Constitutional reform is where changes to the form and content of the institutions of government and their legal relations both with each other and with the country's citizens have occurred. For example the Labour Party's 1997 manifesto contained numerous proposals on constitutional reform which subsequently became the subject of legislation. The areas examined by Labour included Devolution, Human Rights Act, electoral reform and reform of the House of Lords, to increase participation in the political process via referendums and to examine the Freedom of Information Act.
Why was New Labours reform package the biggest programme to democracy?
The main reason that New Labours reform package was the biggest programme to democracy was that it had not had such significant changes at any one-time form many years. Labours new reform package meant that instead of just one electoral system (FPTP) being used there were now four other possibilities, STV, AMS, AV and list systems in place in various areas of the political system which work on a proportional basis. This means that it enhances aggregation because seats are distributed in the way that people cast their vote.
The Labour Government established an Independent Commission on the Voting System known as the Jenkins Commission with the idea that it would examine the case for using proportional representation in General elections. The Jenkins Commission recommended in 1998 that a unique mixed system called AV plus should be used where elector cast two votes: one for a constituency MP and the other for an additional member. To win a candidate would have to get an overall majority of the votes cast. The second preferences of the lowest placed candidates would be transferred until...
... middle of paper ...
... regional assemblies in the English regions and a federal Parliament of Westminster, an elected upper chamber of Parliament, proportional representation for general elections, state funding of political parties, a transfer of power from quangos to elected local authorities and reform of the monarchy.
They have therefore gone on to say that Labour have been too timid on the House of Lords and freedom of information. Liberals were also worried by perceived infringements of civil liberties, particularly when security was increased after September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.
The Liberals also claim that the second stage of the reform of the House of Lords has run aground in the absence of clear leadership and that June 2003 cabinet reshuffle that established the Department for Constitutional Affairs has raised more questions than answers.
... effect changes in the senate, to alter the representation within the House of Commons, influence immigration, control the Supreme Court and to be accorded a distinct society status, were excessive. Despite these demands being too much, they did not lead to the failure of the agreement, which was mainly influenced by the weaknesses in the constitution.
This essay will address whether New Labour contained policies with which it wished to pursue, or was solely developed in order to win elections. It is important to realise whether a political party that held office for approximately 13 years only possessed the goal of winning elections, or promoted policies which it wished to pursue. If a party that held no substance was governing for 13 years, it would be unfair to the people. New Labour was designed to win elections, but still contained policies which it wished to pursue. To adequately defend this thesis, one must look at the re-branding steps taken by New Labour and the new policies the party was going to pursue. Through analysis, it will be shown that New Labour promoted policies in regards
In this essay I will argue that British General Elections should be conducted using a system of Proportional Representation. First, I will argue that the system would be more democratic as every vote that is cast would be represented and this ...
The issue of electoral reform has become more important than ever in Canada in recent years as the general public has come to realize that our current first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system, formally known as single-member plurality (SMP) has produced majority governments of questionable legitimacy. Of the major democracies in the world, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom are the only countries that still have SMP systems in place. Interestingly enough, there has been enormous political tension and division in the last few years in these countries, culminating with the election results in Canada and the USA this year that polarized both countries. In the last year we have seen unprecedented progress towards electoral reform, with PEI establishing an electoral reform commissioner and New Brunswick appointing a nine-member Commission on Legislative Democracy in December 2003 to the groundbreaking decision by the British Columbia Citizen’s Assembly on October 24, 2004 that the province will have a referendum on May 17, 2005 to decide whether or not they will switch to a system of proportional representation. This kind of reform is only expected to continue, as Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty decided to take BC’s lead and form an independent Citizen’s Assembly with the power to determine whether or not Ontario will have a referendum regarding a change to a more proportional system. There is still much work to do however, and we will examine the inherent problems with Canada’s first-past-the-post system and why we should move into the 21st century and switch to a form of proportional representation.
The original Parliamentary System was created in Great Britain. This form of government includes a leader known as a prime minister, usually from a legislative party. The prime minister then selects a cabinet from their legislative majority party. Their objective is to focus on the daily operations caused by the government’s bureaucracy. The parliamentary government is in charge of initiating and passing all legislation created. The advantages of this system is that there is a unified government, there is no veto power, and the party is responsible for the decisions, consequences or rewards of policies that are passed. The Cabinet must “maintain the confidence” of parliament. Some disadvantages of this method is that divided governments are Constitutionally impossible to control. In addition to that, power is from this system falls all on the Prime Minister and Cabinet. They rule with the entire trust of parliament on them. If something goes wrong, it’s solely their
Spafford, Duff. "Does Canada Need a New Electoral System? William P. Irvine Kingston: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen's University, 1979, Pp. Xii, 99." Canadian Journal of Political Science 13.02 (1980): n. pag. Print.
Over the years the main parties in Scotland have different position about Scottish devolution, so the success of pro-devolution forces in the 1997 referendum was thank to a cross-party support within the campaigns for Scottish self-government. During the 1997 election Scotland was promised a referendum on devolution by the Labour Party, what was carried out in 1997 four months after the general election. The process of devolution started, leading to a Scottish Parliament based in Edinburgh coming into being in 1999.
...ividuals who were already involved in the electorate prior to the introduction of the Great Reform Act. Once the Act was introduced, the electorate did indeed increase, but this was for the middle classes, the working class on the other hand were outraged by the Act and violence erupted such as the formation of the Chartist movement. The political system may have been seen as more ‘organised’, yet political parties including the Tories opposed reform and argued that the existing system had already worked effectively, the Whigs weren’t completely eager either. Nonetheless, the Act did bring many positive outcomes, but they were outweighed by the unfavourable affairs which took place, such as rioting and demonstrations by working class men. Consequently, the Great Reform Act did not bring complete democracy and was condemned by many individuals as previously shown.
The authors describe some of the advantages of a MMP system: “Mixed electoral systems provide fairly proportional outcomes, maintain the geographic link between constituents and members, provide for greater choice, and allow the opportunity for smaller parties to represented in Parliament” (p. 11). This system works better than the current FPTP or plurality system, because it allows citizen’s a second opportunity to have a voice. This is important because it would allow our minority groups to have a greater political influence. As mentioned earlier, in the current system all votes for candidates who lost, were insignificant to the election outcome. The authors explain: “Only those votes that go to the eventual winner count towards electing a representative, which may discourage people from voting or promote disaffection with the system” (p. 3). Alternatively, the MMP system allows citizen’s a second opportunity to elect party members in order to proportionally represent the popular
Since its creation and its adoption as the supreme law of the United States, the Constitution suffered many changes. New amendments were necessary over time to stimulate the growth of the country
...d I believe that proportional representation would be the most effective system to further the goals of democracy. If we use the single member plurality system we automatically ignore and exclude the voice of the people who didn’t win the election in a first past the post method. On the other hand in the proportional system rather than all seats being given to the party with the most votes every party gets the seats equal to the amount of votes they were able to obtain. This would allow all the people who voted to have their ‘”voice” represented in the government even though the party they voted for did not end up winning the election. This would encourage and engage many citizens to become involved in the political process; who otherwise would be discourage to vote at the fact that even if they vote, if their party loses their vote would be useless.
Parliamentary sovereignty, a core principle of the UK's constitution, essentially states that the Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, which possesses the power to create, modify or end any law. The judiciary cannot question its legislative competence, and a Parliament is not bound by former legislative provisions of earlier Parliaments. The ‘rule of law’ on the other hand, is a constitutional doctrine which primarily governs the operation of the legal system and the manner in which the powers of the state are exercised. However, since the Parliament is capable of making any law whatsoever, the concept of the rule of law poses a contradiction to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, entailing that Parliament is not bound by the Rule of Law, and it can exercise power arbitrarily.
In This essay I will look at what is new about New Labour in regard to
Transformative Constitutionalism has many different understandings and no single definition. To break it up and look it at simply, the Oxford English Dictionary is a source of reference here.to ‘transform’ means to “completely change the appearance or character of something, especially so that it is better”.¹Therefore in this case, transformative constitutionalism means that the constitution must change its character for the better. To collectively describe it, the Constitution of South Africa has one goal for our country and that is to “heal the wounds of the past and guide us to a better future.”² To explain this further, our past of inequality, strife and injustice must be understood and left behind by fixing our now known mistakes. This will then lead us to the better future characterised by an equal, democratic society in whi...
The late Chief Justice Pius Langa wrote a report regarding the concept of transformative constitutionalism, his report make reference to defining what transformative constitutionalism is to help understand such a broad topic and ultimately the challenges that our country is faced to create an substantively equal society. Thus these challenges address what South Africans as well as what the government needs to fix in order to create and equal society and to fix the injustices of the past.