How far do you agree that the strengths of the UK constitution
outweigh it's weaknesses?
The UK constitution is un-codified meaning there is no single
written document detailing every law. This has many
consequences which some argue weaken the constitution,
though also provides strengths such as flexibility and, some
argue, maintaining democracy. The UK constitution has many
other issues such as the electoral system and whether
constitutional reforms have gone far enough, though despite
these weakness the UK constitution has historically worked well
and there is little incentive to change it, suggesting many feel
the strengths outweigh the faults.
An un-codified constitution provides the benefit of flexibility -
the UK has the ability to pass statute laws fairly easily as all
that’s needed is a majority in parliament and since laws are not
entrenched it is easy to change the law as views and values
change over time. Flexibility in the UK constitution can also
stem from conventions, which are rules which are often abided
by though not enforced in law courts. However, this flexibility
can cause uncertainty in certain situations such as the 2010
general election when there was a hung parliament as due to it
being such an unprecedented event, there was confusion as to
what should happen next, as the convention of the prime
minister resigning if they lost the election was no longer relevant.
This ambiguity resulted in a backlash from the media - Gordon
Brown receiving criticism for not resigning soon enough, being
described as a ‘squatter’ by the Sun. As the act of the prime
minister resigning if they have lost a general election is a
convention, there was no clear law on what Brown should have
done, which resulted in confusion and some retaliation from the
media.
However, it could also be argued that this flexibility was
beneficial during the 2010 election as due to the constitution
outweigh it's weaknesses?
The UK constitution is un-codified meaning there is no single
written document detailing every law. This has many
consequences which some argue weaken the constitution,
though also provides strengths such as flexibility and, some
argue, maintaining democracy. The UK constitution has many
other issues such as the electoral system and whether
constitutional reforms have gone far enough, though despite
these weakness the UK constitution has historically worked well
and there is little incentive to change it, suggesting many feel
the strengths outweigh the faults.
An un-codified constitution provides the benefit of flexibility -
the UK has the ability to pass statute laws fairly easily as all
that’s needed is a majority in parliament and since laws are not
entrenched it is easy to change the law as views and values
change over time. Flexibility in the UK constitution can also
stem from conventions, which are rules which are often abided
by though not enforced in law courts. However, this flexibility
can cause uncertainty in certain situations such as the 2010
general election when there was a hung parliament as due to it
being such an unprecedented event, there was confusion as to
what should happen next, as the convention of the prime
minister resigning if they lost the election was no longer relevant.
This ambiguity resulted in a backlash from the media - Gordon
Brown receiving criticism for not resigning soon enough, being
described as a ‘squatter’ by the Sun. As the act of the prime
minister resigning if they have lost a general election is a
convention, there was no clear law on what Brown should have
done, which resulted in confusion and some retaliation from the
media.
However, it could also be argued that this flexibility was
beneficial during the 2010 election as due to the constitution
