For the 40 mark constitution one I put:
- UK's constitution has strength in tradition, longevity and has been copied in many democracies around the world which shows its strength. However, it allows for undemocratic institutions such as the Lords and monarchy, the former of which is arguably increasing in power (striking down tax credits, which is a financial matter that the 1911 parliament act forbids).
- Lack of codification makes the government flexible and able to respond effectively to changing world events without being constrained (e.g. Financial Crisis 2007-2009), however this leaves it with the ability to potentially abuse rights, is difficult to understand by citizens etc.
- The independent judiciary can effectively protect rights without government intervention, which disperses power by taking judicial power away from the central government. However, this potentially allows it to 'legislate from the bench' under the protection of a supranational policy such as the ECHR, and many modern democracies (such as America) have elected judges which would increase their accountability, which may be a cause for further judicial reform.
- Parliamentary sovereignty means that parliament can always call government to account, so the constitution is more under popular control as the government could struggle to introduce a reform that is un-mandated. However, government dominates parliament and parliamentary sovereignty means there are no constitutional safeguards, so the government (and not the people) arguably are still in control of constitutional change which could be a threat to rights.
My conclusion basically said that the current constitutional amendments allow for a strong and efficient government with an effective parliament (which is increasing in power due to the poor mandate of the last two governments) and an independent judiciary. Reforming these factors further could constrain the government too much, so the constitution should not be reformed (not my personal opinion, it just followed on from some of my points).
I assume the question was specifically addressing the strengths and weaknesses of the constitution and whether or not reform was therefore necessary, although my arguments strayed into codification territory in places. I'm a bit worried that not mentioning things such as devolution, recall of MPs etc could have a negative impact on my mark, but I think I adequately addressed the question and it was quite open anyway. At the time I didn't have a problem with it lol
Tl;dr
P1: Tradition, Lords, Monarchy
P2: Codification
P3: Judicial reform
P4: Parliamentary sovereignty and popular influence