“Constitutional reform since 1997 has not gone far enough.” Discuss. I agree with the view that constitutional reform since 1997 has not gone far enough to a large extent. The House of Lords Act of 1999 has reformed the House of Lords, the Human Rights Act of 1998 was an important area of constitutional reform, as well as the Freedom of Information Act of 2000 and the devolution of powers. The electoral system used in the UK has also been subject to discussion over reform however all constitutional reform can be said to have not gone far enough. The House of Lords Act of 1999 removed all but 92 hereditary peers from the House of Lords.
In theory a Prime Minister is Primus Inter Paras, he has a wide range of powers such as chairing the cabinet, appointing ministers and controlling the armed forces. A Prime Minister only holds the roll because they are a leader of a party. Issues such as policy disagreements and how to remove a Prime Minister will be discussed but ultimately it will be noted that currently the Liberal Democrats limit Cameron more than his own party. A party can remove a Prime Minister from their role as Prime Minister. This can be seen when looking at the two most powerful Prime Ministers in the post war era; Thatcher and Blair were in differing ways removed from their parties.
Also it is criticised for the fact the in recent times no government has obtained 50% of the votes cast. Both of these statements are backed up by the result of the 2005 general election where Labour won 35.6% of the votes but 56.1% of the seats. In that same election the Liberal Democrats won 22% of the votes but only 9% of the seats. On top of these criticisms votes for small parties are often wasted. As shown in 2010 where in the general election the Green and other small parties combined achieved 7.9% of the votes but the Green party was the only one of these parties to gain a seat and they only won one seat.
However on the other hand it is argued that the UK could not possibly be a two party system because the Conservatives wouldn’t have been able to come into power without the Liberal Democrats. During the 2010 election the Conservatives failed to gain an overall majority, in fact they only gained 36% of the votes meaning they were not going to be able to rule by themselves. This resulted in a hung parliament. This disagrees with the view that the UK has a two party system because no
It also means that members of Congress are not elected on a joint mandate as members of a prospective government, as would be the case in a parliamentary system, but to represent the interests of their districts and states, and on a separate mandate from the president. However it can be argued that this hinders the system as the president only has limited influence over Congress, and this creates the potential for gridlock and contributes to the weakening of parties. So if the president is a different party than Congress he has hardly any power which is concerning considering the president is head of state and should therefore have the most power. On the other hand it can be seen as a positive, since legislation is the product of compromise and consensus and it is therefore better founded than, for example, legislation whipped through the House of Commons. To conclude it helps the system in a way that it stops there being a dominance of one person or party which is good in a way that the parties have to find compromised and there want me dictatorship.
Supporters would suggest that the constitution is fit for purpose. Recent activities that have taken place in the UK would suggest that the constitution is fit for purpose, for example the Scottish referendum. In this essay, I am going to argue that the UK constitution is no longer fit for purpose. The facts that our constitution is uncodified means that there is not much clarity as many individuals/citizens do not know their rights. This means that the government can override our rights, for example the case of the Belmarsh Prison Act 2001 and the Anti-Terrorism Act.
Wordplay is the reason why most politicians seem to be lawyers not politicians. The questions brought up have been and always been either avoided or rather ingeniously walked around since the establishment of our constitution. Was it because our forefathers didn’t have an exact answer, did they foresee possible problems and left it open to time. Either way the lack of exact translation has shaped America and allowed alternate ideals to flourish. The author brings a question that although it almost has an obvious answer has been and still is a strong problem in the establishment of a fair and equal nation, and that question is “Who Is A Person”.
Filibuster, “a type or parliamentary procedure where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal,” is one of the causes for the brokenness of the Senate. An example of a filibuster which halted the Senate is Rand Paul’s filibuster on the vote of President Obama’s nomination for the head of CIA. Just because Rand Paul disapproved
I believe that constitutional reform has not gone far enough. There was an increase in referendums as Tony Blair promised in his election manifesto. These include the referendums over the Manchester Congestion Charge in 2008, and the 2004 Referendum in the North-East, and were both affective in affecting the governing party views. In addition the increase in e-petitions has been effective. Indeed, the road pricing tax was dropped after 1 million people signed a petition against it.
a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.” Unfortunately like many others, this promise is bound to broken. It has been introduced to Congress often since the early 1990’s. Recently, two bills have been designed to be passed for this issue, one by Representative Barney Frank and another by Senator Jeff Merkley. Both bills are still in the committee showing no means of progressing any further. Another factor keeping the probability of this bill being passed minimal is the Republican Party’s control over the United States House of Representatives and that this bill is not one of the Republican Party’s priorities at the moment.