...there is evidence to also suggest that the UK needs constitutional reform. One huge advantage of the UK constitution is its ability to be flexible and change according to modern opinions or issues. An uncodified or unfixed constitution like the UK’s allows it to me able to keep updated with new social and political situations. It easier to create an Act of Parliament according to a new situation, than to amend a codified constitution. For example, in reaction to this idea of ‘new politics’ and the public’s desire to be able to influence the government between elections, lead to the introduction of referendums in 1997. The UKs democracy has withstood the tale of time and is seen as a huge strength of the UK’s constitution. The UK’s constitution is an example of the UK’s custom and tradition linking generations and has been tested in history to prove that it works. The constitution has adapted and developed over time: it is a ‘living’ constitution due to the idea that it is able to grow. In despite of parliamentary sovereignty, there are a number of ways in which the democratic character of the UK is maintained and the power of the government scrutinized and reduced where necessary. For instance, the House of Lords and judges were reduced in number through Parliamentary Acts due to growing unrest about the influence of unelected official’s government. An uncodified constitution continues to establish representative democracy in the UK: policy making is done by elected ministers...
Words: 754 - Pages: 4
...seems to me that we are moving in the direction of an elective dictatorship,” so said Lord Hailsham in 1978 [The Dilemma of Democracy]. Is this an accurate assessment of the UK system of government/constitution? Dictatorship can be defined as a form of government where political authority is monopolised by a single person or political entity, and exercised through various mechanism to ensure the entity’s power remains strong. Dictatorship is a type of authoritarianism, in which which politicians regulate nearly the behaviour of normal people. Dictatorships and totalitarianism generally employ political propaganda to decrease the influence of proponents of alternative governing systems as is the nature of nationalism of any governing systems. An “elective dictatorship” (also called executive dominance in political science) is a phrase popularised by the former Lord Chancellor of the United kingdom, Lord Hailsham, in a Richard Dimble by Lecture at the BBC in 1976. Elective dictatorship refers to the fusion of powers of the executive and the legislative; where the legislative is drawn from the executive therefore resulting in the dominance of the executive over the legislative. The executives majority in the House of commons reinforces the executive dominance. Elective dictatorship occurs in conjunction with this situation and that of the governing party, the executive. The party in power will by definition have more seats i.e more voting power than all the opposition...
Words: 1219 - Pages: 5
...In recent years there has been much debate within Parliament over the possible codification of the British Constitution and it is always a topic that people often find very hard to agree on. Though some parts of what may be a codified constitution have been introduced, such as The Human Rights Act which established a codified set of rules and the introduction of devolution, Britain is currently uncodified and so this brings up the arguments of whether update the system or not The initial argument for the change is it was remove the transparency of rules and laws, the key constitutional are collected into a single document all clearly stated with great difficulty of alteration. This portrays exactly what the beliefs of Parliament are and restricts law breaking. Not only does this deter people from committing offences but also makes it simple to enforce as every charge wish be on the same wavelength. An argument to contradict this however would be that's not every crime committed is the same so the variation in the punishment given would also have to vary and with the defining of the law there is actually potential for it to become less democratic. Along with this as times are forever changing and technology is being updated, the demand for laws to be amended is crucial as without it people could technically exploit the system ‘legally’. Another bonus of a codified Constitution is the fact that it is authoritative meaning it is a higher-level and so it lines all political...
Words: 1062 - Pages: 5
...Government & Politics Unit 2 * Constitution * Codified Constitution ✓ * Advantages & Disadvantages * Features * Uncodified Constitution ✓ * Advantages & Disadvantages * Features * Is Parliament Sovereign? ✓ * Arguments For and Against * Strengths and Weaknesses of the UK’s constitution ✓ * Constitutional Reforms – Coalition and 1997-2010 ✓ * What are they? * Are they effective? * PM & Cabinet * Features & Functions of the PM ✓ * What must a politician be to becoming PM * What can a PM do? * Functions of Cabinet ✓ * Factors that affect promotion and resignation of a minister ✓ * Powers and Constraints of PM ✓ * Theories of Executive Power ✓ * PM V Cabinet ✓ * Parliament * Functions of Parliament ✓ * What are they? * How effective are they? * Powers of Parliament ✓ * What are they? * How effective are they? * Parliamentary Reform ✓ * What are they? * How effective are they? * Relationship between Parliament and Government ✓ * Factors that affect it * How the coalition affects it Constitution: 2 Types of Constitution * Codified & Uncodified Codified Constitution * Constitution where the rules are written down in a single document. Example could be the USA...
Words: 4289 - Pages: 18
...authoritative, highest law of the land. Binds all political institutions – leads to 2 tier legal system ▪ Provisions of it are entrenched, difficult to amend or abolish ▪ It is judiciable, all political bodies are subject to authority of the courts, in particular a supreme court. o Uncodified – increasingly rare, UK one of few ▪ Not authoritative, constitutional laws treated same as ordinary laws ▪ Not entrenched, constitution can be changed through the normal process for enacting statute law. ▪ Not judiciable, judges do not have legal standard to declare that actions of other bodies are constitutional/not constitutional. o However: ▪ No constitution is entirely written, written documents do not encompass all aspects of constitutional practice ▪ No constitution is entirely unwritten, no constitution consisting only of rules of conduct or behaviour. • Unitary and federal o Unitary – establish constitutional supremacy of central government over provincial and local bodies. Reflected in UK via Parliament o Federal – divide sovereignty between 2 levels of government, both central and regional posses a range of powers that the other...
Words: 2123 - Pages: 9
...sets out the distribution of power within a political system. In Britain we do not have a written or uncodified constitution meaning constitutional reforms are written down but have not been gathered together. There are many arguments surrounding the British constitution and its legitimacy and whether a change in our constitution would create a positive impact or whether our current system is the best and there are no convincing arguments against it. The fact we have parliamentary system means that there is no need for a written constitution. Parliamentary sovereignty means that parliament have the highest legal authority in the UK. Because of our democratic system in the UK we have to power to elect our government and therefore this puts limits on the level of parliamentary sovereignty, parliament cannot afford to ignore the electorate’s wishes. For example the Local Government Finance Act 1988 that introduced poll tax was replaced by Parliament but only after nationwide riots and demonstrations. However with a written constitution it is close to impossible to change anything. To say that there are no convincing arguments surrounding change in Britain’s constitution may be seen as an over statement as a written, codified constitutions do carry some advantages. It hugely reduces the risk of an elective dictatorship because there is separation of powers. It was also mean that the people in power have some boundaries in law making as the written constitution would become the arguably...
Words: 592 - Pages: 3
...Assess the strengths of the UK constitution [25 marks] A constitution is a set of principles, that may be uncodified (unwritten) or codified (written), that relates to how power is distributed within a political system, and establishes how a state is to be organised and governed. Constitutions seek to establish duties, powers and functions of various institutions of government and contribute to defining the relationship between the state and the individuals, for example, defining the extent of civil liberty. The UK constitution helps provide legitimacy to those, of which, are in power, but also limits government power. Although the UK constitution is uncodified, as a whole, parts of the constitution are codified, for example, the European Convention on Human Rights is a codified part of British Law, even though it was designed and created by the Council of Europe, in 1950. Firstly, the UK constitution, being uncodified, means that it is flexible and can be easily adapted to changing circumstances, which could include referendum use and the continuous changing role of the House of Lords. The UK constitution is often called 'organic', which means that the constitution is rooted in society, and consequently means that when society and it's values change the UK constitution can adapt and change to society, without delay or hesitation. Furthermore, because the UK constitution is uncodified, it allows Parliament to pass Acts, without long delays and also allows new, uncodified...
Words: 738 - Pages: 3
...How democratic is the UK? The term democracy implies that the government in the UK is elected by the people for the people; this statement is true to an extent. However it is difficult to administer as most modern democracies are representative, where the public chooses who they wish to possess power to devise policies that will benefit them. Our electoral system in the UK is currently ‘First Past the Post’, where every person over 18 unless they’re in prison has the right to a single vote. ‘First Past the Post’ is an element of the UK democracy that can be seen as both democratic and undemocratic. It’s democratic because the system has survived the test of time and been relatively unchallenged, but when it has, ‘First Past the Post’ has won i.e. in the Referendum of May 5th 2011. Even if the majority win the minority can still run and succeed in the next election regardless of who won the last election. ‘First Past the Post’ can be undemocratic as if only around 60% of people vote how can the government say they represent the people when 40% of the people who can vote didn’t, this is how ‘First Past the Post’ can be seen as unfair. The system makes it very difficult for smaller parties to get elected because the three main parties dominate the elections these are Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats. For a party like the UKIP to get elected would be impossible as even though they had 3,881,099 votes they only got one seat but then the SNP had 1,454,436 had got...
Words: 951 - Pages: 4
...To what extent does the PM dominate the UK political system? Some say that the Britain has entered an era of elective dictatorship; this is when a government that is elected but has won so many votes that it can do what It likes1. In the UK we have a first past the post voting system so theoretically speaking once elected government can do as they please as they have been given the power to do so by the majority of voters who voted them in. The Prime Minister is the head of government and as head of the executive he has powers that can portray him as a dictator not someone representing the ideas of the general population. For example the conservative government introduced ‘the bedroom tax’ if this was David Cameron’s idea he has the power to ensure that his party vote for this law even if they disagree. In this essay I will evaluate evidence on how much the PM dominates the political system in the UK and conclude by giving my opinion on to what extent he controls the political system. The PM is head of the executive and seen as the most important figure of UK politics, with this comes powers and responsibility’s that arguably makes him the most powerful man in the country. The ability to hand pick your cabinet is a key factor on how much the PM controls the political system of, being able to choose who does what job in the country means the PM holds the careers and more importantly the livelihoods of the ministers in his hand because he has the ability to hire and fire ministers...
Words: 1631 - Pages: 7
...It has been argued that a constitution written in the eighteenth century does not work in the twenty first century. The US constitution is codified as it is written in one place and is the supreme law of the United States. Arguments that support the view that the constitution does not work in the 21st century include it giving too much power to the Supreme Court, some provisions being outdated and the amendment process being too difficult in modern context. The two contrasting views can be summed up in the following quotes. William Gladstone quipped that the constitution was “the most wonderful work ever struck off by the brain and purpose of man” while Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated “I would not look at the US constitution if I was drafting a constitution in the year 2012”. One argument that supports the view that a constitution written in the eighteenth century does not work in the twenty first century is the US constitution handing too much power to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has made several controversial and contentious decisions which arguably have weak constitutional foundation in cases such as Citizens United 2010 and Roe vs. Wade in 1973. Because there is no appeals process, these decisions cannot be challenged. There is an amendment process that could overturn these decisions but this is difficult to achieve in modern circumstances. The Supreme Court is an unelected body that is given too much power and can make decisions at the expense of elected representatives...
Words: 1323 - Pages: 6
...How effectively does Parliament fulfil its functions? Parliament has several functions. It debates major issues of current interest, it makes legislation, it scrutinises the executive whilst simultaneously sustaining the government, and it represents the people and redresses their grievances. In many aspects, Parliament is usually effective in fulfilling its functions, but there are occasions where it is not as diligent in doing so. Parliament’s scrutiny function is mainly carried out through four methods; Prime Minister’s Questions, Select Committees, back bench MPs and the House of Lords. Prime Minister’s Questions are a weekly opportunity for the opposition and backbenchers to scrutinise the Prime Minister and by extension the government, and to highlight government failings or simply ask a question. This is a good way of scrutinising the Prime Minister as it puts him/her under pressure to justify their actions, and answer potentially awkward questions regardless of whether they have been pre-submitted. The main weakness of this form of scrutiny is that the questions are often submitted to the Prime Minister some time before Prime Minister’s Questions, allowing him/her to come up with an answer beforehand that might let him/her to actually evade proper scrutiny within the House of Commons. Select Committees in both Houses of Parliament investigate the work of government and produce reports on policy proposals. They can call witnesses in the course of their proceedings...
Words: 1434 - Pages: 6
...The US Constitution, written in Philadephia in 1787 by the Founding Fathers was the product of the revolutionary war of independence, with it’s foundations strongly influenced by the works of political theorists such as Montesquieu and Locke. The Founding Fathers favoured a government that prevented any individual or particular group becoming tyrannical. Furthermore, they strongly opposed the notion of excessive government power, seen as the potential threat to individual freedom, wanting to protect minorities as well as the population as a whole, from arbitrary or unjust rule. Consequently, the Founding Fathers outlined main provisions within the US constitution in order to avoid tyranny: the separation of powers, a federal structure of government and also providing citizens inalienable and entrenched rights through the implementation of the Bill of Rights. Arguably, these provisions as a result mostly ensure, as the Founding Fathers had hope to achieve, limited government, in so much as the size and scope of the federal government is limited to an extent in which it is necessary only for the common good of people. The separation of powers prevalent in the USA, whereby political power is distributed between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary branches of government, were adopted from the Founding Fathers by the principles of Montesquieu, who argued for a separation of powers into legislative, executive and judiciary branches in order to avoid tyranny. This framework...
Words: 2217 - Pages: 9
...PUBLIC LAW V Bogdanor and S Vogenauer; Enacting a British Constitution: some problems’, 2008. One must understand that most of the countries now have a written and a codified Constitution, such as the United States of the America, Malaysia, India, Australia and etc. As we know these countries are under the British colonies before getting their independence. Hence now there are only three states in the world which lacks a written constitution, namely Britain, New Zealand, and Israel. A constitution is a set of rules which defines the structures and functions of a state, particularly, will define the principle of institutions, the legislature, the executive, judiciary and the nature and the scope of their powers. Moreover, Bradley and Ewing have defined a constitution as ‘ a document having special legal sanctity which sets out the framework and the principle functions of the organs of government within the state and declares the principles by which those organs must operate’. (A Bradley and K Ewing, Constitutional and Administrative Law (14th edn, Pearson/Longman, 2007), p.4) [1]In the introduction of a state’s constitution, there will be a discovery of a preamble, for example, in the USA the preamble states that: ‘We the people...do ordain and establish this Constitution’. (Article 2 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution.)[2] This shows the society as a sovereign power. An important question that often rises is “Should Britain adopts a written constitution”? This has always been...
Words: 2597 - Pages: 11
...given to more and more men , the house of commons requires more status and the house of Lords has less status. The last prime minister to come from the house of Lords in 1902. Parliament act of 1911 removed the power of vetoe. The Lords could not longer vetoe an act of parliament, only delay 2 years. 1949 that 2 years was reduced to 1 year and that’s where it remains. Salisbury convention - the lords will not even delay a bill for which the government have a mandate. Conflict between house of Lords and house of commons is very rare. Rare examples, 2005 – fox hunting, the parliament act was pushed through banned, commons pushed it through. Autumn 2011- the lords rejected Osbornes working tax credits party. The Lords debate bills but more importantly they offer any perspective of bills, they are a revising chamber. Over 800 Lords, the vast majority of them are life peers. Lord Sacks is an independent Lord , he is not under a party. Some Lords who are supporters of particular parties , no party have a majority in the house of lords. This is one of the merits of the lords, there is less partisan, no party dominance within Lords. Up until 1999 ( blair) there were around 800 hereditray Lords. Labour abolished the vast majority of those hereditary peers, the vast majority of those were conservatives. 92 hereditary peers survived. House of commons Elections every 5...
Words: 1974 - Pages: 8
...Rights), ▪ a directly-elected mayor and assembly for London, ▪ a reformed House of Lords ▪ and Freedom of Information legislation. ▪ Although reform of the electoral system for Westminster now seems a somewhat distant prospect, the 1999 elections to the Welsh Assembly, to the Scottish Parliament and to the European Parliament were all conducted using electoral systems very different from the traditional first-past-the-post method. ▪ Referendums have been widely used, and more promised o Lecture by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, to the Constitution Unit, Westminster. 8 December 1998 o No other Government this century has embarked upon so significant or wide-ranging a programme of constitutional reform as the New Labour Government. It is therefore my particular pleasure, as the member of the Cabinet entrusted with driving forward development of policy, to have been invited here to give the Annual Constitution Unit Lecture. o We came to power with specific problems identified: o a government that was over-centralised, inefficient and bureaucratic; o local government in need of...
Words: 14891 - Pages: 60
