From voting systems to parliamentary reform: constitutional vandalism?
Once hailed as the ‘mother of parliaments’, Britain’s constitutional model was, for centuries, an international benchmark, with the Westminster system adopted across the Commonwealth. Today, that admiration has morphed: some argue because it is uncodified, its outdated; that we need more clarity, whether to protect civil liberties or constrain government power. Andy Burnham has said that the government’s devolution programme, including No.10 North, strengthens the case for a written UK constitution. He has argued for a codified model that could work for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions, linked to a commitment to equivalent living standards.
There’s a more popular scepticism about the present system. ONS figures show that just 24 per cent of the UK public trust Parliament as an institution, with trust in political parties sinking even lower, to around 12-13 per cent. Numbers this low raise the question: is the problem the politicians, or the centuries-old framework they operate within?
There’s even more questioning of the British constitutional monarchy that has evolved gradually since 1689 and which, unlike many other European systems, never underwent political revolution. Similarly, in the House of Lords, hereditary peerages have been abolished as anachronistic. And the rest of the second chamber remains unelected, with no cap on its size or appointments and the constant suspicion that many appointments are more a reward for party loyalty or financial donations than genuine expertise or merit. Even those prime ministers who have promised to reform the Lords, such as Keir Starmer, have continued to stack the voting numbers in their favour. Will Andy Burnham, or even Reform UK, buck the trend? And is this form of legislating really fit for purpose in a modern democracy?
Meanwhile, other democratic norms are now seemingly up for grabs. There’s increasing grumbling about the ‘first past the post’ (FPTP) voting system, which may still deliver strong single-party majorities, but only by becoming dependent on a network of ‘safe seats’, where an area votes for the party rather than on the individual standing. This worked when party allegiance ran deep, but does a system built on predictable loyalties still reflect the current political realities?
If FPTP so strongly favours established parties, how many voters lack representation and what does that mean for its legitimacy in an era of fractured party politics? Would proportional representation better reflect public opinion and reduce tactical voting, or would it come at the cost of coalition governments and weaker constituency links? And will the Representation of the People Bill – which includes lowering the voting age to 16, plus changes to donor rules, voter ID and automatic electoral registration – shake up the system?
Britain’s constitution and many of its associated norms have resisted sudden upheaval in favour of continuity. But has this left the system behind, resisting change instead of driving it forward? If the UK constitution used to be praised for its pragmatism, with a declining trust in the political system and questions over the legitimacy of political power, is it time for more radical change? Or is this the constitutional vandalism its critics claim? And if not a constitutional shake-up, how else can we make the UK system more democratic and accountable?
