Exam (elaborations)
Politics Paper 2 Edexcel Essay Plans
- Institution
- PEARSON (PEARSON)
Politics Paper 2 Edexcel Essay Plans. Questions and Answers with up to date examples.
[Show more]
Content preview
Constitution essay plansUsing source A, evaluate the view that the UK needs to codify its constitution.
A constitution is a set of laws and guidelines setting out how a political system works, where power is located
within the system. In UK the constitution is uncodified. This means the constitution derived from a variety of
sources rather than a single document. This is unlike many constitutions in the world which develop
revolutionarily and are codified with an entrenched bill of rights. This includes the US. In recent years, failures
of the UK constitution as a result of political event, such as Brexit, have led to a debate as to whether
codification is necessary to create stability. On the contrary I would argue that an uncodified constitution
allows for necessary and immediate change to be enacted, while providing sufficient restraints on a potentially
overly powerful govt.
- Brexit has exposed just what a mess the UK’s constitution has become. Johnson suspicion of
parliament – silencing debates for Brexit deals. A codified constitution would prevent short-term
political passions resulting in major changes. For example, in 2022 Johnson repealed the 2011 Fixed
Term Parliament Act.
- There is greater flexibility without a codified constitution. This means that the government is able to
adapt quickly to political and social changes. In contrast to the source, it may be said that a lack of
codification made Brexit easier to carry out without the need to amend a codified constitution.
Similarly, the flexibility of an uncodified constitution can be seen in the constitutional reforms carried
out under Blair in 1997. This included the establishment of devolved assemblies in NI, Scotland and
Wales.
- If the constitution was the be codified the powers of the Supreme Court would be increased. As in the
US the constitution would be sovereign and in turn lend the SC to play an important role in upholding
the constitution, giving more legitimacy to the courts rulings. Currently, sovereignty lies with
parliament and as a result the court can be heavily criticised for opposing the govt as the sources
suggests was seen in oppositions to the courts rulings that Johnson proroguing of Parliament in 2019
was unlawful.
- However, this may be open to criticism. A written constitution would lead to the Supreme Court
dealing with constitutional disputes. The court would become involved in political issues despite not
being elected and being unrepresentative. This has the potential to threaten the independence of the
court. It may also be argued that the court already holds sufficient powers. Issues would arise with the
court being unrepresentative and unelected. For example, there is currently only one woman on the
Supreme Court and due to high levels of education the court tends to favour the establishment. this
has the potential to threaten the independence of the court. This is seen in the US SC where justices
can be divided by political ideology and are often susceptible to political influence. Rulings of the
court are often upheld as they can be deemed legitimate due to judicial experienced and
independence. For example, the government upheld the ruling and gave parliament votes on any
agreed upon Brexit deal. This suggests the SC has extensive powers regardless of codification and
further powers may lead to corruption if the court was to become involved in political decisions.
- As the source suggests devolved powers of each government would be more clearly laid out and
inconsistencies would be reduced if a codified constitution was to be introduced. This would include
inequalities between powers devolved to Scotland and Wales. For example, Scotland being able to
legislate on income tax while Wales and Northern Ireland cannot. If the power of devolved assemblies
were established it would limit conflict between devolved govts and Westminster. In 2023
Westminster blocked Scotland’s gender recognition bill and again following the 2014 Scottish
Independence Referendum in refusing another referendum.
- However, it may be suggested that a lack of codification is good in the case of devolution. Sovereignty
continues to reside with Westminster which reserved the ability to remove powers from devolved
assemblies. For example, in 1972 Wilson re-imposed direct rule in Northern Ireland which has been
seen since from 2002 until 2007 during power sharing disputes. This suggests that a lack of
codification has allowed Westminster to retain unofficial powers whilst distributing powers where
they feel is necessary. May be said that this has maintained the unity of the UK.
In conclusion, I disagree with the argument shown in the source. Although codification would provide greater
clarity of powers held by government in Westminster, it may overall lead to power being unequally distributed
elsewhere, for example given to an unelected and unrepresentative Supreme Court. It can be said that the UK
has evolved without the need for a codified constitution, and this remains unnecessary. Therefore, I disagree
with the view that the UK needs to codify its constitution.
,Evaluate the extent to which constitutional reforms introduced since 1997 have been successful in achieving
their objective.
In 1997 Blair became Prime Minister and his landslide majority allowed him to carry out a series of
constitutional reforms including devolution, the establishment of the Supreme Court, and reform to the House
of Lords. Since his premiership constitutional reforms have been continued. Although constitutional reforms
have been shown to improve democracy in the UK, for example by limiting the amount of hereditary peers in
the House of Lords, I will argue that constitutional reforms have not gone far enough and that key manifesto
promises regarding reform have not been achieved. For example, electoral reform as suggested by Blair.
- Flagship Labour reform devolution under Tony Blair. Greater powers to Scotland and Wales. Good
Friday agreement 1998. Metro mayors introduced in some towns and cities including Greater London.
Limited demands for independence. 2014 Scottish Independence referendum suggests not far
enough. Ongoing demands following Brexit.
- Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Ended HoL judicial function and established the Supreme Court in
2009. Appointment of judges made more transparent by the right to nominate judges to a judicial
appointment committee. SC remains weaker than its counterparts in other liberal democracies.
- Blair attempted to remove hereditary peers. Compromised by allowing hereditary peers to elect 92 to
remain. Nothing done to elected element of HoL. Lacks democratic legitimacy. Has power to opposed
democratically elected Commons.
- Electoral reform by Blair, promised in Labour’s manifesto, became less popular following Blair’s
landslide majority in 1997. New electoral systems adopted for devolved assemblies. Blair’s record of
electoral reform unimpressive and criticised for prioritising political expediency.
- 1998 HRA incorporated EU law with UK law. Positively states the rights of British citizens and
increased the number of cases and claims brough to the high court. Some Conservatives resent link to
the ECHR and want to replace HRA with British Bill of Rights. An Act of Parliament can be enacted
even if it is in conflict with HRA. 2005 govt introduced control orders, allowing authorities to restrict
movement of suspected terrorists.
- Parliamentary reform. Backbench committees established to give MPs greater influence. Membership
and chairs to be elected by MPs. Electronic petitions.
- 2010 Conservative and LibDem coalition government led to compromises by Cameron to retain
compliance. Electoral reform – coalition agreement stated a referendum regarding electoral reform
would be held. 68% in keeping FPTP as opposed to AV system. Even Nick Clegg not in favour of AV,
not proportional enough. LibDems did not follow through with their promise to get rid of university
fees if they were to come to power.
- Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 legislated that general elections should be held 5 years after the last,
offering stability. Johnson repealed in 2022 in Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act.
In conclusion, I disagree with the statement. While constitutional reforms since 1997 have been somewhat
successful, for example in terms of devolving power to assemblies it can be readily said that constitutional
reforms have not been carried out to the extent which manifesto promises outline they would be, as was
apparent in the 2010 coalition government where Liberal Democrats could not enact promised reforms.
Therefore, I believes that constitutional reforms introduced since 1997 have been unsuccessful in achieving
their objective.
Evaluate the arguments in favour of the codification of the UK constitution.
- Codified constitution would represent a higher constitutional law, which would entrench the British
people’s civil liberties. The Human rights Act 1998 does not do this because it is an Act of Parliament
and so can be suspended by parliament. The rights of minorities could be recognised if the
constitution was codified. This is especially important in a multicultural society such as Britain.
- Codified constitution would clarify the relationship between various branches of government and
establish where sovereignty lies. Constitutional Court could scrutinise actions of executive and
parliament. Would ensure that written checks and balances would be in place to limit the power of
the executive and give defined powers to Parliament.
- By codifying rights, the public could become more politically engaged since they would know what
their relationship with the government is. Greater knowledge of civil liberties and political system.
- The uncodified nature of the British constitution means that it is very flexible and can quickly respond
to changing social, political and security circumstances. Terror attacks e.g., 7/7 terrorist attack, Blair
able to introduce Terrorism Act 2006 which allowed terrorist suspects to be held for up to 28 days.
, - Arguably not necessary as the constitution of Britain was evolutionary rather than reactionary. This is
unlike other countries, e.g., USA, who needed a constitution to establish guidelines. No public
demand for change of this kind. Would be difficult to establish a codified constitution.
- Written constitution could lead to SC dealing with disputes of constitution. Involved in political issues
despite not being elected. Unjustified power given to unelected judges, challenging parliamentary
sovereignty.
- Civil liberties are adequately protected by common law and by the Human Rights Act 1998 and the
Equality Act 2010. The judiciary has successfully used both of these acts to protect and develop civil
liberties. For example, in 2006 the right to a private life and the right to freedom of expression, were
used to show that the police had acted illegally in stopping 120 anti-Iraq war protestors from reaching
RAF Fairford in 2003. Another example is in 2004 Article 8 of the HRA was used to declare intrusive
press coverage of Naomi Campbell in a rehabilitation clinic illegal.
Using the source, evaluate the view that
devolution is in danger of undermining the unity
of the United Kingdom.
- Continuing demands for independence.
Due to nationalism in Scotland, often
receive more devolved powers than
Wales or NI where independence
campaigns are not as popular. Scottish
demands for independence referendum.
2014 Cameron allowed referendum. 55%
No. Result of 2016 EU referendum in
which Scotland voted to remain could
encourage further demands for independence.
- Power devolved in an uneven way. West Lothian Question concerns the question of whether MPs
from NI, Scotland, Wales, who sit in HoC should be allowed to vote on matter that effect England only.
Suggests that a solution could be establishment of English parliament. Would satisfy regional identity
and over-centralisation of power in Westminster as well as addressing WLQ. Location of sovereignty
questioned.
- Tensions created as policies diverge between devolved bodies over health, education, or tax. Scotland
Act of 1998 established Scottish parliament and devolved a no. of primary legislative powers: local
government, housing, environment, law and order, education, health, income tax. For example, in
Scotland university is free whereas in England university fees still apply. Inequalities in opportunity.
Barnet formula – public spending in devolved assemblies higher than in England. Funding per person
over 30% higher in Scotland.
- Achieved without undermining unitary state. UKs unitarian system of governance remains secure as
devolved institutions continue to legally defer to a sovereign Westminster parliament, which only
grants them power through the principle of subordination. Westminster withholds power to dissolve
devolved assemblies. E.g., Wilson reimplemented direct rule in Northern Ireland from 1972 to 1998
during the Troubles and has since been temporarily applied during suspensions.
- Four nations stronger together. Policy divergences reflect the local democracy and identities, while
maintaining integrity of UK. Significant during government handling of COVID pandemic. Devolved
assemblies could implement policy according to the severity of COVID within their region.
- Devolution satisfied some demand for self-government, avoiding a breakup of union. Breakup of UK
may be less likely as devolved assemblies given more control, independence seen as unnecessary.
Result of 2014 referendum potentially due to Smith Commission promise to give Scotland greater
devolved powers if they were to remain.
Using the source, evaluate the view that the UK’s constitution
requires major change.
- It is too easy for government to make significant
constitutional changes. Under our uncodified system it is
too easy for a government with a majority in the
Commons to make significant constitutional changes
including those which affect our fundamental rights. We
, can conclude that codification is required to sufficiently limit government power. ‘Stress tested’ in
events such as Brexit can be seen that our system is unable to cope. Johnson repeal of Fixed-term
parliament Act in 2022.
- Many principles of the UK’s political system exist in only conventions e.g. Salisbury Doctrine and CCR.
Debate in 2022 as to whether HoL opposing Immigration Act went against Salisbury Doctrine –
uncodified constitution lacks clarity. Many of the fundamental principles of the UK political system
can be overridden. These include parliament’s right to vote before taking military action, which May
ignored in 2018 when issuing airstrikes on Syria. We can reach a verdict that in order to limit
conventional principles the constitution must be reformed. Pressure put on Supreme Court over the
need for a clearer separation of powers.
- Blair’s constitutional reforms are incomplete. For example, we retain a partially reformed second
chamber (HoL Act 1999) and the HRA can be repealed by parliament. We can form a judgment that
the incompleteness of the Blair reforms show that the UK constitution required major change.
Removal of hereditary peers – 92 still allowed. Electoral reform not pursued following landslide
victory – criticised for prioritising political expediency.
- UK’s constitution is due to evolution rather than revolution. Over time the constitution has adapted
and retained relevant elements that makes the system work and protects our rights. A codified
constitution is not necessary as it is in other nations. No public demand for change of this kind. Would
be difficult to come up with. Would give unjustified power to unelected judges to interpret.
- Rights in the UK are respected by politicians and protected by the judiciary. Rights are a key part of
our culture and our political system. Politicians take into account rights in passing law whilst our rights
are protected by the independent judiciary who uphold HRA and Constitutional Reform Act. SC puts
pressure on MP to act in accordance to HRA or can issue a Declaration of Incompatibility. 2004 Article
8 of HRA declared press coverage of Naomi Campbell in rehab as intrusive.
- Parliamentary sovereignty means that parliament can legislate to respond appropriately to threats
such as terrorism or to changing realities, such as the desire for devolution more quickly than in
countries which have a codified system, e.g., USA. Changes already made in terms of Devolution to
Scotland, Wales, NI and Metro Mayors due to increases in nationalism and consequent demands for
devolved powers and independence. This would not be as simple if constitution was codified.
Evaluate the view that the logical next step after devolution to Scotland, Wales and NI is the devolution of
further power to England.
Devolution is the delegation of powers from central government
to a government of subnational level. Devolution was a key
concept that Blair wished to expand in Britain. For example, the
1998 Scotland Act, Northern Ireland Act and Government of
Wales Act established Scottish Parliament and NI and Welsh Assemblies. However, issues such as the West
Lothian Question and Barnett Formula leave England underrepresented and offer the debate as to whether
devolution should be further extended to England.
- People of England governed by Westminster with little authority to propose local solutions that
benefit their own communities. Highlighted by the North-South divide in which the north suffers as a
result of power being centralised in southern England.
- Some argued that regional govt. was rejected because the English do not want devolution. Most
English people don’t make logical distinctions between England and Britain as a whole and see
Westminster as their parliament. Overall support for an English Parliament was put at 41%. Defeat of
Blair’s proposals in 2004 suggests there isn’t a strong enough sense of identity.
- English parliament would still not solve the tension of inequality. An English parliament would
dominate UK government. Power many be too fragmented to create unified legislation. This was
apparent during the government response to the COVID-19 pandemic where devolved bodies were
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller ellyholmes. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £10.89. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
61001 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now