When questioning Britain's current constitution it is first necessary to define what a constitution is and more importantly what the British constitution consists of. A constitution is broadly described as, a set of rules that seek to establish the duties powers and functions of the various institutions of government, regulate the relationship between them and define the relationship between the state and the individual.1 More narrowly the term constitution refers to a single document, a written constitution, the aim of which is to codify major constitutional provisions. The broader description applies to Britain and its uncodified constitution. Britain is often mistakenly referred to as having an unwritten constitution which is misleading as although it is not drawn up in a single codified document much of it does exist in written form as acts of parliament. According to HM Stationary Office there are 170 combined acts of parliament and any number of these acts may be interpreted by the individual as being part of Britain's constitution.2

Britain's constitution is ever changing and one of the ways in which Britain is often distinguished from other 'modern' countries is by the slow a

The idea that the constitution of Britain is shaped by the government of the day gives rise to the most pressing debate used by those arguing in favour of a written constitution. Parliamentary sovereignty, defined as the absolute and unlimited authority of a parliament in its ability to make, amend or repeal any law it wishes,2 is highly praised by its supporters as it invests constitutional supremacy in a representative institution rather than an artificial body of rules or a non-elected body of judges. However critics see it as leading to what Lord Halisham called an 'elective dictatorship' meaning the government has the ability to act any way it wishes as long as it maintains a majority in the House of Commons. The fact that the legislative enjoy unchallengeable authority means that they are able to function as the ultimate arbiters of the constitution, which means that the constitution means what they say it, means. The modern constitution as a virtual 'elected dictatorship' tempered only by public opinion, group pressures and the prospect of the next election means that the government can act in any way they wish and are even capable of increasing their own power. The British constitution has an unusual scope for abuse because it relies heavily on the self restraint of the government of the day. This was particularly apparent as a problem of not possessing a written constitution in the 1980s and 1990s when the conservative government exploited the flexibility inherent in parliamentary sovereignty to alter the roles of institutions such as the civil service, local government and the trade unions and some have argued substantially undermined civil liberties.

The 1688 settlement introduced genuine checks and balances in restraint of power which were to be effective as long as the partnership of the Crown in Parliament was a partnership of equals. The Crown, House of Commons and House of Lords could not pass any legislation to support a course of action unless they were accepted by the other bodies involved. However with the Crown and then the House of Lords loosing the power to stop the House of Commons these checks and balances diminished. The existing constitution provides only one periodic check to this problem, the necessity of a general election within a period fixed by law. There is no effective legal restraint against a Commons majority which meaning that our democracy is not safe. Those who argue for a constitution, such as Lord Scarman, see the current constitution as failing to provide the people with the protection of the law against oppression, tyranny and injustice as uncodified laws could be eroded by a future radical leader. He believes that this risk is real and Britain's constitutional insurance is weak limited and very fragile.2 Although many of these arguments are true it is essential to bear in mind that they often come from opposition MP's who want to use a constitution as an additional weapon with which to curb ministers power. The opposition advocates reforms which aim to check government. Despite the apparent lack of checks and balances on government party politics can be seen to substitute for constitutional checks. Political competition with the threat of loosing an election is a discipline on the government of the day. However the failure of the party system to be competitive or balanced can encourage an interest in constitutional remedies.

The Conservative Manifesto 1997 states that 'Alone in Europe, the history of the United Kingdom has been one of stability and security. We owe much of that to the strength and stability of our constitution.' This statement forms the corner stone of the anti-reformist' argument to which I subscribe, it alludes to the maxim 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'.

This quotation shows that despite been converted to the reformist cause after having been the opposition party between 1979 and 1997 and reshaping important aspects of the UK's constitution

Some common words found in the essay are:
Tony Blair, House Commons, Rights American, Lord Scarman, , Mail December, Supreme Court, Constitutional Court, Stationary Office, United Kingdom', written constitution, british constitution, checks balances, constitution britain, government day, human rights, codified constitution, house commons, house lords, britain written constitution, britain's constitution, european court justice,
Approximate Word count = 2659
Approximate Pages = 11 (250 words per page double spaced)