Significant Constitutional changes since 1997 Flashcards
Define ‘Constitutional Reform’.
Refers to the means by which changes are made to the way the UK is governed.
Main constitutional reforms in the UK
- Devolution
- Reform to the House Of Lords.
- Changes to the way the Judiciary works.
Which main party are less likely to make constitutional reform whilst in gov
The Conservatives ( they feel that institutions are there because they work and shouldn’t be ‘fixed’ unless they are broken. So there were no major constitutional changes under the 1979-97 Conservative governments.)
List the constitutional reform under the Labour Gov between 1997 to 2010.
HOL Reform ( 1999 House Of Lords Act ) - reduced HOL membership from 1,330 to 669 mainly life peers and it allowed 92 hereditary peers to remain members of the Lords for an interim period.
Electoral Reform
Devolution & Regional Government
A Bill of Rights (Human Rights Act) 2000 - rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law.
A Freedom of Information Act 200 ( creates a general right of access to all types of recorded information held by most UK public authorities. It also sets out exemptions and places a number of obligations on those public authorities.)
More use of referendums
A Constitutional Reform Act setting up the UK Supreme Court and increasing the independence of the Judiciary.
Why were there so many changes from 1997 to 2010 ( under new labour gov)
Many of the changes made were highlighted in the parties manifesto - therefore, the labour party winning in 1997 shows they had a mandate to push through these changes.
Constitutional changes under the Lib Dem Coalition 2010
5-yr Fixed term Parliament Act in 2011 ( enacted but was not put practiced in the first 5yrs)
Electoral reform for Westminster elections from FPTP to AV
House of Commons reform to reduce the number of constituencies and redraw boundaries,
Local Government reform to enables citizens to directly elect mayors to run cities.
Constitutional changes under the New Conservative govt
Further devolution to the Scottish and Welsh Parliament after the 2014 Scottish Ref ( 84% Turnout, with 55% voting to remain in the UK)
Arguments in support of the ‘House of Lords’ being elected
It would be more democratically legitimate, so has more of a right to make and challenge laws.
It allows for more representation, for example by having elected representatives serving longer terms than MPs, perhaps chosen by a different electoral system
The Lords would be more willing to introduce its own legislation, and could more robustly challenge bills from the Commons, so leading to better legislation
It could properly check the power of the Commons, as it would have the right to do so
There would be more effective restrictions on government power, as it would be less easy for the government to pass legislation
Arguments against it
Lords members can currently be chosen on the basis of their specialist knowledge and experience. This would likely be lost if Lords were elected
It could lead to gridlock- if the Commons and Lords were in disagreement, it would not be clear which has priority. This would be especially problematic if the chambers were dominated by different parties. Therefore, the executive would find it harder to get things done
There is no need to have two elected chambers. The Commons is elected and has authority, and the Lords works fine as a revising and checking chamber
Members of the Lords would rely on parties to get elected, making them more likely to be influenced by their party and less likely to think for themselves
It would be harder to ensure that the Lords represents society- at the moment, Lords can be appointed on the basis on (for example) their gender or ethnic background, to give particular groups in society a voice. This could not be guaranteed if the Lords were elect
’ Should the Westminster voting system be reformed/?
- Arguments for
FPTP is not proportional- the percentage of seats won by parties does not reflect the percentage of the vote they received. This is undemocratic
FPTP creates lots of safe seats and wasted votes
Governments currently win power with only 35-40% of the vote, so are not supported by most of the population
It currently leads to few checks and balances on government power, as governments can easily pass legislation.
Under FPTP, power becomes concentrated too narrowly, and small parties do not get the level of representation their support merits
Arguments against.
Reforming Westminster elections was decisively rejected by the public in the 2011 referendum
FPTP gives voters a clear choice between two parties with distinct programmes for government.
Under FPTP, winning parties get overall majorities, so can fulfil their manifesto pledges without the need to compromise in a coalition
FPTP allows for strong governments- governments have a healthy majority and can get things done
FPTP allows for stable governments- single-party governments are less likely to collapse, so provide certainty and stability
Extremist parties are unlikely to get a foothold under the current system
How is the UK Constitution changes
As a result of referendum results ( in the case of devolution and electoral reform)
Act of Parliament
Petitions etc.
Reasons 4 constitutional change
Changing culture
Satisfy public opinion.
lack of clarity
As a response to nationalism
