In 2013, the Electoral Reform Society published Reviving the Health of Our Democracy, in which they argued that the UK’s constitutional arrangements should be remodelled with a view to delivering three clear outcomes:

• active participation and engagement, giving everyone the opportunity to shape the decisions that affect their lives

•  fair representation, ensuring our institutions reflect the people they serve, their choices and identities

•  good governance in the form, function and culture of democratic decision making

Many of the obvious changes that were suggested at the time of the 2013 paper have now been piloted in one form or another. 

● Simplifying voter registration. The system was changed from a household-based system of registration to individual voter registration. However, far from improving electoral participation, the result of this change was a fall in voter registration. 

● Lowering the voting age to 16. Sixteen-year-olds were allowed to vote in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum and in the 2021 elections to the Scottish Parliament and Senedd — but not in UK general elections or in the 2016 UK-wide EU referendum. 

● Making wider use of e-democracy. Online petitions, citizens’ assemblies and citizens’ juries have all been trialled. 

● Opening up candidate selection. Although the major parties’ dalliance with primaries, public hustings and ‘one member, one vote’ offered the prospect of wider access to elected office, the reality is that in spite of a larger number of female MPs being elected, the socioeconomic profile of those elected to the Commons has not been radically altered. 

Electoral reform

Electoral reform has produced more proportional results in elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly. The rejection of AV in the 2011 referendum indicates that there is no public appetite for the extension of reform to Westminster. First Past the Post usually delivers strong governments with a clear mandate, and it preserves the valuable link between MPs and their constituencies.  Although there is general agreement that the first- past-the-post (FPTP) system used in elections to the Westminster Parliament is, at best, inequitable, there has been no tangible progress towards reform since the 2011 alternative vote (AV) referendum.

Redrawing electoral districts. The Boundary Commissions have made proposals that would see a move towards more equal parliamentary constituencies but this has stalled.In 2020.March the government quietly scrapped long held plans to cut the number of MPs in Westminster from 650 to 600 as part of a review into constituency boundaries 

The under-representation of smaller parties, and the way in which the current system produces governments with a majority of seats but a minority of votes, are arguments for further reform.

House of Lords reform

The reformed Lords was still largely appointed  which still it has limited accountability, weak democratic legitimacy and is unrepresentative.  Only a fully elected second chamber, it is argued, is acceptable. However, there has been some benefit  in terms of making the Lords more professional and effective in checking government power and improving legislation.

The upper house is based much more firmly on merit and experience. Its greater assertiveness in holding the government to account is an argument for leaving the Lords as it is. An elected chamber would mirror the Commons, producing a house dominated by professional politicians and reducing the range of expertise currently available.

On the other hand the Lords lacks democratic legitimacy because none of its members are elected. This is make it very  unusual in comparison to most modern democracies. In 2020 the new Conservative government appointed 30 more Lord 15 were donors to the Conservative party. Prime Minister Johnson was accused of u-turning on promises to slim down the upper chamber and swelling its ranks with cronies. 

2022 -Labour is considering abolishing the House of Lords and replacing it with an upper house of nations and regions, as well as handing sweeping new powers to local regions and devolved nations

September 2024 : Plans to eliminate the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords have been set out by the new Labour government, marking the biggest shake-up of Parliament in a quarter of a century. One of Labour's general election promises was abolishing the 92 seats reserved for hereditary peers - who inherit their titles through their families.

The aim is to finish reforms introduced by the last Labour government, which in 1999 revoked the 700-year-old right of all hereditary peers to sit in the Lords, leaving just 92 as a compromise with the Conservatives.

Labour has also promised to introduce a retirement age of 80 for Lords members but says that move will follow later after consultation.  However, like previous Labour governments, a wholesale reform of the second chamber is not an urgent priority.

Modernising the Commons. Although there have been some efforts to regulate lobbying and reform party funding since 2013, there has likely been too little movement on this front to restore confidence in politics. The Recall of MPs Act 2015, which established a mechanism considerably weaker than that operating in many states in the USA.

Petitions Committee

The UK parliament’s new collaborative e-petitions site went live in 2015. Nine petitions were submitted and 60,580 signatures were added on that single first day, 20 July 2015. Twelve months on, a total of 18,767* petitions have been submitted and millions of people have signed at least one petition. 

The system established that petitions with a threshold of 100,000 signatures should be considered for a debate and those with 10,000 signatures should receive a response from government. The Petitions Committee has hosted 20 debates in Westminster Hall on petitions with over 100,000 signatures, and the government has responded to 257 petitions (with only 17 still waiting for a government response at the time of writing). In short, a very small proportion of the petitions submitted have led to a specific action.

Brexit and Parliament

With the 31st December 2020 deadline looming, the UK and EU agreed a trade deal on Christmas Eve. The full 1,246-page EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement was published on 26th December. In the afternoon of the 29th December, MPs were presented with an 80-page EU (Future Relationship) Bill - legislation necessary to implement the new treaty. The following day, MPs and Peers were asked to fast-track the Bill through Parliament in a single day, setting aside limits imposed by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act (2010). The Hansard Society called the proceedings a ‘farce’, while others argued that Brexit had further proven a need to expand Parliament’s role in the treaty-making process. 

Rights

The 1998 act brought the UK into line with other European states by incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into national law. It provides protection of citizens' rights without threatening parliamentary sovereignty. As the act is not entrenched, the government can modify the way it operates when required, such as the creation of control orders in 2005.

However, there is a case for strengthening the act on the grounds that governments can currently take away important liberties by a simple majority vote in Parliament. The fact that the European Convention cannot overrule Acts of Parliament means that rights can still be easily removed  on by  governments. The anti-terrorism measures that were enacted after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the USA were seen as a case in point, as were the measures to increase police and intelligence services powers of surveillance over private communications in 2015–16.

On the other hand Conservative critics would like to see the act replaced with a British Bill of Rights, which would make the UK Supreme Court the final judge of citizens' rights .On 3rd October 2014, the Justice Secretary, Christopher Grayling, released 'Protecting human rights in the UK', an eight-page strategy paper outlining the Conservative Party’s proposals to repeal the Human Rights Act (1998) and introduce a new Bill of Rights if they win the 2015 general election. 

Parties

Opening up candidate selection. Although the major parties’ limited experiments with primaries, offered the prospect of wider access to elected office, the reality is that in spite of a larger number of female MPs being elected, the socioeconomic profile of those elected to the Commons has not been radically altered.

Party funding remains to be reformed. In March 2006, former civil servant Sir Hayden Phillips was charged with setting up an inquiry to come up with proposal for reform. It reported a year later. He recommended capping individual donations at £50,000 and capping spending for political campaigns. He also suggested increasing state funding by £25m and expanding its reach  However, no subsequent government has acted on this recommendation. Pressure to make public spending cuts under the coalition government meant that this was not the time to place an additional burden on the taxpayer.

Devolution: Problems

THe pandemic tested how the devolved powers would be able to coopertate

On 3rd July 2020, the First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, stated that, despite the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, which has necessitated a coordinated response from the UK Government and the three devolved administrations, he had not spoken to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson since May. Many academics have argued that the coronavirus has highlighted the need for a new machinery of intergovernmental relations, with either a strengthened Joint Ministerial Committee structure or a new executive decision-making body to enable the four governments to cooperate when their responsibilities overlap. 

Policy differences and timing

There were slight differences in policy from the very beginning. Sometimes, the differences were just a matter of timing, with different nations reaching the same conclusion at different speeds. For example, the UK Government ended jury trials and closed schools and colleges in England several days after Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland did the same. In other cases, the lockdown was tailored to local needs. For example, Scotland announced financial support for its fishing industry a full month before similar support was provided in England. Sometimes the devolved governments implemented the same strategy in slightly different ways. For example, England, Scotland and Wales all granted a year long business rates (taxes on any commercial properties) holiday. However, Wales limited this entitlement to properties valued under £500,000 in order to fund grants for small businesses during the lockdown. 

Criticisms of Labour's reforms

There are two broad fronts of criticism directed at the reforms of Blair's Labour government: that the reforms were inadequate (from the Liberal Democrat perspective) and that the reforms have gone too far (traditionally, the Conservative view).

Has Constituional reform stalled or even gone into reverse?

Devolution in the UK seems to be growing, not shrinking. Its process has been gradual, with new powers given to regional bodies as needed. The Scotland Act of 2017 expanded powers beyond the original deal from the late 1990s, including control over some taxes and half of Scotland’s VAT. The Scottish Parliament also gained more say over welfare, transport, and energy like oil and gas. The same year, Wales created its own Assembly and government, now called the Welsh Parliament. This body controls things like the NHS, and has led the way with policies such as banning single-use plastics and setting 20 mph speed limits. Whether you agree or not, these moves show devolution continuing to grow,Directly-elected mayors in England and Wales were introduced by the Local Government Act 2000. Initially, an elected mayor could only be created following a referendum in favour in the relevant local authority. Since 2007, local authorities have also been able to create an elected mayor via a resolution in full council.  In England, metro mayors are being set up steadily, with new ones planned for 2024 in areas like the East Midlands and North East. Labour is showing more interest in future devolution for parts of England and suggests a more federal style of government.

However:

Case study The Gender Recognition Bill and Devolution 

Wales and Scotland haven’t gained all the powers they asked for. In December 2022, the UK Supreme Court ruled that Scotland cannot hold a second independence vote without the approval of Westminster. The UK government has also used its reserved powers to block Scottish laws, such as the Transgender Recognition Act. This sets a possible pattern for more reversals of devolved decisions later on. Ministers also look for ways to halt local speed limit changes, like lowering limits to 20 mph. When the government gets involved in small issues like this, it suggests central control is tightening. It’s unlikely that policies are becoming less centralized. Instead, governments seem eager to take back some powers they previously granted. Wales doesn’t have control over policing, and devolution remains uneven. English votes on laws only for England was abolished, raising the West Lothian question — what happens to Scottish MPs with votes in English laws?  The idea of Scottish MPs voting on English issues no longer applies in the same way. Besides, England has scrapped some regional mayors. Voters in places like Bristol have chosen to remove these leaders. Turnout for mayoral elections in Liverpool was just 24% in 2024. This shows that many people are not interested in local government. It could also mean devolution is reversing in some areas.

The M4 relief road In July 2020, Boris Johnson announced a relief road would be built for a section of the M4 in Newport, South Wales, which is plagued by queues and delays. He promised he would ‘do the things the Welsh government has failed to do’. Johnson poetically explained it as ‘Providing a Vicks Inhaler to the nostrils of the Welsh dragon’, arguing that road congestion was having a negative impact on business investment in the area. This was challenged by members of the (Labour-run) Welsh government, who had previously scrapped such a scheme after declaring a climate emergency back in 2019. They had earlier stated that building more roads would increase both traffic levels and carbon emissions. The Welsh government argued that transport was an entirely devolved issue, so the prime minister had no say on road building in Wales. Wales’s economy minister, Ken Skates, commented that the prime minister’s comments were ‘nothing more than nonsense on stilts’. 

Bristol mayor vote: City decides to abolish mayor post

The Human Rights Act.

The HRA is one of the most significant reforms of the Blair era. The Act made the European Convention on Human Rights part of UK law, stopping citizens from having to go abroad to defend their rights. Before, people had to take their cases to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Now, they can appeal in UK courts instead.

Although when in goverment the Conservatives dropped plans to replace it with a 'British'  Bill of Rights which would have been more limited in scope. Although the The Human Rights Act plays a crucial role in the Good Friday Agreement, making it hard for any government to remove it without risking peace in Northern Ireland,  as of 2025 the conseravtive in opposition are still committed to reviewing the status of the HRA meaning the Act is always at risk of being repealed. Since the HRA is not entrenched It only takes a simple parliamentary vote to remove it. A proposed Bill of Rights Bill (Rights Removal Bill) was proposed but later scrapted.  In opposition the Conservatives have said the Human Rights Act should no longer apply to immigration decisions. They are calling for a change in the law that would stop people challenging their deportation on human rights grounds in the UK courts.

Governments have shown a willingness to ignore the Act when it suits them. For example, the conservative's legislated that Rwanda was a safe country in order to get around the Supreme Court's objections  to its asylum policy . See How well are Rights protected in the UK? 

All British governments could easily set aside rights laws they don’t like, especially if they have a large majority in Parliament. Laws can be made that clash with it. The courts, like the UK Supreme Court, can declare laws incompatible with the Human Rights Act. But those rulings are only advisory. The government can ignore them and keep going. If they choose to, they can pass new laws that refuse to follow the Human Rights Act. It acan be argued that the HRA has been weakened without repealing it. 

The Recall Act- Effective, Underwhelming or a failure?

The recall act aimed to improve accountability and ensure MPs follow the law. It allows for MPs to be removed before an election. If an MP is convicted of a crime, or if they submit false expense claims, or if they are suspended from the House of Commons for over ten days, the Speaker can suggest a recall petition. To move forward, at least ten percent of voters in the MP’s constituency must sign, with half of the signatures needed to activate a recall. This leads to a by-election where voters decide whether to recall the MP. MPs from all parties can be recalled this way. 

However, there are strong reasons to believe the act is being misused. Decisions about whether to recall MPs are often driven by party politics rather than duty. For example, Owen Paterson was involved in a lobbying scandal in November 2021, but Prime Minister Boris Johnson initially supported him. Johnson himself stayed in Parliament after lying to Parliament over partygate, only resigning later to avoid a quick recall campaign. These examples suggest the recall system struggles to deliver true accountability amid partisan fights. Many MPs have been fined or lost the whip but remain in Parliament. By May 2024, nineteen MPs were still in office despite misconduct. Some, like Matt Hancock, or Nadine Dorries had their whip removed for drawing salaries while in reality appearing on ‘I’m A Celebrity’. Most had the whip restored later, often as a reward from their parties before leaving office. The Recall Act does not cover how candidates are chosen. Parties control that process, and it has faced criticism for poor vetting. Many MPs are resigning suddenly, forcing parties like Labour to disown candidates or withdraw from contests, such as the 2024 by-election over anti-Semitic comments. The Recall Act has therefore not addressed the wider problem of the beaviour of politicians since it is too narrowly defined for example: in May 2021, Rob Roberts (Delyn) was suspended from the House for six weeks for sexual misconduct, but this did not require a recall petition as his case had been judged by the Independent Expert Panel (IEP) instead of a Commons committee. Parliament closed this loophole in October 2021, with future suspensions recommended by IEP reports triggering the recall process, but a vote on applying this revision retrospectively to Roberts failed. In October 2021, Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) was convicted of harassment and initially sentenced to ten weeks' imprisonment, suspended. However, on appeal her sentence was reduced to a non-custodial one, so no petition was triggered.

Parliament should be proud of the Recall Act

The Fixed Term Parliaments Act took away the Prime Minister's power to call a general election. It set a five-year limit between elections unless two-thirds of MPs in the House of Commons voted for an earlier one. If the government lost a vote of no confidence and could not form a new one within 14 days, a new election could be called. This law meant governments usually completed full five-year terms. It also aimed to give MPs more independence. Governments could no longer bypass votes of confidence by attaching them to ordinary laws, a tactic often used before to stop rebellions. This change allowed MPs, especially Conservatives, to reject Brexit deals but still support the government in confidence votes the next day. The Fixed Term Parliament Act has now been replaced, marking a step backwards. The new law, called the Dissolution and Calling of Parliaments Act 2022, restored the Prime Minister’s power to call elections within five years. The flaws of the original Act became clear quickly after the coalition ended. It failed to stop snap elections, which undermined its purpose. Theresa May broke the law in 2017 by asking MPs to approve a sudden election, ignoring the spirit of the Act. Similar actions happened again in 2019 during the winter election.

The Freedom of Information Act still stands. It The act was meant to force governments to share information that is in the public’s interest. It broke open scandals like MPs’ expenses and helped investigative journalism grow. The released memos, known as the spider memos, exposed how Prince Charles privately criticised government policies. The law remains useful for groups wanting to scrutinise government work. For example, in 2023, Open Democracy used it to reveal how the UK government actively promoted a Saudi-backed takeover of Newcastle United. The documents show behind-the-scenes efforts to stay close to the oil-rich country, despite human rights concerns. As long as FOI requests highlight government activity, they serve a purpose and are unlikely to be reversed.

However, the freedom of information law has been chipped away at. It already had exemptions built in. The security services, for example, never had to obey FOI requests from the start. MPs also exempted their own correspondence. Labour was worried that sensitive deals with Saudi Arabia might come under close scrutiny. The government blocked investigations into arms deals with Saudi Arabia, like the one by the Serious Fraud Office. After the spider memos came out, rules were changed to exclude royal correspondence. The law isn’t safe from political attacks either. Prime Minister David Cameron set up a commission led by FOI sceptic Jack Straw to weaken some of its protections. However the commisssions proposals were rejected. The “party gate” scandal, involving lockdown parties at No 10, was exposed mainly through leaks, not open records. When the government dismissed its Chief Inspector of Borders in February 2024, it was because he revealed details about lax border controls in unpublished reports. Opponents often have to use rare tools like humble address petitions to get government secrets. They ask the King to order the release of specific information. The need for these tools shows how secretive the government still is. It also hints that the supposed better transparency promised by the FOI Act is fading. Many believe the act is not dead, but it’s clear the government can weaken it by exempting specific areas or departments from its rules.

The UK Supreme Court was created to hold the government accountable. Because of this, it now has more independence and power to check the government’s actions. The Supreme Court replaced the Law Lords, who used to sit in the House of Lords as the top court before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Its main role is to interpret laws made by Parliament and decide if the government acts within those laws. It also has a duty to protect human rights. The Court can issue statements of compatibility, which I mentioned earlier. This helps advise the government whether new laws violate human rights. It does this separate from Parliament, which was created in the reform. The Court now enjoys more independence because it is physically away from Parliament. It is located near the House of Commons but separated from the legislature. This separation has been part of the Court’s work for about 15 to 60 years. It shows the Court’s independence and its role in maintaining the separation of powers. The Court has shown it is willing to challenge the government, which supports the idea of independence.

When the government wanted to trigger Article 50, the process to leave the EU, the Supreme Court stopped them. It said that Parliament, not the Prime Minister, had to approve this. The Court also prevented Boris Johnson from suspending Parliament for political reasons in September 2019. This proved the Court’s willingness to stand up to the executive. In November 2023, the Court ruled that the government could not send asylum seekers to Rwanda. This shows the Court still uses its powers and remains independent. It indicates that the Court is not losing its strength.

However, the UK government has used its majority in Parliament to weaken the Court. Without a codified or fixed constitution, the government has too much power to change laws. For example, the Court ruled that only Parliament could give the Prime Minister authority to start Brexit negotiations. Yet Parliament quickly passed a law that gave that power to the Prime Minister. The Conservative Party promised to review and limit the Court’s powers in their 2019 election manifesto. The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 tried to weaken the Court’s ability to stop government decisions this along with restrictions on legal aid have led to a fall in the number of judicial review cases. This law may also make the Court less willing to challenge the government in the future. It gives the government the power to overturn or ignore Court decisions. Media criticism has increased, and the government is seen as trying to weaken the Court’s independence. This runs counter to the idea that the Court was created to be a check on power and protect rights.

The House of Lords has undergone some reforms. Most changes haven’t been reversed since they were made. Only 93 hereditary peers remain, those few allowed to pass their seats to family members. Now, all new life peers are appointed by an independent commission, not the Prime Minister. In 1999, Labour removed the official registry, which changed the political balance. As a result, Labour almost lost control of the chamber. Crossbenchers now hold the votes, giving the Lords the power to challenge the government more effectively. The Lords reviewed the Safety of Rwanda Bill in 2024 to ensure it followed international law. They also stopped the government’s efforts to weaken environmental rules for house building in September 2023. These reforms allow the chamber to scrutinise legislation more carefully and play its role better. As of 2025 the Labour governemnt are committed to reforming the Lords further.

Labour believed reforms would make the chamber less political. They hoped it would be less biased and more independent. And it has not been reversed yet. But if the chamber remains unelected and no changes are made, stagnation can become a problem. That deadlock may turn into a form of undoing the reforms. The appointment process is supposed to be independent, but it’s often influenced by political favours. Peers are sometimes rewarded for supporting parties or key figures. For example, Rishi Sunak created a peerage for David Cameron, so he could join the cabinet.

House of Lords Scandals 

House of Lords Reform 

The chamber has also faced criticism for how peers are chosen, especially through the Prime Minister’s resignation honours list. Liz Truss was given many peerages despite only being Prime Minister for 60 days. Boris Johnson’s awards to supporters and family have also raised concerns. Some of these appointments seem more about political loyalty than merit. The appointment process has been tainted by these choices. Lebedev, for example, is known as a supporter of Putin, raising questions about influence. Michelle Mone was criticised over her role in the PPE scandal during Covid. These cases show there are still problems with the way peers are picked.

Over the past 20 years, the House of Lords has become less clean in its appointments. It’s not enough to just claim reform has worked. The system is still open to political influence. If government continues to pick friends or family members for peerages, the reforms will be reversed. The chamber’s independence is under threat again. Its integrity depends on genuinely fair and open appointments. Without that, the reforms do little to change the old ways. The chamber risks losing trust and becoming just another political tool.