Should the UK adopt a codified constitution?

I personally believe that the UK should adopt a codified constitution. For the reasons I state below, i think a codified constitution would be beneficial in the UK for making it an easier, democratic and overall easier society to live in. 

A codified constitution makes it easier it shows a clear set of rules, meaning less confusion over the rules written and stops the breaching of previous rules. I think this is beneficial to the UK as clear set rules create a less demand in breaching pre existing rules. This also links with the fact that a codified constitution is entrenched. Entrenchment is an inherent feature in most written constitutions which supports the constitution in a stoppage to short term amendments. This can also been beneficial in the UK because it means that changes to the rules of the constitution will not change and well need to be processed through law. 

Another reason why I believe that the uk should adopt a codified constitution is because it limits government power. I believe this is important. The form of direct democracy for citizens in the UK is very limited in what we can do. Although we have the freedom of speech and the free vote. All together the for of direct democracy and the say we have in the government is limited. A recent example for this is the Tax credits. Although many people have voiced their opinions such as UK Uncut an outsider pressure group, the current government are still continuing with the push. A codified constitution limits government power, leaving more room for citizens rights. We have very little say when it comes to law making process as it goes through the HOC, HOL and so on. 

An against argument for this would be that the codified constitution can be politically biased. They enforce the set of values or principles in preference to others. The codified constitution written by the government can become biased in a sense that they have wrote it, linking with their ideologies. This can show that the codified constitution can become a biased ruling. 

Overall, I suggest a codified constitution would be a good idea for the UK as it overall benefits British citizens and society. 

:) 

Constitutions and the importance

A constitution is a set of fundamental principles and rules in which the state or the country is governed. In simple terms, A constitution is a set or rules and obligations in which a way a place or organisation is run, to protect the people from others and the government. The constitution is a way to which people go by to stop others who are being governed to be protect from ideals such as taxing, housing and healthcare. The rules can be coded or written in separate documents which show the obligations in which should be followed. (If not can produce people such as Donald Trump)!!!

Constitutions can be really beneficial to the people, it protects them from the government who fundamentally take all the power they have to their head, meaning higher taxation and poorer people
:( !! The constitution originates centuries back, when King John took power to his head and decided to try and tax the poor and feed the rich! The Barron's didn't agree which lead to the constitution being signed!

One main reason to why the constitution is very beneficial is because it brings the constituency together as a unit. This means that less unfairness is spread across the governed area (or so they say) which produces fairness and a sense or equality to the minority. The minorities find the the constitution very beneficial as it means they feel overall, more equal. This protects them in a sense to be discrimited and be eligible for the same as everyone else.

Power can really effect people. It's important for the governed place to be fair and and equal. An example of a known, controversial constitution is the US constitiuoton. Created in 1787. The US constitution is a US national document which covers all states, yet they have individual rules which just fit for that state. The right to own armed weapons is a legal rule in which every state can oblige, where cannabis legalisation is only a rule in some states such as Washington DC or California. This type of constitution is useful in countries such as America as it has certain sets of rules for reasonable for certain states.

What are the most undemocratic pressure groups and why?

The UK is fundamentally a free society, is tolerant and made up of different cultures. Pressure groups are free to be active in this free society. In some ways, you can suggest that pressure groups can be undemocratic.

A pressure groups is a group that want to influence the government on a certain idea or policy. Pressure groups can be undemocratic because when influencing the cause or policy, it's only a minority that agree which means the majority are not involved or agree. This is undemocratic because  it's important that the idea of changed or considered has everyone envolved not just the pressure group. An example would this would more likely be a insider pressure group such as the BMA ( British medical association)

Another reason to why pressure groups could be undemocratic is that it is politically unequal. The argument against the pluralist image against pressure groups is that they are far from dispersing power more wider to normal people. Instead the power goes to the people already with it, giving them a greater amount of power. This reduces democracy and is a form of political inequality. An example of this is a trade union or charity.

why are some pressure groups more successful then others?

The reasons for why some pressure groups are more successful than others is due to their relationship with the government.  insider pressure groups have a large influence and understanding in policies related to their pressure group campaign. Being an insider pressure group such as the British medical association (BMA). The government may ask them fore their expertise on the ideology which can help the pressure group be influential. 

Insider groups may be more successful than outsider  groups in some ways because outsider groups do not have a strong relationship with the government. The reason outsider groups do not have a relationship with the government is because they normally campaign against something the government are discussing or have cut. An example of an outsider pressure group who do not have a relationship with the government is UK UNCUT.

Another reason to my why some pressure groups are more successful is because of there financial situation and organisation.  Pressure groups can receive money from membership fees and donations. Pressure groups that gain membership fees or donations are usually known to have  a higher success rate as they can spend more money on advertisng, research, campaigning or employing professionals. This can influence public opinion and the government, making the pressure group more successful.

This shows that  certain groups are more successful than others, for example, it shows that good relationships or money help a pressure group in being successful. 

Fathers for Justice

Farther for justice is a pressure group which campaigns against fathers rights in private family courts. The pressure group fights against cases in which stops the fathers legally seeing or having contact with their children. The statistic for children who live without a father in the UK is 1 in 3, on average in the uk's population equals around 4 million fatherless children. Fathers for justice say that daily, 200 kids lose contact with there fathers due to family situations involving their parents. 

A particular campaign which stands out in the pressure group for Father for justice is the superhero climb, which involved men dressed as supermen to climb up Buckingham Palace and Tower Hill in protest to campaign in what they believe in: equal rights. 

Fathers for justice is a outsider type of pressure group as they don't have a relationship with the government or work with them in any particular way, instead they protest against their rules. They are also a promotional pressure group in that the achievement of their objectives is not necessarily of direct professional or economic benefit to the members of the group.  

I personally think that the campaign is very successful, with millions of views on youtube, 35,000+ supporters and a good group I think the campaign is a really successful idea which supports a large support of people. 

What are the major similarities and differences within the Labour and conservative party?

Labour and the Conservative Party fall differently on the political spectrum. The Labour party, lead by Jeremy Corbyn are consider a left wing party. With Jeremy Corbyn as a lead of the Labour party it has been noticed that the party are starting to head far right. Compared to the Conservative party, lead by David Cameron which is sat in the right wing position on the political spectrum.

Trident is something which has recently shown a big difference within the two major parties. Labour party state in their manifesto that " replace Nuclear defence system trident with a sea based nuclear deterrent " This show the way that Labour want to reduce their budget deficit by decreasing Trident Compared to the conservative party which in their manifesto say " Retain trident and build a new fleet of nuclear submarines." The conservatives are saying this because they are considering the future towards the way the world is heading, there is constantly threats and ideas that there is going to be nuclear wars which the UK need to be prepared for. 

Another thing in which they parties disagreed with was the Referendum on Leaving the EU.  The tories are saying that a Referendum is a good idea as it gives the public a choice to make their decision and have a effect in the UK and show a form of democracy. They also say that the outcome would be good if either we leave or if we stay in the EU, yet step back from the EU instead of being fully involved. Contradicting this idea is the Labour party who say that they don't want a Referendum because its a ridiculous idea to leave the EU. The Labour party believe that the UK wouldn't be able to stand on its own without the EU's Support. 

A idea in which they do agree with is the " No rise in VAT, National Insurance and income tax " Although its surprising that the Tories want this as they are right wing and the usual ideologies that they agree with. The usual ideologies for the Right wing policies is that the economy is most important. 

In conclusion, the parties are very different. The majority of the ideologies on the manifesto are very different with different ideas. 

Does Jeremy Corbyn align himself more with traditional socialism or is he a social democrat?

Jeremy Corbyn, the current and new Labour Party leader has taken to storm in the UK. Although Jeremy Corbyn is a throwback to the dark days in the Labour Party, he now is one of the most famous names to appear in the Labour Party.

"We are a socialist party and socialism is the answer" rings round the Labour Party. But is Jeremy Corbyn really a traditional socialist? I would say no, I believe that Jeremy Corbyn is a social democrat. He is very critical of social inequality and poverty within the UK yet he always wants to tackle economic values. Jeremy Corbyn says that the attitudes of the Labours attitude are not good since Blair. He plans on changing that by being honest and truthful to the people.

Jeremy would say that equality is a really important ideology, it's important that it is important to tackle, the best way to do this is through increasing the economy. Which would make him a social democrat