Constitutional Reform: Current Debates (Edexcel A Level Politics): Revision Note

The case for further constitutional reform

• Although the UK constitution has undergone significant change since 1997, there is ongoing debate about whether further constitutional reform is necessary

  • These debates often focus on the balance of power within the UK system, democratic legitimacy and the protection of rights

Arguments to support further reform

1. The House of Lords lacks democratic legitimacy

• The House of Lords is an unelected chamber, meaning its members are not directly accountable to the public

  • In 2023, Boris Johnson’s resignation honours attracted controversy, including the appointment of Charlotte Owen, the youngest life peer in history

• This suggested that appointments can appear partisan, strengthening the argument for an elected House of Lords

2. The executive can exercise excessive power (elective dictatorship)

• The doctrine of elective dictatorship suggests that governments with strong Commons majorities can dominate Parliament

  • For example, the Internal Market Bill (2020) allowed ministers to override parts of the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement

  • The government’s own lawyers warned that this would breach international law, highlighting weak checks on executive power

3. The Prime Minister can abuse prerogative powers

• The Prime Minister has significant discretion over prerogative powers, including prorogation

  • In 2019, Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court

  • This exposed gaps and ambiguities in constitutional constraints on the executive

4. The electoral system produces unrepresentative outcomes

• The First Past the Post system can produce disproportionate results

  • This strengthens the case for electoral reform

5. Rights protection is weak and unentrenched

• Rights in the UK are not entrenched and can be altered or removed by Parliament

  • The Rwanda Bill (2024) attempted to declare Rwanda a ‘safe’ country despite Supreme Court objections

  • This raised concerns about the vulnerability of rights under parliamentary sovereignty

The case against further constitutional reform

• Others argue that further constitutional reform is unnecessary and could be damaging

Arguments against further reform

1. The flexibility of the uncodified constitution is a strength

• The UK constitution can adapt quickly to changing circumstances

  • In 2022, three Prime Ministers were replaced lawfully within a short period without constitutional crisis

  • This demonstrates the adaptability of the current system

2. Existing checks on government already work

• The judiciary has shown its ability to restrain executive power

  • The Supreme Court’s ruling against the 2019 prorogation demonstrated judicial independence and effective constitutional checks

3. Incremental reform has been effective

• Devolution settlements have gradually increased powers in Scotland and Wales without destabilising the political system

• Rapid or radical reform could risk undermining the unity of the UK

4. There is limited public appetite for major reform

• Public support for constitutional change is inconsistent

  • The 2011 AV referendum resulted in 67% voting against electoral reform

  • This suggests major reforms may lack democratic mandate

Extending devolution in England

• Given the experiences of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there have been calls to extend devolution to England through the creation of an English Parliament

  • However, this could also create constitutional and practical problems

Arguments for extending devolution in England

Arguments against extending devolution in England

Codification of the UK constitution

• The UK constitution is uncodified and unentrenched

  • It is not set out in a single written document and can be changed through ordinary parliamentary procedure

• This has led to debate over whether the UK would benefit from adopting a codified constitution, similar to those found in countries such as the USA

Arguments in favour of codification

• It would provide greater clarity about the constitutional settlement of the UK, including the rights of citizens, the separation of powers and devolution arrangements

• A codified constitution would protect rights more securely, as it would be more difficult to amend or repeal

  • This would make it harder for governments to remove or weaken rights, strengthening long-term protection

• Codification would limit the power of the executive by increasing checks and balances within government

• It would encourage long-term constitutional stability by making major changes harder to achieve

Arguments against codification

• Codification would weaken parliamentary sovereignty, which has been a central feature of the UK constitution for centuries

• It risks giving too much power to judges, who would be responsible for interpreting and enforcing a codified constitution

  • This could politicise the judiciary, making it more difficult for judges to maintain independence and neutrality

• Drafting a single constitutional document would be extremely difficult due to the diverse political identities and constitutional arrangements of the UK’s nations

• The loss of flexibility could undermine the UK’s ability to respond quickly to crises

• A codified constitution could lead to political deadlock between branches of government with more equal authority

• If amendment thresholds were set too high, necessary constitutional reform could become impossible