To what extent have the coalition governments proposals to reform the UK constitution been controversial?

by harrybroadyhamfudge1 (student)

To what extent have the coalition government’s proposals to reform the UK constitution been controversial?

A coalition government is where two or more political parties join together in parliament to run the government and agree on a policy programme. There are many constitutional reforms that the current coalition government have proposed including the House of Lords reform, the reduction of MPs and changing of constituency boundaries, and the introduction of fixed term parliaments.

The House of Lords reform is a reorganisation of which the government wanted four-fifths of members of a reformed House of Lords to be elected. They would have served 15-year terms of office, after which they could not run for re-election. This was controversial because the government was facing sizeable opposition, particularly among conservative MPs. 91 conservative MPs decided against the government in a vote on how to timetable the House of Lords Reform. Following this the prime minister told his backbenchers he would have one more try on the reform but if his party could not reach a deal he would draw a line under the issue. Several senior Labour politicians also raised doubts and many peers were reported to be unhappy. This has been controversial because the House of Lords reform has been a key goal for the Lib Dems, and its failure raises coalition tensions.

A second coalition constitutional reform has been the reduction of MP’s and the changing of constituency boundaries. The government pledged to cut the number of MPs by 50 to 600 - and to make constituencies more evenly sized to ensure greater fairness for voters. The government has published detailed plans for the re-drawing of constituency boundaries, which were consulted upon around the country. MPs were asked before Christmas to appeal against changes of which they disapproved. The Boundary Commission will publish its revised plans next year and these are expected to be decided on by Parliament by October 2013. These ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

A less controversial constitutional reform has been the introduction of fixed term parliament. The Bill fixes the date of the next General Election at 7 May 2015, and provides for five-year fixed terms. It includes provisions to allow the Prime Minister to alter the date by up to two months by Order. There are also two ways in which an election could be triggered before the end of the five-year term the first way it can be trigged is if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative government is found. A second way it can be triggered is if a motion for an early general election is agreed either by at least two-thirds of the House or without division. One argument for this is that it gives electoral fairness. This is an advantage because at the moment, the prime minister in charge can call an election at a time which is most favourable to their party. Having a fixed term parliament eliminates this as it forces the election-date to be a fixed date. However, one argument against having a fixed term parliament is that it means longer campaigns. Having a longer campaign period means that, like in the USA, election campaigns can start a lot earlier than usual. Therefore, having a set date can mean that a lot of the political party’s time can be devoted to electioneering. This reform would be controversial because there are many positives and negatives about it and would change the entire electoral structure completely.

In conclusion, I believe that to coalition government’s proposals to reform the UK have been very controversial. I believe this because some of the reforms (e.g. fixed term parliament, House of Lords reform) can have major consequences on the way politics is structured and the outcomes of some of the laws passed in the country.