What does it take to change the United Kingdoms constitution?
What does it take to change the United Kingdom's constitution? There are two main sections in regard to how the constitution could be modified. It could be a tangible or intangible change. The tangible change is changing the United Kingdom's unwritten constitution to a written one with clearly set out rules. The intangible change is to modify the conventions that are followed. This is done through adaptation overtime because of procedural change or the crystallisation of conventions. The UK is in the process of writing a constitution, many of UKs ex colonies have written constitutions. There are pros and cons of whether the UK should be attempting this. This can be perceived as an opportunity to reduce the vagueness within the law; it will make the job of the judges interpreting statutes considerably easier and less ambiguous. Furthermore, it will reduce the number of different sources one must look at. It would all be clearly set out for everyone to access. Furthermore, the UK has been increasing the number of written rules for codes of conduct for government officials; it is not as unwritten as previously, an example of this is the Ministerial Code. In 1991 the Labour party produced a detailed Constitution for the UK and since then many constitutional character statutes have been published adding to the support. It appears that there has been a gradual shift
Discuss the case for and against a Written Constitution for the UK.
Discuss the case for and against a 'Written Constitution' for the UK. A Constitution, according to Professor KC Wheare is "the whole system of government of a country, a collection of rules which establish and regulate or govern the government" (1966). In lay terms, it is a set of rules governing a country. There are various types of constitutions; however the written and unwritten constitutions will be critically examined. A written constitution is one contained within a single document or a series of documents, whereas an unwritten/uncodified constitution is not set out in one particular/said document (Barnett 2006). The United Kingdom is said to have an unwritten constitution, but is best described as wholly uncodified (Budge et al, 1998). Their laws are accessible from law reports and statutes. The US is a prime example of having a written constitution. In subsequent paragraphs a critical examination of the pros and cons of a written constitution to be adopted by the United Kingdom will be examined thoroughly. The United Kingdom has an unwritten constitution which is a product of the history of the country. It has not been thought necessary to frame a single document which would deal with matters relating to the constitution. This has been due to the gradual development of the UK constitution and the absence of an event requiring an abrupt change in the constitution,
To what extent does the prime minister dominate the UK political system?
To what extend does the Prime Minister dominate the UK Political System? The Prime Minister is the head of Government in the UK. They are appointed to this role because they are the leader of the party with a majority, or as in David Cameron's case, the leader of a coalition. The Prime Minister is a very powerful figure - he appoints and dismisses members of the cabinet, and choose what jobs they will do. In addition to this the PM chairs cabinet meetings, decides on Government structure (people and responsibilities) and determines the size of Government departments, sorting out who is in charge for different aspects of policy. The PM also sets up cabinet committees to relieve the burden on the cabinet. The Prime Minister does not just appoint the members of his cabinet, he also appoints people into non Government roles, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury and the CEO's of nationalised industries such as Royal Mail. Many people in receipt of knighthoods or O/M/CBE's are actually decided by the Prime Minister as well. The Prime Minister uses this power of patronage (appointment and dismissal) in order to get their own way, by filling the cabinet with political allies and removing those who disagree. Under Thatcher, key Government jobs were given to her supporters (Thatcherites) whereas the one nation Tories lost out - they were sacked or simply not promoted. Thatcher
During this project, I hope to test out my hypothesis that the BBC War reporting undermined the security of the British troops during the Falklands of 1982, potentially breaking the Treason Act, 1940.
The BBC, the tactless undermining of the British Forces Security and the necessity of news regulation: A Case Study of the Battle of Goose Green, 1982. During this project, I hope to test out my hypothesis that the BBC War reporting undermined the security of the British troops during the Falklands of 1982, potentially breaking the Treason Act, 1940. The debate for and against censorship of information in media coverage is a controversial issue, especially in relation to war reporting as it can be understood that the primary purpose of the media is to provide information to the public and is therefore a public service to provide news on the country's affairs. Free Press enables the audience to be equipped with knowledge to form opinions of their own, independent of the agenda of those in political power. However, it must be highlighted that regulations of media censorship are necessary, purely in the interests of security for those in threatening situations. It can be argued that broadcasting information that defy military censorship, endangering the life of the majesty's forces, is officially breaking the Treachery Act 1940. My objective throughout this project is to convey the BBC as potentially having a detrimental effect to particular individuals they report and therefore must be regulated within strict guidelines in particular circumstances. I will structure this
Should the UK have a codified constitution?
Should the UK have a codified constitution? A constitution is a set of rules that establishes how political power should be distributed, the relationship between political institutions, the limits to government, the rights of citizens and how the constitution can be changed. In the UK, we have an un-codified constitution; this means that it is not written down on one single document. However, recently more and more people have become in favour of codifying the constitution. There are many arguments justifying the employment of a codified constitution in the UK, but the most important are to limit the executive and legislative powers, entrench the constitution to protect the people and to modernize the UK politically compared to all other modern democracies that have a codified constitution. In the 21st century, most democracies have a codified constitution with the exception of the UK, New Zealand, Israel and Saudi Arabia. This brings in to question how relevant and up to date the UK's political system is. Currently, the constitution has evolved through conventions and changes to the law by parliament. Supporters of an un-codified constitution argue that the system works well using the current system which has been used for centuries, causing no problems. Another argument is the difficulties of codifying the British constitution, some of the problems that may incur may
How might the House of Lords be reformed to make it more effective?
How might the House of Lords be reformed to make it more effective? (25) Lords sat by reason of inheriting their titles and archbishops and bishops by reason of their rank in the church. Calls for reform of this distinctive chamber have previously been made, especially since the expansion of the franchise in the 19th century, producing a first chamber able to claim legitimacy through popular election. In 1884, after the Lords refused to pass the Franchise Bill, John Morley declared that the Lords should be 'mended or ended'. Lord Bryce declared that 'the House cannot go on as it is'. In the event, reform came in the twentieth century but demands for further change have continued. Before looking at we could reform the House of Lords, to make it more effective, we must first understand some of their weaknesses. Firstly, the lords lack democratic legitimacy and their powers are limited by law. They have no power over financial matters, cannot veto legislation and their proposed amendments can be overturned by the House of Commons. A reform would effectively make the House of Lords become more legitimate via the removal of certain peers. The House of Lords should have a complete overhaul and like the House of Commons, should be elected. This would make the peers in the House of Lords more powerful which would mean that they would be more effective within their role,
To what extent has the coalition strengthened the House of Commons?
To what extent has the coalition strengthened the House of Commons? For the past centuries, institutional and procedural reforms in the Britain's system have been slow and gradual. However, there could have been registered a growing movement for more fundamental reforms. After the May 2009 expenses scandal, there has been a much stronger appetite for changes, as people have started to lose faith in the politicians whose popularity gradually fell down. Therefore, after the 2010 elections, because of a hung parliament, the Conservatives formed a coalition with the Lib Dems, which opened up new possibilities for change. In the first year of their activity, they have passed a lot of laws related to the lower chamber. Therefore, it is vital to analyse as to whether this coalition and their reforms have strengthened the Commons or weakened it. One area that has been affected by these new statutes is the legislation making. The presence of a coalition in the House of Commons represents both a strength and a weakness. One advantageous side is the rejuvenation of the institution. It also means that there are going take place more debates, investigations of the future possible laws. Therefore, there will not be more situations such as in 1983 when the Conservatives under Thatcher had a majority of 144 seats, meaning that some laws, maybe not the best ones or maybe needing the ones
Identify and Discuss the Role of Prime Minister, Giving Specific Examples within the British System of Government.
Identify and Discuss the Role of Prime Minister, Giving Specific Examples within the British System of Government. Most people would agree that the most powerful individual in the British system of government is the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister may be head of the government but he is also seen as 'primus inter pares' - first among equals. However recent Prime ministers such as Thatcher, Blair and Brown consider themselves to be at least one rank higher than other cabinet ministers. "The exact extent of the power exercised by the Prime Minister, however, is not easy to calculate since the Prime Minister does not govern alone" (Bentley et al, 2008). The main reason the role of the Prime Minister is not easy to define is there is no constitutional definition of the role he plays. The Prime Minister has various roles in the British government system, which coincides to some extent with the administrative divisions of the No.10 Office. The main roles played by the Prime Minister are governed more by convention than any laws or rules and regulations. "The way in which individual Prime Ministers fulfil their roles largely depend on their individual leadership style and personality, however the role is fluid and...Is likely to be determined by day to day events and problems facing the government at the time" (James 1992). The principal roles of the prime minister are taken
Should the Westminster Electoral System be Reformed?
Should the Westminster electoral system be reformed? The Westminster electoral system has been a target for reform for a long time. Despite the loss in the 2011 referendum, reform is still wanted by a number of people especially the Liberal Democrats who will benefit the most. First Past the Post is the system that Westminster uses for election to the Houses of Commons; it is a simple majority or plurality system that requires a candidate to get more votes than anyone else. One argument that the Westminster electoral system should be reformed is that First Past the Post doesn't give the social representation that other system gives, for example in the Parliament elected in 2010, women, 51% of the population, are represented by 22% of Parliament therefore an under representation, however, university educated are overrepresented, 91% of the Houses of Commons represent 31% of the population but having PR doesn't guarantee that the social composition of Parliament only making the percentage of votes more proportional towards the seats. Moreover, FPTP stops extremist parties such as the BNP from gaining election and having influence over policy or gaining any credibility. One argument for reform of the electoral system is that government claim a mandate or legitimacy despite the fact that they have just over a third of the popular vote, in 2005 Labour claimed a mandate or
The importance of democracy
The Importance of Democracy? There was a brief period in the history of ancient Greece when democracy of different kinds flourished in the various city-states of that age; it had relatively short life as a political system. Even the most direct forms of democracy, where all free citizens gathered regularly to make important decisions, excluded slaves, women and the uneducated. It was, in essence, reserved for the prominent citizens who enjoyed most of the wealth of the city. They were the only people who were considered to be sufficiently informed to vote. Democracy was short-lived in Greece, and once it had disappeared, it did not reappear in any recognisable form until the eighteenth century. Two and a half thousand years later, democracy has established itself as the political system preferred by all economically advanced nations. In the meantime, most people had been governed by hereditary monarchs, autocratic rulers or had effectively not been properly governed at all. So what is it about modern society that seems to make democracy so important? We can identify a number of theories to try to answer this question. Democracy establishes and protects freedom Towards the end of the eighteenth century a number of new philosophical and political movements developed. They were largely based on the principle that mankind should be free, both as individuals and collectively,
