What are the governments key areas of constitutional reform?

The issue of the UK's relationship with the EU is another key area of the government's constitutional reform. The Conservatives have promised a referendum on June 23rd on whether to remain in, or come out of the EU. Therefore the government will not be able to stop MPs campaigning to leave the EU despite what the prime ministers views are.

Human rights is the government's key area of constitutional reform where the Conservatives have committed to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, which is likely to face difficulties with the devolved governments, who want to stay in the ECHR and the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg Court. The House of Lords will resist this proposal because of the presence of senior lawyers on the Crossbenchers and the implacable opposition of both Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

The House of Lords Reform is another key area of the Conservative government's constitutional reform. Before, the Coalition government were committed to a largely or entirely elected second chamber. However many Conservative MPs had fears that such a chamber may become a rival to the Commons. Therefore the progress on developing a Lord reform bill was withdrawn. Despite this the current Conservative manifesto stating that House of Lords reform 'is not a priority in the next Parliament'. However, in 1999 the House of Lords Act was put forward to reduce the hereditary peers so the position within the Lords was a lot more to do with expertise rather than being part of a bloodline.

Another key area of the government's constitutional reform is the electoral reform. The current first past the post system can be seen as unfair, for example in the 2015 general election ukip was the party who was third highest ranking under the Labour Party but only gained one seat. This is seen as unfair, therefore there have been proposals to adapt this to the AV voting system, a referendum was held in 2011 but received low turn out and people voted against this change. However, this is now being looked into again.

How would leaving the EU affect sovereignty?

Sovereignty is the main issue set to dominate the EU referendum campaign, but how much does the EU limit Britain's ability to make its own choices? How does EU membership constrict Britain’s ability to have decisions taken, policies set and laws made?
If the UK left the EU, parliament would have more power as it is a powerful institution within the UK, law can be passed without consultation with the EU and and sovereignty would increase.

If the UK left the EU, even though sovereignty will increase it may also spiral out of control. It would mean parliament would have complete power over the UK and pass and create any laws they want, without being stopped by the EU. Consequently, more mistakes can be made and the people may disagree with decisions creating lack of trust in politicians,

If the UK stayed in the EU, sovereignty will remain with the EU and there will be some control over what is passed by parliament. This gives opportunity to amend law if they are not suitable for the people of the country.

In conclusion, if the UK left the EU it could enable laws that benefit the UK as a country, instead of being dictated by what the EU want as it may be better suited to other countries within the EU. Therefore, the U.K. should leave the European Union and have ultimate power.

Where does sovereignty lie in the UK?

Parliamentary Sovereignty is regarded as the main principle of the British Constitution.

AV Dicey wrote that Parliament “has under the British Constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament”.

Within the UK there are many places where sovereignty lies. One of these is political parties.

Since the reductions in the power of the House of Lords in 1911 and 1949, the balance of power has shifted to the House of Commons. Combined with the dominance of political parties in elections. This has led to tight party control over MP’s and disciplined parliamentary groups that make the business of the House of Commons very predictable.

Another place in which sovereignty lies is with the public. At least once every five years the House of Commons is re-elected, and so at that point sovereignty really lies with the people. However, after the general election sovereignty returns to Parliament for the next five years.

As the UK is part of the European Union they also play a part in the sovereignty. When Britain signed the Treaty of Rome in 1973 it accepted that the status of European law is superior to British law. This has given British courts the power of judicial review over Acts of Parliament. Therefore courts can scrutinise Acts of Parliament, refer them to the European Court of Justice and even suspend those Acts. However, Parliament is free to withdraw Britain from the EU at any time, so technically sovereignty still lies with Parliament.

Finally, the last place sovereignty lies in the UK is with the executive. Practical reality dictates that the British Government is the majority party in the House of Commons. Strong party discipline makes this majority reliable and almost guarantees the Government victory in Commons votes – an ‘Elective Dictatorship’. Also backed by the Civil Service ‘machine’ it is easy to argue that sovereignty actually lies with the executive not Parliament. However, Prime Ministers who systematically repress the powers of party and parliament tend to meet their fate – Margaret Thatcher is a classic example of this.

What are the core primciples of the UK constitution?

The rules and regulations within which governments are allowed to operate are set out in constitutions. Most countries’ constitutions are ‘codified’, which means that they are largely made up of, or based around, a single written document incorporating key provisions. However, the UK does not have a codified constitution like this.
The UK does not have a single core constitutional document and is therefore sometimes referred to as not having a written constitution. However, the UK’s constitution is made up of some written documents, such as statute law, court judgments and European legislation, but has also developed from case law, common law, historical documents and custom. Therefore, it has more accurately been described as uncodified. Unwritten conventions deriving from understandings and customs are considered to be binding, despite not being  within statute or supported by law.
A historic feature of the UK constitution is the Royal Prerogative. These powers are formally exercised by the monarch acting alone, but in reality are exercised by government ministers. It gives the Crown many powers including the power to declare war, make treaties, deploy armed forces, appoint and dismiss ministers and dissolve parliament. In reality, the existence of the Royal Prerogative within the UK constitution means that the Government can exercise its powers without recourse to Parliament.
The most important principles of the UK constitution are those of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. The former means that Parliament can make or unmake any law without being bound by, or binding, its predecessors or successors respectively.
Parliamentary sovereignty therefore means that Parliament is the supreme law-making body, although this is now challenged by the UK’s European Union membership, which gives European laws superiority over any conflicting domestic law. Also, over the years, the application of parliamentary sovereignty has been limited by the passing of certain laws by Parliament, such as the Human Rights Act 1998.
The rule of law incorporates fundamental principles to which the Government and the law have to conform. For example, this includes the principle that ‘no person is punishable in body or goods without a breach of the law’, meaning that individuals will not be punished unless they have committed a clear breach of the law.

Should the UK develop a codified constitution? If so, why?

A constitution is a set of rules that seek to establish the duties, powers and functions of the various parts of government and define the relationships between the state and individuals. Constitutions can be codified and uncodified, unitary and federal and rigid or flexible. the USA  have a codified constitution whereas the UK have an uncodified constitution.

If the UK introduced a codified constitution it would significantly affect the power of the government, the relationship between the executive and parliament, relationships between judges and politicians and also individual freedoms and rights. A codified constitution would result in making the rules of the country a lot clearer as they would all be in one single document and more clearly defined, compared to an unwritten constitution where the rules are spread across several documents. A codified constitution would create less confusion about the meaning of 'constitutional' rules and more faith in that they can be enforced.

Another reason the UK should develop a codified constitution is that it would create a limited government and reduce its size. A codified constitution could potentially end the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the elected dictatorship. This type of dictatorship is known as a constitutional imbalance which means executive power is checked only by the need of the governments need to win elections. Within the UK, it is reflected in the ability of the government to act in any way it pleases as long as it maintains control of the House of Commons.

On the other hand, there are reasons why the UK should not develop this codified constitution. My first reason is that codified constitutions are seen as 'rigid'. For example, it is easier to introduce an Act of Parliament than to amend a constitution. Uncodifed constitutions are seen as more flexible as they are not entrenched like codified constitutions. Codified constitutions cannot be changed quickly and easily, therefore it is more difficult to respond to political and social circumstances whatever they may be. Flexibility is seen as very important as they can be amended and modified to fit the 'ever changing' environment.

Another reason why the UK should not develop a codified constitution is that parliamentary sovereignty would basically abolished. Parliamentary sovereignty states that parliament can make, unmake or amend any law it wishes due to the existence of the constitution and potentially bills or rights. This is because a codified constitution would act as a form of 'higher law'. The codified constitution would undermine the idea of the UK's representative democracy.

In conclusion, I believe that the UK should not develop the codified constitution as flexibility is key and it would always be able to keep up with the changes going on and benefit the people, therefore it should remain uncodified so amendments can be made.

What is a constittion and why is it important?

Constitutions organise, distribute and regulate state power. They set out the structure of the state, the major state institutions, and the principles governing their relations with each other and with the state’s citizens.

The UK does not have a single core constitutional document and is therefore sometimes referred to as not having a written constitution. However, the UK’s constitution is made up of some written documents, such as statute law, court judgments and European legislation, but has also developed from case law, common law, historical documents and custom. Therefore, it has more accurately been described as ‘partly written and wholly uncodified’. Unwritten conventions deriving from understandings and customs are considered to be binding, despite not being enshrined within statute or supported by law.

The USA have an official constitution that is codified and it is important for many reasons within the states. It offers power to the people.

The main function of the Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government. The founding fathers of the USA came up with the Constitution. They knew that as the leader of the people, they were flawed in many ways, so as a measure of that they knew they should limit their power. The branches of the government, the president and his administration, the congress and the supreme court, are all under the rulings of the Constitution articles; if it’s not in there, they can’t do it. Each branch of the government has power over each other so none of the branches becomes too powerful. It is also established that the federal law and treaties that are Constitutional are the supreme law of the land. While the content of the Constitution could be changed, it also addresses that the Constitution is to be ratified.

However, the Constitution gets complex when the Bill of Rights is introduced which are the 10 Amendments to the Constitution. Whereas the original Constitution stated what the government can and should do, the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the American, as well as the rights of the States. For example, the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble and rally, freedom to petition against a government ruling, the right to keep and bear arms (the American only defense against having a gun control, with argument that the Amendments could not be changed, ironic), the rights to be judged by a jury, the right to not be locked up forever, the right to have some privacy and many others. The Amendments states that it is not a complete list, just because a right isn’t listed doesn’t mean you can’t have it. It is called an amendment for a reason. It also states that the rights not given by the federal government are to be reserved by the people, something like ending the marijuana prohibition. The bill continued to be expanded since its introduction. There is a lot of power the people of America have, while there is very little that the federal government can do.

Until very recently, if the government doesn’t agree with some of the decisions made by the people, they need to get through the States to change it. Nowadays, people just interpret the Constitution in any way that suits them. The Constitution is outdated, but it is created that way to be continually updated. That’s what amendments are for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How are pressure groups undemocratic?

  Pressure groups are organisations that set out to try and influence government policy. However some people see pressure groups as a threat to democracy.

The way in which some pressure groups try to get their point across can sometimes be seen as undemocratic, for example if they are marching in protest against a certain policy, and the march becomes violent. This is not democratic, and happened in the anti-capitalism protest. Often seen in UK uncut and Fathers4Justice.

Another way that pressure groups can be a threat to democracy is that they do not promote public stability. Pressure groups can actually cause conflict between groups of people instead of trying only to influence government policy. It is not democratic for a country to be fighting amongst them.

Pressure groups can also be seen as undemocratic in the way in which they choose their leaders. Leaders of pressure groups are very rarely voted in, and as a result, many people believe that the pressure groups do not put forward the views of all their members. This was believed to be the case in the Snowdrop Appeal. It was suggested that only the views of the leaders of the Appeal were put forward. This in itself is a threat to democracy.

On the other hand, pressure groups can be seen as good for democracy. The pluralist view is that it is undemocratic if the only way in which the public are involved in the running of the country is voting every five years. Pluralists believe that pressure groups are very good for democracy.

Why are some pressure groups more successful than others?

Why are some pressure groups more successful than others? A pressure group is an organisation that may be formal or informal whose purpose is to further the interests of a specific section of society or to promote a certain cause; there are many reasons why a pressure group would want to do this too. There are various degrees of success with pressure groups, ranging from amending or passing Acts of Parliament to gaining public support. One thing that can alter a pressure group's success is whether the group is an insider or outsider group, and its relationship with the government. An insider group is one that operates within the political system and which normally has support from MP's, they are normally consulted by the government on matters that may affect the group or its members. The British Medical Association is an insider group and is consulted by the government regularly, recently they were included in discussions over the proposed NHS reforms and as a result of those talks the reforms were altered. Insider groups will have regular contact with MP's and other decision makers and so have more opportunities to influence them and their policies.

Pressure groups that use tactics and methods widely are more likely to be successful rather that groups that 'sit back' and that are not involved in any public demonstrations or petitions such a Tentelini, a group that isn't known to use any methods to gain attention or to influence the government. The membership of a pressure group and the support, especially celebrity support, that it holds can also determine its success. If a pressure group has support from celebrities, it can become more well known and also the celebrity can endorse the pressure group and increase its chances of success, unlike groups which aren't supported by any celebrity and which rely on other sources to increase the public awareness of the group. Many pressure groups are supported by celebrities such as Children in Need which is supported by Sir Terry Wogan, Amnesty International which is supported by Colin Firth and Beat Bulling which is supported by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. The membership of a group can also lead to its success as with more members it can have a powerful impact on society.

The finance of a pressure group can also contribute to its success. If a group has secure financial backing, it has more money to spend on resources and towards organising things such as public demonstrations and advertising, for example GOSH raises over £50 million a year and those funds raised go towards funding the hospital and to funding future events. But if a group doesn't have secure financial aid then it can't afford to run and will not be able to fulfil its aims, such as the Occupy London group. Many pressure groups are successful because of a number of reasons, they may be a well publicised group with realistic aims and support from various high-profile celebrities. However other pressure groups may not be so successful as they may not have the support of the government or of the general public, like the more successful groups do. The success of a pressure group over another is due to many, and a combination of, reasons which includes having realistic aims, gaining the support of both the public and the government, being well organised and having a clear leader, having media support and holding good financial backing.

Pressure Group

Fathers4Justice is a well known pressure group supporting the idea that children should be allowed to see their fathers and no access should be denied. Their ideas are supported by many facts about men that are related to withdrawal from their offspring. These include: 1 in 3 children live without their father, the cost of family breakdown is £47 billion a year and dads are 3 times more likely to die after separating from the mother. These facts are within the pressure groups manifesto.


Fathers4Justice campaign in an unusual but effective way. Most commonly, the men dress as superheroes and climb on top of cranes, skyscrapers and famous buildings and hold up posters and banners to put their point across. Obviously, the danger in this gets people to notice their pressure group and commonly make the media. Most recently, on the news, the pressure group got past security and sat on the Buckingham Palace roof for over 24 hours. The length of time spent in these dangerous places also gets the attention of others. Fathers4Justice commonly use illegal methods and one of these was tipping flour on the Prime Ministers head during a meeting in the House of Commons. Of course, this got attention from the government which is really a  main aim from any pressure group.


Fathers4Justice is a promotional pressure group, this means that they endeavour to promote a particular cause and fight for it making sure it is noticed and heard. For this reason, they can sometimes be referred to as 'cause' groups.


I believe this pressure group is successful, not just because of the campaigns but because of how organised and set up it is. For example, they have a website supporting the cause which is well organised and has a well thought out manifesto with easy access, there is also an opportunity to  donate to the group. It is packed with information and clearly states what the group is all about. Also, the campaigning methods attract attention. This is the whole point of a pressure group, therefore, it is very successful and well known.

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

How similar are the Policies of the Conservative and Labour Parties? On the issue of Law and Order, the Labour and Conservatives have similar policies to an extent. Labour policy is to take a stiffer approach to crime and try to do away with image that the Labour party was soft on crime. Labour has taken tough line on crime ("tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"). Also since Labour took over we have seen a 10% increase in the number of people in prison, but the Labour party have also encouraged the use of early release schemes. They also aim to increase the size of the police force. The Conservatives have a slighter tougher line on crime. The Conservatives have also opposed the idea early release schemes, a theme that they heavily picked up on during the 2001.                     

 

Conservative policies are pretty similar, with aims to keep inflation and public spending down. As you can see, Labour and Conservative's policies on the economy are pretty similar. Labours policies on health are to increase public spending on the N.H.S. (6.1% annual increases till 2004), and are in general committed to the basic N.H.S. as it stands, we also see an emphasis on primary health care with ideas like "N.H.S. Online" and "N.H.S. Direct". Conservative policies on health are to match Labours planned public spending increases, the conservatives also seem keen to prove that they are the party of Health Care, as you can see if you study Ian Duncan Smiths 2001 conference speech, "we will find ways to achieve high standards".                       

 

They also support the idea of a European Defence System, a "European Army". The Conservatives are more anti European, generally opposed to further European integration for the foreseeable future, Williams Hauge's 2001 election campaign's slogan was "Keep the Pound". They are also opposed to the idea of a common European Defence policy, as Ian Duncan Smith said in his 2001 conference speech "that is what is dangerous about the plan for a European army" and that it would "stand in the way of our national defence". But the Conservatives are not interested in leaving the EU. As you can see this an area in which the parties have very different aims and there for very different policies on how to achieve them. As you can see, the two parties on average agree on the ideas of most things, but disagree slightly as to how to achieve these ideas, but there are some areas like Europe on which the parties are very split.

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

Now Jeremy Corbyn is the new party leader of Labour, I believe that British social democracy has returned.
Jeremy Corbyn's policies have been relentlessly attacked by mainstream politicians and media pundits, not only from the right but even more by the self-proclaimed “centre left.” Time and again the charge is that Corbyn’s ideas are dangerously extreme and unworkable, and will not fit with public opinion, and hopelessly behind the times. However, it looks like the scare tactics that were employed to such effect only recently in the Scottish independence referendum may not work this time.
In fact, far from  unworkable, Corbyn’s policy proposals are moderate, common sense measures that would lessen some of the economic damage done since the 2008 recession, rebalance social provision away from corporate welfare, and restore an element of security for many of those margined by a neoliberal project that has been running at full pace since the rise of Thatcherism in 1979. Corbyn’s economic program is comparable to Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, while his commitment to raise taxes on corporations and high-income earners is basic math for anyone really interested in reducing budget deficits rather than just “starving the beast.” His proposals for rent controls have a huge resonance in the UK, where a super-inflated property market makes affordable rent a necessary complement for a living wage. While investment in public education and free university tuition would bring enormous social benefits, it would not be successful economically.
Jeremy's policies are seen as unpopular or out of step with public opinion. 71% of voters see economic inequality as a major social ill, 62% prioritize social justice, and 85% believe corporate greed is a significant problem.
 What accounts for the hysterical attacks, name-calling, vilification, and smear tactics that have been unleashed against Corbyn and those likely to vote for him?
There are two answers to this question which taken together also give a broader insight into the value and meaning of social democracy within the contemporary moment.
The first answer relates to the very popularity of Corbyn’s platform: like the extraordinary popular mobilization for Scottish independence last year, Corbyn’s leadership bid appeals to the wrong kind of voters. That is, it appeals to those who have already been excluded from the political calculus of the elites.
From this, it shows Jeremy Corbyn's policies, ideas and the way he is controlling the labour party shows a return in social democracy rather than him being a social democrat.

Does the UK suffer from democratic defecit?

Does the UK suffer from Democratic Deficit? First of all it can be said that the UK does suffer from 'Democratic Deficit', due to its unelected institutions, such as the House of Lords. The second chamber has the power to delay the process of passing policies. However some argue that the House of Lords is undemocratic as its members are not elected, therefore they are not representing the views of the public. The house of lords is mainly made up of life peers with expertise in certain areas, Usually normal people with jobs like doctors. Also, the UK's voting system could be considered as 'undemocratic'. This is because people argue that FPTP results in unequal value of votes. reasons for this is the fact that it takes the average Liberal Democrat MP around 115 000 votes to be elected, whereas, the average Labour or Conservative MP is elected with only 35 000 votes as they are the 2 main parties.


Furthermore, another factor that suggests the UK is suffering from 'Democratic deficit' is its falling political participation. Election turnouts have been generally decreasing in recent times, for example in 1979 turnout was 76%, but in 2015 turnout was only 66.1%. This shows the  political parties are not representing everyone and are not gaining supporters meaning people will not vote at all.On the other hand, there is indication that the UK is not in 'Democratic deficit'. One of the reasons being that pressure group membership is rapidly increasing. The RSPB has more membership than all 3 major parties put together and are standing up for what they believe in in ways to get acknowledgement. Another reason is partisan dealignment, this links to voter turnout as people do not vote due to not caring about politics but also being uneducated in the area. It shows that political parties are not representative to the younger generation and the government do not target the younger people with an education on the topics.


There are plans to reform the House of Lords to make it more democratic. In the future there is the possibility that members of the House of Lords will be elected therefore they will be representing the public. In conclusion, it is clear that the UK does suffer from certain aspects of democratic deficit such as unelected institutions, unfair voting system and a declining election turnout. But it shouldn't be forgotten that the UK has also other redeeming democratic features for instance increasing pressure group membership and devolution.

Would a change in the voting system enhance our democracy?

Currently, in the UK we use the first past the post voting system. This system works by votes taking place in constituencies that elect a single MP each. Voters put a cross on a ballot paper next to their favoured candidate and the candidate with the most votes in the constituency wins. All other votes count for nothing.

The current voting system is the worst way to create a representative democracy. Not everyone's voices are heard and people believe that their vote counts for nothing and don't bother participating in general elections. Furthermore, this makes the voting system more inaccurate still as people who do have an opinion aren't voicing but they are unaware of how much impact their vote could make on this system, hence why this system doesn't represent the British people at all.

I believe changing the voting system would enhance our democracy massively. A form of direct democracy would make the people feel like they are being listened too, like they have a say and are actually involved in the politics of their country. A way of voting that doesn't involve untrustworthy politicians that try and get votes based on broken promises. For example, a referendum is a good form of direct democracy that asks the public their opinion on an issue giving a clear yes or no answer. This targets the people, gets them talking about the issue amongst themselves and forms excitement so people of all ages feel involved and opinions can be discussed. It saves the lies and broken promises and people would have a clear understanding on what is being discussed.

I also believe changing the voting system will also increase the interpretation of what politics actually is amongst the younger and some older generations. I believe this can only be done through a direct democracy as it gets people talking and people themselves are more involved and want to know what's going on in the political world, it would benefit so many more people.

Overall, changing the voting system would enhance democracy massively as votes count for nothing in the current system. For example, despite UKIP being the party with the third highest amount of votes in the 2015 general election they only gained one seat in one constituency which doesn't make much sense. People will feel like their votes counts with a different system as statistics show that only 66.1% of the public voted in the most recent election.

Should the UK use more referendums?

A referendum is a general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision, it can only be answered in a 'yes' or 'no' format.
So, should we use more referendums in the UK?


Yes, we should, this is because referendums strengthen public democracy by letting them speak for themselves and letting them voice their views on a particular issue, it enables them to become a voice for their country. Yes because they increase participation in democratic action. As most people know general UK elections don't get a 100% turnout in terms of votes. For example, in 2015, only 66.1% of the UK people voted on an important decision that can potentially make our country better or sometimes worse. However, the Scottish Referendum that also took place this year got a turnout of 89.59% Scottish people voting on their own opinion and beliefs. This indicates people get more involved in referendum voting systems. Referendums also educate and inform the public on a particular issue. Education in terms of politics is important as sometimes people vote on things they do not understand which can sometimes impact the country massively. Referendums give people a chance to understand the issue clearly before they state their vote as it is spoken about more widely. The UK should have more referendums because they provide a clear answer to an important question. By having a closed question published the votes are clear to which people want. Giving a yes or no answer can provide true and strong feelings from the public. Lastly, the UK should have more referendums because they are a strong form of direct democracy. Direct Democracy describes a political system or circumstances where the people themselves make key political decisions. It promotes responsiveness; that it provides better signals than elections about voters' policy preferences; and that it enhances the legitimacy of decisions made. This makes people of the country want to be involved and vote knowing their voices are heard.


However, there are reasons for why the UK should not have more referendums. They may not reflect the views if the turnout is low. For example, if only 60% voted and 40% said yes and 20% said no there is still 40% of the population that didn't vote and it can change the statistics to a large extent. It is important for everyone to vote so a true representation is heard otherwise wrong decisions can be made. However, not everyone votes and there is no law to make them vote so referendums won't always be the best choice of voting. Referendums are definitely not cheap to hold, this is an economic issue that comes out of tax payers money, this money can be used on important things like housing, an increase on referendums will not help financially. Referendums only give a snapshot of the public opinion at one point in time. Views can change over a period of time but once a referendum has happened decisions cannot be changed, this can be hard for people who think they have made the wrong decision and that their vote will actually make the wrong impact on the issue. Lastly, a major issue with referendums is that they allow politicians to avoid making difficult decisions and taking the blame for them. As we know politicians make a lot of mistakes that the people of the country disagree with and it causes them hassle and lack of trust. The method of using a referendum outs the decisions in the hands of the public which gives the politicians an easy way out and to blame people of the UK for the decision made. This can cause more conflict between people and politicians as they would not agree with getting the blame for an answered question put forward by the government.


Overall, more UK referendums should take place as more people are likely to vote and direct democracy is important as the public like the idea of their voices being heard, more people talk about referendums and this will make people excited and more likely to vote on  an issue.

Is the UK truly democratic?

The first thing to consider, is that true democracy is participatory democracy, where members of the public are effectively members of the government by voting directly on policies. However, this is difficult to do and as a result, most modern democracies are representative; the people of the U.K choose who they want to have power over the country and trust that person to devise policies that will benefit them. However, not all that potential prime ministers promise is true and they can lose a lot of support from the people due to broken promises. A representative democracy can easily become an elected dictatorship if the population’s views are not heard. The question then, is to what extent is Britain democratic?

Democracy is power to the people, which emphasises itself through the vote. We vote on members of the Commons but not on the Lords. We vote on local representatives but not party leaders. We vote on people but not policies. We vote people into Parliament but not out of it. We vote for a particular party but our second choices are not considered. We vote on only that which we are asked to vote on. We cannot ensure policies are maintained by our vote. Evidently our democracy is far from flawless,  police barraging of public protesters and Rupert Murdoch’s mass media control show us that we are not quite as free as the democratic terminology seems to suggest.

One could argue that Britain could be made more democratic through a proportional electoral system, compulsory voting, a removal of unelected members of Parliament and more referendums. But it seems in these examples, more democratic is inversely proportional to more efficient. Proportional electoral systems may confuse voters and will result in less strong government; compulsory voting would cumber us with the careless votes of those uninterested in politics and therefore would not be an accurate representation of what the population wants; a removal of unelected members of Parliament may increase political bias and reduce the expert value of the Lords; referendums may be subject to people who do not know what is best for the country, and even then only those who set the agenda of the referendum – members of Parliament – are those possessing the power; they decide what we may decide on.

The most recent general UK election took place on the 7th of May 2015.
This year, due the Scottish referendum, the Scottish National party got 56/59 seats in Scotland as a lot of support was gained. Due to this support the SNP became the third largest party in the Commons.
The Liberal Democrats received their worst vote ever since 1970 and held just 8 out of their previous 57 seats. The Green Party won their highest ever share of the vote with 3.8% and held their only seat of Brighton Pavillion with a higher majority.
Now, we all know UKIP was despised by many, and this showed by them only gaining one seat at Clacton-on-Sea, however, they came third in terms of votes gaining 12.9%.
David Cameron, the conservative party leader and Edward Milliband, the labour party leader were the most popular parties in the most recent election. The conservatives, who won the election received 330 seats with a gain of 24 seats and the labour party received 232 with a loss of 26 seats from the previous election back in 2010.
Due to their defeat, Milliband (as a national leader) and Murphy (Scottish leader) resigned as did Clegg and Farage but Farage's resignation was rejected from his party and he remains in post.