Debates on further reform in CONSTITUTION
https://quizlet.com/gb/921708604/uk-pols-constitution-paper-2-flash-
cards/?i=29pvxi&x=1jqt
• An overview of the extent to which the individual reforms since 1997 listed in section 1.2
above should be taken further.
• The extent to which devolution should be extended in England.
• Whether the UK constitution should be changed to be entrenched and codified, including
a bill of rights.
1. ETVT a codified constitution is now a necessity for the UK
2. ETVT devolution has gone too far
3. ETVT devolution has been successful
4. ETVT the most significant problem with the UK constitution is the power of the PM
- ETVT the constitution is in serious need of reform
- only poss devolution q is "ETVT the need for further English devolution is now overdue"
- HAVEN'T ASKED A YEAR SPECIFIC Q on topic 1.2
- "since 2010/2015 has the constitutional reform been effective"
- "Constitutional reform since 2010/2015 has not gone far enough"
- HAVEN'T ASKED a q with a focus on parliamentary sovereignty and rule of law
- "ETVT parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law has been undermined in recent
years"
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
HOUSE OF Greater democratic legitimacy – 92 Could create further gridlock in
LORDS hereditary peers government
Less cronyism
- 2006, Blair cash for honors A non-partisan body with experts
scandal enhances democracy
- 2020, Johson gave Peter - Lord Dubbs, 2016 Dubbs
Cruddas, peerage, who had amendment offered refuge for
donated 3.5 mil pounds to unaccompanied child refugees
Tories
- Baroness Hollins who is a
- Egyptian businessman
psychiatrist and expert in learning
honored in Easter by Sunak.
disabilities was involved in the
Mohammed Mansur, gave
Mental Capacities Act 2005 and
Tories 5 mil pounds, was ex
the Equality Act 2010
tory treasurer
, FPTP Disproportional results FPTP promotes a two-party system that
- 2015, UKIP 12.5% of vote, 1 gives voters a clear decision that usually =
seat a clear majority for one party=a strong
- 2019, Lib Dems get 11.5% of mandate to carry out their manifesto
the vote, and only 11 seats. If - In the 1980s, allowed Thatcher to
system was proportional, bring about widespread economic
they would’ve got 75 seats reform e.g. Right to Buy and
Less wasted votes might encourage privatisation of public services
higher turnout (rail, electricity)
- 70% of votes cast in 2019 did - Blair 1997 constitutional reforms
not affect the election (devolution) - he had 418 seats
outcome - Boris 80 seat majority 2019,
allowed him to carry out Brexit
Don’t want coalitions as can be weak e.g.
2024 Scotland breakdown
ENGLISH Solve West Lothian Q. Because England houses the
PARLI Would allow England to focus on its overwhelming majority (84%) of the UK’s
own issues e.g. knife crime. population, and 85% GDP, a devolved
May allow for a settlement that English Parliament would remove a lot of
would curb growing nationalism of powers from the UK parliament and might
other devolved powers. weaken the United Kingdom as a political
union.
Under the 1978 Barnett formula for
deciding on levels of public The government had planned to set up
spending, England receives less per elected regional assemblies in England.
person than the other parts of the But this idea was abandoned in 2004,
UK, Scotland receives 20% more. A when more than three-quarters of voters in
federal solution would promote the North-East of England opposed the
greater equality between the assembly planned for their region, and
different parts of the UK only 19% want an English Parli.
UK can already enact legislation to affect
UK e.g. Levelling up
ETVT the UK constitution should be codified?
THESIS – NO
- Flexibility 😊
- HR sufficient
- Political jury would be bad
PARA 1 – Need to codify as const changes could happen in haphazard way
, - Johnson govt. was planning to “opt out” of parts of ECHR to accelerate asylum seeker
deportations + protecting British troops overseas from legal action. If Const. was codified
and entrenched, amendments and developments would be made in a measured, rational
manner, with considerable democratic debate or even more referendums.
- Executive power is excessive. No real checks and balances. How can we trust a
government that can enlarge its own powers at will?
PIVOT - Flexibility of Const.: positive and important quality in current times. Allows to adapt to
society’s changing values and needs without major upheavals. When society needs, can change
without delay, passing new acts in parliament and new unwritten conventions develop to take
account of change.
- When 2010 GE failed to produce outright Parli maj., the system adapted by setting up new
principles quickly and a coalition govt. formed quite smoothly
- Easy constitutional changes – Equality Act 2010 establishing protected characteristics,
2013 same sex
- When constitutional safeguards are weak/absent. Govt. can be more powerful which is
arguably positive.
- Some argue it is better to have a govt. that can deal with crisis/problems as they arise
without too much inhibition. 9/11 attacks on NY and Washington 2001 -> anti-terrorist
measures passed.
PARA 2 – HR need to be better protected
- Human Rights: the need for stronger safeguards for individual and minority rights
- UK adopted the European Convention on HR (by passing the HRA in 1998)
- This remains weak bcs it can be overridden by Parliament (Parli sov.). e.g. Treasury v
Ahmed 2010 and the Rwanda scheme
- ->With a codified const., parli could not pass leg that offended HR protection -> greater
protection for people
PIVOT – HR are already well protected by HRA and ECHR
- Incompatibilities with HRA go far enough to make gov act when THEY feel is necessary e.g.
2017 due to SC they removed employment tribunal fees
- Equality Act 2010 establishing protected characteristics – Parli can be trusted protect rights
when they see fit
- We need to protect Parli Sov, Tories in 2019 elected with a mandate to battle high
immigration
- Cons of codified const don’t outweigh the pros of entrenched rights
PARA 3 – More checks and balances, better scrutiny by codification
, - A separation of powers should protect the judiciary
- The process of judicial review would be more precise and transparent.
- The Supreme Court cannot strike down laws due to Parliamentary sovereignty and
limitations on SC. A new codified constitution could more clearly separate power between
the three branches of government, creating new, stronger, checks and balances. Gov wins
65% of judicial review cases
PIVOT – Politicising the jury is bad
- Codified const. involves courts, particularly SC in disputes over its precise meaning and
application -> courts even more political.
- E.g. conflicts on the exact powers of govt, nature or rights, relations between UK nations
etc. would be more common. We need to uphold parli sov as they are elected e.g. Blair able
to carry out his constitutional reforms as he had a huge majority of 179 and thus a large
personal mandate – judges do not.
- The concept of judicial independence of judges arguably in jeopardy if brought into political
conflict. The constitution would become judiciable.
- Judges are not elected and therefore not accountable. Political issues should not be
resolved by judges but by elected reps to make final decisions on constitutional matters.
- Could create judicial activism, where unelected judges are accused of using questionable
interpretations of the constitution to promote their own political agenda
CONC – do not codify the constitution
ETVT the constitution should be codified – it should be
Counter Pivot Argument
Judiciary SC, 12 unelected judges – do However, SC 2005, law lords ruled in Hirst v
not have mandate/legitimacy only does this Uk that the blanket ban on
to make constitutional as currently prisoner voting was in violation
decisions our of the ECHR, however the gov
constitution ignored it, Cameron said when
e.g. effectively establishing fails to protect he was PM that the ruling
right to privacy in Bloomberg rights – can made him “physically ill”
v ZXC – it would greatly only make
increase their power to do declarations of Also, judiciary does have a
things as this incompatibility mandate HRA 1998 and
Constitutional Reform Act
2005 both passed by elected
gov – so has been given
legitimacy to protect rights,
and a codified constitution
would mean it could do this to
a greater extent, and be able
to enforce its decisions
https://quizlet.com/gb/921708604/uk-pols-constitution-paper-2-flash-
cards/?i=29pvxi&x=1jqt
• An overview of the extent to which the individual reforms since 1997 listed in section 1.2
above should be taken further.
• The extent to which devolution should be extended in England.
• Whether the UK constitution should be changed to be entrenched and codified, including
a bill of rights.
1. ETVT a codified constitution is now a necessity for the UK
2. ETVT devolution has gone too far
3. ETVT devolution has been successful
4. ETVT the most significant problem with the UK constitution is the power of the PM
- ETVT the constitution is in serious need of reform
- only poss devolution q is "ETVT the need for further English devolution is now overdue"
- HAVEN'T ASKED A YEAR SPECIFIC Q on topic 1.2
- "since 2010/2015 has the constitutional reform been effective"
- "Constitutional reform since 2010/2015 has not gone far enough"
- HAVEN'T ASKED a q with a focus on parliamentary sovereignty and rule of law
- "ETVT parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law has been undermined in recent
years"
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
HOUSE OF Greater democratic legitimacy – 92 Could create further gridlock in
LORDS hereditary peers government
Less cronyism
- 2006, Blair cash for honors A non-partisan body with experts
scandal enhances democracy
- 2020, Johson gave Peter - Lord Dubbs, 2016 Dubbs
Cruddas, peerage, who had amendment offered refuge for
donated 3.5 mil pounds to unaccompanied child refugees
Tories
- Baroness Hollins who is a
- Egyptian businessman
psychiatrist and expert in learning
honored in Easter by Sunak.
disabilities was involved in the
Mohammed Mansur, gave
Mental Capacities Act 2005 and
Tories 5 mil pounds, was ex
the Equality Act 2010
tory treasurer
, FPTP Disproportional results FPTP promotes a two-party system that
- 2015, UKIP 12.5% of vote, 1 gives voters a clear decision that usually =
seat a clear majority for one party=a strong
- 2019, Lib Dems get 11.5% of mandate to carry out their manifesto
the vote, and only 11 seats. If - In the 1980s, allowed Thatcher to
system was proportional, bring about widespread economic
they would’ve got 75 seats reform e.g. Right to Buy and
Less wasted votes might encourage privatisation of public services
higher turnout (rail, electricity)
- 70% of votes cast in 2019 did - Blair 1997 constitutional reforms
not affect the election (devolution) - he had 418 seats
outcome - Boris 80 seat majority 2019,
allowed him to carry out Brexit
Don’t want coalitions as can be weak e.g.
2024 Scotland breakdown
ENGLISH Solve West Lothian Q. Because England houses the
PARLI Would allow England to focus on its overwhelming majority (84%) of the UK’s
own issues e.g. knife crime. population, and 85% GDP, a devolved
May allow for a settlement that English Parliament would remove a lot of
would curb growing nationalism of powers from the UK parliament and might
other devolved powers. weaken the United Kingdom as a political
union.
Under the 1978 Barnett formula for
deciding on levels of public The government had planned to set up
spending, England receives less per elected regional assemblies in England.
person than the other parts of the But this idea was abandoned in 2004,
UK, Scotland receives 20% more. A when more than three-quarters of voters in
federal solution would promote the North-East of England opposed the
greater equality between the assembly planned for their region, and
different parts of the UK only 19% want an English Parli.
UK can already enact legislation to affect
UK e.g. Levelling up
ETVT the UK constitution should be codified?
THESIS – NO
- Flexibility 😊
- HR sufficient
- Political jury would be bad
PARA 1 – Need to codify as const changes could happen in haphazard way
, - Johnson govt. was planning to “opt out” of parts of ECHR to accelerate asylum seeker
deportations + protecting British troops overseas from legal action. If Const. was codified
and entrenched, amendments and developments would be made in a measured, rational
manner, with considerable democratic debate or even more referendums.
- Executive power is excessive. No real checks and balances. How can we trust a
government that can enlarge its own powers at will?
PIVOT - Flexibility of Const.: positive and important quality in current times. Allows to adapt to
society’s changing values and needs without major upheavals. When society needs, can change
without delay, passing new acts in parliament and new unwritten conventions develop to take
account of change.
- When 2010 GE failed to produce outright Parli maj., the system adapted by setting up new
principles quickly and a coalition govt. formed quite smoothly
- Easy constitutional changes – Equality Act 2010 establishing protected characteristics,
2013 same sex
- When constitutional safeguards are weak/absent. Govt. can be more powerful which is
arguably positive.
- Some argue it is better to have a govt. that can deal with crisis/problems as they arise
without too much inhibition. 9/11 attacks on NY and Washington 2001 -> anti-terrorist
measures passed.
PARA 2 – HR need to be better protected
- Human Rights: the need for stronger safeguards for individual and minority rights
- UK adopted the European Convention on HR (by passing the HRA in 1998)
- This remains weak bcs it can be overridden by Parliament (Parli sov.). e.g. Treasury v
Ahmed 2010 and the Rwanda scheme
- ->With a codified const., parli could not pass leg that offended HR protection -> greater
protection for people
PIVOT – HR are already well protected by HRA and ECHR
- Incompatibilities with HRA go far enough to make gov act when THEY feel is necessary e.g.
2017 due to SC they removed employment tribunal fees
- Equality Act 2010 establishing protected characteristics – Parli can be trusted protect rights
when they see fit
- We need to protect Parli Sov, Tories in 2019 elected with a mandate to battle high
immigration
- Cons of codified const don’t outweigh the pros of entrenched rights
PARA 3 – More checks and balances, better scrutiny by codification
, - A separation of powers should protect the judiciary
- The process of judicial review would be more precise and transparent.
- The Supreme Court cannot strike down laws due to Parliamentary sovereignty and
limitations on SC. A new codified constitution could more clearly separate power between
the three branches of government, creating new, stronger, checks and balances. Gov wins
65% of judicial review cases
PIVOT – Politicising the jury is bad
- Codified const. involves courts, particularly SC in disputes over its precise meaning and
application -> courts even more political.
- E.g. conflicts on the exact powers of govt, nature or rights, relations between UK nations
etc. would be more common. We need to uphold parli sov as they are elected e.g. Blair able
to carry out his constitutional reforms as he had a huge majority of 179 and thus a large
personal mandate – judges do not.
- The concept of judicial independence of judges arguably in jeopardy if brought into political
conflict. The constitution would become judiciable.
- Judges are not elected and therefore not accountable. Political issues should not be
resolved by judges but by elected reps to make final decisions on constitutional matters.
- Could create judicial activism, where unelected judges are accused of using questionable
interpretations of the constitution to promote their own political agenda
CONC – do not codify the constitution
ETVT the constitution should be codified – it should be
Counter Pivot Argument
Judiciary SC, 12 unelected judges – do However, SC 2005, law lords ruled in Hirst v
not have mandate/legitimacy only does this Uk that the blanket ban on
to make constitutional as currently prisoner voting was in violation
decisions our of the ECHR, however the gov
constitution ignored it, Cameron said when
e.g. effectively establishing fails to protect he was PM that the ruling
right to privacy in Bloomberg rights – can made him “physically ill”
v ZXC – it would greatly only make
increase their power to do declarations of Also, judiciary does have a
things as this incompatibility mandate HRA 1998 and
Constitutional Reform Act
2005 both passed by elected
gov – so has been given
legitimacy to protect rights,
and a codified constitution
would mean it could do this to
a greater extent, and be able
to enforce its decisions
