The British Constitution provides effective protection for the rights of UK citizens. Discuss.

One argument to suggest that the constitution does effectively protect the rights of UK citizens is the Human Rights Act 1998. This act was inspired by the European Convention of Human Rights and outlines the basic rights to which each citizen is entitled to. After this act was passed, it became law in the UK that everything must be compatible with the Human Rights Act, therefore ensuring that citizens’ rights were never ignored or dismissed. An example of this was in the Poundland case, when the government made a young woman work unpaid because she was unemployed, however the UK Supreme Court addressed this and said that it was a breach of the woman’s human rights, in accordance with the Human Rights Act. I think this is a strong argument as the Human Rights Act is not advisory in the UK, and therefore everything that is done in this country must comply with it, ensuring that citizens’ rights are protected.
On the other hand however, there are arguments to suggest that the UK constitution does not protect citizen’s rights. The concept 'elective dictatorship' can be referenced when portraying this argument. This concept was most cogently expressed by Lord Hailsham in 1976 BBC Dimbleby Lecture. It is based on the idea that power is most concentrated in government and with a large majority, there is little to limit the power of the executive. This lessens the effectiveness of the constitution in protecting citizen’s rights as if an elective has a huge majority, as the Blair government of 1999-2007 had, then they can pass just about any law that they want without opposition, even if this goes against Human Rights. This is a moderate argument as although the concept is true, and there is very few limits on the power of a strong executive, it is very rare that an executive gets a strong enough majority to rule as a dictator, and therefore the likelihood of people’s rights being unprotected by these means is small.