This would prevent the government from cutting back on its accountabilities and responsibilities through the privatisation of national firms such as the transport services. It would also make any executives/private firms/quangos that have taken over national services accountable for their mistakes. .
The appeal of parliamentary sovereignty is less now, Written constitution would increase the sovereignty of the electorate and the judicial system and cut back also on the governments sovereignty. The government can alter an unwritten constitution very easily by simply passing an act, suggesting (in theory) a dictatorship and a lack of democracy. One of the provisions of a Written constitution on the other hand is that it can only be altered by following strict procedures. Having a written constitution would give the public and courts more power and control over the decisions made as to the running of the country. The United Kingdom is also the only member of the EU without a written constitution; this severely damages our sovereignty in Europe.
Constitutional conventions are "practices relating to the exercise of their functions by the crown, the government, parliament and the judiciary" 1. Although these are commonly followed they are not legally enforceable. These therefore may be lost with time through the decisions of a future "radical" leader; this risk could be obliterated through codification by replacing conventions and consensus with contract and law in a written constitution.
As is the case in the United States, the public would have increased access and better comprehend a written constitution over an unwritten one. In the United States, the constitution is a matter of great national pride and is even taught to children in schools from an early age. If this were the case in the United Kingdom, people's insight into politics and the government would greatly improve and may even encourage people to respect and abide by the laws in the constitution.
