You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
This final lesson in the UK Constitution topic is the capstone: it draws together the themes of the whole unit and applies them, in an explicitly evaluative way, to the most important contemporary constitutional debates. Edexcel A-Level Politics examiners reward candidates who can engage with current issues, deploy precise and up-to-date evidence, and reach clear, justified judgements rather than merely describing arguments. This lesson is deliberately weighted towards AO3 (analysis and evaluation), the assessment objective that most often separates the top band from the middle. The overarching question that unites everything below is a single one: since 1997, has constitutional reform gone far enough, where does sovereignty now lie, and should the UK codify? Every debate that follows feeds into that judgement, and the strongest answers treat the individual controversies as evidence for an overall position on the state and direction of the UK constitution.
A central tension in the UK constitution is the relationship between the Executive (the Prime Minister and Cabinet) and Parliament (the Commons and the Lords). In constitutional theory Parliament holds the Executive to account; in practice, the fusion of powers means that the Executive — which is drawn from and sits within Parliament — often dominates it through its Commons majority, the whip system and control of the legislative timetable. This is the recurring charge of the "elective dictatorship", coined by Lord Hailsham in 1976.
| The Executive is too powerful | Parliament is an effective check |
|---|---|
| The PM controls the legislative agenda, patronage, and (since the repeal of the FTPA in 2022) the timing of elections | Select committees, strengthened by the Wright reforms (2010) with elected chairs, scrutinise more assertively |
| The whip system ensures most government bills pass | Backbench rebellions have grown (e.g. over COVID-19 regulations and "partygate" under Johnson) |
| Henry VIII powers let ministers amend primary legislation by statutory instrument, bypassing full scrutiny | The 2017–19 Parliament seized the order paper and passed the Benn Act (2019) against the government's will |
| During COVID-19 the government used sweeping emergency powers with limited oversight | The Lords regularly amends bills and forces concessions through "ping-pong" |
Case Study: The COVID-19 Pandemic. The Coronavirus Act 2020 conferred extensive emergency powers on ministers. Critics argued these powers were too broad and insufficiently scrutinised, with major restrictions on liberty imposed through regulations laid before, rather than properly debated by, Parliament. Supporters countered that a fast-moving public-health emergency demanded swift executive action. The episode crystallised the permanent trade-off between effective government and democratic accountability.
The most important evaluative insight is that executive dominance is contingent, not constant: it depends overwhelmingly on the size of the government's Commons majority. With a large, disciplined majority — as Johnson enjoyed after December 2019, or Starmer after July 2024 — the elective-dictatorship critique has real force, since the government can pass almost anything it wishes. With a small majority or none — as in 2017–19 — Parliament can reassert itself dramatically, even legislating against the government. The honest judgement is therefore that the constitution contains both a tendency towards executive dominance and mechanisms of accountability, and which prevails at any moment is set less by the constitution's design than by electoral arithmetic. A government's power is also constrained, even with a large majority, by its own backbenchers, by the Lords, by the courts and by public and media opinion — so "elective dictatorship" overstates a real risk rather than describing a settled reality.
The fusion of powers gives this debate its distinctive British character. Because the Executive is drawn from the legislature rather than separated from it, the very majority that legitimises a government also enables it to control Parliament — a feature Walter Bagehot called the "efficient secret" of the constitution. The Prime Minister's armoury of powers reinforces this: the royal prerogative, exercised by ministers, allows action in fields such as foreign affairs, treaty-making and the deployment of the armed forces without fresh statutory authority; patronage lets the PM appoint and dismiss ministers and recommend peerages; and control of the legislative timetable lets the government decide what Parliament debates and when. Against this, modern Parliaments have developed real countervailing tools — departmental select committees with elected chairs, an assertive and independent-minded Lords, the threat of backbench rebellion, and an electorate and media that punish overreach. The candidate's task is to weigh these forces and judge whether, on balance, the contemporary constitution leaves the Executive insufficiently checked — a judgement that should turn on evidence rather than assertion, and should acknowledge how sharply the balance shifts with the parliamentary arithmetic of the day.
The judiciary has become a markedly more prominent constitutional actor, particularly since the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which created a separate UK Supreme Court (opened 2009) and reformed the office of Lord Chancellor. The Miller cases of 2017 and 2019 placed the Supreme Court at the very centre of the Brexit controversies, and the question of how far unelected judges should shape political outcomes is now a live constitutional debate.
| The judiciary is an essential safeguard | The judiciary has become too powerful / politicised |
|---|---|
| The rule of law requires lawful government; only the courts can enforce this | Unelected judges should not decide questions with major political consequences |
| The HRA provides vital protection of individual rights | Miller II (prorogation) was attacked as "judicial activism" — politics dressed as law |
| Miller I (2017) upheld parliamentary sovereignty against executive overreach | The Johnson government's Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 sought to curb judicial review |
| Judicial independence is a cornerstone of liberal democracy | The Daily Mail's "Enemies of the People" headline (2016) showed how politicised the courts had become in public debate |
Case Study: The Safety of Rwanda Act 2024. The Supreme Court ruled in November 2023 that the government's plan to remove asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful, because Rwanda was not, on the evidence, a safe third country. The government responded with the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, which legislated to declare Rwanda safe and disapplied certain provisions of the Human Rights Act for this policy. This raised a fundamental question at the heart of the constitution: can Parliament use its sovereignty to override a judicial finding of fact, and what does it mean for the rule of law if it does?
The judiciary debate is best understood as a clash between two constitutional principles the UK holds simultaneously: parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. The courts have not acquired the power to strike down primary legislation; in Miller I they actually reinforced Parliament's supremacy, and the Rwanda Act shows that Parliament retains the last word. What has changed is that the courts now police the boundaries of lawful executive action far more actively than in Dicey's day, especially over the prerogative. Whether this is "overreach" or "essential safeguard" depends on one's view of where the line between law and politics should fall — a genuinely contestable question. The strongest answers conclude that the judiciary's enhanced role is better seen as a more active rule-of-law check on the Executive than as a usurpation of Parliament's authority, since Parliament can, and the Rwanda Act shows it will, reassert itself when it chooses.
It is also important to register why the judiciary's role has grown, because this strengthens the analysis. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 deliberately enhanced judicial independence: it removed the highest court from the House of Lords, creating a physically and institutionally separate Supreme Court, and it reformed the office of Lord Chancellor so that it no longer fused executive, legislative and judicial functions. Judicial appointments were placed in the hands of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission rather than left to ministerial patronage. These changes moved the UK a little closer to a genuine separation of powers, at least as regards the courts, and they were a conscious constitutional choice rather than an accident of litigation. The growth of judicial review since the 1960s, the incorporation of Convention rights by the HRA, and these structural reforms together explain why the courts are now a more visible constitutional actor — a development that reflects a deliberate "legalisation" of the constitution as much as any judicial appetite for power. Recognising that Parliament itself created the conditions for a stronger judiciary is a sophisticated point that complicates any simple charge of judicial usurpation.
Devolution has transformed the UK's territorial governance, but the future of the Union is uncertain. Pressure for Scottish independence, the constitutional fallout of Brexit, and the fragility of power-sharing in Northern Ireland all pose serious challenges to the integrity of the UK.
| The Union is under strain | The Union can be strengthened |
|---|---|
| The SNP governed Scotland (2007–2024) and pressed for a second independence referendum, though the Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that this needs Westminster's consent | Further devolution — including fiscal powers and a role in UK-wide decisions — could address grievances without breaking up the UK |
| Brexit was opposed by Scotland (62% Remain) and Northern Ireland (56% Remain), fuelling a sense of being overridden by England | The Gordon Brown Commission (2022) proposed a Senate of the Nations and Regions to give the nations a voice at the centre |
| The Northern Ireland Protocol/Windsor Framework leaves EU law applying in part of the UK, a constitutional anomaly | The decline of the SNP in the 2024 general election suggested the immediate independence push had weakened |
| Support for Welsh independence, though still a minority view, has grown | Economic arguments (currency, trade, the fiscal position) make independence a risky prospect for Scotland |
The central evaluative point is that devolution has created a constitution that is functionally quasi-federal but legally unitary, and the tensions in the Union flow directly from that gap. Because devolved powers are delegated rather than entrenched, conflict between the centre and the nations is resolved, ultimately, in the centre's favour — as the 2022 independence-referendum ruling and the UK Internal Market Act 2020 both showed. Whether this is a strength (flexibility, the ability to hold the Union together) or a weakness (a settlement that leaves the nations feeling their autonomy is conditional and revocable) is the heart of the debate. The judgement most consistent with the evidence is that the Union is durable in the short term — independence has receded since 2024 — but that the underlying constitutional question of how to accommodate four nations of very unequal size within a single sovereign state remains unresolved, and reform such as a Senate of the Nations and Regions would address the symptoms more than the structural cause.
The English Question sits at the centre of this unresolved problem and deserves explicit mention in any answer on the Union. Devolution gave Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland elected national legislatures but left England governed directly from Westminster, producing the long-running West Lothian Question — why devolved-nation MPs can vote at Westminster on England-only matters when English MPs have no reciprocal say. The attempt to answer it through English Votes for English Laws was introduced in 2015 and abolished in 2021, leaving the anomaly unresolved, while devolution within England has taken the limited form of executive metro mayors rather than a national legislature. Because England comprises about 84% of the UK's population, neither an English Parliament (which would dwarf the Union) nor English regions (decisively rejected in the 2004 North East referendum) offers an easy solution. The durability of the Union therefore depends in part on a problem — the place of England — for which no consensus answer exists, and a strong evaluation makes this structural difficulty, rather than the fluctuating fortunes of the SNP, the centre of its judgement.
Rights protection has been contested since the Human Rights Act 1998 gave domestic effect to the European Convention on Human Rights. Successive Conservative governments have proposed replacing the HRA with a "British Bill of Rights" and have at times floated withdrawal from the ECHR, raising fundamental questions about how, and by whom, rights should be protected.
| Keep / strengthen the HRA | Replace the HRA / reform the ECHR relationship |
|---|---|
| The HRA provides essential protection against government overreach | The HRA gives too much power to unelected, and Strasbourg, judges |
| Withdrawing from the ECHR would damage the UK's standing and its ability to criticise abuses abroad | The Strasbourg court has, at times, ruled against the will of Parliament (e.g. prisoner voting) |
| A new Bill of Rights might weaken protections, depending on its contents | A British Bill of Rights could be tailored to UK traditions and values |
| The declaration of incompatibility (s.4) protects rights while preserving parliamentary sovereignty | Parliament, not the courts, should have the final say on rights |
Case Study: The Rwanda Policy and the HRA. The Safety of Rwanda Act 2024 specifically disapplied certain HRA provisions for the Rwanda scheme — an Act of Parliament directly limiting the operation of the rights framework for a particular policy. This was a striking use of sovereignty against the courts and against the Convention machinery, and it sharpened a fundamental question: if Parliament can simply disapply rights protections whenever they prove inconvenient, how secure are rights under an unentrenched constitution?
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.