UK essay plans
Evaluate the view that the UK needs a codified Constitution overall don’t
Codified constitution a constitution which outlines the frameworks of how a country
should be run and sets out the relationships between the various branches of government
Arguments Against Arguments for
No – flexibility the fact our uncodified constitution is However, changes can be made too easily
flexible is an important aspect easy to change when parliament can easily change the constitution
necessary allowing it to evolve to reflect society’s need at a as they are sovereign with a simple majority vote,
given time which is only possible as it is uncodified unlike the US’s tough amendment process
e.g. flexibility allows to respond to crisis Firearms Act 1997 e.g. control orders in the Prevention of Terrorism
(handgun ban) after the Dunblane Massacre Act 2005 which are used to restrict individual’s
important we keep the uncodified con as we can easily liberty
change it to reflect our needs at different time periods without so fundamental principles of the constitution
having to go through a hard amendment process like in USA can be easily taken away by parliament due to the
which cannot adequately amend itself when in need to because ease of changing so can make tyrannical
it is so hard can better reflect current societies needs changes which damage democracy and increase
more democratic the power of a gov
Whereas a codified constitution would prevent
this as changes cannot be made so easily`
No – we have the HRA which has already strengthened our However, rights are still better protected in a
rights so not necessary an argument for codifying it is clear, codified con as the act isn’t entrenched and
protected, entrenched rights but the HRA 1998 allows for could be changed by parliament as they’re
the SC to declare laws incompatible with it e.g. Ahmed vs sovereign SC cannot strike down laws only rule
HM Treasury them as unconstitutional e.g. after Ahmed vs
laws cannot be made which damage our rights as the HRA HM Treasury, parliament passed the Terrorist
already protects it without codifying the constitution also Asset Freezing Act superseding it
ensures that ministers must show how their law is compatible So, parliament can easily change our rights and
with the act although the HRA isn’t entrenched it is till doing hinder them with a simple majority so rights
the job and is being treated as it if was as people don’t break it are not properly entrenched
holds parliament / gov accountable to the people also
ensures rights are always protected
Constitution has served the test of time so we should However, there have been a number of questions
preserve the status quo and Parliamentary sovereignty to the UK’s core principles after recent
there hasn’t been a big crisis / demand to codify our amendments such as sovereignty in parliament
constitution so not point in doing so as there is no and unitary state therefore, a codified
demand to codify from the people it could be considered Constitution would clear set out our values and
undemocratic to so there is also no consensus on what a what the UK stands for and the powers of the
codified constitution would be and what values / principles government it could also answer difficult
would be in it especially with such ideological divide between constitutional problems e.g. West Lothian
the main parties so as long as rights are being protected by question whether MPs from Wales, Scotland
the HRA, parliament is kept in check from tyranny so not and N.I. who sit in the Commons should be able to
needed vote on matters that only affect England, while
MPs from England are unable to vote on maters
that have been devolved to the N.I., Scotland and
Welsh assemblies/Parliament solved by EVEL
This could clear set out where the power lies
between the separate branches and how each
branch can check another.
, UK essay plans
Evaluate the view that Parliament is in need of major reform
Parliament = Commons and Lords both have undergone reforms since 1997 e.g. removal of
all but 92 hereditary peers in Lords
Judgement – No further reforms
Arguments For Arguments against
Lords are not socially representative of society dominated The Commons are elected and they are still not
by white, male and middle class members of society fully socially representative of society 68%
e.g. 75% Male compared to 49% of population fails to mirror male, 8% BAME compared to 49% and 14% of pop
society One of the main reasons for the Lords is the
lack democratic legitimacy not elected, hereditary peers expertise they off which would be lose if they
and Lords Spirituals (26 bishops) were elected
Reform should be = elected to increase democratic legitimacy Whilst not socially representative they are still
and make them more representative politically representative (where they represent
whole countries interests not just their own):
e.g. 2015 Lords voted against legislation which
wanted to reduce tax credits to the lowest
incomes earns so are still politically representative
Lords are weak so cannot provide an effect check on the However, in times when the Commons has a very
Commons and Executive as of: large majority they act as an informal opposition
Salisbury Convention cannot delay manifesto policies as the Commons opposition is so limited
Parliament Acts of 1911 & 1949 can’t block legislation e.g. under Blair’s majority of 179 in Commons
concerned with money and reduced delaying powers from 2 to Lords took over as informal opposition:
1 years so they can no longer veto legislation lost 4 times in Commons
Reform should be = give them more power to ensure they can but lost 460 times in the Lords
actually stop the Commons rather than just delay them Shows the Lords are powerful enough to provide
an adequate check on the Commons when
If they were elected it would give them the democratic necessary
legitimacy to have more powers as they could be seen as If they were elected such large majorities would
stopping the will of the people also follow through to the Lords so one party
would have control of both houses making the
opposition even less effective
Commons current forms of scrutiny are ineffective so They are powerful enough as they can and have
Committees and PMQs should be reformed used the media to start investigations
Committees - they have been strengthened in recent years but e.g. Media exposed expenses scandal but
lack any real power as they cannot legally compel witnesses to Committees investigated it once brought to their
attend and answer questions attention they use other platforms to deal with
e.g. in 2013 then Hom Sec Theresa May rejected requested of problems
the Head of MI5 to testify in front of the home affairs
committee about claims he made that Guardian put national reforms might may them proactive rather than
security as risk by publishing Snowden Files reactive can investigate anyone with no real
limits which would hinder democracy and the
Backbench Business Committee given more time or more legislative process as politicians would be scared
regular slots in the timetable to allow backbenchers opinions to to do anything in fear of being investigated
be heard
, UK essay plans
At the moment committees can only recommend changes that
should be made by the government which can be easily ignored
which hinders the legislative process and democracy
PMQs is a farce and doesn’t perform any real form of scrutiny
filled with planted questions which is not regular enough and
too short
Evaluate the view that the UK needs a codified Constitution overall don’t
Codified constitution a constitution which outlines the frameworks of how a country
should be run and sets out the relationships between the various branches of government
Arguments Against Arguments for
No – flexibility the fact our uncodified constitution is However, changes can be made too easily
flexible is an important aspect easy to change when parliament can easily change the constitution
necessary allowing it to evolve to reflect society’s need at a as they are sovereign with a simple majority vote,
given time which is only possible as it is uncodified unlike the US’s tough amendment process
e.g. flexibility allows to respond to crisis Firearms Act 1997 e.g. control orders in the Prevention of Terrorism
(handgun ban) after the Dunblane Massacre Act 2005 which are used to restrict individual’s
important we keep the uncodified con as we can easily liberty
change it to reflect our needs at different time periods without so fundamental principles of the constitution
having to go through a hard amendment process like in USA can be easily taken away by parliament due to the
which cannot adequately amend itself when in need to because ease of changing so can make tyrannical
it is so hard can better reflect current societies needs changes which damage democracy and increase
more democratic the power of a gov
Whereas a codified constitution would prevent
this as changes cannot be made so easily`
No – we have the HRA which has already strengthened our However, rights are still better protected in a
rights so not necessary an argument for codifying it is clear, codified con as the act isn’t entrenched and
protected, entrenched rights but the HRA 1998 allows for could be changed by parliament as they’re
the SC to declare laws incompatible with it e.g. Ahmed vs sovereign SC cannot strike down laws only rule
HM Treasury them as unconstitutional e.g. after Ahmed vs
laws cannot be made which damage our rights as the HRA HM Treasury, parliament passed the Terrorist
already protects it without codifying the constitution also Asset Freezing Act superseding it
ensures that ministers must show how their law is compatible So, parliament can easily change our rights and
with the act although the HRA isn’t entrenched it is till doing hinder them with a simple majority so rights
the job and is being treated as it if was as people don’t break it are not properly entrenched
holds parliament / gov accountable to the people also
ensures rights are always protected
Constitution has served the test of time so we should However, there have been a number of questions
preserve the status quo and Parliamentary sovereignty to the UK’s core principles after recent
there hasn’t been a big crisis / demand to codify our amendments such as sovereignty in parliament
constitution so not point in doing so as there is no and unitary state therefore, a codified
demand to codify from the people it could be considered Constitution would clear set out our values and
undemocratic to so there is also no consensus on what a what the UK stands for and the powers of the
codified constitution would be and what values / principles government it could also answer difficult
would be in it especially with such ideological divide between constitutional problems e.g. West Lothian
the main parties so as long as rights are being protected by question whether MPs from Wales, Scotland
the HRA, parliament is kept in check from tyranny so not and N.I. who sit in the Commons should be able to
needed vote on matters that only affect England, while
MPs from England are unable to vote on maters
that have been devolved to the N.I., Scotland and
Welsh assemblies/Parliament solved by EVEL
This could clear set out where the power lies
between the separate branches and how each
branch can check another.
, UK essay plans
Evaluate the view that Parliament is in need of major reform
Parliament = Commons and Lords both have undergone reforms since 1997 e.g. removal of
all but 92 hereditary peers in Lords
Judgement – No further reforms
Arguments For Arguments against
Lords are not socially representative of society dominated The Commons are elected and they are still not
by white, male and middle class members of society fully socially representative of society 68%
e.g. 75% Male compared to 49% of population fails to mirror male, 8% BAME compared to 49% and 14% of pop
society One of the main reasons for the Lords is the
lack democratic legitimacy not elected, hereditary peers expertise they off which would be lose if they
and Lords Spirituals (26 bishops) were elected
Reform should be = elected to increase democratic legitimacy Whilst not socially representative they are still
and make them more representative politically representative (where they represent
whole countries interests not just their own):
e.g. 2015 Lords voted against legislation which
wanted to reduce tax credits to the lowest
incomes earns so are still politically representative
Lords are weak so cannot provide an effect check on the However, in times when the Commons has a very
Commons and Executive as of: large majority they act as an informal opposition
Salisbury Convention cannot delay manifesto policies as the Commons opposition is so limited
Parliament Acts of 1911 & 1949 can’t block legislation e.g. under Blair’s majority of 179 in Commons
concerned with money and reduced delaying powers from 2 to Lords took over as informal opposition:
1 years so they can no longer veto legislation lost 4 times in Commons
Reform should be = give them more power to ensure they can but lost 460 times in the Lords
actually stop the Commons rather than just delay them Shows the Lords are powerful enough to provide
an adequate check on the Commons when
If they were elected it would give them the democratic necessary
legitimacy to have more powers as they could be seen as If they were elected such large majorities would
stopping the will of the people also follow through to the Lords so one party
would have control of both houses making the
opposition even less effective
Commons current forms of scrutiny are ineffective so They are powerful enough as they can and have
Committees and PMQs should be reformed used the media to start investigations
Committees - they have been strengthened in recent years but e.g. Media exposed expenses scandal but
lack any real power as they cannot legally compel witnesses to Committees investigated it once brought to their
attend and answer questions attention they use other platforms to deal with
e.g. in 2013 then Hom Sec Theresa May rejected requested of problems
the Head of MI5 to testify in front of the home affairs
committee about claims he made that Guardian put national reforms might may them proactive rather than
security as risk by publishing Snowden Files reactive can investigate anyone with no real
limits which would hinder democracy and the
Backbench Business Committee given more time or more legislative process as politicians would be scared
regular slots in the timetable to allow backbenchers opinions to to do anything in fear of being investigated
be heard
, UK essay plans
At the moment committees can only recommend changes that
should be made by the government which can be easily ignored
which hinders the legislative process and democracy
PMQs is a farce and doesn’t perform any real form of scrutiny
filled with planted questions which is not regular enough and
too short
