The Guardian notes this morning that:
Andy Burnham has said his programme of devolution strengthens the case for a written constitution for the UK, a move that would fundamentally alter the workings of the state that have developed over centuries.
The prime minister has long believed the UK's “antiquated” political system needs a dramatic overhaul if opportunity is to be shared equally across the country.
I have long argued for the need for such a constitution. So, this is a quick summary of what I would include. I stress, this is an opening suggestion. I would refine it with more time.
1. A written constitution
- Define the powers of Parliament, government, the courts and devolved administrations.
- Protect fundamental civil, political, social and environmental rights, and the right to free speech and protest without government constraint.
- Require government to uphold democratic accountability and equality before the law.
- Remove the remaining constitutional roles of the royalty and transfer them to elected politicians.
2. Replace first-past-the-post with proportional representation
- Every vote should count.
- Parliament should reflect how people actually vote.
- End manufactured majorities.
3. Abolish the House of Lords
- End hereditary and appointed legislators.
- Replace it with a democratically legitimate second chamber representing the nations and regions of the UK, with clearly defined constitutional functions rather than a rival to the Commons.
4. Constitutionally protect devolution
- Devolved powers should not be removable by a simple Westminster majority.
- England should also have meaningful regional devolution.
5. Guarantee the right of every nation to choose its future
- Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should have a constitutional right to hold regular referendums on independence under agreed rules.
- England's constitutional position should also be explicitly defined.
6. A constitutional right to local government
- Local government should exist by constitutional right, not by permission of Parliament.
- Councils should have secure powers, responsibilities, revenue, and sources of borrowing.
7. Restore democratic control over economic policy
- Parliament should determine fiscal and monetary policy.
- The Treasury should become accountable to Parliament for delivering agreed social, economic and environmental objectives.
- Economic policy should not be constrained by self-imposed fiscal rules presented as immutable truths.
- The Bank of England should have its notional independence removed.
8. A constitutional commitment to economic justice
- Government should be required to pursue full employment.
- It should seek to reduce inequality.
- It should provide universal access to healthcare, education, housing and social security.
- Economic success should be judged by outcomes for people, not arbitrary financial targets.
9. Recognise government's monetary powers
- The constitution should acknowledge that a currency-issuing government cannot be treated as if it were a household.
- Public spending decisions should be based on the availability of real resources and inflationary limits, not myths about “running out of money.”
10. Guaranteed transparency
- A constitutional right to government information.
- Strong protections for whistleblowers.
- Open public accounts and beneficial ownership registers for all companies and trusts.
11. Reform political finance and lobbying
- Tight limits on political donations.
- Full transparency over lobbying.
- Restrictions on the revolving door between government and large corporations.
12. Protect the independence of public institutions
- An independent civil service.
- Independent courts.
- Independent electoral administration.
- Independent anti-corruption bodies.
- Public service broadcasters protected from political interference.
13. Constitutional protection for the environment
- A duty on governments to safeguard biodiversity and address climate change.
- The legal requirement to meet net-zero targets by 2050 should be constitutional.
- Recognition that future generations have interests that deserve protection.
14. A constitutional right to participation
- Constitutionally granted rights to public services, including health, education to undergraduate or equivalent level, housing, clean air and water, justice, and environmental protection.
- Stronger rights to petition Parliament.
- Easier mechanisms for public consultation on major legislation.
- The right to call for Citizens' Assemblies and to have their findings considered.
15. The right to redress
- The right to constitutional redress for a government's failure to uphold its duties must be available, with legal funding provided to petitioners.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
If only our politicians would breakout of their current jailhouse of thought. If only.
Very much so Richard – but there is absolutely no sign this will happen. Despite all the corruption and the majority of people being turned off politics – ‘they are all in it for themselves’ – there seems no inclination to change the current snouts in the trough system<p>
I would also add oversight and protection of political parties – which sort of don’t really exist in our current ‘constitution’. They should be proper membership associations with members having democratic power rather than as now being vehicles for factional takeovers.
Noted.
This would be transformational,
is there rights to assemble, to protest and strong mechanisms for people to hold parliament and unrepresentative power bases to account.
would love this to become a citizen manifesto and checklist to audit parties, the would fail inspection and ‘need special measures’
Do you think I have adequately covered your point?
Protect fundamental civil, political, social and environmental rights, and the right to free speech and protest without government constraint.
Yes, you’re right it’s covered by this point.
Would love to see this as a citizen manifesto and bench mark for political parties, it’s comprehensive and clear.
I think I’d like to see citizens & residents of, and visitors to the state, more specifically highlighted. How does a constitutional document reflect that people are more important than institutions? To coin a phrase, what would be our “constitutional anthropology”?
At the moment in the UK, we feature as subjects of His Brittanic Majesty, and AFAICS, just have to behave ourselves, and gather such “precedent/convention” crumbs as are thrown to us on a good day – but we don’t have inalienable rights – not if the executive/State/Monarch/Royal Prerogative/Judge ****son gets out of the wrong side of bed that morning. And certainly not if you can’t afford crippling bankrupting legal bills.
Certain far right individuals have noticed our lack of a written constitution and believe it makes us vulnerable. I’m pretty sure some think tank or other have put proposals across the desks of Thiel and Musk and others like them. If Burnham’s thinking includes protection from this possibility then I’m all for it, but I worry who has been whispering in his ear on this subject.
Very, very good. And it has to be.
My concern with devolution is that such a system can be used by a government to divest itself of responsibilities to the regions and localities – it reminds how the Tories dealt with the NHS (Lansley was it?) and its Localism Bill which to me at least dumped responsibility on those least able to take it, and enabled Government to be less accountable whilst undertaking a policy of austerity. There is a burden of proof on Burnham and I hope that he is up to it.
Now he has to deliver something better than a crock of shit political excuses for failure.
This is a fantastic outline for the contents page of a constitution, Richard. As I read through it I had junk-tank inspired, media amplified voices in my head using words like “unrealistic”, unreasonable”, “uninformed”, “unnecessary”, and many other disparaging descriptions, which is why I fear Burnham will fail to deliver anything remotely like it. I also suspect these same voices would convince voters that none of this is relevant to solving the country’s problems, which clearly just require the application of a further dose of neoliberal dogma on steroids and everything will be just fine.
There is hope for economic understanding: in her 90 minute interview with Elon Musk, Zanny Minton Beddoes asked him how would people earn money to live in his AI future. He said the government will provide a universal high income. Zanny said who will pay for it and won’t it trigger enormous inflation. Elon said no because AI will create unlimited resources, and explained to her how it is the balance of government created money and real resources that matters; in fact, he said, deflation might be more of an issue!!
1/2
This is a far larger topic than I am in any way qualified to lecture about, but I guess that I will just have to make a start and hope that someone with some expertise arrives eventually.
Scotland already has an ancient and beautiful constitution, and it is quite literally foundational to the legality of the Treaty of Union and the subsequent Acts of Union which are the foundation basis of the state of ‘the United Kingdom’.
Richard may be aware that there has been somewhat of a renaissance in Scottish constitutional thinking over the last four plus years.
Groups such as the Scottish Sovereignty Research Group[1] and Salvo[2] who are the campaigning arm of the Scottish Liberation movement[3] have researched and publicised what had become the hidden reality of the exiting legal composition of the British Union.
I just don’t have the time or space to even start on an introduction to what is now becoming more commonly known so I will just attempt a very short and opinionated summary.
The Scottish law system and the rights of Scottish people, who are Sovereign, are written in to The Treaty between the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England “for all time”.
The reality is, of course, that ‘perfidious Albion’ (England) has breached just about every single one of the clauses that they agreed to honour, but I will leave that aside.
The treaty and the subsequent Acts of Union are the foundation of the British State and also the fundamental reason that there is and can be no ‘UK’ written constitution.
The two sovereignties of the Kingdom of England which it recognises as ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ of ‘the King in parliament’ and Scottish popular sovereignty are incompatible.
2/2
The differing sovereignty models of the two kingdoms are incompatible and irreconcilable.
The doctrine of English absolute parliamentary sovereignty is alien to Scotland.
In Scotland the people are the highest authority.
The only way that there could be one written constitution for the UK would be would be if one Sovereignty were to overpower the other.
This of course is what England-as-Britain has been attempting to do for 300+ years.
Recently matters have come to a head, what with the representations to the United Nations reaching the point that Scotland should soon soon be applying for consideration to be added to the list of Non Self Governing Territories, and the legal establishment reaching the critical point of attempting to nullify the ‘guaranteed’ freedoms and rights that used to apply under the separate Scottish legal system. See the ongoing Court of Session case that KC Joanna Cherry is attempting to win, and the legal establishment has been lawfaring against since last November.
It has long been expected that the British Establishment would attempt to use the ruse of empowering ‘English Devolution’ to disrupt established Scottish devolution.
It has long been feared that legal shenanigans will be used to disempower Scots’ established constitutional protections.
It has long been feared the need for ‘constitutional modernisation’ will be promoted then utilised to roll out the final constitional disempowerment and takeover.
Well here we are.
It seems that all three plans are being rolled out simultaneously.
If you see what is happening then you cannot unsee it.
The British Establishment are certainly never going to mention the underlying drive, nor will the British media.
There is the ‘outside the British mainstream’ perspective for you all to reflect on.
[1] https://www.scotttishsovereigntyresearchgroup.org/
[2] https://salvo.scot/scottish-constitution/
[3] https://www.liberation.scot/
A V good starting outline albeit an actual constitutional draft needs an eclectic mix of expertise but all of your calibre. The idea of a constitution enforcing explicit ecological protection is most correct.
The crucial agency of a constitution is parliament, and our sclerotic parliament is a ragbag of traditional irrelevancies, procedural inefficiencies and unprofessionalism. Where else could one take home near £100k without any professional review process? The entire* physical establishment, from its Pugin wallpaper and puffed-up benches is an anachronism. *(Its library being the one exception). For me, revolutionising parliamentary systems is needed urgently; should be on a parallel track to a constitution (interactions?).
‘aLurker’ makes some v good points. The prospects for Scottish independence is growing, and as ‘aLurker’ s implies that may have influenced remarks from Burnham; most likely Burnham following some script from the establishment.
A good companion piece to ‘aLurker’ is the latest posting from Craig Murray, who also mentions potential UN soundings & route, and makes plain independence ‘doability’. A genuine Scottish resurgence and tracking towards independence would certainly be a catalyst for moving forward debate on an ‘English constitution’, I think, and reinvigorate far wider (English) public engagement; a scenario in which your output, Richard, would get more traction and a wider audience too.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2026/07/scottish-independence-set-the-date/
Hi Rich
Shots fired… On twitter 🙂
https://x.com/richardjmurphy/status/2083437219797209592?s=46&t=Xp0znAucSLDQeVjT0xlhHg
Neither of which have addressed “demand stealing” in their export-led growth views
Views on this criticism mainstream economics foreign policy?
https://web.archive.org/web/20170624084951/http://www.3spoken.co.uk/2015/11/why-economists-fail-at-foreign.html
please reply thanks!
I share most of your aspirations, but pragmatically would settle initially for codifying the current constitution (which consists of multiple bits of previous legislation, court rulings, and things like order papers recording usage) in one place would be an important start.
Your list includes a lot of items which each deservc full parliamentary debates, I am not sure it would be achievable to do that in a single parliament even if there were no other business at all to schedule. For example role of the monarchy, electoral process for House of Lords, proportional representation, regional assemblies for England……..
And in some cases just codifying might sufficiently clarify the situation. While my knowledge of the monarchy is hazy, I could imagine that beyond accepting the resignation of a Prime Minister and government and formally acknowledging the appointment of a replacement by due process, an awful lot could turn out to be primarily ceremonial. There would be no codified authority to “influence”.
I really like your start to a new constitution Richard, however I have serious doubts Andy B will be ringing you. My FEAR, as an independence supporting Scot and (notwithstanding aLurker’s two posts – he seems to be very well informed) is that we end up with a Spanish style constitution specifically Article 2 of the Spanish Constitution of 1978 which declares Spain to be the “indissoluble” and “indivisible” nation of all Spaniards. While it grants extensive autonomy to regions such as Catalonia, it does not allow them to secede unilaterally.
This is reinforced by Article 1(2), which states that sovereignty belongs to all the Spanish people. Consequently, decisions affecting Spain’s territorial integrity must be made by the nation as a whole, not by a single autonomous community.
These constitutional provisions formed the basis for Spain’s rejection of the 2017 Catalan independence referendum and declaration of independence, both of which were ruled unconstitutional.
Catalonia could only become independent through a formal amendment of the Spanish Constitution, requiring overwhelming parliamentary approval, a general election, further parliamentary approval, and ratification in a nationwide referendum by all Spanish voters.
[with a nod to ChatGPT for a summary of the Spanish constitution used to resist the break-up of Spain]
Exactly this.
Don’t be at all surprised when the British Establishment try to insert this type of rewriting of the existing constitutional settlement, which was an agreement between two equals: The Kingdom of Scotland and The Kingdom of England.
The Union is surviving by successive Westminster governments refusing the Scottish people access to the mechanism to express their choice over their inalienable human right to self determination.
If the British government were to proceed in this way, then the boot would suddenly be on the other foot.
If Scotland had a Nationalist government in power at the time that happened of course, this alone would be sufficient to declare the Treaty of Union breached, and for Scotland to hold a referendum on whether or not the Sovereign people of Scotland would wish to commence discussions with the representatives of the Kingdom on England to attempt to reach terms for a new treaty.
That would be unlikely to pass, but if it did, then any new subsequent proposals arrived at would then subsequently be subject to the judgement of the sovereign people of Scotland.
The likelyhood of the sovereign people of Scotland voting to empower one, never mind both of these outcomes is low, not zero, but low.
So on the one hand, the British Establishment might think that they are being clever by pulling a procedural fast one.
On the other hand they may be guaranteeing that Scotland simply says cheerio.
Living in Germany and seeing how powerful they are and how well their federal system works, I am personally convinced that the UK needs similar and that this should be embedded within a written constitution. Not just the 4 nations and some wishywashy devolution within England but 12 federal states ie 8 within England.
Being a fan of the German constitution I ran a ChatGPT comparison
‘Richard’s draft is a compelling statement of constitutional values and policy goals, but it is comparatively light on the institutional mechanics that make constitutions durable and enforceable. Drawing on the German model, the largest additions would be:
Constitutional supremacy.
A dedicated Constitutional Court.
A rigorous amendment process with entrenched core principles.
Explicit separation of powers and rule-of-law guarantees.
Detailed provisions on elections, emergencies, judicial review, and public administration.
Stronger articulation of foundational constitutional principles—such as human dignity, democracy, legality, equality, and subsidiarity—from which the more specific rights and institutions would flow’
The German constitution begins:
Human dignity shall be inviolable.
This single principle influences every court decision.
I don’t think I did badly before breakfast…..
I think you did very well. I pretty much agree with everything you wrote but some of the things are not necessarily constitutional matters and would be more suited to policy. I agree with much of what is said by Simon Slade and I think that remodelling the United Kingdom along the German lines would achieve much of the important constitutional points you make. In particular regional governments would enable the change to a PR system such as that enjoyed by Germany and lead to a coherent replacement for the House of Lords. For me the Key issues are separation of powers, Individual freedoms, proportional representation and Self determination at all levels of Government save the aforementioned national arrangement providing overall government policy. Keep up the good work.
Let’s just bite the bullet.
There is no such thing as the UK. It is an English fantasy.
Remind me how that is working (wrt the German Constitution) and the ability to demonstrate against israeli genocide/in favour of Palestine.
The words look good on paper – but it is what happens on the ground that counts & in many EU countries (& the Uk) things are not good.
Both the German & the proposed Uk constitution need something covering “interference by a foreign state and its agents”
Further to #11 no 2nd jobs ~ exceptions for pro bono and to stay current professionally (always swerved as too hard….but hey if you can run a country isn’t this stuff diddly~squat?….unless you don’t want i
Bit most important a real ministerial/members code. No PM veto/review…absolute watertight rules and if you transgress (even/especially) by mistake you get an added penalty for incompetence….after all these people are supposed to be the brightest of the bright.
There are noore good chaps!
{Sorry littered with typos}
The current unwritten constitution has an established religion. I think the new should be a secular constitution – with freedom of religion, but separation of religion and government.
Agreed.
8. Point 3. A right to ‘social security’. Presumably it is intended that this would include the state taking over the current care home – social care- system; reforming it; linking it to the NHS; and offering it free at the point of need. If so, I would make this explicit
All good. I would only add free universal access to the law when it’s protection is required. A national legal service to go alongside the national health service.
Personally I would include a right to health and social care and a right to sue legislators and managers for failing to ensure systems are fit for purpose.
See the discussion in this article https://opiniojuris.org/2023/06/13/a-right-to-health-in-the-european-union/#:~:text=Everyone%20has%20the%20right%20of,the%20Union's%20policies%20and%20activities.
I think I included the right to sue for redress, with costs paid, at the end.
Apologies but I still cannot find a right to Health .
Coming from someone professing the Politics of Care I think it an omission ; but easily corrected.
In section 14, explicitly.
That is an excellent shopping list to have come from a single voice. It covers most of the main points but the devil is in the details and no constitution should be the work of just one or even of a select few (pace the funding fathers of the USA).
Equally, it would be foolish to expect a constitution to arrive fully fledged on day one. It must be an evolving statement and mechanisms to revise and update it must form part of it.
Chances of action on this from the current government? Slim to zero.
Hello Richard, and thank you – lots of food for thought here. Two immediate thoughts of mine:
I’m not sure what an “independent civil service” is. Okay, we don’t want a politicised civil service. But what happens if a civil service with a bit of a lean to the right refuses to do the will of a left-leaning government?
I agree that everyone should have access to housing, education and healthcare. But “social security” may be a bit vague… and what about food?
Thanks for an excellent socio-political “map” for a better future for the less/non-parasitic groups in our society.
Might this “map” also bring considerable socio-economic benefits to our society as a whole entity?