The UKs uncodified constitution is no longer fit for

purpose
An uncodified constitution, such as can be found in the UK, is one which
has not been written down in a single document; it may be partly written
but cannot be found in one place. Among the reasons it can be said that
the UKs constitution is no longer fit for purpose are that it lacks clarity of
rights and does not conform to the modern world. However, that it is able
to adapt in modern day scenarios and that it does provide a strong
Government suggest it is still successful. It will be argued that the UKs
constitution is still fit for purpose, the main reason being due to its
unentrenched nature and flexibility.
The first and possibly most important reason the UKs constitution may be
said to be no longer fit for purpose is that human rights are not strongly
protected. Despite the adoption of the European Convention on Human
Rights, shown by the passing of the Human Rights Act in 1998, often
people are not aware of their rights, or certainly as aware as they would
be within a state with a codified constitution, such as America. The Act
remains weak in that it can be overridden by Parliament, who is sovereign
over any legislation, as has happened with terrorism legislation. This lack
of protection with regard to human rights suggests that the UKs
uncodified constitution is no longer fit for purpose as social beliefs have
developed towards equality and so this should be reflected in enforced
legislation set out in a constitution.
However, the fact that Parliament does have sovereignty allows for
decisive action to be taken in the UK, for example introducing credit
crunch measures. The UK constitution helps to make UK governments
stronger, due to the fact that government decisions backed by parliament
cannot be overturned by the judiciary, and the UK Westminster model of
parliamentary government and the whipping system ensure governments
usually get their way in parliament. The concentration of power allows for
UK governments to take strong action, best shown in radical reforming
governments, such as in the Thatcher governments of 1979-90 which
introduced privatisation. The provision of strong government under the
current UK constitution shows that it is still fit for purpose because they
are able to make strong decisions with sovereignty lying in one place.
On the other hand it could be said that the UK constitution allows for the
executive to be too powerful. The single tier nature of British law and
parliamentary sovereignty mean that it can be too easy for the executive
to dominate politics without adequate checks and balances. The
entrenched nature of the uncodified constitution means that it can be all
too simple for law to be amended against the wishes of the general public.
Recent Prime Ministers such as Thatcher and Blair have arguably been too
dominant, allowing for unpopular policies, for example Thatchers Poll Tax
and Iraq under Blair. This flexibility and underlying executive control make
the UKs constitution appear no longer fit for purpose as the Government

should have limitations set out in a constitution to further protect

individuals within the country.
Nevertheless, the flexibility of the UKs constitution allows it to be adapted
in times of need. The single tier law system means that statue laws are
much easier to implement, unlike in the US where constitutional law is
high law and cannot be altered. This is particularly useful in relation to
peoples rights; British law can be changed quickly and efficiently to alter
peoples rights if the nation requires it. An example of this is the antiterrorism laws which have been introduced in the last decade, put in place
with the nation at mind. Also, the current coalition is an adaption which
was solved within days, whereas in Germany and Australia it has taken
weeks to form a Government following inconclusive election results. The
flexibility of the constitution allows for it to remain up to date and
therefore can still be fit for purpose.
Despite this making the constitution seems up to date, it can be said that
it does not conform to the modern democratic world and is unusual in its
uncodified nature. This is due to the fact that the majority of countries
now have codified constitutions, making British politics seem old and
backward. The lack of a codified constitution makes political relations
within the European Union particularly difficult and has cause frustration
both for British Governments and for their European partners when
attempts have been made to create coherent relations in Europe. This
makes the UKs constitution appear no longer fit for purpose as it does not
fit with modern democracy.
Yet, the conservative argument is that there is no need to change a
constitution that works. The British constitution has served well for
centuries, providing a strong Government, which cannot be said for all
countries with a codified constitution. There have not been any violent
revolutions, suggesting that the majority of people do not see the need to
change it. It has historical authority, clearly seen in the monarchy, which
has been tested over time and adapted, making it still fit for purpose.
Furthermore, a change to the constitution could cause political unrest and
have unknown consequences.
In conclusion, despite the arguments that the UKs constitution does not
conform to the modern world, and can be overly flexible and therefore not
protect individuals rights as well as in a codified constitution, it is still fit
for purpose due to its ability to adapt when necessary and the fact that it
provides a decisive Government. Moreover, with this in mind there seems
no reason to change a constitution which works, and has worked for
centuries.