Why did the post-1997 Labour Government institute a programme of constitutional reform?
Why did the post-1997 Labour Government institute a programme of constitutional reform?
The absence of any codified constitution within the United Kingdom has led to the development of an unwritten constitution that is derived from common law, statute law, convention and tradition. Described by Burke as ‘checkered and speckled….crossly indented and whimsically dovetailed….such a piece of diversified mosaic’, it contrasts greatly to the entrenched, written constitution of the United States of America, where the relationship between the government and the citizen is closely regulated and legislated. The fusion of powers within the unitary state of the UK has led to a focus on the sovereignty of Parliament. Whereas in the USA, the government is only able to make amendments to the original constitution, British Parliament is not obligated to adhere to any law passed by a previous government. Hence, the lack of entrenchment, the unwritten, often ambiguous, nature of the UK constitution and the ease at which reform can occur are major factors contributing to the programme of reform executed by the Labour Government subsequent to their 1997 victory in the General Election.
The political climate that existed in 1997 was due to a strict eighteen-year period of Tory dominance. The 1980’s saw a determined attempt to weaken the power of local government in order to protect the power of the central, Conservative government. “Principles of efficiency, a limited role for the state and the empowerment of consumers remained constant throughout successive Conservative administrations,’ and the combination of a strong state and economic liberalism created disillusionment and tension amongst the voting public. However, the demand for reform was not entirely in reaction to the style of government experienced from 1979 to 1997. There are also certain constitutional factors that prevent legitimate adaptation of power. The balance of power between the key political institutions in the UK is unequal and concentrates the majority of decision-making authority in the hands of the executive. Both Parliament and the British Judiciary are weak bodies with little or no authority to challenge the supremacy of the executive. Also, the absence of any substantial level of sub-national government, in 1997, meant that not only was the power concentrated in the hands of the executive, but also centralised at Westminster. The constitutional changes listed in the document, ‘Charter 88’, called for a massive decentralisation of power and it became clear to Blair that the pledging of a various constitutional changes within his 1997 manifesto would provide a viable angle to topple Tory dominance. Labour’s ‘clearly articulated role for local government’ mirrored the results of a poll conducted by the Joseph Rowntree Trust in 1995. The ‘State of the Nation’ poll declared that a mere 22% of the public believed that the present system of government worked effectively and that 79% wanted an American-style Bill of Rights and a written constitution. Despite the obvious recognition by Blair to harness the clearly audible calls for constitutional reform and the lack of an entrenched constitution within the UK, Labour’s attempt to create a ‘modern constitution fit for the twenty-first century’ also rests heavily on specific, and historical, factors.
