It is often remarked that the British constitution is not a single codified text. It contains both written and unwritten elements, but so do all constitutional systems. Even countries with detailed codified constitutions cannot make those constitutions workable without taking into account unwritten elements: precedent, convention, reasoning, norms, and historical practice.

What makes the British constitution unusual is its political character. This is to say that the limits of political action are not bounded by a codified list of powers or rules enforced by external, non-political actors, such as judges. There is no higher law than what Parliament itself chooses to legislate, and Parliament may choose to legislate on whatever it wishes.

Thus, under the British constitution, the boundaries of politics are formally limitless and, in practice, constrained by politics and political culture. While it is true that there are many legal elements to the British constitution, the law does not dictate what can be achieved through politics. As JAG Griffith wrote, ‘law is not and cannot be a substitute for politics’.[1]

Too often, public education about the British constitution is dominated by those who seek to change it beyond recognition and who regard its unique features as a source of embarrassment rather than strength. This is a collection with its fair share of critiques about the British constitution, but it is distinguished by most of the contributors’ shared resolve in using those critiques as a way of trying to strengthen rather than diminish its political character.

This collection of essays brings together a distinguished group of scholars and politicians to reflect on the merits of the British constitution. Contributions cover a wide range of topics, including the election of party leaders, the Ministerial Code, the war prerogative, law officers and government lawyers, repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, the central importance of the House of Commons, the value of the unelected House of Lords, hereditary peers, devolution, international law, the European Convention on Human Rights, the political parties and the constitution, and more. These contributions are timely. While they reflect on constitutional changes of recent years, they are also mindful of the future reform agenda.

This is a politically diverse collection. Contributors include members of the Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat parties, as well as those who are affiliated to no party. The collection includes two former ministers – one Labour, one Conservative – as well as a Conservative hereditary peer, the Earl Attlee, whose grandfather was the Labour Party’s greatest prime minister. One of its contributors was the Conservative Minister for the Constitution; another was political adviser to the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, a Liberal Democrat, on constitutional matters. Some contributors are experienced scholars; others are fresher academics, lawyers, and political commentors.

Together, they are defenders of the power of Parliament. From their varied contributions, readers will see that although the arc of history is long, it does not inevitably bend to legal constitutionalism. The political constitution can be repaired, restored, and strengthened.

[1] JAG Griffith, ‘The Political Constitution’, Modern Law Review 42, 1979: 16.