In this essay, I would like to analyse why the reform of the British constitution is seen as unfinished business. Constitutional reform is when the system of government and how government institutions interact is changed. This has also meant the codification of some components of the constitution in the UK. Between 1997 and 2007, there were a considerable number of constitutional reforms introduced by the Blair governments. These reforms included devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, decentralisation, reform of the House of Lords and Commons, creations of new legislation granting greater freedom and rights within the UK, and so on. However, some of them are yet to be accomplished or in progress related to the electoral and parliamentary reform.
The constitution is often criticised as being old-fashioned and undemocratic. To exemplify, the House of Lords has a thousand year history and is the contributing factor of the dispute of benefits between the British aristocracy and the parliament. The government transformed the composition of the upper house by removing all but 92 of the hereditary peers in 1999. This was trailed as the first stage in the reform, but the government has struggled to build a consensus even within its own ranks about the final form that reform should take. As we know that Britain's Parliament is deadlocked over the House of Lords reform, reforming the House of Lords is able to make the country more democratic and modernised. This is because many people believe that the traditional system of the House of Lords is out of touch and undemocratic, has too many members and is unrepresentative. However, further reform was much talked about but did not happen. Thus, if the reform plan can be carried out smoothly, the chance to regain public trust can be increased, in addition to reducing the political forces in the parliament.
There is no separation of powers in the UK for the time being. Indeed, separation of power can...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document