A 'Projected Grade' is an estimate of the final grade you might receive if the full essay is completed in the same style as the work assessed.
This highlight shows analysis of View A (Professor Reed).
This highlight shows analysis of View B (Dr. Croft).
This highlight shows your own Evaluation, where you weigh the views or make a judgment.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
The UK's unwritten constitution has not been written down in one document, reflecting the number of years of laws from the UK. This makes the UK's constitution uncodified. Having an unwritten constitution allows each new government to easily change legislation. They are also quicker to be passed. Professor Evelyn also states that it's a 'dynamic mix of statute law, common law, and convention that has adapted over the centuries'. However, Julian Croft states that an unwritten constitution is 'dangerously unfit for the modern world'. I agree with this statement, as it is easy for the government to understand but not us citizens. But it may be easier for questionable laws to be passed. Therefore, with both these arguments, I agree with Professor Evelyn.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
Despite Evelyn Reed explaining how the UK's Unwritten Constitution is one of its greatest strengths, providing a framework for governance that is stable and also flexible. And how it's a dynamic mix of salve law and common laws that has adapted over time. Julian Croft however rightfully states how the so-called 'Unwritten' Constitution is a relic of the past, which is dangerous and irrelevant for modern day citizens. It would be harder to understand as different rules were set throughout the years from the Magna Carta till now. However as Evelyn Reed still explains her argument she portrays how the supreme legal authority rests with the elected House of Commons, ensuring that the power ultimately lies with the people's representatives, which can be an argument. But it may be easier to use more control. In contrast to that our liberties are therefore not properly protected; as they only exist at the pleasure of the government and can be removed by a simple Act of Parliament.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
On the one hand professor Evelyn Reed (ER) states that unwritten constitutions are ‘stable and remarkably flexible’ This is credible because this means we can keep with society as views and beliefs change very often & an unwritten constitution means we can change things simply unlike the American constitution which is codified which makes it extremly hard to change laws as guns are still allowed and can impact safety of the public. E.R also says ‘checks and balances prevent the abuse of power.’ This is true as judicial review can reform laws which are unlawful and HoL offer scrutiny to ensure laws made are in the intrest of the public. This makes sure power isint concentrated and that parliament is the top of the legal body and can create and abolish laws. However something she hasn’t mentioned is that the constituency can cause ambiguity and people may be unsure of what their rights are. On the other hand Dr. Jullian Croft (J.C) states that “parliamentry sovereignty [is] a risk of ‘elective’ dictatorship” he states that this means any party with the majority can pass any law which may not be of public interest. This is true however what they have forgotten to mention is that civil servants are suppose to advice the PM and ensure that laws passed are in the interest of the public. he also states a ‘modern democracy deserves a single, clear, written constitution’. This loses credibility as although a constitution should be clear if it is written it dosent keep up with the changes or needs of public. After considering all the points I agree more with E.R. as a unwritten constitution is flexible.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree more with Professor Evelyn Reed (PER). This is because she states that the UK's unwritten constitution is one of it's greatest strengths providing a framework that is stable and remarkably fixable. This means that if the country introduces a law that can be unjust to anyone, they can cancel the law with parliamentary sovereignty. Another reason why I agree more with PER is because she says that our constitution provides robust checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power. This is significant because it shows how the government are held to account and how they represent the country. However, one strong point by Dr Julian Croft is that he says our liberties are not protected properly. This is due to governments with a large majority can pass almost any law it chooses that even laws might erode fundamental rights. This is a strong point because as citizens we need to have our rights being fully protected, for example right to privacy. One weak point of DJC is that he states that the UK constitution is weak. I think this is a weak point because the UK constitution has multiple checks and balances to make sure laws and power are not being abused unfairly towards the citizens of the public.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with Evelyn Reed to an extent because she explains and talks about how unwritten constitution provides us with legal strengths. For example she says that it gives the UK a chance to change and create differing laws and constitutions. I agree with this point as countries with written constitutions often take more great to make and pass laws. Some may agree with Dr Julian Croft as the current checks and balances are too weak, it creates the risk of an elective dictatorship. And a government with a large majority can pass almost any law it chooses, even laws that erode fundamental rights.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with Evelyn Reed. (ER) as she explains what an uncodified constitution is and how it benefits us and puts us in a more flexible position in contrast to other countries. However Julian Croft (JC) disagrees this and believes that an uncodified constitution makes our governance unorganized. I agree with ER as an uncodified constitution allows our country to maintain stability and also flexibility meaning our country can react quicker to societal shifts and changes. Other countries that have codified constitution often struggle with changing laws and moving forward. However the UK's system allows our governance to evolve quickly through the use of our government chambers. Laws can easily be changed through statute law and new rules can be made by supreme court judges in reaction to special cases in court that prove the process. The use of judicial review also allows fair decisions to be made which would be hard to change with a codified constitution. Along with our constitution our select comitees check on the work of government chambers in order to maintain stability and make sure good choices are being made. The uncodified constitution allows scrutiny, stability and flexibility for our systems allowing us to move and react faster than other countries, wherefore I agree with ER.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with Evelyn reed (ER) as she says that the UK's unwritten constitution is a strength. She points out that "Our system can evolve organically to meet new challenges". This is a very strong point, as considering the fast advances in technology throughout the 20th and 21st century, new challenges involving media and new technologies emerge faster than ever before. ER says that the unwritten constitution provides the UK with a good way to adapt to these changes, making it a strong point. Dr Julian Croft (JC) however argues that the UK's constitution is "outdated" and has a "lack of clarity". This is also a strong point, as the UK's constitution is not accessible to the public as it is unwritten, meaning that as these technological advances happen, even though it will adapt, it will be unclear, as the public won't be able to access it. ER also says that "the courts hold the government to account through judicial review" which is a weak point, as judicial review can only challenge the law making process, but not the law itself. This creates for a lack of control over the parliament, as it can make laws with little to no repercussions. JC however makes a valid point by pointing out how "the existing checks and balances are too weak". This is a strong point, as it relates to other places in the world where checks and balances were too weak, and we now elective dictatorships and corrupt. Overall, I still agree with ER, as she has a strong point about how the unwritten constitution is a strength.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
In my personal opinion I agree with Professor Evelyn Reed's point as it gives government flexibility to change and develop outdated laws. In the UK things are constantly changing, ideas about what's morally right constantly develop. With a written constitution law would be static and would struggle to ever develop in laws that were already set. For example, the US has an overarching problem with firearms with mass murder attacks taking place, for them to change this law 50% of the lower house and 85% of the upper house would have to vote in favour of its removal. In 2010 the Civil Rights Act was signed empowering marginalised individuals & without this act being signed discrimination would be much more prominent today. I think this is an excellent point as being able to change and develop laws is a necessity in order to protect the people of now and the future. On the other hand, many may argue in favour of Dr Julian Croft as an unwritten constitution can make it so there is an elective democracy. This is when a party with an extremely high majority has basically supreme power over everything. One may argue checks and balances prevent this but this is false as things like judicial review can only challenge the process, the decision has made and not the fairness of the law itself. This is a great point as it would give a party supreme power ruining the concept of a democracy in the UK as a whole.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with Evelyn Reed because the UK's unwritten constitution makes law enforcement much easier because of it's strength in parliament. For example a country like the US have a written constitution and that makes law enforcement even harder to pass, another example is the US government trying to ban gun possession, written constitutions make law enforcement more difficult and takes more time than unwritten constitutions. The UK has an effective way of passing laws and that increases their stability to run the country well.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with Dr Julian Croft he give the strong answer because when he said the UK's so called unwritten constitution is a relic of the past that is dangerously unfit for the modern world. This is the strong answern, when he said this makes it inaccessible to the public and creates uncertainty about the true limits of government power, he talking about the power of the government. A moder democracy deserves a single, clear written constitution that every citizen can read and understand. Professor Evelyn Reed has the weak answer that when he said The United Kingdom's unwritten constitution is one of its greatest strengths providing a framework for governance that is both stable and remarkably flexible. This ability to change without constitutional crises is a sign of a mature and effective system. Within parliament, select committees act as powerful watchdogs, scrutinising the work of every government departement. This means that the supreme legal authority rests with the elected House of Commons ensuring that power ultimately lies with the people's representatives. Then Julian Croft said a government with a large majority can pass almost any law it chooses even laws that might erode fundamental rights without any higher.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with professor Evelyn Reed (PER) because she said it is one of the greatest strengths and it provides a framework for governance that is both stable and remarkable flexible, unlike rigid codified challenges. Also the unwritten constitution is adapted from the magna carta. Also our supreme legal authority rests with the elected house of commons ensuring that we are being represented. This is more fair and democratic. However, Dr Julian Croft (DJC) says that it is dangerously unfit for the modern world, and the government with a large majority can almost pass any laws it chooses and our liberties are therefore not properly protected. So overall I agree with PER as it is stronger and is easily adapted and is more democratic.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with Evelyn Reed's arguments as in my opinion it is much more convenient to have an unwritten constitution especially for a fully democratic country like the UK. This is because on a whim change can be made, as standards and the UK constitution was based upon standards from several hundreds of years ago not only would the be extremely expensive, but would also be going against human rights. Another point is that you can switch laws in a country with a written constitution which means you do not need to take effective, immediate actions based upon what the people want. Julian Croft's point on the government being in a state of unlimited power is completely incorrect as no matter who is in charge except legally you will always have someone there to keep you in your place and essentially look over you.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with Professor Evelyn Reed (ER) more. This is because I think having an unwritten constitution benefits the UK in many different ways. For example, having an unwritten constitutions makes it easy and quick to change. ER has a strong point where she says about providing a framework for governance that is 'stable'. Also, to insure people aren't abusing their power due to the constituency being unwritten, our constitution provides checks and balances to ensure everything is fair. However, ER has a weak point where she says an 'effective system'. This is because people may be unsure of laws and it being unwritten makes it unaccessible to the public.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
Whether or not the unwritten constitution is fit for purpose is an interesting debate with many points of view. However, I agree with the statement that it is more efficient. However, Julian Croft (JC) also makes strong arguments. I agree with Professor RE because she says the "ability to change without constitutional crises" makes for an "effective system". This is a good point because it acknowledges that values and accommodates for changing values. However, JC rebuttles this by mentioning that an unwritten constitution is "vague" and "inaccessible to the public". This is a strong argument because a lot of people are politically illiterate, and being able to see and read specified laws would help with clarity. However, JC does not mention that values change often and a written constitution cannot accommodate for this. ER also says "our constitution provides robust checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power". This is a very strong point as these checks and balances help to tailor government to be for the people and therefore as democratic as possible. However, JC argues that "a government with a large majority can pass almost any law it chooses". Except this is not quite true as a law must pass the tedious process of green paper, white paper, 3 readings and the comittee stage on both the house of lords and house of commons. This means if a law is not fair, it has many stages to be identified and even if it gets passed them all, the ultimate say lies with the public at the next election. Additionally, JC says "a codified constitution... is desperately needed to provide a stronger safeguard for citizens rights". This is a good point because in a written constitution rules will be clear, however JC doesn't mention that rules will also be absolute. There will be no case law, or judicial review and therefore no space to argue debate for improvement. We see this in countries like the US where guns, which are an incredible threats to citizens are still legal due to the written constitution.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I somewhat agree with Professor Evelyn Reed (PER). More as she explains how the UK's unwritten constitution is one of its greatest strengths as it is stable and quite flexible. The UK's constitution being flexible is really useful towards the government as it is a much easier process to pass a law. PER also states that our constitution provides robust checks and balances to prevent people from abusing their power. However, there is a lot of actions in place to watch if courts aren't being held to account and that public bodies also are being lawfull and fair. They have select committees to act as watchdogs who scrutinise the work of every government department. Furthermore, I also mainly agree with Dr Julian Croft (DJC) who disagrees with this statement and believes that the unwritten constitution is dangerously unfit for the modern world. Which I also partially agree with DJC as it can also be a hassle to find specific unwritten laws and conventions which makes it in-accessible to the public and questions the governments power. DJC also makes a powerful point that a codified constitution with an entrenched Bill of Rights is desperately needed to provide a stronger safeguard for citizens rights and therefore limit the power of the state, showing that the unwritten constitution may not be as fit for purpose as we think.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree more with Dr Julian Croft (JC) that the UK's unwritten constitution is not fit for purpose. For example, JC says that the constitution being unwritten has a massive flaw of having a 'lack of clarity'. This is a strong point as JC states that not having a concise document detailing essential laws like human rights leaves them scattered across a jumble of different laws, historical documents and vague, unwritten 'conventions'. Because many key rules are not summarised in a central legal document, people will and have had trouble finding core items, like the aforementioned human rights. Additionally, lack of clarity can tempt the government to make bills and Acts (like the 2025 Online Safety Act) which can be seen as morally and legally questionable, as they invade the privacy of people. One thing JC failed to consider is that several groups can check government authority, like judicial reviews, Parliamentary inquiries and select committees. JC also says that the 'principle of parliamentary sovereignty... creates the risk of an 'elective dictatorship'. This is also a great point as a constitution, lack thereof in this case, cannot restrict government power as said previously. However, the government, if it has a strong majority, can pass any law it likes. Because there is no codified constitution, the government would pass laws that erode fundamental rights which would infringe on the lives of the public. An elective dictatorship would mean and do illegal acts with nothing, or very few things, to stop it. However, JC fails to mention that the public may revolt and fight back, preserving democracy is successful.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
Professor Evelyn Reed believes that the UK's Unwritten constitution is one of its biggest strengths. They support this point by explaining that it makes our system remarkably flexible as the constitution can be changed quickly, rather than having to go through long voting processes like in countries such as America. However Evelyn, unlike Dr Julian Croft, fails to mention that an uncodified constitution such as the one in the UK makes it difficult for citizens to remember their rights & makes the extent of Government power more obscure as there is no written basis to go on. Therefore I believe that Evelyn makes a weak point as she doesnt provide evidence or an example to support her claim and doesn't take the systems disadvantages into account. However Dr Julian Croft believes that the UK's uncodified constitution is a dangerous system as it can lead to an "elected dictatorship" as Parliament can pass any law it wants to as long as it has a big enough majority, regardless of its affect on the countries infrastructure. He supports this point by explaining how the existing checks & balances are too weak as they can only challenge the process in which a decision was made, not the fairness of the law itself. Therefore, I am more inclined to agree with Julian as he provides more of a basis for his point and more clearly explains the negative effects of the UK's uncodified constitution.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree more with Evelyn Reed as it makes the government more stable. (ER) clearly points out that codified constitutions are difficult to change. Another reason why I would agree with (ER) is that it prevents the abuse of power so that people use it fairly and lawfully. This is beneficial because public bodies could act more lawfully. Another point is that (ER) mentions that the House of Commons ensures that power ultimately lies with people's representatives. This is fair because Judges in the Supreme Court will have the final say. I agree less with Julian Croft but they made clear points about a government with a large majority can easily pass laws that it chooses. I agree with them when they say a modern democracy deserves a single, clear, written constitution that all the citizens can view and understand. Another point is that the judicial review could challenge the process by which a decision was made. They failed to realise that power would be shared equally and fairly.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
Firstly, Evelyn Reed describes her belief that the UK's unwritten constitution is fit for purpose by explaining the many benefits of it, like flexibility and accountability. She has a strong point in saying that the UK's constitution is both stable and flexible, and backs this up by stating that codified constitutions are difficult to change. This is a valid point as it shows the upper hand the UK's constitution has compared to a codified constitution, as a codified constitution is much harder to change and evolve with changing times. An example of this is the USA, which has a written constitution. This is negative as it doesn't change to keep up with modern standards, which is why weapons like guns which cause harm are permitted. Secondly, Julian Croft describes their belief that the UK's constitution is outdated, unclear and jumbled by saying that it's a relic of the past which is scattered across different laws, documents and vague conventions. This is a strong point as without a clear, written constitution there can easily be confusion amongst what is and isn't a part of it, however, what JC fails to take into account is the fact that this system has worked for centuries, and written constitutions tend to become outdated. Overall, I agree most with ER as her points are more relevant to modern society.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree more with Evelyn Reed (ER). This is because ER accepts the fact that due to our unwritten constitution our system can evolve organically to meet new challenges. For example, in the past gay marriage wasn't legal or accepted but now, due to constantly changing views and beliefs it is allowed. This means that our unwritten constitution is flexible and able to change to match new societal beliefs. In addition ER also states that this ability to change without it resulting in a constitutional crises is a clear sign of parliamentary sovereignty. For example, although parliament is sovereign, crucial checks and balances such as judicial review, select commitees and parliamentary inquiries help to ensure a smooth and stable governance. This means that there will be a strong government that has the ability to change and cater to new societal views. On the other hand, one might agree with Dr Julian Croft (DJC). This is because DJC states that our unwritten constitution has the ability to create ambiguity about the limits of the governments power. This can lead to distrust and conflict within the country.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with Evelyn Reed (ER) as she says the United Kingdom's unwritten constitution is one of its greatest strengths because it allows the system to evolve and adapt to face different challenges. This is a strong point because it shows an understanding of the modern world and how it is constantly and rapidly changing. Another strong point ER makes is that because of the unwritten constitution supreme legal authority rests with the elected House of Commons. This argument is strong due to it having mentioning that the house of commons is elected showing that what is done there is a choice made by the citizens of the country. On the other hand Julian Croft (JC) says that the unwritten constitution is dangerously unfit for the modern world. However this argument is flawed because in the 21st century the world is constantly changing so our laws would need to be able to adapt to that. JC also says that it being unwritten the constitution is inaccessible to the public and creates uncertainty about the true limits of government power however ER clearly provides counters this through mentioning that it contains hot checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power and goes through judicial review ensuring that public body act fairly and lawfully.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with writer Professor Evelyn Reed who says the unwritten constitution is fit for purpose. I agree to an extent with professor Evelyn as she clearly states that there are frameworks for governance that is both stable and flexible. The UK's unwritten constitution system can meet new challenges and is a dynamic mix of statute law and common law. The supreme legal authority rests with the elected house of commons which ensures power ultimately lies with the people's representative. This creates a strong democratic arrangement where the people have been thought about than unelected judges in supreme courts having the final say on the validity of laws. Constitutions provide balances to prevent the abuse of power and the courts hold the government to account through judical review. However Dr. Julian Croft disagrees and that the unwritten consitution is object of the past. I agree with Dr. Julian states the principle of parliamentary sovereignty creates a risk of an elective dictatorship. Liberties are not fully protected as any government with a large majority can pass any law it chooses even laws that might erode fundamental rights. The lack of clarity creates scattered key rules and citizens right across different laws, historical documents and vague unwritten conventions. & The checks and balances are too weak and the judical review only challenges process by which decision was made.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with Professor Evelyn Reed (ER) that the UK's unwritten constitution is fit for purpose. This is because she mentions how it makes the UK's "system evolve organically to meet new challenges." She also mentioned how the constitution provides robust checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power. However, ER fails to mentioned how no ones liberties are not properly protected and only exist at the pleasure of the government and that the government can simply remove it with an Act of Parliament. I can also some what agree with Dr. Julian Croft (JC). This is because she mentions how "key rules and citizen rights are scattered across a jumble of different laws, historical documents and vague, unwritten conventions". She also mentions how a modern democracy deserves a single, clear, written constitution that every citizen can read and understand. However she didn't mention how it has a mix of statute law, common law, and convention that has adapted over centuries from Magna Carta to modern parliamentary acts.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with Julian Croft (JC) because he explains the unwritten constitution as a 'relic of the past' and 'dangerously unfit'. Specifically when he explains how the constitution is jumbled due to its lack of clarity. Here the phrase create an impact to the laws. Within that he shows us that the constitution provides "jumbles of different laws" and limits government power. As a result, we may feel like the constitution should isn't for its purpose and has a "risk of an elective dictatorship". However, perhaps someone who thinks that the unwritten constitution is fit for purpose is true, so they would agree with Professor Evelyn (ER PE). Because not only does it provide a framework for government it's also remarkably flexible. This means if something is not correct with them they can easily adjust. JC which not having it written is better. Also it creates a more democratic arrangement than unelected judges has a final say". This can implying that PE not only helps but also protects citizens. But I agree with JC because their reasons are more valid and reliable which helps people to change things they might not agree with unlike PE which has no case.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with professor Evelyn (PE) because she explains how the unwritten constitution ensures the principle of parliamentry sovereignty, meaning they have supreme legal authority not with the unelected House of Lords. This ensures power ultimately lies with the peoples representative, meaning the people always have a say in government and its laws. I further agree with PE's point that having an unwritten constitutions allows government to make and abolish laws at a faster rate. Furthermore an unwritten constitution provides robust checks and balances ensuring there isn't an abuse of power. On the other hand some may argue Dr Julian Croft (DJC) is one to be agreed with due to existing checks and balances being too weak, and the judicial review can only challenge the process by which a law is made not if the law is fair or not. Furthermore parliamentry sovereignty creates a risk of elective dictatorship. Meaning a government with a majority can pass down almost any law it chooses, which may lead to a lack of democracy and fair laws since judicial review can't really stop the true meaning behind the law.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with professo Evelyn Reed to an extent because she explains how unwritten constitutions provide it with great strengths. Per example she says that it gives the UK a chance to change and create laws and constitutions. I agree with this point as countries with written constitutions often take many years to have change such as the US. However we can see that in the UK an unwritten constitution helps develop laws and constitutions quickly according to change in beliefs and behaviour. An example of this is seen when in recent years we were introduced to the dangerous dogs act. However some could say that it creates problems between citizens as it is not clear and may be challenged. Some may agree with Dr. Julian Croft as he mentions our current checks and balances are too weak as Parliamentary Sovereignty may create risk of a dictatorship. For example because its not able to be influenced or controlled by anyone it may easily do what it wants. However some may disagree and say our checks and balances prevent the abuse of power through judicial reviews. This has led to this area being well and not open to problems.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with Julian Croft (JC) to an extent but I agree more with Evelyn Reed (ER). This is because I think an unwritten constitution is the best way for the UK. Having an unwritten constitution shows the flexibility to change things or even put things into place. Additionally, the constitution has checks and balances in place which keeps everything in check. For example, the government have a meeting every Wednesday to hold them to account. But on the other hand, JC's point was also very strong. I agree with JC to an extent because having an unwritten constitution means that the power of placing laws does not have a limit. For example, a government with a large majority can pass almost any law it chooses, possibly laws that might erode our fundamental rights. It's also nessesary to have a written constitution so everyone is updated and knows what can and cant happen. In conclusion I mostly agree with ER because our country is still very stable and an unwritten constitution has been very effective for a long time now, with no issues.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with Evelyn Reed More than Julian Croft. This is because Evelyn talks about how the UK constitution is flexible and can quickly adjust itself to fit the needs of society and its citizens. For example if a new law is passed and people are upset about it, Parliament could quickly change the constitution to fit societies changing needs. This makes it a good thing. Another constitutional would be harder to advise to societies needs. However another person might disagree with me and agree with Julian Croft.
"Which writer do you agree with more? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with professor Evelyn Reed and she says yes. She backs up her point with strong sources, for example common laws and convention that has adapted over centuries. The word adapted is showing connotations of regular and normal. The point is were already used to it so what's the point of changing it. Another point she has brought up is "the courts hold the government to account through judicial review, ensuring that public bodies act lawfully and fairly." Imagine a world without fairness? This point backs up human rights which encourages the public more to support this. Dr. Julian Croft says no and has weak and questionable points. First of all she brings up that a government with a large majority can pass almost any law it chooses. Elections and debating all target towards the public to support or choose. Statistics show most people with the vote don't vote. This removes the majority point and instead shows people's accountability. A good government would care about his people more than himself or he could get taken over for his public's opinions on him or her.