evaluate whether constitutional reforms introduced since 1997 should be taken
further?
1)devolution (far enough)
-modification of the centralised constitution allows policies to address the needs of
local constituents
-has ended violence between Unionists and Nationalists in Northern Ireland via a
power sharing system
-there remains widespread public support in all 3 devolved nations
2)devolution (further reform)
-Scottish independence was voted against in a referendum in 2014 but has been
reintroduced since the Brexit referendum - Nicola Sturgeon pushing for Indy ref 2
-devolution is uneven across the UK - a federal system would be more uniform
CONCLUSION - while Scotland pushes for independence, the other devolved
nations don't, suggesting that devolution doesn't need further reform
3)HoL (far enough)
-the HoL is now more firmly entrenched with merit and experience - experts in the
field rather than hereditary peers
-it has greater assertiveness, which it has been using to prevent unpopular policy -
being fully elected may prevent this
4)HoL (further reform)
-lacks legitimacy
-it is undemocratic and therefore unaccountable
-should be reformed to be fully elected and fully representative
CONCLUSION - requires further reform to improve democratic legitimacy
5)HRA (far enough)
- Human Rights Act (1998) - the UK is now in line with the EU states after the
incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) into national law
- it protects citizen rights but it is not entrenched so can be modified and modernised
6)HRA (further reform)
-as Parliament cannot bind its successors, this act can be overwritten with a simple
vote
-Conservatives, such as Theresa May, have argued for a written British Bill of Rights
- this would take power from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and give
it to the UK Supreme Court
CONCLUSION - the HRA is one of the most significant ways rights are protected in
the UK but because of its unentrenched nature it can be easily revoked so more
reform is arguably needed
evaluate the view that the next logical step after devolutions is the devolution of
further power to England
1)elected mayors
-the elected mayor model arguably works - elected mayors were created by Blair in
2000
-the 1st London mayor, Ken Livingstone, introduced a congestion charge in London
, in response to increased traffic and environmental damage
-by 2015 a further 16 urban areas (e.g. Bristol + Liverpool) also adopted the mayor
role
-mayors allow the people to have more decisions over who influences their local
area and also hold them more accountable
-its success implies that further devolution to England would be successful
2)regional identity
-certain regions in England and have a strong identity
-according to a study by ' The Question', 72/100 people in Yorkshire and 76/100
people in Cornwall believed that they should have more power given to them by govt
-this suggests that there is a strong desire for more regional devolution in areas with
strong regional identities
-this would help ensure that London and the Southeast don't hold all the power
3)rejection
-other areas have rejected further devolution, which many see as pointless
-Blair held a referendum in 2004, suggesting that there should be a regional
assembly and decision-making board, promoting economic development on behalf of
the govt
-this was held in the Northeast, where the result was a resounding 78% no,
suggesting that the regional identity is not strong enough across the whole of
England to warrant further devolution
4)English parliament = useless
-the establishment of an English Parliament under devolution would be fairly
pointless with the vast majority seeing Westminster as 'English Parliament'
-also further devolution to England may cause Westminster to seem futile and could
perhaps warrant the breakup of the UK
5)Barnett formula
-the 1978 Barnett formula gives less money per person to England than anywhere
else in the UK
-further devolution/federalism may solve this
evaluate the extent to which the Supreme Court is independent and neutral
1)code of conduct
-the code of conduct of the Supreme Court lays down a number of ways in which
impartiality is to be safeguarded
-conflict of interest = judges must refuse a case that involves family members,
friends or professional associates
-public activities = judges may write, give lectures and involves themselves in
voluntary/charitable services but must avoid political activity
-the court must be transparent in its rulings - its website carries details of their
decisions and their reasoning - the court allows visitors and proceedings are
televised - allows for public scrutiny
2)neutrality challenged by background
-the court contains a disproportionate number of white, privately educated men
further?
1)devolution (far enough)
-modification of the centralised constitution allows policies to address the needs of
local constituents
-has ended violence between Unionists and Nationalists in Northern Ireland via a
power sharing system
-there remains widespread public support in all 3 devolved nations
2)devolution (further reform)
-Scottish independence was voted against in a referendum in 2014 but has been
reintroduced since the Brexit referendum - Nicola Sturgeon pushing for Indy ref 2
-devolution is uneven across the UK - a federal system would be more uniform
CONCLUSION - while Scotland pushes for independence, the other devolved
nations don't, suggesting that devolution doesn't need further reform
3)HoL (far enough)
-the HoL is now more firmly entrenched with merit and experience - experts in the
field rather than hereditary peers
-it has greater assertiveness, which it has been using to prevent unpopular policy -
being fully elected may prevent this
4)HoL (further reform)
-lacks legitimacy
-it is undemocratic and therefore unaccountable
-should be reformed to be fully elected and fully representative
CONCLUSION - requires further reform to improve democratic legitimacy
5)HRA (far enough)
- Human Rights Act (1998) - the UK is now in line with the EU states after the
incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) into national law
- it protects citizen rights but it is not entrenched so can be modified and modernised
6)HRA (further reform)
-as Parliament cannot bind its successors, this act can be overwritten with a simple
vote
-Conservatives, such as Theresa May, have argued for a written British Bill of Rights
- this would take power from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and give
it to the UK Supreme Court
CONCLUSION - the HRA is one of the most significant ways rights are protected in
the UK but because of its unentrenched nature it can be easily revoked so more
reform is arguably needed
evaluate the view that the next logical step after devolutions is the devolution of
further power to England
1)elected mayors
-the elected mayor model arguably works - elected mayors were created by Blair in
2000
-the 1st London mayor, Ken Livingstone, introduced a congestion charge in London
, in response to increased traffic and environmental damage
-by 2015 a further 16 urban areas (e.g. Bristol + Liverpool) also adopted the mayor
role
-mayors allow the people to have more decisions over who influences their local
area and also hold them more accountable
-its success implies that further devolution to England would be successful
2)regional identity
-certain regions in England and have a strong identity
-according to a study by ' The Question', 72/100 people in Yorkshire and 76/100
people in Cornwall believed that they should have more power given to them by govt
-this suggests that there is a strong desire for more regional devolution in areas with
strong regional identities
-this would help ensure that London and the Southeast don't hold all the power
3)rejection
-other areas have rejected further devolution, which many see as pointless
-Blair held a referendum in 2004, suggesting that there should be a regional
assembly and decision-making board, promoting economic development on behalf of
the govt
-this was held in the Northeast, where the result was a resounding 78% no,
suggesting that the regional identity is not strong enough across the whole of
England to warrant further devolution
4)English parliament = useless
-the establishment of an English Parliament under devolution would be fairly
pointless with the vast majority seeing Westminster as 'English Parliament'
-also further devolution to England may cause Westminster to seem futile and could
perhaps warrant the breakup of the UK
5)Barnett formula
-the 1978 Barnett formula gives less money per person to England than anywhere
else in the UK
-further devolution/federalism may solve this
evaluate the extent to which the Supreme Court is independent and neutral
1)code of conduct
-the code of conduct of the Supreme Court lays down a number of ways in which
impartiality is to be safeguarded
-conflict of interest = judges must refuse a case that involves family members,
friends or professional associates
-public activities = judges may write, give lectures and involves themselves in
voluntary/charitable services but must avoid political activity
-the court must be transparent in its rulings - its website carries details of their
decisions and their reasoning - the court allows visitors and proceedings are
televised - allows for public scrutiny
2)neutrality challenged by background
-the court contains a disproportionate number of white, privately educated men
