Is it time for the UK to have a written Constitution?

The United States has a constitution which says how long a President can hold office ( four years, allowed to do a second term after that must step down ) also the roles of each house - The House of Representatives and the Senate the UK has similar two house system but different way of selecting it's members.

I do like the American model it's not perfect but it makes clear on how things should work and stops the same person holding office term after term unlike the UK a person can be elected again regardless of time spent in office . The US constitution gives rights to it citizens if a President does something that could be seen has infringing a person's rights the case is passed on to the Supreme Court who decided if the President has acted unconstitutionally a sort of fail safe the House of Representatives does a similar role.

I'm not saying we should copy the US constitution word by word but I think it would be a good idea to have a constitution instead of just making it up has we go a long over the last ten years has seen some interesting times in UK politics .

What model of government would you like to see ?

we should have had one years ago

 

...over the last ten years has seen some interesting times in UK politics .

 

What would they be then, that has made you suddenly want a written constitution?

If we had had a written constitution, do you think it would have allowed the Lords to block the Tax Credit cuts?

I wouldn't mind as long as we don't weirdly worship it like Americans who seem to revise it at school?

They're a weird people.

Our system works fine as it is now. No need to change.

Our system works fine as it is now. No need to change.

Our system is utterly screwed up. But that is not the fault of the constitution.

Most countries seem to have a bicameral system. As such the commons and lords model is OK. I would however like to see wholesale revision of the electoral system primarily in the commons to make it more representative and less adversarial. We operate a 2 party system in a multiparty democracy - it doesn't work. To my mind the House of Lords performs its function pretty well, regardless of the issues surrounding it's democratic legitimacy. Otherwise, I think I'm more or less comfortable with a parliamentary system in which the executive and legislature are 'combined'. I don't think there is a need for fixed terms for the PM so long as we can boost the fixed term parliament act and get rid of FPTP.

Constitutionally we urgently need to address the West Lothian question. The short sighted decision by Labour in 1997 to attempt to consolidate power outside of Westminster, by introducing regional assemblies, has led to woeful over-representation (and over funding) of regional issues in constituent parts of the UK at the expense of English regions outside the South East. A federal UK system seems to me the only proper solution to that problem. A reduction in the commons and lords to a more sensible level (say 2-300) would allow for an English parliament financially. I would move the seat of the English assembly outside of London to provide a more balanced perspective from politicians.

I'm not familiar with how all federal systems work, but it seems to me that given the power of regional representatives that more checks and balances are needed in those areas. There is no second chamber in Scotland, Wales or NI. The one issue with federalisation of the UK is the imbalance of England vs the other regions. Not sure that breaking up England would work to resolve that.

Professor Mariott's idea as touted in "Yes, Prime Minister." strikes me as a good starting point for reform.

Or at least, my interpretation of it is: basically pyramid politics.

What would they be then, that has made you suddenly want a written constitution?

Theirs too much when it suits them like calling snap elections because they can. Most counties have a constitution why not UK?

---------- Post added 22-05-2017 at 18:17 ----------

Our system works fine as it is now. No need to change.

No it does not work ' fine' it is out of date we are in the 21st century not the 19th.

---------- Post added 22-05-2017 at 18:20 ----------

Most countries seem to have a bicameral system. As such the commons and lords model is OK. I would however like to see wholesale revision of the electoral system primarily in the commons to make it more representative and less adversarial. We operate a 2 party system in a multiparty democracy - it doesn't work. To my mind the House of Lords performs its function pretty well, regardless of the issues surrounding it's democratic legitimacy. Otherwise, I think I'm more or less comfortable with a parliamentary system in which the executive and legislature are 'combined'. I don't think there is a need for fixed terms for the PM so long as we can boost the fixed term parliament act and get rid of FPTP.

 

Constitutionally we urgently need to address the West Lothian question. The short sighted decision by Labour in 1997 to attempt to consolidate power outside of Westminster, by introducing regional assemblies, has led to woeful over-representation (and over funding) of regional issues in constituent parts of the UK at the expense of English regions outside the South East. A federal UK system seems to me the only proper solution to that problem. A reduction in the commons and lords to a more sensible level (say 2-300) would allow for an English parliament financially. I would move the seat of the English assembly outside of London to provide a more balanced perspective from politicians.

 

I'm not familiar with how all federal systems work, but it seems to me that given the power of regional representatives that more checks and balances are needed in those areas. There is no second chamber in Scotland, Wales or NI. The one issue with federalisation of the UK is the imbalance of England vs the other regions. Not sure that breaking up England would work to resolve that.

A Federal constitution would work in the UK a lot of counties have this system like Germany and the United States the UK undergoing a lot of change the time is right.

I've got a weird sense of deja vu reading this thread! Who remembers before Labour were elected in 1997, organisations like Liberty and Charter 88 were campaigning for things like a Written Constitution, Bill of Rights and Freedom of Information laws?

Blair's Government enacted the last of these, Freedom of Information - though he later admitted, when out of power, he wished he hadn't.

Of all the things to regret, FOI??? Very odd indeed.

Theirs too much when it suits them like calling snap elections because they can. Most counties have a constitution why not UK?

 

---------- Post added 22-05-2017 at 18:17 ----------

 

 

No it does not work ' fine' it is out of date we are in the 21st century not the 19th.

 

---------- Post added 22-05-2017 at 18:20 ----------

 

 

A Federal constitution would work in the UK a lot of counties have this system like Germany and the United States the UK undergoing a lot of change the time is right.

in these countries, and more applicable to our system in Australia, there are no states of sufficient size to out number all the others put together. Solving that problem would mean splitting England into smaller constituent parts, probably a city state of London with regions of South East, South West, Midlands, North West and Yorkshire.