Evaluate the view that constitutional reforms since 1997 have been weak,
incomplete, and therefore require further reform.
Paragraph 1: Reforms to the House of Lords
Intro – define: constitutional reforms relating to rights, judiciary, house of lords
and devolution. ‘weak and incomplete’ – have not been reformed meaningfully or
to the fullest extent.
Discuss: proponents would cite arguments in source that HoL should be partially
elected as more democratic, judiciary should have more power and rights should
be entrenched to balance power and further devolution required to ensure
fairness. Conversely, those opposing would cite arguments in critical
commentary that UK has achieved a balance in these areas, such as ensuring
existence of dec of in but also parl. Sov., and that further reform fails to respect
balance.
Discourse: overall, most convincing arg that Hol and rights/judiciary require no
further reform as would limit function of lords and undemocratic to give judiciary
more power; however, further devolution reform in England needed.
The source offers the seemingly plausible argument that ‘the Second Chamber…
shall have [500] voting members… elected for a period of [fifteen] years’,
proposing a partially elected House of Lords.
Weak argument point 1 – House of Lords Act 1999 arguably insufficient as 92
hereditary peers were allowed to remain in the House of Lords and 10 were
created life peers – undemocratic. Incomplete as peers allowed to remain –
anachronistic, therefore requires further change – i.e. being elected.
Example – Making House of Lords partially elected would give it more of a
mandate to block legislation – e.g. given just one day for Brexit Withdrawal
Agreement which spanned approximately 1000 pages – clear need for reform
as executive has too much power.
Weak argument point 2 – House of Lords Act 1997 further weak as most
members appointed by PM – patently inequitable. Requires further change
as clear instances of cronyism
Example – e.g. in 2020 Johnson awarded peerage to Peter Cruddas,
Conservative donor, despite opposition from House of Lords Appointments
Commission.
Strong argument 1– as source notes, disregards fact that HoL ‘retains its
traditional non-elected role but with a substantially reduced hereditary element’.
There is a balance between traditional elements and reform – little public
sentiment for further reform.
Example – House of Lords Reform Bill 2012 was withdrawn following opp. From
Conservatives who indirectly represent constituents. Ed Miliband: ‘I don’t think it
was the decisive issue at the general election’.
incomplete, and therefore require further reform.
Paragraph 1: Reforms to the House of Lords
Intro – define: constitutional reforms relating to rights, judiciary, house of lords
and devolution. ‘weak and incomplete’ – have not been reformed meaningfully or
to the fullest extent.
Discuss: proponents would cite arguments in source that HoL should be partially
elected as more democratic, judiciary should have more power and rights should
be entrenched to balance power and further devolution required to ensure
fairness. Conversely, those opposing would cite arguments in critical
commentary that UK has achieved a balance in these areas, such as ensuring
existence of dec of in but also parl. Sov., and that further reform fails to respect
balance.
Discourse: overall, most convincing arg that Hol and rights/judiciary require no
further reform as would limit function of lords and undemocratic to give judiciary
more power; however, further devolution reform in England needed.
The source offers the seemingly plausible argument that ‘the Second Chamber…
shall have [500] voting members… elected for a period of [fifteen] years’,
proposing a partially elected House of Lords.
Weak argument point 1 – House of Lords Act 1999 arguably insufficient as 92
hereditary peers were allowed to remain in the House of Lords and 10 were
created life peers – undemocratic. Incomplete as peers allowed to remain –
anachronistic, therefore requires further change – i.e. being elected.
Example – Making House of Lords partially elected would give it more of a
mandate to block legislation – e.g. given just one day for Brexit Withdrawal
Agreement which spanned approximately 1000 pages – clear need for reform
as executive has too much power.
Weak argument point 2 – House of Lords Act 1997 further weak as most
members appointed by PM – patently inequitable. Requires further change
as clear instances of cronyism
Example – e.g. in 2020 Johnson awarded peerage to Peter Cruddas,
Conservative donor, despite opposition from House of Lords Appointments
Commission.
Strong argument 1– as source notes, disregards fact that HoL ‘retains its
traditional non-elected role but with a substantially reduced hereditary element’.
There is a balance between traditional elements and reform – little public
sentiment for further reform.
Example – House of Lords Reform Bill 2012 was withdrawn following opp. From
Conservatives who indirectly represent constituents. Ed Miliband: ‘I don’t think it
was the decisive issue at the general election’.
