Are further reforms desirable? Flashcards
Arguments for introducing a codified constitution in the UK
+ The major principles of the constitution would be entrenched, safeguarding them from intereference by the government of the day
+ Entrenched constitution would protect individual liberty more securely. Human rights are not adequately protected (despite the HRA), lack of entrenchment
+ In codified system, independent judges are able to protect the constitution to ensure its provisions are upheld
Arguments against introducing a codified constitution in the UK
- Less responsive and adaptable than an uncodified one. Since 1997, many constitutional reforms have been enacted to update the UK Constitution
- US Constitution has had entrenched Bill of Rights for centuries, didn’t prevent African-Americans being lynched without any kind of trial, don’t guarantee people’s rights in practice
- Government power may be more effectively constrained by regular elections than by a constitutional document
- Judges aren’t best people to regulate the constitution because they are unelected and socially ynrepresnetative. An uncodified constitution protects against the tyranny of the unelected judiciary
Arguments for greater devolution in England
+ Would provide a solution to the West Lothian question, although EVEL has not
+ Would provide a stronger regional identity in parts of the UK e.g. Devon, Cornwall
+ England is the largest and most prosperous part of the UK, only one without a devolved nation
+ England currently receives less money per person than other parts in the UK
Arguments against greater devolution in England
- Could complicate the relationship between the regions and Parliament
- Little public support for an English Parliament and the idea is not supported by any major political parties
- England wold dominate a federal assembly and its relationship with Westminster would be complicated
- Most English people don’t make a distinction between England and the UK
Advantage and disadvantage of reforming PMQ’s and increasing the regularity of the Liason Committee
+ Create more meaningful, rational debate of issues
- The PM is not sufficiently accountable
Advantage and disadvantage of giving the HoC enforcement powers
+ More accountable government
- Departmental select committees are still often ignored and not valued
Advantage and disadvantage of more power to legislative committees and remove membership from whips
- MPs still have little control over legislation
+ Legislative committees become more independent, better sscruitny of legislation
Advantage and disadvantage of a change in electoral system might improve the HoC operation
+ Coalitions and minority government might empower MPs
- Government majorities render the HoC useless
Advantage and disadvantage of increasing research support (disadvantage is the reason the reform has been suggested)
+ Commons would be more effective in making ministers accountable
- MPs lack research facilities
Arguments for the HoL being reformed
+ Full/partial election would raise the legitimacy of the second chamber
+ The current process for the selection of Lords is controlled by the PM and benefits the governing party
+ Elected chamber would be more effective check on the executive, since the Salisbury Convention would not exist
+ Elected second chamber might create a balance against th power of the Commons, which is largely controlled by the executive
+ Reducing the size may make the Lords more effective
Arguments against HoL reform
- Might challenge the authority of the HoC
- Election would eliminate the many experts that sit in it, including the experience of the ex-ministers and PM in the Lords
- Current chamber works well. Most active chamber in the world. Sits for longer and meets more frequently than any other
- Since 1999, the Lords has proved to be a useful check on the executive-dominated Commons. If elected, it would be dominated by parties and less likely to hold the Commons to account
Why has the cost of the House of Lords been criticised?
Members can claim £300 a day with little scrutiny of yhe work they actually do
The size of the Lords soared after Cameron created many new peers (295 between 2010 and 2017)
What did a committee led by Lord Burns in 2017 suggest for reforms of the HoL?
Reducing the size of the Lords to 600 within 10 years and maintaining this until at least 2047
New peerages will be restricted to a 15-year term
Political peers should be appointed in relation to a party’s election performance, taking into account the number of seats it wins as well as the vote share it achieved
What did a committee led by Lord Burns in 2017 suggest for reforms of the HoL?
Reducing the size of the Lords to 600 within 10 years and maintaining this until at least 2047
New peerages will be restricted to a 15-year term
Political peers should be appointed in relation to a party’s election performance, taking into account the number of seats it wins as well as the vote share it achieved
