Paper 2 - UK POLITICS
● Each section is each topic in paper 2
● Feminism is the ideology in paper 2
● Please message me if you have any questions about the
plans or the structure of this document
CONSTITUTION
Evaluate the view that the UK should have a codified
constitution
Definition: A constitution determines where the power is located within a nation state and the
rules by which it is governed. It also establishes the extent of the government’s authority and
the rights that its citizens possess
Rights - theme of the paragraph, will having a codified constitution improve rights protection
in the UK?
WEAK: the weaker argument is that having a codified constitution would better protect
rights in the UK by entrenchment and codification. It would make it harder for a new
government to change our rights and would require a lengthy amendment process that
would require a supermajority - therefore better protecting rights
EVIDENCE: nothing forcing the government to respect individual freedom and protect rights
apart from fear of re-election. HRA is not entrenched and its provision can be set aside and
overridden by parliament - which has occurred over terrorism legislation.
RELEVANCE: since parliamentary sovereignty means that rights are in the hands of the
elected parliament, who are even elected on less than 50% and have the ability to tamper
with rights. With a codified constitution, parliament couldn't pass any legislation that offended
human rights protection.
This structure above, point, evidence, relevance and link back to question means you hit all
the marks for the question.
STRONG: the stronger argument remains that the constitution should not be codified due to
the fact that our rights are better upheld by an uncodified constitution due to greater flexibility
to update our rights continuously to keep up with modern day society - therefore more
democratic and responsive to the people
EVIDENCE:
● Having an uncodified constitution allows us to have referendums such as one leaving
the EU, and there are many more constitutional freedoms in regard to abortion and
, gun laws as we are not bound to decisions in the past allowing a more modern
protection or rights.
● The update of rights can be seen with the introduction of the 2010 equality act, which
since then has overseen many updates such as the requirement of all buildings to
have disabled access, the 2013 same sex marriage act and the 2015 requirement
that all business of over 250 employees have to publish their gender pay gap.
● Furthermore, with regards to security, an uncodified consitution allows immediate
responses to protective collective rights in situations - after 9/11 attacks threat of
international terrorism became more acute, so parl easily passed anti-terrorost
measures which USA and many European countries had greater problems doing.
RELEVANCE: therefore, with the ability to update rights on the basis of modernisation and
social justice, an uncodified constitution is better fit for modern day society where the UK has
hardly had any accusations of the poor provision of rights and had the best reputation of the
48 signatories to the ECHR on the provision of rights protection.
This is all one paragraph above, of course it is very long so cut down accordingly and you
don't need to include all evidence, one piece of evidence is enough, so use one you will
remember most
Clarity - will having a codified constitution improve clarity in the political system?
Rationality and logistics Logistics
WEAK: a codified constitution would provide a clear and comprehensive set of rules and
principles for how the country is governed - providing more clarity. Most UK citizens do not
understand the concept of a constitution as it is planned in such a haphazard and arbitrary
way. If people know their rights like in the US, then it might cure political ignorance and
apathy that prevails.
EVIDENCE: being written in one palace means people would be more aware of their rights.
Even though conventions do exist - there are too many and therefore there is a blurred line
and they are not legally binding therefore they can be ignored.
· After 2010 new coalition gov wished to change constitution to intro fixed-term
parliaments – law proposed was each new park should sit for a fixed term of 5
years before next GE – this act would take away from unwritten convention that
the PM could name the date of the next GGE
· It was intended this law should be permanent, but it isn’t possible to entrench
laws in UK so any future park could repeal or amend the act
· So not permanent but could become a convention – fact that we have had GEs
in 2017 and 2019 suggests this act not lasting
RELEVANCE: Therefore the constitution job is required to be clear and rigid providing
stability and order in a political system to tell the government what they can and can't do,
instead an uncodified constitution has left this aloof. Currently, the system relies on the fact
that there is no corrupt government to abuse this power which is not good enough for a
political system to rely on such uncertainties.
,STRONG: previous argument lacks merit as it is ignoring the fact that a codified constitution
has served the country well for centuries due to its conservative pragmatism. There have
been no violent revolutions and change has occurred naturally. Codifying it would not be
worth meagre benefits of problems this would cause.
EVIDENCE: A codified constitution would involve the supreme court in particular, in disputes
over its precise meaning and application, making the courts more political which are already
being accused of politicisation through judicial review. This would cause conflicts over exact
powers of government, the nature of rights, or relations between England, S, W and NI. as
well as this, the practicalities of a codified constitution make it unlikely and unnecessary -
requiring someone to sit down and write all this up into documentation, a tedious process
that requires the cooperation of 5 different length sources .
RELEVANCE: currently no strong demands, and is not compatible for the evolutionary
nature of the UK constitution which has worked thus far. Not only would it put the
independence of judges into jeopardy. Judges are not elected and therefore not accountable
so political issues shouldn’t be resolved by them. Furthermore, the coomlexities of the issue
are nych higher than the demand for a codified constitution, and thus right now the status
quo is much preferred.
Accountability - will having a codified constitution improve accountability
WEAK: The weaker argument is that a codified constitution would allow the government to
operate more effectively due to a better system of checks and balances. A key feature of a
liberal democracy is that governmental power is limited - however, the UK government is
currently characterised more by the concentration of power and an over-mighty executive
EVIDENCE: Despite the constitutional reforms introduced since 1997 having dispersed
government power, many argue that they do not enable Government to be effectively
checked; one of the key jobs of a constitution. For example, although the supreme court can
issue declarations of incompatibility, parliamentary sovereignty means that a stubborn and
overbearing government can ignore this - in the case of the freezing assets of terrorists, the
courts declared this incompatibility with the HRA. However, due to parliamentary sovereignty
and the lack of checks and balances that an uncodified constitution allows meant that
parliament was able to ignore this and pass a similar asset freezing act in 2010
RELEVANCE: with the growing tendency of prime ministers and the executive to dominate
parliament, a codified constitution would provide a clear framework for limiting the powers of
the executive and prevent it from breaching the rights and powers of parliament. A codified
constitution would effectively ensure that the executive is held accountable to the people and
to the rule of law.
STRONG: The Uk's long period of democratic rule is often seen as evidence of the strength
of its constitutional system. The reason why the constitution has a democratic flavour is
because of the importance of Parliamentary sovereignty. As well as this, a codified
constitution would actually put a lot of strains on the executive and parliament therefore not
allowing it to operate properly.
, EVIDENCE: For instance, the powers of the House of Lords were reduced through the
Parliament Acts because of a growing belief that an unelected second chamber should no
longer have the right to block the policies of elected governments. Legislative system would
be much more difficult to navigate and lead to a lot more gridlock as with the US where only
2-3% of bills pass, compared to the continuous passing of legislation in the UK. a codified
constitution allows the parties to carry out their manifesto promises with their mandate,
which would be hindered by a codified constitution making it more harmful to democracy.
RELEVANCE: Therefore it is not time for Britain to have a codified constitution as with the
current uncodified constitution, supreme constitutional authority rests in the elected house of
commons. Changes to the constitution therefore often come about because of democratic
pressure, and thus the government is accountable to the people. Tyranny of the majority
party does not happen, and laws which are unpopular are rarely passed. An uncodified
constitution allows an efficient government that can legislate on behalf of the population,
protecting their individual and collective rights.
Overall, - would be good to note in the conclusion that there is no demand for it and way
more important issues defining the political landscape such as the recession, russia-ukraine
war which makes this not a priority and just unnecessary - no one cares fr.
Evaluate that the UK constitution no longer fit for purpose
LOA: the constitution is fit for purpose
Flexibility/ rights
PARA 1: one of the chief strengths of the constitution is that it is flexible and easy to change
- it is easier and quicker to introduce an act of parliament than it is to amend the US
constitution - a lengthy and tiresome process
EVIDENCE: remains highly relevant and up to date with little problems of lack of progression
in terms of legislation - no problems with abortion and gun laws as the UK is not bound to
the decisions of previous generational politicians - can respond to changing circumstance
such as the introduction of equal rights act 2010 that is being continually updated to include
rights of all in society
RELEVANCE: holds weight because it is fit for purpose as it is in tune with modern day
society and therefore is doing its job - large consensus around the UK’s rights protections as
it is very heavy of social justice which is important in a dynamic political environment
HOWEVER: if it can be argued that it’s flexibility can be categorized as negative and
therefore actually is weak at protecting individual rights and civil liberties then the
constitution is no longer fit for purpose
EVIDENCE: ultimately due to its evolutionary nature, apart from the fears of not being
re-elected, there is nothing that forces the government to respect individual freedoms and
basic rights. The HRA in 1998 has improved rights protection. However it is not entrenches
because its provisions could be set aside by parliament, as has occurred over terrorism
