'The UK constitution is no longer fit for purpose.' Discuss.

Along side this, there are several undemocratic aspects to the UK constitution, for example the unelected hereditary monarchy and the House of Lords. The monarchy, although some argue are no longer politically relevant, in theory are completely undemocratic, as they are no elected by the people and it is a completely hereditary basis. The queen has the power to declare war, make treaties, pardon criminals and dissolve parliament, and she must sign any law that is to be passed. However, the monarchy has become mainly ceremonial now, with the powers of the royal prerogative being mainly used by the PM, but it is still argued by many that even the existence of the monarchy completely undermines democracy. The House of Lords is also incredibly undemocratic, as it is unelected, and 92 of it’s seats are hereditary (cut down by Tony Blair in the 1999 House of Lords reform act). Although the chamber has no power to stop any laws being passed, it has the ability to review and make changes to bills, and the people doing so may being doing it in their own best interests rather than those of the county, as ultimately they are not accountable to anyone. The proposed stage two reform of the Lords aims to see the chamber become a fully elected second chamber, although no progress has been made towards enforcing this yet. However the House of Lords does have significant advantages to it being unelected. If the second chamber were fully elected, then the possibility would arise that people with the level of knowledge of the current peers would not end up sitting in the chamber, and it would effectively become a second house of commons. People with such specialist knowledge as that of the current peers are incredibly useful in the revising of bills and it is an advantage of the whole country to have people with this knowledge to be having an input on the laws being passed.

Although the fact that the UK constitution is flexible can be seen as a major disadvantage, in that it may drift towards excessive executive power, it’s flexibility is due to it’s organic, uncodified nature, and this makes it easier to adapt to quick changing circumstances, for example the fact that the coalition government of 2010 was drawn together so quickly is an advantage and ultimately a credit to our constitution. Along side this, the fact that the UK has had many years of stable government is a credit to the fact that our constitution has the ability to adapt and change as the country does, due to it’s organic nature and can therefore withstand changes in the country, and work with them rather than against them.

Overall, although it can be argued that the constitution is no longer relevant and is outdated, it still holds major advantages, and due to it being organic has developed with the country to adapt to changing times. The constitution has never shown to be a major point of issue in the UK in that it has caused problems or prevented good things for the country happening, and although it may lack democracy in certain areas, there is no real need to completely revise and rewrite the constitution, as there is no significant issue with it currently. In addition to this, the fact that the UK has never had a fully codified, entrenched constitution, means that rewriting the constitution and significantly changing it would be leading the country into the unknown, and therefore it may not necessarily be better for our country just because it works for others.

Charlotte McCracken 13NH