British Politics

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 308–334 | Cite as

Inaction and reaction – Coalition government and constitutional reform in the United Kingdom

  • Felicity Matthews
Original Article


Constitutional reform in the United Kingdom is a story frequently framed around the narratives of missed opportunities, executive intransigence and institutional stickiness. Yet in times of flux and uncertainty, matters of the constitution can scale the political agenda at breakneck speed; and as the architecture of the United Kingdom teeters on the precipice of potentially fundamental upheaval, it is crucial to locate recent events within the broader history of constitutional reform in order to tease apart the dynamics of stasis and change. This article responds by offering the first complete in-depth analysis of the 2010–2015 Coalition Government’s record on the constitution, focusing on the gap between rhetoric and reform, and the way in which constitutional traditions have confounded the ability to effectively manage the tensions that exist within the UK’s uneasy settlement. In doing so, the article sets out the institutional and ideational factors that have influenced attitudes towards constitutional reform, in particular focusing on the way in which dilemmas of office have confounded meaningful attempts to alter Britain’s constitutional fabric. It argues that three critical factors together explain the Coalition’s record on the constitution: the clash of constitutional philosophies within the Coalition; the dilemmas with which the Liberal Democrats were confronted in the transition from opposition to government; and, the extent to which the governing norms of constitution effectively neuter attempts to its reform. The findings of this article are therefore salient and significant, providing valuable lessons regarding the tenability of the UK’s extant constitutional architecture and the capacity of the Conservative Government to successfully manage and vent the myriad of pressures upon it.


constitution constitutional reform coalition government institutions ideology 


  1. Adonis, A. (2013) Five Days in May. London: Biteback Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, P. and Mann, N. (1997) Safety First – The Making of New Labour. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  3. Ashdown, P. (2000) The Ashdown Diaries, Vol. 1: 1988–1997. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  4. Bevir, M. and Rhodes, R.A.W. (2003) Interpreting British Government. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogdanor, V. (2014) Reform will take time and patience. The Times 22 March.Google Scholar
  6. Carrell, S. and Watt, N. (2012) Alex Salmond hails historic day for Scotland after referendum deal. The Guardian 15 October.Google Scholar
  7. Cm. 8077 (2011) House of Lords Reform Draft Bill. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  8. Cm. 8969 (2014) Implications of Devolution for England. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  9. Cm. 8990 (2015) Scotland in the United Kingdom: An Enduring Settlement. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  10. Cole, M. (2009) Icarus turns back: Liberal democrat constitutional policy. In: S. Griffiths and K. Hickson (eds.) British Party Politics and Ideology After New Labour. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 155–172.Google Scholar
  11. Constitution Unit (2010) The Conservative-Liberal Democrat Agenda for Constitutional and Political Reform. London: Constitution Unit.Google Scholar
  12. Conservatives (2010) Invitation to Join the Government of Britain. London: Conservative Party.Google Scholar
  13. Conservatives (2015) Stronger Leadership; A Clear Economic Plan; A Brighter, More Secure Future. London: Conservatives.Google Scholar
  14. Department for Communities and Local Government (2011) A Plain English Guide to the Localism Act. London: CLG.Google Scholar
  15. Dorey, P. (2008) The Labour Party and Constitutional Reform: A History of Constitutional Conservatism. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Electoral Commission (2013) Police and Crime Commissioner Elections in England and Wales. Report on the administration of the elections held on 15 November 2012. London: Electoral Commission.Google Scholar
  17. Finklestein, D. (2010) Westminster chatter won’t change the result. The Times 3 March.Google Scholar
  18. Flinders, M. (2007) Analysing reform: The house of commons, 2001–5. Political Studies 55 (2): 174–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flinders, M. (2009) Democratic Drift: Majoritarian Modification and Democratic Anomie in the United Kingdom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foley, M. (1999) The Politics of the British Constitution. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Griffith, J.A.G. (1979) The political constitution. The Modern Law Review 42 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hansard Society (2012) What Next for e-Petitions? London: Hansard Society.Google Scholar
  23. Harvey, J. and Bather, L. (1964) The British Constitution. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. HC 528 (2010) Lessons from the Process of Government Formation After the 2010 Election, Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  25. HC 547 (2011) Localism, Communities and Local Government Committee. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  26. HC 82-II (2013) Revisiting Rebuilding the House: The Impact of the Wright Reforms, Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  27. HC 371 (2013) Do We Need a Constitutional Convention for the UK? Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  28. HC 463 (2014) A New Magna Carta? Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  29. HC 757 (2014) Police and Crime Commissioners: Progress to Date. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  30. HC 1022 (2015) Constitutional implications of the Government’s Draft Scotland Clauses, Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  31. HC 1033 (2013) Budget 2013. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  32. HC 1117 (2009) Rebuilding the House, House of Commons Reform Committee. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  33. Hennessy, P. (1997) Muddling Through: Power, Politics and the Quality of Government in Post-War Britain. London: Phoenix.Google Scholar
  34. HL 145 (2015) Proposals for the Devolution of Further Powers to Scotland, House of Lords Committee on the Constitution. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  35. HM Government (2010) The Coalition: our programme for government. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  36. Judge, D. (1993) The Parliamentary State. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Kelso, A. (2009) Parliamentary Reform at Westminster. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Labour Party (2010) A Future Fair for All. London: Labour Party.Google Scholar
  39. Laws, D. (2010) 22 Days in May: The Birth of the Lib Dem-Conservative Coalition. London: Biteback.Google Scholar
  40. Liberal Democrats (2010) Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2010. London: Liberal Democrats.Google Scholar
  41. Liberal Democrats (2015) Stronger Economy. Fairer Society. Opportunity for Everyone. London: Liberal Democrats.Google Scholar
  42. Lipsey, D. (2011) A very peculiar revolution: Britain’s politics and constitution, 1970–2011. Political Quarterly 82 (3): 351–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Low, S. (1904) The Governance of England. London: Unwin.Google Scholar
  44. March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (2006) Elaborating the ‘new institutionalism’. In: R.A.W. Rhodes, S.A. Binder and B.A. Rockman (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–22.Google Scholar
  45. Marsh, D. and Hall, M. (2007) Political tradition(s): Beyond Bevir and Rhodes. British Politics 2 (2): 215–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McLean, I. (2009) What’s Wrong With the British Constitution? Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Merelman, R. (2003) Pluralism at Yale: The Culture of Political Science in America. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  48. Morison, J. (1998) The case against constitutional reform? Journal of Law and Society 25 (4): 510–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Norris, P. (2001) The twilight of Westminster? Electoral reform and its consequences. Political Studies 49 (4): 877–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Norton, P. (2005) The constitution. In: K. Hickson (ed.) The Political Thought of the Conservative Party since 1945. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Norton, P. (2007) Tony Blair and the constitution. British Politics 2 (2): 269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Norton, P. (2012) Speaking for the people: A conservative narrative of democracy. Policy Studies 33 (2): 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Quinn, T., Bara, J. and Bartle, J. (2011) The UK coalition agreement of 2010: Who won? Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 21 (2): 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith Commission (2014) Smith Commission for Further Devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament. London: Smith Commission.Google Scholar
  55. Sylvester, R. (2014) Cocky Cameron surrenders keys to the kingdom. The Times 16 September.Google Scholar
  56. The Telegraph (2011) David Cameron says AV is ‘obscure, unfair and expensive’ as coalition divisions exposed. 18 April.Google Scholar
  57. The Telegraph (2015) David Cameron: Nicola Sturgeon must ‘respect’ my role as prime minister. 15 May.Google Scholar
  58. The Times (2010) Broken Britain. 9 February.Google Scholar
  59. The Times (2014) The British question. 20 September.Google Scholar
  60. The Times (2015) Cameron could still lose with 1 m more votes than Labour. 2 May.Google Scholar
  61. Wilson, G. (1997) British democracy and its discontents. In: M. Herper, A. Kazancigil and B.A. Rockman (eds.) Institutions and Democratic Statecraft. Boulder, CO: Westview, pp. 59–76.Google Scholar
  62. Wilson, R. (2005) Constitutional change: A note by the bedside. Political Quarterly 76 (2): 281–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yong, B. (2012) Formation of the Coalition. In: R. Hazell and B. Yong (eds.) The Politics of the Coalition - How the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Works. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 26–48.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felicity Matthews
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PoliticsUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations