The UK DOES have a constitution. People need to look up the definition of constitution and have a little think to themselves. How does the country function then, if it doesn't have a constitution? Every country has a constitution, it is a set of rules and rights outlining how a country works or functions. It doesn't have to be written down in one place though, like the USA's one is. Just because you cannot present on book or page with it on doesn't mean it doesn't exisit. The UKs constitution isn't codified, it has emerged and existed over hundreds of years. Its still there though. To the Lord Chancellor. Google his "old job" to understand it better; but The old problem with the role of Lord Chancellor is that he/it was a direct contridiction of the seperation of powers. Therefore although the "role" or named of LC is still there, his role and responsibilities have significantly changed to make sure he doesn't have an excessive amount of power or control. He used to be present in all three areas: Legislative - he could as a Lord go into the House of Lords, be present and vocal in the debating of laws, and give royal assent to laws Executive - He is a member of the cabinet, an MP, and so can also go into the House of Commons so had all the functions of a "normal" MP or "commoner" and a law maker there, Judicary - he was head of the judicary, he could sit as a judge, usually in higer courts hearing appeals Therefore he was preciding over laws he had made. "In January 2004, the Department of Constitutional Affairs published a concordat, outlining the division of authority between Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice and which was intended as the basis of reform. The Government introduced the Constitutional Reform Bill in the House of Lords in February 2004. The Bill sought to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor, and to transfer his functions to other officials: legislative functions to a Speaker of the House of Lords, executive functions to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and judicial functions to the Lord Chief Justice. The Bill also made other constitutional reforms, such as transferring the judicial duties of the House of Lords to a Supreme Court." So the aim was to still have the jobs/functions that the LC does, but disperce it over a number of people so that one person didn't have such exceptional power. The reasons against this "reform" were that the person chose to do the job was of exceptional calibre, knew that the role they held was powerful, and so had to be exceptionally careful and exceptionally good to get the job. There was also a direct link to say the judicary and the cabinet, which if LC was no longer there, wouldn't be in place. So the cabinet wouldn't have a direct link to the judicary, or so the arguement goes. The new position of the LC is in the House of Commons, he is still a member of the cabinet, and an MP. He no longer goes into the HofL, their speak, (which used to be the LC) is now voted for by the Lords. Thus the old principle of someone being given the job of LC and then being made a peer because of it disappears. Only those who've earned (supposidely) their peerage, are in the House. The Judical Appointments commission take the role/place concerning the judicary, meaning the LC is no longer involved with the appointments of any judges. It creates a true seperation of powers. The name of the highest court in the land, The House of Lords has been changed, to also aid the seperation. The creation of the ministry of justice is another reform