Have UK reforms gone far enough?

• Paragraph 1 - Uk needs further reform through extending devolution

  • The UK’ss asymmetric devolution has created a glaring democratic deficit
  • Current Constitutional Asymmetry→ Devolved assemblies for Scotland/Wales/NI (quasi-federalism)→ England (84% of UK pop.) ruled directly by Westminster → Creates democratic deficit
  • West Lothian Question → Scottish MPs can vote on English laws (enable to introduce tuition fees in 2004 - variable fees) → English MPs have no say on devolved matters → 49% of English laws affected 
  • Executive Overreach → UK govt passes England-only laws (e.g., 2023 voter ID) → No English body to provide consent → 80% of English funding controlled centrally 
  • Rising Demand → 52% of English support own parliament (YouGov 2023) → 56% identify as "English only"
• Paragraph 2: Replace the FPTP system, such as safe seats, minority constituencies -> 59.8% turnout in 2024 General election with 33.7% of the vote going to labour with 411 seats - they also receive a winners bonus - whereas Reform have 5 seats with 14% of the vote - not proportional for minor parties -> this means that larger parties have an unfair advantage - they have a weak mandate but still claim its a popular mandate.
• Paragraph 2 Against: Proportional system make coalitions more likely and harder to hold to account, the systems are more complex and risk losing MP constituency link that currently exists. In an FPTP system -> MPs can prioritise there constituency -> Mark Fletcher prioritised his constituency -> rebelled against lizz truss alongside 33 Conservative mps and absatined from voting on fracking ban -> facing consequences such as being whipped and chances of being forcefully pushed out the party -> shows although some MPs care abour self - preservation , Mark fletcher openly protested against his own party.
• paragraph 2 For: Introduce state funding

  • It would allow politicians to focus on their main job rather than fundraising -> allocation of short money to opposition parties in parliament -> it would potentiially remove the need to acquire money from powerful groups and bested interest that donate for their own ends, not national interest -> Energy company donated £45000 - led to over 24 meetings where windfall tax was openly discussed -> coincidentally offshore petroleum bill passed on
• paragraph 2 Against: Introduce state funding

  • However the process of fundraising helps to keep politicians and parties connected to voters
  • 2017 - Snap election -> green party launcehd a major crowdfunding campaign that raised £230,000 - gives parties incentive to create a manifesto based on voters wants and needs
  • Questions would be raised over how funding money should be given to parties that some may find objectionable
• paragraph 1 against: Regional Devolution Within England Has Been Rejected

  • This argument gives you  lots of room to explore public opinion, political context, historical attempts, and policy implications
  • 2004 North East referendum: Overwhelming rejection (78% voted no) of a proposed regional assembly despite government backing. - > perceived lack of power, cost concerns, identity issues -> How it reflected broader public opinion across England.
  • Asymmetrical Devolution Is Already the Norm -> The UK's system is asymmetrical — different parts of the UK have different powers.
  • England has no parliament, but local government and metro mayors have growing influence -> This fits the English context better, where people care more about local services than constitutional change.