Essay Plans
codification: no → up to date, human rights, democracy
should there be further devolution → can’t really devolve England or wales further, Ireland is unstable,
should there be English devolution → popular demand (78% voted against it, failed in NE and NW), clash with sovereignty (Westminster already dominated by English MPs, 58 Scottish MPs in the whole of parliament, EVEL), there’s already been enough (London mayor, Manchester mayor, GLA)
should there be further constitutional reform → further house of lords reform, further devolution, FPTP reform
should PMQs be replaced with better scrutiny → PMQ is ineffective (half an hour on Wednesday, only liked by 21%,
house of lords in need of major reform → composition of the house of lords, appointments process, powers of the house of lords
is parliament effective in scrutinizing government → select committees (six of them, do reports of the government, not enough power to get in witnesses, not representative), house of lords, backbenchers
is democracy in crisis → decreased turnout, party membership, FPTP is shite
do referendums increase democracy
major divisions in UK political parties → conservatives (one nation versus thatcher, Brexit divide but collective responsibility limits divisions, abandoned collective responsibility in brexit), Labour (keir hardie versus new labour, removing clause IV, Jeremy corbyn and 69 mps defied him
argument: no, although it is unusual to have an uncodified constitution it allows for the UK to constantly modernize and adapt without truly threatening human rights or democracy
Paragraph 01:
for codification: would c human rights
evidence: US bill of rights cannot be altered whereas 1998 human rights act can (attempted by conservatives in 2015), codification means people could call upon their rights more easily e.g. calling upon the fifth in America), Suella Braverman calling for amendments to human rights act
BUT: no significant change has actually happened and it even stays up to date
evidence: freedom of information act in 2000, still enforced even though it was unpopular, legalization of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, abortion in N Ireland
Summary: actually allows for up-to-date human rights without any real threat being posed to human rights, relies on popular support for major constitutional change
Paragraph 02:
against codification: allows for a modern constitution in line with current principles that can constantly adapt to new events
examples: gun laws tightened after Dunblane massacre (human rights compared to US), devolution demands responded to, even independence for Scotland could be considered, more democratic future as a result of uncodified constitution
BUT: some reforms have been unpopular or unsuccessful
example: AV referendum voted against hugely, low demands for welsh devolution
BUT: even when constitutional reform is unpopular/does not take place, it still demonstrates the ability of the constitution to adapt and modernize to people’s desires, stay democratic
Paragraph 03:
against codification: ensures the UK stays democratic
examples: changes to the previously less democratic house of lords in the house of lords act 1911 and salisbury convention, house of lords reform, referendums for constitutional change e.g Brexit
BUT: these changes can be ignored such as House of Lords blocking money bills in Oct 2015 and breaking salisbury convention - conventions are weak -
also, issue of parliamentary sovereignty, can technically reform whatever it wants to
BUT: it won’t, parliament relies on popular support
thus: uncodified is good
England is the most heavily populated part of the UK but the only one without a devolved power. It receives less per person in public spending and goes unrepresented. Creating a more devolved body would increase federal equality
BUT
If there were a devolved body it would dominate the federal structure (and create all the problems devolution initially attempted to solve) It might clash with the executive and westminster
Devolution has led to specialized policies in England, Wales and N Ireland but the same hasn’t happened in England - devolution could allow for more specialized and effective treatment in England
BUT
most English people see Westminster as ‘their’ parliament already, and a lot of laws work in benefit/cetred on England as Westminster is dominated by English MPs
Certain areas have strong regional identities, such as Cornwall, Devon and parts of the north. Furthermore, there is resistance against London which is often seen as the focus of politics and favored, and also has its own devolved bodies
BUT
when there were attempts to increase regional devolution in the north east, north west and yorkshire, these attempts failed. There appears to be apathy about devolution in England
codification: no → up to date, human rights, democracy
should there be further devolution → can’t really devolve England or wales further, Ireland is unstable,
should there be English devolution → popular demand (78% voted against it, failed in NE and NW), clash with sovereignty (Westminster already dominated by English MPs, 58 Scottish MPs in the whole of parliament, EVEL), there’s already been enough (London mayor, Manchester mayor, GLA)
should there be further constitutional reform → further house of lords reform, further devolution, FPTP reform
should PMQs be replaced with better scrutiny → PMQ is ineffective (half an hour on Wednesday, only liked by 21%,
house of lords in need of major reform → composition of the house of lords, appointments process, powers of the house of lords
is parliament effective in scrutinizing government → select committees (six of them, do reports of the government, not enough power to get in witnesses, not representative), house of lords, backbenchers
is democracy in crisis → decreased turnout, party membership, FPTP is shite
do referendums increase democracy
major divisions in UK political parties → conservatives (one nation versus thatcher, Brexit divide but collective responsibility limits divisions, abandoned collective responsibility in brexit), Labour (keir hardie versus new labour, removing clause IV, Jeremy corbyn and 69 mps defied him
argument: no, although it is unusual to have an uncodified constitution it allows for the UK to constantly modernize and adapt without truly threatening human rights or democracy
Paragraph 01:
for codification: would c human rights
evidence: US bill of rights cannot be altered whereas 1998 human rights act can (attempted by conservatives in 2015), codification means people could call upon their rights more easily e.g. calling upon the fifth in America), Suella Braverman calling for amendments to human rights act
BUT: no significant change has actually happened and it even stays up to date
evidence: freedom of information act in 2000, still enforced even though it was unpopular, legalization of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, abortion in N Ireland
Summary: actually allows for up-to-date human rights without any real threat being posed to human rights, relies on popular support for major constitutional change
Paragraph 02:
against codification: allows for a modern constitution in line with current principles that can constantly adapt to new events
examples: gun laws tightened after Dunblane massacre (human rights compared to US), devolution demands responded to, even independence for Scotland could be considered, more democratic future as a result of uncodified constitution
BUT: some reforms have been unpopular or unsuccessful
example: AV referendum voted against hugely, low demands for welsh devolution
BUT: even when constitutional reform is unpopular/does not take place, it still demonstrates the ability of the constitution to adapt and modernize to people’s desires, stay democratic
Paragraph 03:
against codification: ensures the UK stays democratic
examples: changes to the previously less democratic house of lords in the house of lords act 1911 and salisbury convention, house of lords reform, referendums for constitutional change e.g Brexit
BUT: these changes can be ignored such as House of Lords blocking money bills in Oct 2015 and breaking salisbury convention - conventions are weak -
also, issue of parliamentary sovereignty, can technically reform whatever it wants to
BUT: it won’t, parliament relies on popular support
thus: uncodified is good
England is the most heavily populated part of the UK but the only one without a devolved power. It receives less per person in public spending and goes unrepresented. Creating a more devolved body would increase federal equality
BUT
If there were a devolved body it would dominate the federal structure (and create all the problems devolution initially attempted to solve) It might clash with the executive and westminster
Devolution has led to specialized policies in England, Wales and N Ireland but the same hasn’t happened in England - devolution could allow for more specialized and effective treatment in England
BUT
most English people see Westminster as ‘their’ parliament already, and a lot of laws work in benefit/cetred on England as Westminster is dominated by English MPs
Certain areas have strong regional identities, such as Cornwall, Devon and parts of the north. Furthermore, there is resistance against London which is often seen as the focus of politics and favored, and also has its own devolved bodies
BUT
when there were attempts to increase regional devolution in the north east, north west and yorkshire, these attempts failed. There appears to be apathy about devolution in England
