Future Possibilities of Constitutional Reform (L8)

Question 1

3 key questions about UK constitution now

Answer 1

-is it still traditional/historic or modern/democratic?
-or is it just more politicised?
-or is it both with reform happening within, not to, the structure of the state

Question 2

what might come next for the UK constitution according to Labour manifesto 2024 (5)

Answer 2

-New Ethics and Integrity Commission
-Modernise HoCommons
-Immediate reform of HoLords
-votes at 16
-reset between Westminster and Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and Stormont

Question 3

what are the 5 key options for potential reform?

Answer 3

-(a) voting reform
(b) House of Lords reform
(c) political ethics and integrity reform
(d) HRA reform / ECHR membership
(e) codification

Question 4

what is the current system for UK general elections

Answer 4

-is ‘First Past the Post’
- in each one of 650 constituencies, candidate with most votes wins

Question 5

what are the pros/cons of the current system for UK general elections

Answer 5

+ simple, quick results
- but doesn’t require majority support of constituency to be elected
- national results can be v disproportionate

Question 6

what is an example of disproportionate election results

Answer 6

-General Election July 2024

Question 7

how was the General Election July 2024 disproportionate (3)

Answer 7

-Labour won 33.7% of votes and 63.2% of seats (no correlation)
-Conservative won 10% less votes than labour and approx 1/3 of labours seats
-Reform UK won 14% of votes and got 0.8% of seats

Question 8

give 3 different systems for voting to consider

Answer 8

• ‘Alternative Vote’ (AV) rejected in 2011 referendum eg pick a second choice
• more proportional systems used in Scotland and Wales (‘Additional Member System’ (AMS) – two votes, constituency and ‘list’) to add more MPs to parliament
• and Northern Ireland (‘Single Transferable Vote’ (STV) – ranking all candidates according to preference)

Question 9

give some trade offs for the different systems that promote proportional results

Answer 9

-complexity
-constituency link
-political party interests (big 2 parties benefit from this not smaller parties)

Question 10

give 2 examples of previous HoLords reform (b)

Answer 10

-House of Commons has passed Labour’s current Bill to remove hereditary peers
- mandatory retirement age of 80 (when?)

Question 11

give 4 suggestions for HoLords reform (b)

Answer 11

• suitability review on appointment?
• fully elected? proportional system?
• regional representation?
• abolished?

Question 12

give 4 issues with Labours proposition of a new ‘independant’ Ethics and Integrity Commission (c)

Answer 12

-no legislation to create this, will be non-statutory
- selection of membership? role of Parliament?
- umbrella body or investigatory body?
- PM still to have power to ‘hire and fire’?

Question 13

give 4 other possibilities of the proposed political ethics and integrity reform (c)

Answer 13

-make a statutory basis for Ministerial Code for MPs?
- bigger powers for Independent Advisor on
Ministers’ Interests?
- changes to rules on donations / gifts?
- citizens’ juries to review actions of politicians?
(Brown Report, 2022)

Question 14

hiduehduhf

Answer 14

usfhusifh

Question 15

what are the two major party views on (d) HRA Reform/ EHCR Membership

Answer 15

-Labour will ‘unequivocally support the European Convention of Human Rights” -Lord Hermer KC, Attorney General, Bingham Lecture, 14 Oct 2024
-Conservative leadership candidate Robert Jenrick argues in favour of withdrawal from EHCR

Question 16

has HRA Reform/ EHCR membership removal been attempted before?

Answer 16

-yes;
-series of failed attempts to reform HRA since 2010
- most recent ‘Bill of Rights Bill’ was a confusing mess

Question 17

what is the issue with (d) HRA Reform and ECHR Membership

Answer 17

-challenge is interconnection between domestic legislation (HRA and devolution Acts) and international treaty (ECHR)
- so ‘all or nothing’ debate about ECHR membership unlikely to disappear entirely

Question 18

what was the Parliamentary Select Cttee inquiry 2010-14

Answer 18

-non government committee to look into codifying constitution/ how to go about it
-made report called Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: A New Magna Carta? (2014)

Question 19

what does the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: A New Magna Carta? (2014) argue are the 3 models of a codified constitution

Answer 19

-code
-act
-constitution

Question 20

what resulted from Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: A New Magna Carta? (2014)

Answer 20

-public consultation
-but came to nothing
-very many views on this

Question 21

why does N. Barber, ‘Against a Written Constitution’ (2008) P.L. 11-18, at 12 argue against (e) a written/codified constitution and why

Answer 21

-Tying unconnected changes together runs the risk that unpopular reforms
may be foisted by the drafters on the public

Question 22

give 5 cons of (e) codification

Answer 22

-Lack of consensus? Lack of priority?
- Does it really matter / is it a distraction from substantive
reform?
- Absence of a “constitutional moment”? Or too many
constitutional moments?
- What would the process be? Citizen involvement?
Referendum(s)?
- Alternatives: ‘protected constitutional statutes’? (Brown Report 2022 p140-142)

Question 23

why does R Brazier, Constitutional Reform: Reshaping the
British Political System (Oxford: OUP, 2008), at 159-160 argue against (e) codification

Answer 23

-‘It is not too cynical to say that the absence of a codified constitution – which would be likely to limit the powers of Ministers and Parliament –
came to be seen as agreeable to modern Governments:
why should they risk that power by embarking on the search for a limiting constitution?’

Question 24

why does .A.G. Griffith, ‘The Political Constitution’ (1979) Modern Law Review at 159-160 argue against codification

Answer 24

-The fundamental political objection is this: that law is not and cannot be a
substitute for politics. This is a hard truth, perhaps an unpleasant truth. For centuries political philosophers have sought that society in which government is by laws and not by men. It is an unattainable ideal. Written constitutions do not achieve it.
Nor do Bills of Rights or any other devices. They merely pass political decisions out
of the hands of politicians and into the hands of judges or other persons . To require a supreme court to make certain kinds of political decisions does not make
those decisions any less political.