how democratic is the uk essay

How democratic is the UK?

Three-quarters of britons (75%) describe the uk as a democratic country, but six in ten (60%) complain that they cannot freely say what they think, and a third (34%) feel they have absolutely no say when it comes to how things are run.

Is democracy working in the UK?

The UK is widely considered one of the leading democracies in the world, but the YouGov Democracy study finds that the British public thinks that certain elements of what enables such a society are in danger.

Three quarters (75%) of the public describe the UK as a democratic country. This is slightly higher than when we asked the same question in 2012 , when two-thirds (67%) felt the same.

However, when it comes to how well democracy is working in the UK, the percentage falls to just over six in ten (63%) results of the YouGov Democracy Study show.

A quarter of the public (26%) think democracy works badly in the UK. There are significant age differences concerning this view: three in ten (29%) of those aged from 16 to 39 think that democracy is working badly, dropping slightly among those in their 40s and 50s to 27%, and again among those 60 and older to 21%.

There is also a significant political split on the issue: a third (37%) of Labour and Lib Dem (35%) supporters are dissatisfied with the functioning of UK democracy, whilst this applies to just 11% of Conservative voters.

Our results also show that a third of people in Scotland (36%) and a quarter in Wales (26%) and England (24%) are dissatisfied with British democracy.

The past two decades have seen considerable shifts in political dynamics in the UK due to events such as the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, and the 2016 EU referendum. Our research has found that a third of the public (35%) consider that the UK has become less democratic during the past ten to twenty years, while a further third (34%) say there was no significant change. Just one in seven (14%) say the UK became more democratic in this period.

Interestingly, among those between 16 and 24, who would have the least first-hand experience of any changes in the past decade or two, over a quarter (27%) say they feel the country has become less democratic. Among those 60 or older, four in ten (40%) think that democracy has receded in the UK over that time.

The impression that British democracy has regressed is shared by just under half of those who support Labour (46%) and Lib Dem (46%). Among Conservative voters just three in ten (28%) say the same.

Free speech

Freedom of speech, considered a key feature of a democratic society, is today a topic of fierce debate in the West, both on the left and the right of the political spectrum. YouGov can reveal that nearly six in ten (58%) Britons do not think the UK is a place where people can freely say what they think without the fear of being unfairly judged, discriminated against or prosecuted.

Among those between 16 and 24 years of age, who are often referred to by some as ‘ the snowflake generation ’ because they are allegedly so easy to offend, half (50%) consider the UK not to be a society where one can speak freely.

The political split of the results shows two-thirds (64%) of Conservative voters, and half of Labour (53%) and Lib Dem (49%) voters share this view.

Our results show that disenchantment with British democracy is even greater when it comes to the question of being able to have a say in how things are run.

Previous YouGov research has highlighted young people feeling disenfranchised when it comes to their vote. Now the YouGov Democracy Study shows that a third (34%) of all Britons feel they have no say at all when it comes to how things are run in the UK, with a further four in ten (39%) pointing out they have only ‘a little’ say. On the other end are just under a quarter of the population (23%) who think they have adequate input.

Despite it often being said that the key decisions in the country are made by the older generation, a quarter (24%) of those aged 16 to 24 think they have some, or a lot, of input in how the UK is run, compared to just one in five (21%) of those 60 and older.

Even among those who supported the Conservative Party in the 2019 elections, four in ten (40%) think they have just ‘a little say’ and a further three in ten (29%) believe they have no say at all.

The regional breakdown of the results shows that 80% of Welsh people and 67% of those in Scotland believe they don’t have input in determining how things are done in the UK.

Despite gender inequality often being highlighted as a barrier in greater involvement for women in decision-making at higher levels across society, our research shows there isn’t much difference in the perception between men and women when it comes to how much input they have in running the country. Men (24%) are only slightly more likely than women (21%) to think they have a lot or some say in running the country, with a third of men (32%) and women (37%) pointing out they have no say.

Public are split on the impact of political parties on British democracy

In terms of the effect British political parties have on UK democracy, the public opinion is split: a third (34%) say their role is vital in upholding our democracy, whilst over a quarter (28%) consider political parties to be doing more harm than good.

The most positive disposition towards British political parties is seen in the oldest generation, where just under half (46%) think they play a vital role. A fifth of Conservatives (20%) and a third of Labour (35%) supporters think political parties do more harm than good to our democracy.

Our study also shows that a third of the British public (35%) don’t know who the MP representing their constituency is. The result is very similar to what we found in 2012 when we asked the same question (37%).

Interestingly, among those aged 16 to 24, who are widely considered to be relatively politically disengaged, nearly six in ten (59%) say they do know what their local MP is called.

Explore more data & articles

British Politics

Labour and Starmer aren’t popular – but the Tories are even less so

Voters want cost-of-living assistance more than increased funding for public services

Political tracker roundup: April 2024

Do you believe that the government should prioritise…?

Do you think there should or should not be a legal limit on the number of terms someone can serve as an elected mayor, which tax, if either, would you prefer the government to cut, how well is keir starmer doing as labour leader, how well is rishi sunak doing as prime minister, who do people think will win the next election.

Browser does not support script.

• Writing opinion articles
• Latest news
• Video and audio
• LSE News FAQs

UK democracy is in crisis finds first book from publishing platform at LSE

UK democracy has been in crisis ever since the Brexit referendum vote signalled a huge gap between elite, expert opinion and voters

The 2016 referendum result,  the government’s inability to manage the Brexit process, and the cumulative effects of austerity have brought many of the UK’s past democratic advances to a juddering halt.

These are the findings of a comprehensive audit  of the quality and sustainability of liberal democracy in the UK published today (1 November) in the first open access textbook from LSE Press , a new publishing platform at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).

Previous audits of UK democracy (the last in 2012) undertaken by Democratic Audit , found the quality of democracy in the UK had generally improved over the past two decades. The 2018 audit still found areas of significant advances, especially in the success of the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and London, and the advent of regional mayors in England.

However, the 2018 audit also found a series of policy disasters in the core executive processes around the Prime Minister, Cabinet and Whitehall, and a series of austerity-induced failures by the civil service and local government that raised profound causes for concern. Areas that have been impacted include the implementation of Brexit, NHS reorganisation, Universal Credit and the erosion of building safety regulations that became evident in the Grenfell Tower catastrophe.

The authors highlight how the two-party system in Westminster is in an unprecedentedly chaotic condition, unable to effectively represent let alone reconcile Brexit divisions. And they conclude the once smoothly operating UK central government apparatus continues to stutter and malfunction.  

 The auditsituates the worsening quality of UK democracy against the global backdrop of some backsliding core democracies (such as the USA) and the growth of  ‘semi-democracies’, where authoritarian governments undermine political competition through rigged elections and manipulated media.

The audit was led by Professor Patrick Dunleavy and the Democratic Audit team at LSE, and engaged a wide range of co-authors from universities across the UK. The book, The UK’s Changing Democracy: the 2018 Democratic Audit is free to download in full at: https://press.lse.ac.uk/site/books/10.31389/book1/

Commenting on the publication, lead editor Professor Patrick Dunleavy from the Department of Government at LSE said: “UK democracy has been in crisis ever since the Brexit referendum vote signalled a huge gap between elite, expert opinion and voters. Britain is an iconic democracy, but in comparative terms we don’t rate terribly highly on democracy scales. That’s because we’re still quite a mixed political system.

“We have a lot of hangover ‘legacy’ institutions like the House of Lords, and ‘dark state’ areas that are not very well covered by Parliament. We don’t have a written constitution. All of these factors mean that it behoves us to constantly try to improve British democracy. The laurels we used to rest on are now looking pretty desiccated”

 Lead author of the 2012 audit of UK democracy and Chair of the Democratic Audit Trustees and Trustee of the UK Political Studies Association, Dr Stuart Wilks-Heeg added:   “Patrick Dunleavy and his colleagues provide a masterful stocktake of how UK democracy has changed since the last full audit in 2012. Their book is a timely reminder that democracies are elaborate, and potentially fragile, constructions.  It will be essential reading for students, citizens and policy-makers alike, as the country grapples with defining the shape of the UK polity post-Brexit.”

The book is the most up to date and comprehensive textbook on UK politics available and has been written for a wide range of audiences, from informed general readers to A-level students and undergraduates. It is an innovative open-access aid to teaching and is free to everyone online, in PDF, ePub and Kindle formats.

To access the book, or to purchase a print copy, please visit: https://press.lse.ac.uk/site/books/10.31389/book1/

Behind the article

For more information of interviews, please contact the Managing Editor of Democratic Audit, Alice Park on [email protected] and 020 7852 3762.

LSE Press is a platform for high quality, open access research in the social sciences. Through rigorous peer-review and the use of innovative digital approaches the Press promotes the widest possible engagement with social science research.

Based in the Library of the London School of Economics, LSE Press works with authors to develop and launch publications that reflect the LSE founding purpose and mission. To find out more about LSE press, please visit: https://press.lse.ac.uk/

Democratic Audit is an independent research unit based at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Its core objective is to advance democracy and freedom, and to undertake and promote research into their quality, durability and effectiveness in a UK context.

It is grant funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust to conduct research into the quality of democracy in the UK. It monitors democracy and freedom in Britain through a regular blog and series of democracy assessments and books.

The previous full-scale Audit of UK Democracy was published in 2012, by Stuart Wilks-Heeg and others. For more information, please visit: http://www.democraticaudit.com/ , @democraticaudit, facebook.com/democraticaudit or email them at [email protected]

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts

Become an FT subscriber

Try unlimited access Only $1 for 4 weeks

Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Cancel anytime during your trial.

• Global news & analysis
• Expert opinion
• Special features
• FirstFT newsletter
• Videos & Podcasts
• Android & iOS app
• FT Edit app
• 10 gift articles per month

Explore more offers.

Standard digital.

• FT Digital Edition

Premium Digital

Print + premium digital, weekend print + standard digital, weekend print + premium digital.

Today's FT newspaper for easy reading on any device. This does not include ft.com or FT App access.

• 10 additional gift articles per month
• Global news & analysis
• Exclusive FT analysis
• Videos & Podcasts
• FT App on Android & iOS
• Everything in Standard Digital
• Premium newsletters
• Weekday Print Edition
• FT Weekend Print delivery
• Everything in Premium Digital

Essential digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• Everything in Print

Complete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

Terms & Conditions apply

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

Why the ft.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

International Edition

• International
• Schools directory
• Resources Jobs Schools directory News Search

EDEXCEL A LEVEL POLITICS (Essay Plan): How democratic is the UK Political System?

Subject: Government and politics

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Assessment and revision

Last updated

26 May 2020

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

A* level essay plan for the study of Edexcel/Pearson A level Government and Politics, as well as the A level course for other exam boards. Plan made, and used, by myself - particularly useful for those aiming for the highest grades. If you are looking for more plans like this, feel free to have a look on my shop :)

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

Democracy in the UK

Historical context.

The UK’s democratic political history is best characterised by gradual (relatively peaceful) reform, perhaps traceable back to the Magna Carta, signed by King John in 1215. This was the first time that the monarch agreed to a limitation of their powers, although this was more for the benefit of a small elite (the Barons) rather than the population as a whole. Subsequent centuries saw the monarch ruling against a Parliament that was increasingly assertive. This came to a head in 1642, when Civil War broke out between Parliament and Charles I, resulting in the execution of the monarch and a brief period of a republic. This lasted until 1660, with the death of Oliver Cromwell and the restoration of Charles II as monarch. Britain has had a monarchy ever since, albeit with a gradual reduction in their powers. The Glorious Revolution of 1689 finally established the primacy of Parliament over the monarch, along with the principle of constitutional rule.

Until the mid-18 th century, politics in Britain had mainly been the preserve of the aristocracy. The onset of the industrial revolution changed society, leading to the development of a new kind of class structure. Pressure increased to increase the opportunity to participate in politics from the ranks of the newly-formed ‘middle’ classes. As a result, a series of Great Reform Acts extended the franchise to more and more people, until, in 1928, universal suffrage was established. Politics was now an activity involving the masses, rather than just the elite. Britain’s model of parliamentary democracy became a model for other countries.

Features of Democracy in the UK

Democracy in the UK is characterised by regular, free and fair elections. These are conducted by secret ballot, where everyone’s vote in private and so free from outside pressure. Everyone’s vote is of the same value, there is a choice of candidates/parties, everyone over the age of 18 has the right to vote, unless they are in prison or have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Voting is not compulsory in the UK. The Electoral Commission oversees the administration and running of elections. Its purpose is to ensure that election rules are being followed, for example spending limits, and to ensure that electoral fraud is not being committed.

Parliament is another feature of the UK’s democratic system. This consists of the monarch, the House of Commons (which is elected) and the House of Lords (which is appointed). The government is formed from the party which has an overall majority in the House of Commons. In the event of a hung parliament (where there is no overall majority), parties are able to join together to create coalitions. This is very rare in the UK, due to the characteristics of the electoral system. The electorate votes in Members of Parliament every five years, under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act. In addition to this, there are elections for local councillors, Members of the European Parliament, and Mayors of major cities Voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also vote in elections to their devolved legislatures. Since 1997, referendums have been more widely used in the UK to vote on single issues. These can be binding (Parliament must accept and implement the result) or advisory (Parliament does not need to implement the result).

Finally, pressure groups also supplement the ‘formal’ structures of UK democracy. These are groups which vary hugely in size and influence, but are usually concerned with a particular issue or a particular group in society. Examples of these include the Confederation of British Industry and Greenpeace.

Participation Crisis

Concerns have been raised over a ‘participation crisis’ in UK democracy. This has been fuelled by declining turnout rates in elections and rising levels of apathy (people not being ‘bothered’ by politics). For example, in the 2001 UK general election, turnout was only 59%. Also, membership of political parties such as Labour and the Conservatives has dropped dramatically over the years. People tend to identify much less with a political party, whereas they did much more in the early part of the previous century. The negative public perception of politicians may also be a factor in this. In addition, the characteristics of the electoral system in the UK means that many people live in ‘safe seats’, where one party is all-but guaranteed to win, so this makes people less encouraged to vote, or be interested in politics generally.

However , some have argued that political participation may be taking place in different ways, and that the idea of a ‘participation crisis’ may be overstated. For example, people involve themselves in politics through signing petitions, debating on social media, joining pressure groups, going on protest marches, donating money to a cause, and so on. The large turnouts in the Scottish and EU referendums are further evidence that perhaps people are not participating less, just in different ways.

Could Democracy in the UK Be Improved

One way to improve democracy in the UK could be to hold more referendums on key issues. This would improve democracy because it would encourage more people to take an interest in the issues and be involved (see: success of Scottish and EU referendums in involving people in politics)

Other similar ways of involving people in politics may be to ask the public to be involved in focus groups (where people’s views are canvassed by the government or other bodies), or to initiate recall of their MP (where constituents can vote to remove their MP and trigger a new election, for example in the case of wrongdoing). More use of online petitions may also help (e.g. e-petitions which gain over 100,000 signatures can be discussed in Parliament)

Reducing the voting age has also been suggested as a way of improving democracy, for example lowering the voting age from 18 to 16. This may help engage people in politics from a younger age, and also make politicians think more about young peoples’ issues. The downside of this is that many 16-year-olds may not be mature or knowledgeable enough about politics, and if they do not vote, turnout percentage may actually decrease.

Lastly, democracy could be improved through the increased use of ‘e-democracy’, for example online voting, e-petitions, using online resources to organise campaigns, and debating on social media. This may make it practically easier to be involved in democracy, and therefore encourage higher participation levels. Arguments against this would be the concerns over security/voter fraud, and that not everyone may be able to access such democracy equally.

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges and Departments
• Email and phone search
• Give to Cambridge
• Museums and collections
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Fees and funding
• Postgraduate events
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement

Is Democracy Dying?

The second Vice-Chancellor’s Dialogues event grapples with the question: 'is liberal democracy dying?' The evening will be hosted by Vice-Chancellor Professor Deborah Prentice and chaired by the Master of Selwyn College.

2024 is the year of elections. A record number of elections will take place, with half the adult population of the world, some two billion people, having the chance to vote. Is this a milestone to be celebrated in our democratic history or are we at a crossroads where the fate of liberal democracy hangs in the balance?

Against a backdrop of polarising populist movements, the erosion of trust in traditional institutions and a decline of democratic norms, we ask: is democracy dying? Is the election of populists an expression of democracy or a breakdown of democracy? How resilient are our democratic institutions in the face of unprecedented challenges? Is the tension between liberal and democracy ultimately too great to resolve?

Join us on 24 April to grapple with these questions in our second Vice-Chancellor’s Dialogues, hosted by Vice-Chancellor Professor Deborah Prentice .

Our speakers

• David Goodhart , founding editor of Prospect magazine and Head of the Demography, Immigration and Integration unit at the think tank Policy Exchange. He is the author of The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics.
• Nabila Ramdani , award-winning journalist, broadcaster and academic. She is the author of Fixing France: How to Repair a Broken Republic.
• Helen Thompson , Professor of Political Economy at the University of Cambridge. She is a regular panellist on Talking Politics and a columnist for the New Statesman.

The discussion will be chaired by Roger Mosey , Master of Selwyn College and former Editorial Director of the BBC. The event is public and open to all, but attendees must register on Eventbrite.

Register to attend  

If you're not able to attend, we'll publish a recording of the event in the coming weeks.

Media enquiries

Search news, sign up to receive our newsletter.

The University's news digest summarises news from and about the University of Cambridge. Enter your email address, confirm you are happy to receive our emails and then select 'Subscribe'.

I wish to receive the University's news digest by email.

The University of Cambridge will use your email address to send you our University news digest email up to three times per week. We are committed to protecting your personal information and being transparent about what information we hold. Please read our email privacy notice for details.

• Deborah Prentice
• Vice-Chancellor
• Helen Thompson
• Selwyn College

Connect with us

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility statement
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Cambridge University Press & Assessment
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

• TOP CATEGORIES
• AS and A Level
• University Degree
• International Baccalaureate
• Uncategorised
• 5 Star Essays
• Study Tools
• Study Guides
• Meet the Team
• United Kingdom

How healthy is the UK democracy

 How healthy is representative democracy in the UK?

Representative democracy in the UK fulfils the basic requirements of such a system but is by no means perfect. There has been an increasing level of support for both constitutional reform and a change in the election system in the UK over the last few years.

        Perhaps the main modern concern about democracy in the UK stems from evidence of growing political apathy. Some have seen this as nothing less than a “participation crisis.” A representative democracy can not be healthy if increasing numbers of citizens are uninterested or unwilling to engage in political life. This is more evident in the declining voter turn out at general elections. Until 1992 voter turn out was usually around 75%, with a record of 84% being achieved in 1950, and even by 1997 with the election of Blair on a landslide labour victory 71% of people turned up to voice their opinion. However this started to change with the 2001 election attracting barely 59% of the public, the lowest since 1918. The same is also true of membership of political parties. Now only 1% of the populations is a member of a political party compared to 7% 50 years before. Labour party membership has fallen from 800,000 to 200,000 and conservative membership from 2.5million to 250,000! A representative democracy works on the notion of the public electing representatives to represent them. If this is not happening that the current political system is not representative of the public and so its democratic legitimacy is questionable.

This is a preview of the whole essay

         Another issue to consider is that of the growing dislike and distrust in politicians by the general public. This not only may be the reason behind dwindling voter turnout but also the rise in the importance and popularity of pressure groups and extreme fringe and single issue parties. Scandals such as the “expenses scandal”, “cash for honours” and “cash for questions” all helped to reduce public trust in parliament, and thus the representative system as people feel those in power do not truly represent them. It is a similar case for the actual representativeness of candidates, which also questionable. There are still a distinct lack of women and ethnic minority MP’s in the House of Commons. Others feel their vote is worthless and effectively wasted as smaller parties stand very little chance of winning any seats, partially due to the FPTP system. For example Labour and the Liberal democrats may get a similar percentage of the vote and yet Labour could take 50% more seats than the Lib-Dems.

        A final distinct problem with out current representative democracy is that not all of it is elected and thus by default not representative. The house of Lords is the best example of this. Despite numerous reforms the second chamber still contains some 92 hereditary peers! A similar case can also be made for the current Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. As Blair stepped down half way through a term, Gordon Brown became prime minister without anyone technically voting for him. As a result his legitimacy in such a position is often questioned.

        In conclusion we can see that our representative democracy does indeed have its issues, but it must be remembered that it also has many plus points. We have universal suffrage, a system where anyone can stand for election, many checks and balances on the executive, a fairly accountable government, and an increasingly multi party system especially after the surge in support of the Liberal Democrats after the televised Leaders debates in the build up to the 2010 general election. Also voter turnout rose in 2005 to 61% and is on track to rise again in the 2010 election. The number of Women and ethnic minority MP’s is also increasing, as was evident with “Blaires Babes” and “Camerons A-team”. The introduction of the TV leader’s debates in April 2010 was also a step in the right direction for representative democracy in the UK as the public reacted well to the Leaders of the 3 main parties having to answer questions directly from then. In essence representative democracy in the UK, while having its problems is still overwhelmingly legitimate and by the looks of things is set to improve over the years.

Teacher Reviews

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay.

3 stars - This essay identifies the key issues that contribute towards answering this question, it is logically argued and considers more than one perspective. The points are largely accurate and clearly explained, logical and relevant examples are used. In identified areas the comments were somewhat generalised and needed to be further explained and supported in order to demonstrate greater insight. In terms of structure and balance, greater weight could have been given to the counter argument, or it could have been integrated into the main body of the essay. There were several errors which indicate more thorough proof reading was required.

Document Details

• Word Count 715
• Page Count 2
• Level AS and A Level
• Subject Politics

Related Essays

How effectively does representative democracy operate in the UK?

Democracy in Uk

Democracy and Elections in the UK

The Politics Shed- A Free Text Book for all students of Politics.

How well are Rights protected in the UK?

How effective is the judiciary at protecting civil liberties.

The History and development of Rights in the UK

What has been the effect of the Human Rights Act? Has it worked?

Recent changes such as the Human Rights Act , Freedom of Information Act and Equality Act   and the creation of a Supreme Court has led to the suggestion that there is now a ' rights-based culture ' in the UK.

In 2001 Parliament established th e The Joint Committee on Human Rights which as a consequence of the HRA review the application of incompatibility orders which result from a conflict between the Act and existing or proposed legislation. The Committee is also an important watchdog with a general function of reviewing all new laws and thier impact on human rights with regard to common law and international law.

But the HRA has limitations,  while all new legislation must be compliant wi th the act and judges can declare earlier acts of Parliament incompatible with it they  cannot legally compel Parliament to make changes. This is because of the all-important concept of parliamentary sovereignty so the HRA is not entrenched (i.e. it's not a form of higher law like the US Bill of Rights)

So to be clear: The UK does not have a Bill of Rights!

Evidence for  rights based culture might be  an increased use of judicial review . The number of reviews rose from around 4240 in 2000 to around 15,600 by 2013. Examples of successful challenges to government policies include High Court rulings that retired Gurkha soldiers should be allowed to settle in the UK (2008), and that the government had not consulted fairly on compensation for people affected by the planned High Speed Rail link (2013).

Judicial Review Cases

A prominent example of judicial review — sometimes called `judge-made law' — is the issue of privacy. Judges have been accused of effectively creating a privacy law through the way they have interpreted the Human Rights Act. In a series of high-profile court cases, they appeared to give priority to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to privacy) over Article 10 (the right to freedom of expression), as claimed by the press. This occurred even though specific legislation on the subject had not been passed by Parliament, and was not a prominent feature of common law . This called in to question the principle of the Rule of Law since wealthy individuals, who could afford to take legal action, had an unfair advantage. For example, in 2008 the High Court awarded Max Mosley, the head of the Formula 1 motor racing organisation, substantial damages when the News of the World published a story about his sex life, which he argued had breached his privacy. Max Mosley failed in a subsequent case at the European Court of Human Rights, which refused to rule that newspapers should notify people before printing stories about their personal lives.

A criminals' charter?

Another serious fault for Conservative critics of the Human Rights Act is the way that it seems to show favour to undeserving individuals, rather than protecting the legitimate freedoms of UK citizens. The Conservatives have argued for many years for the replacement of the act with a new 'British Bill of Rights', which would establish the supremacy of British courts over the European Court of Human Rights. The case of Abu Qatada illustrates the frustration caused by the way in which the Human Rights Act was implemented.

 Unelected judges with too much power? - Judicial Tyranny

judicial review may be a vital means of defending citizens' rights, enabling the legality of government actions to be properly scrutinised but its critics argue that it places too much power in the hands of unelected and unaccountable judges.

Is the UK Supreme Court too political?

  The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022  

The HRA has not prevented an attack on civil liberties in recent years

After the 9/11 terror attacks in the USA in 2001, and the 7/7 Underground and bus bombings in 2005, the HRA did not stop the government limiting civil liberties in the interests of protecting the wider community. Ministers argued that they were entitled to detain terror suspects without trial on the grounds that a national emergency existed. In December 2004, in the Case of the Belmarsh 9, the Law Lords (the highest court in the land before the creation of the Supreme Court) ruled that indefinite detention of foreign nationals, on suspicion of involvement in terrorism, was discriminatory. Faced with this legal challenge, the government passed a new law to introduce a system of control orders that enabled suspects to be closely monitored, such as through electronic tagging, a requirement to report to the police and removal of mobile phones and Internet access. Control orders were kept in place, despite adverse rulings by judges, until 2011 when the coalition government replaced them with a modified version known as Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs).

The Blair Government was accused of increasing authori­tarianism in the UK. The 2007 film, Taking Liberties, which examined the Blair government's record on civil liberties, even warned about the emergence in the UK of a 'police state'. 

Have civil liberties been under threat? If so, why has this happened?

The Labour government's record on civil liberties between 1997 and 2010 was a mixed one. In the first place, this period witnessed major advances in individual rights, widely welcomed by groups campaigning on civil liberties issues, such as Charter 88, Liberty, and Freedom and Law. The Human Rights Act was the most significant example of this, but others included the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which marked a major advance in open government and helped to establish a public right to know. Other examples of a strengthening of rights include the establishment of the right to roam through the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This was a culmination of many generations of campaigning by ramblers ( Ramblers Association ) and civil liberties groups.

On the other hand, Labour's critics drew attention to its civil liberties 'blind spot', reflected in the growth of legislation that expands the power of the state and weakens or removes civil liberties or individual rights. Various measures have contributed to this 'drift towards authoritarianism'. For example:

 The right to a jury trial was restricted in 1999 by new rules that made it more difficult for people accused of theft, burglary and assault from opting to be tried by a Crown Court (where juries sit), rather than by a magistrate.

Detention was introduced for asylum seekers whose claims have been refused, and access to the benefits system was replaced by shopping vouchers for refugees.

 Public order legislation led to restrictions being imposed on the right to protest.

Anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs), first introduced in 1999, imposed a range of restrictions on (usually young) 'offenders', often on the basis of hearsay evidence and in the absence of a jury.

The Identity Card Act 2006 provided for identity cards to be phased-in on a voluntary basis from 2009 (although these plans were abandoned after Labour's 2010 defeat).

However, the government's most controversial measures were its anti-terrorism legislation, passed in the aftermath of 9/11 (the 2001 terrorist attack on New York and Washington) and 7/7 (the coordinated 2005 terrorist attacks on London). This gave the police the power to hold suspects for 28 days without being charged (ie told what they were suspected of doing) if they were suspected of terrorism offences.

Changes to Civil Liberties under New Labour  

DNA database, Double Jeopardy (2003) Anti-Terror laws, end of jury trials for Serious Fraud.

 Coalition reforms , Freedom Bill , reversing 28 days, green paper on 'secret courts',  and the Counter Terrorism Ac t   2015 ( Amended 2016)

However, some restrictive measures have been abandoned in the face of parliamentary and public opposition. For example, in November 2005, the Blair government's proposal to extend the period that a suspect could be held before being charged, from 14 to 90 days, was defeated in the Commons. The government then compromised on 28 days and abandoned a subsequent attempt to increase it to 42 days, following a defeat in the Lords in 2008. Under the coalition, the 28-day period was halved, and the Labour government's plan for compulsory identity cards was scrapped.

However, the public has been remarkably willing to sacrifice some liberties at a time of heightened concern over security. Governments have tended to place the safety of society above the protection of individual rights. This explains why pro-human rights pressure groups such as Liberty have had limited success in deflecting government policy. For example, Plans for a British Bill of Rights , Legal aid cuts , Internet Surveillance and Extending Secret Courts -2 013 Justice and Security Act (Closed Material Practices), which permit terrorist suspects and major criminals to be tried without the evidence against them being disclosed in full. The passage of the Investigatory Powers Bill — the so-called 'Snoopers' Charter' —which increases the power of the intelligence agencies by obliging Internet companies to store information about customers' browsing history.

In 2016, Parliament passed the Investigatory Powers Act, which authorises the retention of personal electronic data and its access for law enforcement.

 In 2020, Ed Bridges and the pressure group Liberty brought a case against South Wales Police over whether it could use automatic facial recognition technology. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal ruled that more care should be taken in how the technology is used. However, the benefits to society are ‘potentially great’ and the threat to the individual’s privacy ‘minor’.

In 2020 after a terrorist suspect was released from prison under an early release scheme designed to reduce the prison population, who went on to carry out an attack, the government promised an emergency bill to end early release. The bill was delayed by the COVID crisis but in May the government announced the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill, which as promised ended early release but also gave the police new powers to impose TPims . A TPim imposed strict limits on an individual's freedom. The new law would mean this could be imposed for an unlimited time ( currently they are limited for two years) and the bill would reduce the threshold of evidence to mean a TPims would only need a 'balance of probability' ie - you could be a terrorist !

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Reaction to the London attacks

TPims Explained

 The Johnson government’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022  was designed to limit the impact of public protests and has thus generated significant opposition from civil liberties groups.

 In the Queen’s Speech (2022) the Johnson government controversially committed to introducing a British bill of rights, replacing certain elements of the Human Rights Act, so that ‘there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government, strengthening freedom of speech’. The Human Rights Reform Bill received its first reading in 2022 but has not progressed. The influential Joint Committee on Human Rights said a planned Bill of Rights Act would restrict certain protections "the government finds inconvenient". Liz Truss's government  shelved plans for Human Right Bill with was design designed to give ministers the power to ignore human rights rulings from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).  

In 2022, the Johnson government controversially introduced a policy to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda rather than allow them to claim asylum in the UK. Designed to stem the flow of cross-Channel refugees and deter people-trafficking, the policy was condemned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, as ‘subcontracting our responsibilities’.

Can asylum seekers be sent to Rwanda ? November 2023 

Nationality and Borders Act 2022: The Nationality and Borders Bill was introduced into the House of Commons in July 2021 and On 27 April 2022 the  Nationality and Border Bill became an Act of law .       Criticisms around the Act include concerns around its departure from international convention and possible incompatibility with international law, and the creation of a two–tier system for refugees, which will penalise those who enter the UK through unofficial routes . Amongst other elements, it proposes to introduce "designated places" or "offshore" asylum hubs for application of refugee and migrant asylum claims, potentially in another European country or an African country  

Essay: How effective are the judiciary at protecting civil rights in the UK (30) Edexcel/AQA A Level

The UK judiciary has several methods at its disposal that provide an effective protection of civil liberties in the UK. However, in practice, there are several shortcomings that make these protections weak in the face of Parliamentary pressure, which will be demonstrated in this essay.

In terms of rights protections, perhaps the most important development in the protection of rights in the UK has been the installation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998. This act effectively has provided a concrete document that outlines the rights of citizens. Since the passing of this act, judges have been able rule more confidently based on the legislation rather than using complex declarations of the common law via precedents. The increased ease for judges and clarity for citizens has increased the effectiveness of rights protection by the judiciary because now the judiciary can use articles in the HR Act to rule in favour of individuals. For example, in the case of Catherine Zeta Jones v. Hello Magazine 2001, the court was able to rule clearly that the article 8 right to privacy outweighed the magazine's article 10 right to expression and thus Zeta Jones' wedding was allowed to remain private. This clearly shows an effective protection of liberty by judges.

Furthermore, a vital protection of liberties can be exercised via judicial review. Judicial review is a process that is conducted in the Supreme Court that hears an appeal over the lawfulness of a case. It is not focused on the rights and wrongs of a case, this would be a case for appeal courts following the above methods, judicial review is simply an examination of the lawfulness of a case. For example, in the case of Home Secretary v. AP 2010 an appeal allowing the government to detain AP on a control order was taken to the Supreme Court to review its lawfulness. The Supreme Court ruled that in fact, based on the 2008 JJ case as a precedent, the appeal court's ruling in fact constituted a breach of article 5, and that the article 5 interests also contributed to breaches under article 8 of the act. The resulting ruling was that the government control order was 'ultra vires' and had to be rescinded. In this way, the judiciary's ability to reverse executive action by ruling it beyond its powers provides a very effective protection of liberties in the UK. Other examples of ministers being ruled ultra vires and ordered to reverse actions following judicial review include the freezing of terrorist assets with parliamentary approval in 2005, and more recently the reversal of Theresa May's immigration points system which again had not consulted Parliament.

Finally, if both the above methods fail then the individual can take their appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. Rulings from Europe are effectively binding on government and often defend the individual. Examples include the Hurst case in 2004 where voting bans for prisoners were ruled in breach of the ECHR, and more recently in 2012 with the blocking of Home Office attempts to deport terror suspect Abu Qatada to Jordan. Both of these cases have proved effectively binding on Parliament and while the prisoners votes issue is still ongoing, Qatada has avoided deportation since 2001 via the courts. This shows the huge protections that judges can impart on civil liberties.

On the other hand, the sovereignty of Parliament does provide a large hindrance to the judiciary's ability to protect liberty. Acts of Parliament are binding on all bodies within the UK, including the Supreme Court. The sovereign status of Parliament puts it above the judiciary, and if a ruling is passed that the government do not like, they can always legislate to avoid the ruling. This was seen in 2005 when in response to the Belmarsh case the government passed the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act. This act allowed the use of control orders which got around the judicial ruling banning detention without trial. This shows that the sovereignty of Parliament hinders the judiciary's ability to protect liberty.

In addition to this, judges cannot be pro-active in Britain and must wait for appeals to come before engaging in their protective role. The Belmarsh case of 2004 was 3 years after the original 2001 Anti Terrorism Act and was not brought until the pressure group Liberty brought the case forward in behalf of the detainees. This means that erosion of civil liberty can stand for years until someone challenges it, making the effectiveness of judges appear weak.

Finally, due to the lack of an entrenched constitution, erosion of civil liberty is very easy for the government to do, and very difficult for judges to reverse. Labour's range of anti-terror laws followed by ID cards, the DNA database and expansion of CCTV all were programs that the judges could do nothing about. The sovereignty of Parliament and the implicit nature of the liberty erosion in these bills made it impossible for the judges to overturn any of these provisions, even though they constitute a clear breach of privacy and liberty. The fact that it took subsequent acts of Parliament to overturn these measures shows that while judges can act like an irritation, if Parliament is resolved it can do anything, including scrap the Human Rights Act. This hinders the effectiveness of the judiciary to protect liberty, because if they had outright power to strike down laws like the US Supreme Court, the protection would be far more extensive and effective.

In conclusion, it is clear from the evidence that on a day to day basis rights are generally fairly and effectively protected by the judiciary. The national debate over whether judges have too much power in backlash to the Abu Qatada situation is evidence that in fact judges do effectively protect civil liberties. However, with the drawbacks highlighted, all it takes is for a resolved Parliament to decide national security is under threat for them to erode liberty at will, with the judges powerless to strike down law. For this reason, there remains an underlying ineffectiveness in what the judges can do to protect liberty in the UK.

A grade ' A' essay- which was written in timed conditions over 45 minutes

How well are  rights are protected by:

Legislation/parliament: .

During the pandemic laws were passed with limited scrutiny . At the start of the crisis, the Coronavirus Act formed the central part of the government’s response to COVID-19. The Act was passed by Parliament in just 4 working days, in March 2020. The speed at which it was passed might suggest that it was subjected to relatively little parliamentary scrutiny, demonstrating the strength of the executive. The Act has given the government an enormous range of powers, largely to impose new regulations in response to COVID-19. These can be introduced without parliament scrutiny.  

Even in non pandemic time Parliament is dominated by the executive. How well does Parliament fulfill its functions?

Human Rights Act  

Pressure groups . 

Case study liberty, case study amnesty.

Case study : The Electoral Reform Society and voter ID  

Case study : Liberty and vaccine passports  

Case study : the 3million and local voting rights for EU citizens  

The Constitution 

 The Supreme Court has been seen as a ‘missed opportunity’ by those who favour more radical reform, particularly by those who call for an entrenched bill of rights  

Freedom of Information Act

Human Rights Act

Criticisms of the Constitution  

Party Discipline and Elective Dictatorship  

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Young people in the UK: how do you feel about voting?

We’d like to hear how people under 30 in Britain feel about voting in political elections, and whether they are planning to go to the polls this year

We’re interested to hear from young people in the UK about how they feel about voting.

If you are under 30 and live in the UK, tell us whether you’re planning to vote in upcoming political elections, and if not why not. Are you registered to vote? Do you believe your vote can make a difference? Have you voted in the past or are you a potential first time voter?

Tell us how whether you are intending to cast your vote in upcoming elections in the UK, and how you feel about voting more generally these days.

Please include as much detail as possible

Please note, the maximum file size is 5.7 MB.

Your contact details are helpful so we can contact you for more information. They will only be seen by the Guardian.

If you include other people's names please ask them first.

Contact us on WhatsApp at +447766780300.

For more information, please see our guidance on contacting us via WhatsApp . For true anonymity please use our SecureDrop service instead.

• General elections
• Voter apathy

Most viewed