuinely independent
- HRA has gone far enough as it has given judges a tool to protect citizens rights over powerful governments
- BUT the power of the court is limited by parliamentary sovereignty and a lack of a codified constitution so the HRA could be entrenched to give the Court greater powers and resolving this would require a codified constitution
5
Q
Should devolution be taken further ?
A
- Scotland : Devolution has remained popular
- Wales : Original referendum was only passed with a small majority but support for greater autonomy has grown
- NI : There are issues due to armed conflict
- England : The west Lothian Question hasn’t been solved by EVEL + levels of differing autonomy haven’t been addressed
- Case could be made for further devolution to Wales, England and Scotland
6
Q
Should the Freedom of Info act be taken further ?
A
- Invaluable to the media to hold the government accountable + to scrutinise
- Allowed citizens to prevent injustices by accessing formerly secret info about them
- There is an ability to prevent information being made public if it may harm national security
- There is a case for extending the freedom of info act by removing the national security provisions making it fully accessible
7
Q
Should the HL be further reformed ?
A
- Already : removal of majority of hereditary peers gave it greater legitimacy and made it more willing to assert itself against government’s with large majorities in the commons
- 92 hereditary peers remain which shows reforms haven’t gone far enough
- Should be reformed by removing hereditary peers an or a fully elected chamber
8
Q
Should the HC be further reformed ?
A
- Attempts to redress the balance of power from the government towards backbench MPs BUT the commons remains largely dominated by one party
- Only way to resolve this imbalance is electoral reform + create a more clear constitutional structure that defines the limits of government in relation to parliament
9
Q
Should electoral reform happen ?
A
- NL failed it’s case for Electoral reform + AV referendum shows the public don’t want it
- Further reform is needed eg reform to local elections to familiarise voters with alternatives
10
Q
Arguments that devolution should be extended to the English ?
A
- It would extend democracy and improve democratic accountability by bringing government closer to communities
- Devolved government could better reflect the problems specific to regions
- It would prevent excessive differences between living standards and the quality of life in different parts of the UK
11
Q
Arguments against further devolution to England ?
A
- It would create a new layer of government that would be expensive
- It would create a need for too many elections, promoting voter apathy
- There are few signs of any great demand for such devolution
12
Q
Outline the codification debate :
A
- Codified + entrenched would better outline and protect rights, bring it more in to line with modern democracies and limit executive power
- However uncodified and unentrenched allows for flexibility, strong government, conservative pragmatism and the danger of politicising the judiciary
13
Q
Arguments for a uncodified constitution : Flexibility
A
- Adapt and change to the world around us without major upheavals
- Organic constitution (rooted in society, not separate from society)
- Parliament can pass a new law/act relatively easily and take in to account social and political change
- Eg post 9/11 : the UK adopted anti-terrorist measures which would have been difficult for parliament to do if it were codified
- Post 2010 general election there was confusion as to what to do due to the absence of codified rules but the system was flexible enough to adapt and a coalition was formed smoothly
14
Q
Arguments for a uncodified constitution : Executive power
A
- When constitutional safeguards are weak, then a government can be more powerful
- Can deal with crisis eg COVID-19 legislation passed easily and following terror attacks, anti-terrorism laws were passed easily
15
Q
Arguments for a uncodified constitution : Conservative pragmatism
A
- The UK’s constitution has served it well for centuries with no major unrest
- Codified constitution would be difficult to exercise and the meagre benefits would not be worth the problems
