1.4 how could the UK constitution be further reformed?
Further House of Lords reform –
Only when the Lords are elected and accountable to the public, will it be able to
claim democratic legitimacy. However, opponents of an elected Lords claimed that an
appointed chamber has major advantages:
- Contains experts in every field – scrutinising work of committees of the House is
held in high regard.
- In cases of dispute, the Commons will always prevail as it is democratically
legitimate.
- If both were elected, there would be potential for gridlock as they can both claim
a democratic mandate.
- Lords currently has a significant number of crossbenchers. If it were elected, the
main parties would likely dominate, which would undermine its reputation for
independence.
Some critics argue that the legitimacy of the Lords does not depend on it having a
democratic mandate but derives from its expertise & effectiveness.
There is a strong case that an appointed Lords would require greater legitimacy if the
HOLAC was given the statutory right to veto inappropriate political appointments.
Electoral reform at westminster –
Major argument is that UK is becoming multi-party democracy & electoral system
should be reformed to provide minority parties with fair representation.
E.g., in 2015, UKIP & Greens won almost 5 million votes & secured only 1 seat each.
If the Commons better reflected the political will of the nation, the public might also
be more encouraged to vote.
However, proportional representation at Westminster might not improve politics that
much.
- According to the Electoral Reform Society, if 2019 GE results were determined by
the d’Hondt formula, no party would have gained an overall majority. Public’s
eagerness for the UK's withdrawal from the EU to be resolved - another coalition
would have been likely unpopular.
- Although PR is supposed to provide smaller parties with enhanced
representation, this has not been the case in Wales & Scotland. LibDems
achieved an average 6% of the vote in 2021 Scottish Parliament election but won
only 4/129 of the seats at Holyrood. Welsh Parliament elections 2021 - they won
an average 4.6% of the vote but secured 1/60 of the seats.
- 2017 and 2019 - significant number of safe seats changed, suggesting FPTP is
more responsive to changes in public opinion than critics claim.
, Should devolution be extended to England? –
Yes –
England is the most populous nation in the UK, yet its citizens are the only ones
without their own government.
The devolved powers of Wales & Scotland have been significantly increased since
1999 – indicating how popular devolution has been & that it is illogical for England
not to have the same rights.
Devolution has created an asymmetric UK, leading to potential resentment that
England interests are being taken less seriously than Scotland, Wales & Northern
Ireland. The Barnett formula (e.g.) by which public funding is allocated across the UK,
has always meant that spending per capita in England is less than other parts of the
UK. Devolution to England might resolve such issues.
There is a strong sense of regional identity in parts of England such as Cornwall &
Yorkshire, which would make regional assemblies popular & relevant. In 2015,
Cornwall became the first county to be given devolved powers, including control of
investment & bus services.
The establishment of elected mayors also shows how power can be decentralised.
Both models could provide a template for how English devolution can be introduced.
No –
There is very little demand for reform. Despite the asymmetric development of the
UK's constitutional arrangements, most English people are content that their
interests are sufficiently represented by Westminster.
An English Parliament could challenge the authority of Westminster. Since
Westminster brings together MPs from across the country, any further reduction in
its power & prestige could threaten the survival of the UK.
If each nation in the UK had its own legislature, this would emphasise the regional
differences rather than common national values. Some critics have suggested that an
English parliament could lead to a ‘Balkanisation’ - a shared sense of national identity
is undermined by competing national identities.
An English Parliament could encourage the growth of English political parties based
on extremist political ideology, such as the EDL. If the English Parliament was elected
by PR, this could provide extremist political parties with the opportunity for
influence.
Not all parts of England have a strong sense of regional identity. Even the Northeast,
which does have a strong sense of its identity, rejected the opportunity to have its
own assembly by 78% in 2004.
Further devolution could create another layer of government, which could create a
democratic overload undermining the legitimacy of the result.
The turnout for elected mayors & police commissioners low & elections for the
Scottish Parliament & Welsh Assembly have had a lower poll than the average GE. In
England, where a sense of nationhood is much weaker, elected bodies could fail to
achieve a strong enough mandate.
Further House of Lords reform –
Only when the Lords are elected and accountable to the public, will it be able to
claim democratic legitimacy. However, opponents of an elected Lords claimed that an
appointed chamber has major advantages:
- Contains experts in every field – scrutinising work of committees of the House is
held in high regard.
- In cases of dispute, the Commons will always prevail as it is democratically
legitimate.
- If both were elected, there would be potential for gridlock as they can both claim
a democratic mandate.
- Lords currently has a significant number of crossbenchers. If it were elected, the
main parties would likely dominate, which would undermine its reputation for
independence.
Some critics argue that the legitimacy of the Lords does not depend on it having a
democratic mandate but derives from its expertise & effectiveness.
There is a strong case that an appointed Lords would require greater legitimacy if the
HOLAC was given the statutory right to veto inappropriate political appointments.
Electoral reform at westminster –
Major argument is that UK is becoming multi-party democracy & electoral system
should be reformed to provide minority parties with fair representation.
E.g., in 2015, UKIP & Greens won almost 5 million votes & secured only 1 seat each.
If the Commons better reflected the political will of the nation, the public might also
be more encouraged to vote.
However, proportional representation at Westminster might not improve politics that
much.
- According to the Electoral Reform Society, if 2019 GE results were determined by
the d’Hondt formula, no party would have gained an overall majority. Public’s
eagerness for the UK's withdrawal from the EU to be resolved - another coalition
would have been likely unpopular.
- Although PR is supposed to provide smaller parties with enhanced
representation, this has not been the case in Wales & Scotland. LibDems
achieved an average 6% of the vote in 2021 Scottish Parliament election but won
only 4/129 of the seats at Holyrood. Welsh Parliament elections 2021 - they won
an average 4.6% of the vote but secured 1/60 of the seats.
- 2017 and 2019 - significant number of safe seats changed, suggesting FPTP is
more responsive to changes in public opinion than critics claim.
, Should devolution be extended to England? –
Yes –
England is the most populous nation in the UK, yet its citizens are the only ones
without their own government.
The devolved powers of Wales & Scotland have been significantly increased since
1999 – indicating how popular devolution has been & that it is illogical for England
not to have the same rights.
Devolution has created an asymmetric UK, leading to potential resentment that
England interests are being taken less seriously than Scotland, Wales & Northern
Ireland. The Barnett formula (e.g.) by which public funding is allocated across the UK,
has always meant that spending per capita in England is less than other parts of the
UK. Devolution to England might resolve such issues.
There is a strong sense of regional identity in parts of England such as Cornwall &
Yorkshire, which would make regional assemblies popular & relevant. In 2015,
Cornwall became the first county to be given devolved powers, including control of
investment & bus services.
The establishment of elected mayors also shows how power can be decentralised.
Both models could provide a template for how English devolution can be introduced.
No –
There is very little demand for reform. Despite the asymmetric development of the
UK's constitutional arrangements, most English people are content that their
interests are sufficiently represented by Westminster.
An English Parliament could challenge the authority of Westminster. Since
Westminster brings together MPs from across the country, any further reduction in
its power & prestige could threaten the survival of the UK.
If each nation in the UK had its own legislature, this would emphasise the regional
differences rather than common national values. Some critics have suggested that an
English parliament could lead to a ‘Balkanisation’ - a shared sense of national identity
is undermined by competing national identities.
An English Parliament could encourage the growth of English political parties based
on extremist political ideology, such as the EDL. If the English Parliament was elected
by PR, this could provide extremist political parties with the opportunity for
influence.
Not all parts of England have a strong sense of regional identity. Even the Northeast,
which does have a strong sense of its identity, rejected the opportunity to have its
own assembly by 78% in 2004.
Further devolution could create another layer of government, which could create a
democratic overload undermining the legitimacy of the result.
The turnout for elected mayors & police commissioners low & elections for the
Scottish Parliament & Welsh Assembly have had a lower poll than the average GE. In
England, where a sense of nationhood is much weaker, elected bodies could fail to
achieve a strong enough mandate.
