In your opinion should the UK adopt a codified constitution, if so why?

The UK's constitution is currently uncodified which means it is written in different sources and is easily amended because it is not entrenched. The constitution is also unitary as it lies in one place which is why Britain has a single tier legal system with no form of higher laws; just Parliamentary sovereignty. The constitution is not judicial meaning that no political bodies can declare whether certain actions are constitutional or unconstitutional.

Whereas codified constitutions', such as the US constitution, features are opposite to the UK's constitution: they are written in one single document, so they can be entrenched, and they are usually federal constitutions which allows the state to have a two tier legal system: constitutional laws (being the highest laws) and then common laws. Uncodified constitutions are also judicial which means that all political bodies are subject to the authority of the courts and supreme courts.

Changing the UK's constitution from uncodified to codified would create stronger safeguards needed for individual and minority rights. Britain has adopted the European Convention on Human Rights, but they can be overridden by Parliament as they have the right to do whatever it wants. The Liberals argue that the executive power of the government is excessive in the UK because it threatens individual rights, minorities and influence of public opinion; having a codified constitution would enable Parliament to control the government on behalf of the people. It would also increase public awareness and support as British citizens don't fully understand the concept of a constitution, so changing it would allow citizens to understand our relationship with the EU and would make the UK a modern democracy.

Although I agree with these advantages of codified constitution, I believe that the UK's constitution should remain uncodified, however, because it can be easily adapted to the changing world without confusion, in a short amount of time. This can be done by Parliament simply passing a new Act, or developing new unwritten conventions. For example, this comes to an advantage in times of emergency, such as the 9/11 terrorist attack, when Britain had to pass a wide range of anti-terrorist measures. If Britain's constitution was codified and entrenched, it would have been extremely difficult and long to pass these measures. Although uncodified constitutions allow the government to be more powerful, which can be a disadvantage to the people, but it makes sure that the government are not prevented from acting against the constitution. In addition, the UK's uncodified constitution has served Britain well for centuries because there have been no violent revolutions or major political unrest, therefore there is no need to change it. Adopting a codified constitution would involve the supreme court and would become judicial. This means that unelected judges would interpret, re-interpret and resolve political issues of the constitution, so they would not be accountable; such decisions should be resolved by an elected Parliament, which would improve the UK's democracy.

What is a constitution and why is it important?

A constitution is a set of rules that govern the country: citizens and the government. It determines how political power should be distributed within the states. For example, federal settlements divides the power between central governments and regional institutions, such as America, and unitary States have power in one place, such as the United Kingdom. They also determine the balance of power between government and parliament, president and prime minister, or between the chambers in the bicameral system: the two Houses of Parliament. 

Constitutions establish the political processes that make the system work and establishes the relationship between political institutions. They also have to be amended as changes occur through time. Therefore it is essential that a constitution contains the rules for its own constitution to be able to amend it. For example, the UK is unusual in regards to amendment, because its constitution changes in two ways: through parliamentary statute and through the evolution of unwritten rules, called conventions. Ireland and France are also different because they use referendums to approve change. 

They also give rights to citizens (civil liberties) against the state, such as in the form of a Bill of Rights, which is a statement that prevents a government from 'stamping on citizens', or by establishing rules in regards to nationality. This is important because it protects the people from the government and prevents dictatorship. 

Constitutions are the most important things in politics as without them, the government could do what it wanted, such as oppressing minorities and violating people's freedom. Citizens cannot trust the government and anyone who has power, because having too much power could lead to corruption.  Having a constitution not only prevents dictatorship, it limits the power of the government, which means that the government are also being controlled. However, in Britain there are no limits placed on Parliament, as it is sovereign. Therefore it has the legal right to do what it likes, whereas the U.S. constitution sets the rules that the government needs to abide by. 

Codification is the process of setting out a constitution in an organised way, which is in a single document. Codified constitutions are constitutions that are organised or written in a single document which is the only source of constitutional rules. Whereas an uncodified constitution has several different sources and has no single document. 

An example of a codified constitution is the US constitution, set up in September 1787, under the Independent 13 former British colonies. This constitution establishes America's national government and fundamental laws, and guarantees certain rights for its citizens. Another example of a codified constitution is the constitution of Norway which was established in 1814, when they were free from Danish rule. The French constitution is another codified constitution which was established in 1958, which happened after a coup d'état, when the new president named Charles de Gualle took over. The most recent codified constitution is of Iraq, established in 2005 following the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime. 

What are the least democratic pressure groups and why?

Insider groups, such as the Howard League Penal Reform, are less democratic than outsider groups because they concentrate solely on becoming closer with the government and do not have to campaign publicly. This is less democratic as they are not taking direct action to include the people, and could become 'Prisoner groups' where they would have to change or go by the government's rule; this prevents memberships of the pressure groups campaigning for their cause. As a result, these types of pressure groups would be pleasing the government instead, and wouldn't have a huge amount of media coverage because the government may not want the public to know that they are close to that pressure group.

Insider groups are more of a form of representative democracy (which is said to be less democratic), so these groups represent a group of people and their views, but many only campaign for them through their relationship with the government; the people that are part of that pressure group may not be able to campaign themselves. However this is isn't the case for all insider groups as members of the NUT a have striked protested in regards to their wages, working conditions, hours etc.

Why are some Pressure Groups more successful than others?

Firstly, some pressure groups (PGs) are more successful than others because of their relationship with the government. Insider groups, especially, are in close contact with senior civil servants and ministers, who are able to influence legislation. For example trade unions work closely with the Labour Party to support the working class and their jobs.

Outsider groups are less successful than insider groups, because these groups are completely independent from the government and they usually wish to cause disruption or inconvenience, such as striking and protesting, to have influence on the government.

Outsider groups are usually unsuccessful because of the violent methods they use, which cannot be associated with the government, so they have to rely on public support to try and gain legislation, for what they are campaigning for. For example, Anti Animal Testimg groups have indirectly influenced the government by harassing and intimidating staff at Huntingdon Life Sciences in Cambridge, to get their message across.

Another reason, on why some PGs are more successful than others, is because of their financial situation. PGs that recieve money from membership fees and donations, usually have a higher success rate because they can afford to advertise and employ professional lobbyists and scientists etc. More publicity for their campaigns, keeps the cause going and raises the attentions of the public. For example the pressure group called ASH, was successful at promoting the dangers of smoking, with lots of publicity and advertising, which resulted in the ban of smoking in public areas.

Some PGs are more successful than others, because of media coverage as it plays a significant role in manipulating the views of the public; portraying them as important or not important. Media is a wide source to advice people, as it is covered on the TV, the Internet and the radio etc. So almost everyone in the country will have seen, or heard something about a pressure group and how they are campaigning, by the media. An example includes the pressure group Live 8, which used the media to raise awareness of problems in Africa; without this, they would've been unsuccessful. A well known charismatic leader also contributes to influencing the success of a pressure group because people seem to listen more to famous figures; Bob Geldof and Bono also helped to promote problems in Africa.

The British Medical Association Pressure Group

The British Medical Association (BMA) is a trade union representing doctors in the UK and was founded in 1832 by Sir Charles Hastings. It has been recognised by NHS employers as sole contract negotiators for doctors, and currently have a membership of 156,000 doctors, along with 19,000 medical students, who have access to expert employment advice. 

The BMA is a sectional pressure group as it represents the common interests of a particular section of society: doctors and medical students who are directly and personally concerned with the outcomes of their campaigns. It is also an insider group because the BMA has had political legitimacy with the government, and have had policy credibility. 

The BMA has played a key role in the drafting and passing of the Medical Act 1858, which established the General Medical Council, and set out a standard for qualified and unqualified doctors and a system of professional regulation. 

It also played a major role in future medical politics, campaigning on issues, such as Poor Law Medicine, quackery, public health, alternative and military medicine, and contract practice. 

The BMA's 'Policy in Relation to Smoking' was published 1971, and recently they called for a ban on smoking in private vehicles to protect passengers, especially children. This was successful because in October 2015, the ban of smoking in cars with child passengers, was enforced. Despite this, the BMA have not stopped here as they want to extend this to banning smoking in cars completely. 

In February 2014, the European Parliament approved the Tobacco Products Directive, aiming to make smoking less appealing to young people by putting health warnings on 2/3 on the cigarette pack, and banning small packs and flavoured cigarettes. 

In the past two years, the BMA have had an input in the new contracts for junior doctors and are continuing to debate on this issue. They have also campaigned for the government to put a 20% tax on sugary drinks to combat obesity, and have recently put out a plea to stop helium being used to fill party balloons because they fear there will be soon none left for medical use (used for MRA scanning machines). 

What are the major similarities and differences within the Labour and Conservative Party?

The Conservative Party and Labour Party are very different, especially through their beliefs and ideologies. However, these two Parties are similar through their key pledges of the 2015 General Election.

The Conservative Party is different to the Labour Party because their ideologies are concerned with Thatcherism, and David Cameron, along with Osborne, believe in leading modernisers, and that a smaller state is ideologically desirable. Spending cuts rather than tax rises (Tori pledge) reflected this idea of a decreasing state, and the welfare cuts showed Thatcherism, as welfare creates a 'culture of dependency' which hampers the economy. Also, privatisation is opposite Labour's policies because Labour are more left wing, believing in the state helping the public, by owning its public services, whereas the Conservatives are more right wing. The 'big society philosophy' is Cameron's ideological flagship in 2010, which was the idea of the 'big society' seen as a way of resurrecting the core Thatcherite goal, of 'rolling back the state'. In comparison, when Ed Miliband became leader of the Labour Party, he was more Brownite wing, than Blairite wing, saying that 'New Labour is dead.' This is different to the Conservatives because their policies on welfare reform, is more Blairite wing, but Ed Miliband is the opposite. Also, the 'One Nation Labour' suggests that Labour, rather than the Conservatives, was the true heir of the One Nation tradition. 

However, the Conservatives and the Labour Party have some similarities, through their key pledges. Both parties want to cut the deficit and provide extra funding for the NHS, despite the different amounts pledges by the two parties. Also Labour and Conservatives want to prevent EU migrants from claiming benefits for a certain amount of time. In the key pledges of 2015, of the two parties, the 'in/out' referendum on the EU, has been mentioned, to reduce the transferring powers from the UK to the EU.

To what extent are the current Conservative and Labour party similar and different?

In many ways, the Conservative party and Labour party are very different. The Conservative MPs continue to hold right wing or Thatcherite views, where they believe in free market and self interest, where people earn for themselves. Whereas the Labour party are more left wing, with Old Labour ideas returning, where people look out for one another. 

The Conservative party introduced further modernization, for example, Cameron and Osborne believe that a smaller state is ideologically desirable. The key pledges the Conservatives introduced in 2015 include:

• To eliminate the deficit and achieve a budget surplus by 2018-19. 
• Cut welfare spending by £12 billion.
• Cut the household benefit cap from £26,000 to £23,000 year.
• Increase NHS spending in England, by at least £8 billion. 
• Raise the income tax personal allowance to £12,500.
• Extend the 'right to buy' scheme.
• Scrap the Human Rights Act, replacing it with a 'British bill of rights.' 
• Prevent EU migrants from claiming certain benefits and social housing for 4 years. 
• Hold an 'in/out' referendum on the UK's EU membership by the end of 2017. 

The Labour party, under Ed Miliband's leadership, their key pledges for  the May 2015 general election are:

• Cut the deficit every year in order to balance the books. 
• No additional borrowing for new spending. 
• Provide an extra £2.5 billion for the NHS, paid by a 'mansion tax.'
• Reintroduce the 50% top rate of income tax for those earning over £150,000.
• Raise the minimum wage to at least £8 an hour by 2019.
• Abolish the 'bedroom tax.'
• Introduce a 2 year wait before EU migrants can claim out of work benefits. 
• No transfer of powers from the UK, to the EU without an 'in/out' referendum. 
• Freeze energy bills until 2017. 

Despite their differences, the Conservative and Labour party are similar, especially through their key pledges of the 2015 general election as although they aren't completely the same, both parties pledged to increase the NHS spending by £8 billion (Tories) or £2.5 billion (Labour). The two parties have also pledged, in their different ways, to prevent EU migrants from claiming benefits, and the 'in/out' referendum on the UK's EU membership has been mentioned by the Conservatives and Labour. 

However, despite these similarities, the Conservatives and Labour remain on opposite ends of the political spectrum, meaning their ideologies clash with one another, and the two parties will always have to compete for the public's vote.