Reforms 1997 - 2015

What was Blair’s devolution?

1997 referendums held in Scotland and Wales voted in favour of having their own elected govt

1998 Good Friday agreement Northern Ireland also voted in favour of having a dissolved assembly

Also allowed many towns and cities to elect mayors

1998 London voted for a Greater London authority - Mayor and assembly

Local govt act 2000 meant local govts could offer referendums over having directly elected mayors

4 main aims of Blair’s reforms

decentralisation, democratisation, transparency, rights protection

Was Blair’s devolution successful?

S+W gained significant powers

Represents people voices across the UK using referendums

BUT devolved bodies below sovereign parliament

created regional unfairness

What was the House of Lords reform?

1999 - Blair govt wanted to remove rights of Hereditary peers

compromised - hereditary peers could elect 92 to sit in the house (always 92)

2000 - HOL appointment commission established, nominate small amount of crossbench life peers so PM wasn’t nominating all

Reason for HOL reform

Wanted membership to be based on merit rather than birth to make it more democratic

Makes HOL a more professional body

Was HOL reform successful?

Reduced hereditary peers presence from 666 to 92

Reduced conservative representation in HOL

BUT - HP not eliminated, some Lord’s threatened disruption on govt bills

Didn’t achieve fair party balance of seats mainly still Labour and Conservative

What was Blair’s electoral reform?

wanted to change first past the post system to an alternative one

after he won the majority he did not impart it into the constitution but instead brought alternative systems into newer assemblies of NI, Wales and Scotland

In NI a system of single transferable vote was introduced

In Wales and Scotland additional member system was introduced

Reasons for Blair’s electoral reform

To create a system of more democracy and to ensure the executive is voted for fairly

STV in NI allowed people to have more say

AMS in S+W allowed two poles to be taken so more democratic

Was Blair’s electoral reform successful?

Unsuccessful in E as it had no effect on voting

Successful in NI, W + S as they could be seen as more democratic

Human rights act

enacted 1998, came into force 2000

positively states the rights that British citizens can claim

incorporated European convention on Human rights

provided judiciary with new powers to protect civil liberties

Was the HRA effective?

allowed UK citizens to rely on rights contained in the European convention on human rights

meant that public bodies had to act in accordance of HRA

BUT - act of parliament not higher constitutional law so can be repealed by parliament

Example of the HRA being effective

Laporte case 2006

used article 8 (right to a private life) and article 10 (right to freedom of expression) to show how police acted illegally when they stopped anti-Iraq war protesters

Constitutional reform act

2005

Lord Chancellor’s role of presiding over the HOL was removed

LC right to nominate judges transferred to the Judges appointments commission

Created supreme court - opened 2009

Reasons for the constitutional reform act

Lord Chancellor had too much power - head of judiciary, member of the executive and presided over HOL

senior judges also sat in HOL making it the final court of appeal

Was the constitutional reform act successful?

LC lost lots of his power

preserved separation of powers

better representation of women and minority groups through the JAC

Fixed term parliament act

2011

general elections held every 5 years

removed PM power to call elections when they wish within a five year limit

only exception if govt loses confidence in commons or if 2/3 MPs vote for early election

Reason for fixed term parliament act

stop PMs ability to manipulate an election date for personal gain

Was the fixed term parliament act successful?

provided the govt with greater stability

BUT five years is too long and can lead to a ‘zombie’ parliament where they have little to do

Electoral reform 2010-15

Blair govt replaced FPTP with new system based on alternative vote, meant that in 2010 David Cameron had to form coalition govt with Lib dems

2011 referendum - AV too complicated, 68% in favour of FPTP system

Parliamentary reform

May 2010 coalition govt brought forward Wright committee’s (select committee in parl) recommendations in full

Since 2010- E petitions introduced

Chairs of most select committees directly reelected by house

Parliamentary backbench committee established to give backbenchers more control

Reasons for parliamentary reform

To give backbenchers more influence and address the govts dominance in the HOC

Was parliamentary reform successful?

Chairs of committees more prepared to challenge govt

E-petitions huge success and used widely

BUT - not all committees can choose their own chair

Backbench committee debates do not compel govt to act

Further devolution

2011 following 63% yes vote in referendum increased power to welsh assembly

given primary lawmaking powers over devolved areas, 2014 gained tax raising powers

2012 Scot parl received more powers under Scotland act

consequence of 2014 independence ref, 2016 Scotland act passed - new legislative powers + new tax powers

Elected police commissioners

Police and crime commissioners (PCC) replaced police authorities

First election 2012

Reasons for elected police commissioners

attempt to ensure local police met the needs of their communities

Was elected police commissioners successful

creates democratic accountability at the top of police authority

BUT extremely low voting turnout

lead decisions to be made with re-election in mind

conflicts between PCC and chief constables

Power of recall

Recall of MPs act 2015

MP can lose seat if successful request to recall them because:

convicted + recieved prison sentence

suspended from HOC

convicted of providing false or misleading info

• pretitions triggered by MPs

• recall successful if 10% of constituents sign

• been used 3 times

Reason for power of recall

MPs aware of obligations and made more accountable

Is the power of recall successful

does mean MPs held accountable

BUT recall can be manipulated for political gain

genuine recall would be started by electorate but in UK can only occur with MPs permission

Blair’s aims for reform

decentralisation + devolution, rights protection, democratisation, transparency/modernisation