Constitutional

Evaluate extend which constitution reform of 1997 to 2010 may be considered more impactful than constitutional reform that occurred after 2010.

1) Human rights protection

2) House of Lords Reform

3) Devolution

1) after 2010 constitutional reform was more impactful

Right were more protected

One significant example of how constitutional reform after 2010 was more impactful than the reforms from 1997 to 2010 is the introduction of the Equality Act 2010. This legislation fused and strengthened existing anti-discrimination laws by combining numerous acts such as the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976. By merging these laws, the Equality Act 2010 simplified the legal framework, making protections clearer and easier to enforce. It not only clarified existing rights but also expanded legal protections to cover additional characteristics, including age, religion, and sexual orientation. This development marked a substantial step forward in strengthening individual rights, adapting the law to better reflect a modern and diverse society. In conclusion, while the 1997–2010 constitutional reforms laid important groundwork, the 2010 reforms—particularly the Equality Act—had a more direct and lasting impact on individual rights, making them more robust, comprehensive, and enforceable.

1) 1997 to 2010 constitutional reform was more impactful than after 2010 constitutional reform

Right were protected more as it was the foundation

A strong counterpoint is the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998, introduced as part of the constitutional reforms between 1997 and 2010. This act incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, allowing individuals to challenge government actions in domestic courts based on fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial, and protection from torture. By doing so, it significantly enhanced judicial oversight of the executive and marked a fundamental shift in the relationship between the state and its citizens. The HRA increased government accountability and transparency, empowering the judiciary to ensure that individual rights were respected. This reform laid the foundation for later developments, such as the Equality Act 2010, by establishing a strong rights-based legal culture in the UK. In conclusion, while the post-2010 reforms built upon and expanded these protections, the reforms from 1997 to 2010 were crucial in initiating this transformation, making them equally significant in shaping the modern constitutional framework.

2) after 2010 constitutional reform was more impactful than 1997 to 2010

House of Lords Reform

Another important aspect of post-2010 constitutional reform is the continued reform of the House of Lords, which aimed to make the chamber smaller, more active, and more accountable. A key example is the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, which allowed peers to resign voluntarily—something previously not permitted—thereby ending outdated rules that made peerage a lifelong position regardless of activity or conduct. This change helped modernise the Lords by introducing functions to remove members who were inactive or had committed serious misconduct, thus upholding ethical standards and improving the chamber’s overall effectiveness. Although a relatively modest reform, it marked a significant cultural shift by challenging the idea of the Lords as an untouchable, permanent institution. In conclusion, while the scale of this reform was limited, its impact on accountability and modernisation shows that post-2010 constitutional reform made meaningful progress in updating traditional institutions to better reflect democratic and ethical expectations.

2) 1997 to 2010 constitutional reform was more impactful than after 2010 constitutional reform

House of Lorss Reform

One of the most significant constitutional reforms between 1997 and 2010 was the House of Lords Act 1999, which drastically reduced the number of hereditary peers from around 750 to just 92. This reform marked a major shift away from inherited privilege in the House of Lords, moving the chamber toward a more merit-based and democratic structure. It challenged centuries of tradition and laid the foundation for further reforms by increasing the chamber’s legitimacy and making it more reflective of modern society. This was a bold and transformative change, far more substantial than the post-2010 reforms, which largely built upon this foundation. For example, while the 2014 Act allowed peers to resign or be removed for misconduct, it did not fundamentally alter the structure of the chamber as the 1999 reform did. In conclusion, the 1997–2010 reform of the House of Lords was more significant than post-2010 efforts, as it represented a foundational change in how the chamber functioned and who held power within it.

3) after 2010 constitutional reform was more impactful than 1997 to 2010 constitutional reform

More Devolution

Post-2010 constitutional reform saw significant developments in devolution that arguably made it more impactful than the reforms from 1997 to 2010. The 2011 Welsh referendum resulted in 64% voting in favor of granting the Welsh Assembly greater legislative powers, marking a key step toward strengthening Welsh self-governance. Similarly, although the 2014 Scottish independence referendum resulted in a 55% vote to remain in the UK, it led to further devolution of powers to Scotland as a response to growing demands for self ruling. This was followed by key legislative acts such as the Scotland Act 2016 (building on the 2012 Act), the Wales Act 2014, and the Northern Ireland (Corporation Tax) Act 2015, all of which expanded the powers of devolved governments. These reforms demonstrate Westminster’s ongoing efforts to address the imbalance of asymmetric devolution by granting more authority to the nations within the UK. In conclusion, while the 1997–2010 reforms initiated the devolution process, the post-2010 reforms were more impactful in deepening and expanding it, responding to national demands and strengthening the role of devolved administrations across the UK.

3) 1997 to 2010 constitutional reform was more impactful than after 2010 constitutional

Devolution

A strong counterpoint is that the constitutional reforms from 1997 to 2010 laid the foundational framework for devolution in the UK. Under New Labour, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, and the Northern Ireland Assembly were established, representing a major restructuring of the UK’s political system. These new institutions were designed to be permanent features of the constitution, only reversible through future referendums. This marked a historic shift from a highly centralised system to a more regionally representative one. By creating entirely new legislative bodies with distinct powers, these reforms fundamentally changed the balance of power between Westminster and the devolved nations. This makes the 1997–2010 reforms some of the most significant in modern British history. In conclusion, while post-2010 reforms expanded devolved powers, it was the 1997–2010 period that initiated this transformation by introducing new institutions and embedding devolution into the constitutional fabric of the UK.

evaluate the extent to which the UK is in need of a codified constitution?

/ Or Uncodified constitution?

1) need codified constitution

Better protection of Rights

One key argument in favour of a codified constitution is that it would offer stronger protection for individual rights. Under the current uncodified system, rights are not entrenched and can be altered or removed by a simple parliamentary majority. A clear example of this vulnerability was Boris Johnson’s proposal to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights, which aimed to reduce the influence of the European Convention on Human Rights and increase parliamentary control over rights protections. This highlights how easily a government can attempt to weaken individual rights without significant constitutional barriers. In contrast, a codified constitution would entrench fundamental rights, making it far more difficult for any government to change or remove them without widespread consensus and formal constitutional procedures. In conclusion, the lack of entrenchment in the UK’s current constitutional framework puts individual rights at risk, and adopting a codified constitution would offer stronger, more consistent protections.

1) However Uncodified Constitution is better

there is little public demand/ isn’t really wanted

However, there is little public demand for a codified constitution, and many argue that it is not widely wanted by the public. A clear example of the benefits of the UK’s uncodified constitution is the 2016 Brexit referendum. Following the vote to leave the European Union, the government was able to act swiftly by passing legislation to trigger Article 50, the treaty clause that allows member states to leave the EU. This flexibility demonstrated how an uncodified constitution can enable quick and decisive government action in response to major political events. Had the UK had a codified constitution, the process might have required more formal and lengthy procedures, potentially delaying or complicating the implementation of Brexit. In conclusion, the adaptability of the UK’s uncodified constitution is a significant advantage, allowing the government to respond efficiently to public demands and changing political circumstances.

2) codified constitution better than Uncodified

would provide stronger accountability

Another argument in favour of a codified constitution is that it would provide stronger accountability and clearer oversight of political processes. Under the current uncodified system, significant constitutional changes can be made through ordinary legislation, often without clear or consistent rules. For example, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act (FTPA) introduced in 2011 aimed to create a stable government by establishing fixed election cycles and removing the Prime Minister’s ability to call elections at will. However, in practice, the Act led to political gridlock and uncertainty, particularly during coalition periods, as it became unclear when and how elections could be legitimately triggered. A codified constitution would establish more clearly defined and entrenched rules around election cycles, ensuring greater consistency, transparency, and stability. This would reduce confusion and prevent political manipulation in times of crisis or coalition. In conclusion, a codified constitution would enhance democratic accountability by setting out fixed rules that all political actors must follow, thereby strengthening trust and stability in the political system.

2) Uncodified is better than codified

can make rapid decision, depending on the situation

A strong counterpoint to the argument for a codified constitution is that the UK’s uncodified system allows for rapid decision-making in times of crisis. A key example of this flexibility was the government’s swift response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The UK was able to quickly pass the Coronavirus Act 2020, which granted emergency powers to fast-track legislation and introduce urgent measures such as social distancing, lockdowns, and support for public services. This rapid legislative action was possible because the uncodified constitution does not require lengthy, multi-step approval processes often seen in codified systems. As a result, the government was able to respond efficiently to an unpredictable and fast-evolving situation. In conclusion, while a codified constitution might provide more structure, the flexibility of the UK’s current uncodified system is a major strength in emergencies, enabling swift action when it is most needed.

3) codified would be better than uncodified constitution

with flexibility comes with lots of power to the government

While flexibility is often seen as a strength of the UK’s uncodified constitution, it also allows significant power to be concentrated in the hands of the government, which can lead to political instability. A key example is Boris Johnson’s attempted prorogation of Parliament in 2019, when he sought to suspend Parliament for five weeks during a critical phase of the Brexit crisis. This move was widely viewed as an attempt to limit parliamentary scrutiny and sparked a constitutional crisis, eventually being ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court. In a codified constitution, clear and entrenched limits on executive power would prevent such actions, ensuring that no leader could manipulate constitutional conventions for political gain. This incident highlighted the risks of an overly flexible system where the rules can be bent or ignored. In conclusion, a codified constitution would help safeguard democratic principles by clearly defining the limits of government authority, reducing the chances of constitutional abuse and enhancing political stability.

3) Uncodified is better than codified constitution

greater flexibility and adaptability in political and social changes.

A strong counterpoint to the argument for a codified constitution is that the UK’s uncodified system allows for greater flexibility and adaptability in response to political and social changes. Over the past few decades, there has been a significant shift in public attitudes toward the LGBTQ+ community, particularly regarding same-sex marriage. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which legalized same-sex marriage in England and Wales, was a direct response to years of campaigning by LGBTQ+ rights groups and growing public support for marriage equality. Because the UK does not require formal constitutional amendments, the government was able to act swiftly and pass legislation that reflected changing societal values. In conclusion, the flexibility of an uncodified constitution allows the UK to evolve in line with public opinion, ensuring that laws and policies remain relevant and responsive to contemporary social issues.

evaluate the view that uK’s constitutional arrangements undermine democratic principles?

1) Devolution

2) House of Lords

3) FPTP

1) that it does undermine democracy

Devolution - No English parliament

One way in which the UK’s constitutional arrangements can be seen to undermine democratic principles is through the issue of devolution and the absence of an English Parliament. The recent Assisted Dying Bill has reignited discussion around the “West Lothian question,” which highlights the democratic imbalance in the current legislative framework. In this case, Scottish MPs—whose constituents would not be affected by the bill, as health policy is devolved—were able to influence its outcome in Westminster, with 17 voting in favour and 29 against. This raises concerns about fairness and representation, as MPs from devolved nations can vote on England-only matters, while English MPs have no equivalent influence over devolved decisions in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland. The introduction of a separate English Parliament could address this imbalance by reducing the asymmetry of devolution and ensuring more equal democratic participation across the UK.

In conclusion, the lack of an English Parliament within the devolved UK framework challenges the principle of equal representation and contributes to a perception of constitutional unfairness. Without reform, this imbalance risks undermining the legitimacy of parliamentary decisions and weakening trust in the democratic process.

1) counterpoint

Don’t need English Parliament as little public demands

However, it can be argued that the absence of an English Parliament does not significantly undermine democratic principles. In the case of the Assisted Dying Bill, even without the votes of Scottish MPs, the outcome would have remained unchanged, suggesting their influence was limited. Moreover, there is little public demand in England for a separate parliament. The 2004 North East devolution referendum strongly rejected the idea, with 78% voting against, indicating a lack of appetite for further devolution within England. This suggests that creating an English Parliament without clear public support would itself be undemocratic and go against the will expressed by voters.

In conclusion, while concerns about asymmetric devolution are valid, the lack of public demand and the minimal impact of devolved MPs on certain decisions weaken the argument for an English Parliament. Any major constitutional change should reflect the democratic will of the people, which has so far not been evident.

2) Unelected House of Lords

Another way in which the UK’s constitutional arrangements can be seen to undermine democratic principles is through the continued presence of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. The House of Lords Act 1998 aimed to reduce the number of hereditary peers to 92 as a temporary measure, with the long-term goal of further reform. However, over two decades later, 88 hereditary peers still sit in the Lords and can vote on legislation. This undermines democracy, as these individuals hold legislative power purely through inheritance rather than election or merit. Their continued presence raises concerns about fairness and accountability, as they are not representative of the public and cannot be removed by voters.

In conclusion, the persistence of hereditary peers in the House of Lords highlights a significant flaw in the UK’s constitutional arrangements. It challenges the principles of democratic representation and accountability, and calls into question the legitimacy of the legislative process.

2) counterpoint

House of Lords are experts and are experienced

However, it can be argued that the House of Lords, despite being unelected, still plays a valuable role in the UK’s political system due to the expertise and experience of its members. Many peers are appointed by governments specifically for their knowledge in certain fields. For example, Lord Alan Sugar was appointed in 2009 by Prime Minister Gordon Brown for his extensive business expertise, particularly to advise on economic development during the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. This demonstrates that the House of Lords can contribute meaningfully to policy debates and scrutiny, helping to improve the quality of legislation. Their experience allows them to challenge poorly designed laws and provide informed insights that elected representatives may lack.

In conclusion, while the lack of democratic accountability in the House of Lords raises concerns, the expertise of appointed members can enhance parliamentary effectiveness. Their contributions help ensure better-quality legislation and prevent policy failures, supporting the argument that the Lords still hold a valuable, if imperfect, place in the UK’s constitutional framework.

3) FPTP doesn’t truly reflect the voting percentage

Another way the UK’s constitutional arrangements may undermine democratic principles is through the use of the First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system. Under FPTP, the candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins, even if they do not secure an absolute majority. This can lead to significant disparities between the percentage of votes a party receives and the number of seats they win in Parliament. For example, in the 2024 general election, the Labour Party secured a large majority in the House of Commons with only 34% of the total vote. This outcome highlights how the system can distort representation, allowing a party to govern with the support of only a minority of the electorate. Such disproportionality raises concerns about fairness and equal representation in the democratic process.

In conclusion, FPTP can result in governments that do not reflect the will of the majority, undermining the principle of representative democracy. Reforming the voting system could lead to more proportional outcomes and a stronger democratic mandate.

3)counterpoint

FPTP shows clear accountability making this system more democratic

However, it can be argued that the First Past the Post (FPTP) system supports democratic principles by providing simplicity, clarity, and strong accountability. Under this system, voters can clearly identify which party is in government and hold them responsible for their actions over the full five-year term. In the 2024 general election, for example, Labour secured a majority of 172—while winning only about 34% of the total vote  . Meanwhile, the Conservative Party suffered a heavy defeat, winning just 121 seats, a clear punishment for their governance. This outcome highlights how FPTP allows voters to directly reward or penalize parties based on their record, ensuring a strong link between policy performance and electoral consequences.

In conclusion, while FPTP may produce results that seem disproportional in terms of vote-to-seat ratio, it enhances democratic accountability by delivering decisive single-party governments and enabling voters to clearly hold the ruling party to account.