Debates on further reform

• DEVOLUTION

  has modified the UK central constitution by enabling policies that meet the needs and wishes of local people

  • In NI devolution has helped end the violence between Unionists and Nationalists by creating a powersharing system
• DEVOLUTION

  Scottish independence which was rejected in 2014 has been revived since the Brexit vote, The SNP administration has called for a new referendum on independence as it argues that the majority of Scotland did not want to leave the EU and those wishes have been ignored.

  The devolution settlement is uneven in the way it applies to the different areas of the UK. A federal system would create much greater unity.
• ARGUMENTS FOR DEVOLUTION IN ENGLAND

  • provide a solution to the West Lothian question
  • facilitate a more federal model of government (also be a disadvantage)
  • provide a stronger regional identity in parts of the UK
  • England is the largest and most prosperous part of the UK
  • England receives less money per person than other parts of the UK
  • EVEL doesn't resolve the West Lothian question and makes Scottish MPs second-class representatives, weakening unity
  • some parts of the UK have a strong identity and would want the ability to make decisions on a regional basis (Devon and Cornwall)
• ARGUMENTS AGAINST DEVOLUTION IN ENGLAND

  • It could complicate the relationship between the regions in parliament
  • it would result in even more asymmetric devolution
  • little public support for an English parliament and the idea is not supported by any major party
  • England would dominate the federal assembly and its relationship with Westminister would be complicated
  • EVEL has resolved the West Lothian question
  • As the largest component of the UK, most English people do not make a clear distinction between England and the UK
  • most areas of England dont have a strong regional identity.
• ELECTORAL REFORM

  electoral reform has produced more proportional results in elections to the devolved bodies. The rejection of AV in 2011 indicates there is no public appetite for the extension of reform to Westminister. FPTP usually give strong governments with clear mandates and preserves the valuable link between MPs and constituents

  the underrepresentation of smaller parties and the way in which the current system produces governments with a majority of seats but a minority of votes are the arguments for further reform
• ARGUMENTS FOR A CODIFIED CONSITUTION

  • the major principles of the institution would be entrenched, safeguarding them from interference by the government
  • with an entrenched constitution, individual liberty would be more securely protected despite the HRA rights are still not adequately protected
  • the power of the executive would be constrained by a rigid, codified document, which would provide a counterbalance the power of the executive
  • independent judgements would be able to protect the constitution to ensure that its provisions are upheld
• ARGUMENTS AGAINST A CODIFIED CONSTITUTION

  • would be less representative and adaptable, since 1997 many reforms have been enacted to update the constitution
  • The US Constitution has been entrenched but it did not stop the abuse of African Americans - they do not always guarantee rights
  • government power may be more effectively constrained by regular elections than by a constitutional document
  • Judges are not the best people to regulate the Constitution as they are unelected and socially unrepresentative - an uncodified Constitution protects against the tyranny of the judiciary
• HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM 


  we now have an upper house based much more firmly on merit and expeirence. its greater assertiveness in holding government to account is an argument for leaving the lords as is. An elected chamber would mirror the Commons producing a house dominated by professional politicians and reducing the range of of expertise currently avalible

  On the other hands the lords lack democratic legitimacy because none of the members are elected which is unusual in the modern age.
• ARGUMENTS FOR REFORM TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS

  • full or partial election would raise the legitimacy of the second chamber
  • the current process of election is controlled by the PM and benefits the gov.
  • the elected chamber would be a more effective check on the executive since the Salisbury convention would not exist
  • an elected second chamber might create a balance against the power of the commons which is largely controlled by the executive
  • elections might inject a more 'professional' element into the second chamber
  • reducing the size of the lords would make a more effective chamber
• ARGUMENTS AGAINST REFORM TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS

  • if elected it might challenge the authority of the commons
  • election would eliminate the many experts who sit in it, including ex-MPs and PMs
  • The current lords closely mirror the popular vote in the last election
  • the current chamber works well, the most active chamber in the world sits and meets for longer than any other
  • the lords have been seen as a useful check on the executive-dominated commons, if elected it would be dominated by parties and less likely to hold the executive to account.
• AN ALTERNATIVE REFORM TO THE HoL 


  the cost of running the HoL has been criticised - members can claim £300 a day with little scrutiny of the work they actually do. The size of the lords soared after Cameron created new peers (296 2010-2017)

  devised by a committee led by Lord Burns in 2017 the reform suggests

  • reducing the size of lords by 600 within ten years and maintaining this until the last 2047
  • new peerages will be restricted to a 15 year term
  • political peers should be appointed in relation to a party's success in an election taking into account both the seat and vote share
• HRA REFORM

  the act brought the UK into line by incorporating the ECHR into law. Protects citizens' rights without threatening parliamentary sovereignty, the act is not entrenched, the government can modify it when required, the creation of control orders in 2005

  there is a case for strengthing the act on the grounds that the government can currently take away important liberties by a simple majority vote in parliament

  conservative critics would like to see the act replaced with a 'British Bill of Rights' which would make the UK supreme court the final judge of citizens' rights
• OVERVIEW: NO REFORM NEEDED

  • The current settlement protects the rights of citizens and recognises the desire for autonomy in the parts of the UK at the same time enables the election of strong governments, where were able to act in the national interest
  • there is a lack of clear agreement on the form that any further change should take
• OVERVIEW: REFORM IS NEEDED

  • The current settlement is incomplete and illogical. The UK is out of step with most Western democracies in having an unelected upper house and an imperfect voting system
  • A federal solution could remove the anomalies created by the current 'asymmetric' devolution arrangements
  • citizens need greater clarity on the nature of their rights and stronger protection against arbitrary government actions