There has been a variety of constitutional reforms set up since Blaire’s election into government in 1997, ranging from matters concerning Westminster to legislature, these reforms however have been of mixed impact. One reform set up in 1998 was the human’s rights act. This made it impossible for government to pass legislature unless it fitted with the convention signed by the British Government in 1950. This reform was of great impact as it meant all legislation passed by Westminster and all devolved assemblies must have been given a compatibility declaration from the European Court of Human Rights. This led to the passing of key legislation such as The prevention of terrorism act 2005 and the Criminal justice act 2003 both of which made a great impact on the electorate.
Make out a case against the adoption of a codified constitution for the UK The UK constitution has been around for over 300 years, and is renowned around the world for its efficiency, however, in recent years, politics has taken a change, that most would say is for the better. These changes leave the UK’s constitution looking rather dated in comparison, and some critics say that it is time for a drastic change in our constitution, however is this drastic change really needed for a system that’s worked well for so long already? The UK constitution is uncodified, meaning that it is not written down in one continuous document. While there are those who say this leaves the people in a haze about their rights, it allows for swift changes to anything that needs done, this is immensely helpful for times of crisis, when the public look to government to quickly make decisions. If the constitution was codified, it would become entrenched, meaning that for it to be changed, a long arduous process would have to be taken.
After the Labour party’s strong victory in the 1997 general election, winning 179 seats, they have made moves and provisions towards constitutional reform. Indeed, the two prime ministers; Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have done much for reform over the years, as illustrated by devolution and the human rights act. Indeed, they made provision for reform in 4 key areas, modernisation, and greater protection of rights, democratisation and decentralisation. However, it can be argued that their reform has been limited, and much more can be done for constitutional reform. Firstly, it is clear that the modernisation aspects of the reform have been severely limited.
How successful was Gladstone’s first ministry? If ‘achieving what you set out to do’ defines successful, then Gladstone’s First Ministry was certainly a success. The Acts that were passed during his time as leader of the Liberal party had great impact on the population both then, and in some cases, still now. However not all his Acts were well received and this created some controversy. Gladstone’s main goal was to pacify Ireland and he was the first British politician to tackle the unfair way in which Ireland was run.
Has Labours Programme of Constitutional Reform been a success? The election of 1997 which brought Labour back into Government, brought a vast change to Britain. Tony Blair, the leader of the Labour Party had shown great interest in a new programme in which the Party were to under go, known as constitutional reform. Ever since the 1960’s there had been calls for constitutional reform in the UK, as in many other democratic countries who had also been interested in re-writing and revising constitutions to make them dated, and suited to the time. Britain having a flexible constitution, made it easier for Labour to change the British Constitution.
Since 1997 there have been many constitutional reforms from the Labour Government to the recent coalition government, these reforms have changed the UK political system quite dramatically; these reforms may have increased our democracy but have also created new problems which have to resolved through Parliamentary debate. The main Constitutional reform which has been ongoing through the Labour and Coalition government, however the Coalition seem less keen, is the reform on devolution of Powers to Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland and Northern Ireland were granted with Primary powers of legislation meaning they can create legislation on a variety of different matters such as Health and Social services and Law and Order, this gave Scotland and Northern Ireland much more independence and power to run their own nations, Wales was only granted secondary powers meaning they can alter legislation but not create. This devolution was in response to referendums held in the Scotland, Wales and NI and there have also been calls to have complete independence from the UK however the referendum held on this matter returned a NO vote. This devolution however has raised some issues which seem hard to solve for example the West Lothian Question creates a problem n which Scottish MP’s can vote on English Laws but English MP’s cannot vote on Scottish Laws.
Nevertheless, progressive reformers and the federal government were for the most part effective in bringing reform to the political, economic, and social problems throughout the country in the early 1900’s. Political problems during the Progressive Era were big issues due to the previous role of the political machine, a political organization contained of a boss and many people underneath who used bribery to obtain votes for their respective parties. The abuse of political machines pushed reformers toward the idea of a greater democracy. The most important reform in politics throughout the early 1900’s was that of the direct primary. The idea that voters could choose presidential candidates was new because normally only a select number of people would be able to do so.
Of the Tsars I believe that Alexander II, called the ‘Tsar Liberator’, caused the biggest change over the period. I believe he was the only Tsar that wanted to reform. I believe Alexander II’s reforms affected the most people living in Russia. In response to the defeat in the Crimean War the Tsar where the majority of Russians saw themselves in higher regard than was translated in the outcome training was modernised and facilities were improved. The effect of this caused military life to have become a lot safer and potentially more profitable when fighting.
“Is it time for Scotland to become and independent country?” Thinking Module Report (1000) Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales have all created this glorified image of togetherness since they were united in 1707 through the Treaty of Unions. Since then, however, the dispute of Scotland becoming an independent country has been a reoccurring argument that has put a strain on the relationships between these ‘united’ countries. When the Scottish National Party (SNP) were successful in the election of May 4th 2012 the position of Scotland has been questioned by politicians and mainly by the people of Scotland. Whether or not Scotland should become an independent country, a debate that was presented by Stewart Hosie, an MP for the Scottish Nationalist Party who was arguing in motion of independence. Conversely, Jenny Marra, representing MSP Labour party argued against independence.
Yet the process does have a significant impact on UK politics. It seems the UK has increased control and awareness over foreign policy but the sovereignty over domestic policy has diminished. The governments totally support globalisation yet figures (from 2003) show that the UK has dropped three places in the index of the world’s globalised