Burnham says Britain needs a written constitution - the word is doing work

Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester, has called for a written constitution for the United Kingdom, arguing the current settlement "disempowers" Britons, according to GB News. The Independent reports the call follows Burnham's push for greater devolution. The Daily Express describes Burnham as "on a winning streak" and suggests he has a "secret general election plot".

The UK is one of a handful of countries without a single codified constitutional document. Constitutional principles exist - parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, judicial independence - but they live in statute, convention and case law, not in a text above Parliament. A written constitution would sit above statute and bind future Parliaments, which the current system explicitly does not allow.

The word "disempowers" is the one doing political work here. Burnham's case is that concentrating power in Westminster takes decisions away from the people. The counter-case is that a written constitution takes decisions away from the ballot box - it moves questions from Parliament, where the electorate can change the answer every few years, to courts, where they cannot. Both are forms of power; the question is which institution holds it and whether the public can vote it out.

The argument for a written constitution is often framed as democratic. The mechanics can run the other way. If a constitution places certain questions - rights, borders, devolution settlements - beyond the reach of a future majority, it removes them from democratic contest. That is the point of entrenchment; it is also the risk.

Watch what Burnham proposes to put in the text. The content is the tell - which decisions he thinks should be taken out of Parliament's hands, and whose hands they should go into.