Should the UK adopt a codified Constitution?

Should the UK adopt a codified Constitution? 

The UK currently has an uncodifed constitution, meaning that it has various sources, including statue law (law made by Parliament itself) common law (based on tradition, custom and precedent), conventions (a non-legal rule; a rule of conduct or behavior) and EU laws and treaties (such as the Treaty of Lisbon, 2009), whereas the US's codified constitution is enshrined in a single document - the differences between codified and uncodified constitutions are highlighted and explained on my previous post -  which is pretty amazing and well written if i do say so myself.

Adopting a codified constitution is a lot more than just stapling all those different pieces of paper together  and being all 'Woo! its codified now!' (well, you could do that. but good luck collecting all those documents) - but it has to be a lot more long and complex then that right? I mean, this is politics after all. 

One pretty big influencing factor is the flexibility of our uncodifed constitution: of course, as it sources from tradition and conventions, it evolves and shapes around our current society and norms - it goes without saying, but what was the tradition and norms in Victorian England are, and without going into too much detail, are a lot more unhygienic then they are today (thank god for the invention of sewers). 

The rigidness of the codified constitution is often argued that it is stuck in the past, as it has entrenched customs and traditions that may be considerably outdated today, and this is when the gun laws are often debated. Hundreds of years ago, 'the right to bear arms' continues and allows  US citizens to own a gun. Back then, his let farmers, for example, protect their land and livestock, when laws were weak. Nowadays though, do people really need guns? Due to its rigidness, their constitution cannot evolve and flourish with the people, and with Americans being extremely patriotic and proud of their constitution, it would be near impossible to change, or even amend; but this doesn't stop Obama from trying to currently make firearms safer. 

Although i just rugged that the codified constitution may be old and outdated, a some think that the uncodifed constitution itself is, well...old and outdated too. (Codified or not, some people just can't be pleased..) 

By a simple google search, its clear  most of the countries in the world have adopted a codified constitution- apart from a small few, including New Zealand, Israel and Saudi Arabia ( #TeamUncodified 4 lyfe)  therefore, codified is more of the 'norm' in politics- but we shouldn't give into peer pressure! 

However, uncodified constitutions are a lot weaker, due to the fact that they are more difficult to entrench. This means the government of the day could easily abolish any law, (considering that they're legitimate), and this could give the executive too much power, as there is no control on governmental power under an uncodified constitution. For example, in the US, there are significant checks and balances on  the leaders power. 

Nonetheless, if the government of the day is legitimate and they have been democratically elected by the people, surely they should have the right to rule, and the power to do whatever they want.   

Overall, i  think the UK should keep our uncodified constitution. It allows our society to grow, its flexible so can be easily altered in times of crisis (eg. following 9/11) and the people are pretty happy with how it is now- and it makes out country just that little bit weirder (not that our politicians are weird enough).

What is a constitution, and why is it important?

What is a constitution, and why is it important?

The constitution has a pretty important role is governing and controlling the country. It may just be a super old and dreary document in some countries, or just a load of separate pieces of paper in others, but it contains vital laws for protecting our rights, and was the very beginning for our democracy. 

Constitutions are such an important part of a countries culture, that if a country is ever faced with an undemocratic, elitist or extremist leader, that they will first aim to destroy or completely modify the constitution, as they often retain leaders power.

The first constitution was created under King Johns leadership, as he started to raise the taxes to fund his (unsuccessful) wars in France. The Barons therefore created the Magna Carta in 1215, to ensure monarchs do not has an extremely excessive amount of power, and to be subject to law. For a few years it 'vanished', until Edward Cook MP, challenged Charles the First as his own powers grew. 

Oliver Cromwell (being the jolly soul he is) chose to ignore the Magna Carta, until  Thomas Jefferson incorporated its decrees in the American Constitution. 

Since then, the Magna Carta has been the base for all constitutions around the world, enshrining our democracy. 

Constitutions can come in different forms - codified and uncodified.

A codified Constitution means that the constitution exists in a single document, such as France, USA, China and Norway. When a constitution becomes codifed, it normally always takes place after an event which calls for a codified constitution. For example, the USA codified their constitution after the independence of British Colonies, and Norway after the counties freedom from Danish rule.

In a codified constitution,the document itself is authoritative, in the sense that it constitutes 'higher' law. The constitution binds all political institutions, including those that make ordinary law. This gives rise to a two-tier legal system, in which the constitution stands above statute law make by the legislature.     

Identification is another benefit of a codified constitution. The Americans worship their Constitution, and the country even sells pocket sized editions of the constitution,  and when becoming the President, they have to take a pledge to protect it. 

However, codified constitutions are extremely hard to alter - since the USA introduced theirs, its only been modified 28 times - but this is so dictators cannot easily amend it. 

The opposite of a codified constitution is an uncodified constitution, as seen in the UK, Canada and New Zealand. This means that the constitution has many sources- in the UK, parts of the constitution can be found in statues, conventions, common law and traditions; because it has so many sources, the UK constitution can be easily amended, and with new laws being passed in the Commons and Lords very often, the UKs constitution can be changed every week. 

To summarize - King John was a bit of an idiot, but thanks to him we now have the super fancy 'magna carta', America loves their guns and the UK could be easily overthrown because of their uncodified constitution. Boom. 

What are the least democratic pressure groups and why?

What are the least democratic pressure groups and why?

Pressure groups are usually seen in a way in which they strongly promote democracy and pluralism. This is because pressure groups easily allow more people to participate in democracy, offering more ways to participate and be educated on politics. The existence of pressure groups therefore supports free-flowing ideologies, and that power is then shared amongst the groups. For example, pressure groups have the power to rally people together, the power to influence legislation and to raise millions of pounds.


However, some groups can easily resist these qualities, and can then be seen as undemocratic. This can be mainly identified in sectional pressure groups, as they aim to represent a group of people, and sometimes the group can be wrongly represented by the group.


In promotional groups, this may be seen by the leader changing the groups aim without the full support of the group, or taking action in a way which no one else agreed on.


Insider groups could hold too much influence over Government Ministers, which can be detrimental to those who wish to reduce the role of the state, and outsider groups usually take direct action, which can be illegal and undemocratic - for example, in the USA, pro-life campaigners have been known to send letter bombs to abortion clinics, and in the UK the animal liberation front have been known to promote illegal actions, such as removing animals from labs and farms and destroying facilities.

Lastly, the Animal Liberation Front can be seen as undemocratic, as they encourage illegal action.  hey have also been described as terrorists from critics.  This action can disrupt public services, just like the student protests did back in 2011. Therefore, strikes from trade unions can also be seen as undemocratic, as they can cause delays on public services, like the tube strikes and teacher strikes.

Why are some pressure groups more successful than others?

Why are some Pressure groups more successful than others?

The overall success of a pressure group is reliant on several factors such as finance, membership size, their status and impact. 

In general, a sectional pressure group would be considered successful if they were able to correctly represent their sector of society, such as being able to transfer the groups views and thoughts on policies when (and if) they are consulted by the Government. This especially applies to insider sectional groups, as they are consulted regularly, such as The Law Society, Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and The British Medical Association. 

These inside links with the Government can be displayed by a recent example concerning the BMA. The group planned to strike for 3 days in December of this year, but after negotiations with ACAS, the strike was postponed. 

For a promotional group to be successful means they were able to affect legislation to be in favor of their cause, for example the NSPCC having the power to ensure that laws ensuring children safety are protected, and introducing bills that would protect children even more. 

One factor that affects the success of pressure groups is finance. A group with supposedly more money would be more successful, as they can afford bigger campaigns to raise awareness. Some pressure groups do not accept financial support from the Government as they do not want to align themselves with a political party, so they operate through donations from the public. 

Secondly, a group with a large membership size are also likely to be more successful, as 

a large membership size means members can help more effectively with activities such as writing to the press, MPS and local councillors, and participating in demonstrations. The Government will therefore recognize the importance of large membership recognizing that such members are also voters who ultimately help to determine governments’ electoral fortunes while large membership and especially high membership density (the ratio of actual members to potential members) enhances pressure group representativeness and legitimacy and may help pressure groups to attain insider status. We should note also, however, that small local pressure groups concerned with small scale local issues such as hospital or school closures can be effective even with small membership and that the quality of membership may sometimes be as in important as the quantity. 

Insider pressure groups are generally more successful than outsider, as they have direct links to the Government and can easily influence the legislative process and can introduce bills easier (private member bills) through the support of MPs and Lords, 

However, some groups don't want to be identified as an insider group, and pride themselves on this fact. These are often groups that have extremist views or conduct illegal direct action, such as the Animal Liberation Front, whom publicly encourage illegal activity, such as removing animals from labs and farms and destroying facilities; critics have gone so far to classify the group as terrorists. 

However, it should be noted that particular groups don't particularly need insider status to promote their cause, as some may want to simply promote an idea or facts, such as the vegan society. 

Nonetheless, despite a pressure group having a large membership size and a good source of fiance, they still may be unsuccessful.

For example, the success of Fathers 4 Justice has been argued. They are a generally well-known group, regularly make the mass media headlines through their daring stunts and have a good size of support from the public. Despite this,  back in 2013 the Government proposed £220 million cuts to legal aid, which would make legal assistance difficult ( source).

To conclude, the membership size and status are generally the 2 biggest factors in determining a pressure groups success, but it is vital to consider that pressure groups do not need these 2 factors to be successful, and some groups may be unsuccessful for other reasons than low finance and high status. 

Pressure Group research - Countryside Alliance

Countryside Alliance

The Countryside Alliance is a pressure group promoting issues related to the countryside, such as farming, rural services, small businesses and country sports.
Their main aim is to 'Give rural Britain a voice', and has around 105,000 members.
As the public can become a member (for around £70 a year) they would be considered a promotional group, as they promote a cause, unlike interest or sectional groups, who's membership is only available to a few individuals (well, those few individuals who can afford £225 for a gold membership but whatever )


The group was formed in 1997 from the British Field Sports Society, the Countryside Business group and the Countryside Movement.
The group have participated in several movements and have a number of campaigns, one of the most prominent being their participation in the Hunting Act. Countryside Alliance was against the passing of the 2004 Hunting Ban and lobbied for its appeal, and continue to promote hunting on their website.


They also support and encourage customers and supermarkets to stock food from British farms, another one of their campaigns being 'Game to Eat', aiming to popularise game as a meat of choice. Other campaigns and issues they confront are against the closure of rural post offices, calling for better broadband connections in the countryside and supporting deer stalking across the British Isles.


The group also do some work in primary schools. They organise educational talks and trips to the countryside for  schoolchildren, run the 'Fishing4Schools' initiative, aiming to help children with special educational needs by taking them to angling and also try to popularise falconry for schools (because having birds of pray being handled by 5 year olds is totally safe.)


Some of the most prominent members of the administration team include Baroness Mallalieu QC, a labour peer who acts as the President, the chairman being Kate Hoey, the Labour MP for Vauxhall, Lord Mancroft, a convervative peer.

To what extent are the current ideas of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party similar and different?

To what extent are the current ideas of the Labour and Conservative parties different?

The Labour and Conservative parties have always been on separate ends of the spectrum, presenting (generally) conflicting and converse ideas to each other - Labour supporting socialism, the welfare state and representing the  working class, whereas the Conservatives supporting capitalism, promoting a free market, and representing the middle and upper classes. 

Nonetheless, in more recent years similar policies can be identified from the two parties, especially where Millibands Labour had, in a way, accepted capitalism, and the conservatives have modernized to appeal to the younger generation, so it could be argued that during this time a more of consensus politics materialized,  such as Conservatives proposition ensure those working 30 hours on the minimum wage to not have to pay income tax, Labour supporting that EU migrants not being able to claim benefits until they have lived in the UK for at least 2 years, and both parties supporting gay marriage, which was passed by the Conservatives in 2014, and is now legal across America as of 2015.

The final similarities can be identified through both parties stance on ISIS- and it isn't even just the 2 political parties who acknowledge this, countries such as Russia and China have agreed on such facts, possibly stemming from President Xi Jinpings' visit to the UK during the last week of October.
David Cameron also stated that the 'world is coming together' to fight agaisnt the Islamic State, following meetings this week. The french president,President Francois Hollande, will then go to Russia for similar talks with President Vladimir Putin

However, as Corbyn has been appointed to the head of the opposition, and as a keen supporter of socialism, the differences between the parties has grown. 

Firstly, Corbyn firmly believes in the abolishment of Trident, the UKs nuclear deterrent system, costing around £2 to £2.4 billion each year, which is around 5-6% of the defense budget, whereas Cameron continues to support Trident. 

Secondly, Cameron has accepted the divide within his party and the country with response to the proposition to leave the EU, and has therefore assured the country a referendum on such before 2020, whilst the labour party remains united against the decision to leave the European Union. 

A final difference between the two parties is their stances on taxation. The Conservatives want to raise personal allowance to £12,500 and 40% tax threshold to £50.000, increase inheritance tax threshold for married couples and civil partners to £1 million, and not to raise VAT or National Insurance contributions. 

Labour, on the other hand, plan to re-introduce the 50% top tax rate for people earning over £150,000, and the 10% starting rate. They also support no rise in VAT, but want to introduce a mansion tax for houses worth over £2 million. 

To conclude, it can be argued that under Millibands Labour was the time when the two parties created more consensus politics then adversarial politics, but it is clear that as Corbyn continues to develop himself as the leader of the Labour party and leader of the opposition, the patties will again part ways and return to opposite ends of the spectrum,. 

Does Jeremy Corbyn align himself more with traditional socialism or is he a social democrat?

Does Jeremy Corbyn align himself more with traditional socialism or is he a social democrat? 

After the recent Labour leader elections, many are excited to see the new direction of which labour will now peruse, now Jeremy Corbyn is the new leader. 

Keen Labour supporters are relieved that labour is reconnecting with its old polices and stances, compared to the 'new labour' stance, developed by Tony Blair during the 1990's. Traditional socialism is built upon the fact that people are social creatures who are bound together by a common humanity. These values include - 

• Fraternity: brotherhood;bonds of sympathy and comradeship between people.
• Cooperation: a preference for people working together rather than competing 
• Equality:to abolish or to at least reduce social class. 

These fundamentals are clearly present in Corbyns values, such as ending austerity, removing any privatization of the NHS and aims for a Cabinet of 50% women. 

However, there are two types of socialism. One is the fundamental branch of socialism (Marxists and Communists) who strongly believe capitalism should be abolished and replaced with a system based on collective ownership and wealth. 

The other branch are the revolutionist socialists,(social democrats) who believe capitalism should be reformed through social and economic intervention, 

Nonetheless, it is extremely hard to align ones self and identify with the fundamental side of socialism, as it has been proven to fail due to humanity's natural and selfish nature.

This is the main reason i think Corbyn aligns himself wit the social democrat side of socialism - his policies require  basic capitalistic fundamentals for them to be enforced, However, Corbyn may begin to identity with the more extreme side of Communism when he starts to feel more comfortable in Parliament, but he has certainly brought a new breath of \fresh air into the labour party.