UK ESSAY PLANS Flashcards
Overview:
MEDIA INFLUENCE ON OUTCOMES OF ELECTIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY
Print media is less influential but social media is a growing influence when hardening attitudes, particularly a sympathetic voter, and is a very good echo chamber for a political party
MEDIA INFLUENCE ON OUTCOMES OF ELECTIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY
MEDIA INFLUENCE ON OUTCOMES OF ELECTIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY
MEDIA INFLUENCE ON OUTCOMES OF ELECTIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY
Para 1: Opinion Polls influence - VERY
1992 - most polls suggest that Labour may win the election - wavering voters sided with Tories out of fear of a Labour administration led by Neil Kinnock
2015- closeness of the polls led to Conservative efforts to warn the public of an SNP - Labour coalition
Policy impact: polls should that immigration policy was important after the 2010 Election - since then Tories have pledged to limit the net migration rate
Theresa May ditched her plans for reform of elderly social care after her poll lead evaporated in 2017 - ‘Dementia Tax’
MEDIA INFLUENCE ON OUTCOMES OF ELECTIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY
Para 1: Voting Polls - NO
Votes can be wrong… not many people cast their ballot on the basis of polls
Opinion polls are often made out of samples - in 2017 most polls predicted a conservative majority even in the days leading up to vote - these polls did not clock the ‘youth-quake’
Lack of policy impact: successive polls show that public are concerned on Labour’s lack of policy on TRIDENT. Concerned about Corbyn’s potential use of nuclear weapons but have not given clarity
Labour 2015 manifesto shifted opinion on public spending - THEY shifted polls
MEDIA INFLUENCE ON OUTCOMES OF ELECTIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY
Para 2 - traditional print media impact - VERY
1979 - Sun headline ‘Crisis, what crisis?’ at the height of the Winter of Discontent - suggested that James Callaghan was out of touch with voters - swung opinion
1997 - the Sun switched support from Tory to Labour - Tony Blair courted Murdoch - 74% of Daily Mail readers voted Tory in 2017 - right wing ideas
Influence on Policy impact - dominance in RW bias - Blair ditching of Euro referendum as he did not want to alienate Murdochs, The Daily Mails campaign for Stephen Lawrence in early 90’s pushed the government into accepting an independent enquiry into the Met ‘institutionally racist’
MEDIA INFLUENCE ON OUTCOMES OF ELECTIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY
Para 2 - traditional print media impact - NO
However… it has been overstated, the neutrality of the BBC has offset bias
Opinion Polls with Callaghan - Labours strongest assent in 1979, ahead of Thatcher’s liability - ‘Crisis, what crisis’ may not have had that much impact - media attacks may not have their intended effect.. 1979 result could be better explained by valance issues - labours inability to handle industrialisation
1997 - reflecting the mood of the time? Tory sleaze, Iran to arms, mad cows disease etc - were The Sun just backing a winner
2017 Headline - the Suns ‘Don’t chuck prison in the Cor-bin’ - Daily mail 15 hate page spread - little effect as Labour had their largest increase in vote share since 1945
The Sun - 1.6 mill in 2017 vs. 3 mill in 2010 - traditional print media is no longer widely read. YouGov in 2017 - 41% did not vote Tory
Policy - Corbyn has given up with courting, almost adopting policies that are (deliberately?) against RW Murdochs - to claim that Labour is anti the establishment
MEDIA INFLUENCE ON OUTCOMES OF ELECTIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY
Para 3 - image of leaders on television - VERY
TV debates - ‘We’re alright’ - Kinnock in 1993 - poor televisual image
2015 - Ed Miliband falling off the stage in live audience
2010 - Nick Clegg ‘Clegg Mania’ resulted in a hung parliament
Theresa May’s refusal to do TV debate - ‘the first rule of leadership is that you show up’
Corbyn’s inability to explain childcare in 2017 election debate - cast doubt
Equal air time
Policy - TV is essential in establishing the Overton window - areas of public discourse that are acceptable
2010 controversy - BBC invited Nick Griffin - far right BMP leader to QT - tough stances on immigration, widened the Overton window
MEDIA INFLUENCE ON OUTCOMES OF ELECTIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY
Para 3 - image of leaders on television - NO
the need for a positive image is overstated
Kinnock’s ‘We’re alright’ happened only a week before the 1992 election - unlikely influence
2010 - after debate, lib dem vote only went up by 1%
2015 Ed Miliband - Jeremy Paxman interview was strong ‘Hell yes’ but still lost
2017 - Theresa saw largest vote share increase since 1992 - economic choice instead.. more rational?
Lack of impact on policy - 2017 manifesto - Labour moved the Overton window back to public ownership all by itself.
MEDIA INFLUENCE ON OUTCOMES OF ELECTIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY
Para 4 - Social Media - NO
too early to determine it’s impact - falsehoods, Miliband’s appearance on Russell Brand’s show did little for young voters - echo chamber of media - it reflects opinion and doesn’t change it
MEDIA INFLUENCE ON OUTCOMES OF ELECTIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY
Para 4 - Social Media - VERY
2017 election - Labour’s use of viral videos gaining 5.4 million views in 2 days #forthemany #grime4corbyn
Ukip - spent 2015 campaign money reaching out to elderly voters - 3.8 mill votes
2019 - Tories have targeted voters in Milton Keynes with anti Corbyn ads on facebook
Explain and analyse three ways in which the media have affected the outcome of UK general elections.
Explain and analyse three ways in which the media have affected the outcome of UK general elections.
Explain and analyse three ways in which the media have affected the outcome of UK general elections.
PARA 1: Growing focus on leaders, leading voters to vote on leadership
2017 election, Theresa May had a bruising interview with Jeremy Paxman which largely contributed to her image of being a wooden, out-of-touch politician, media also largely damaged her image - scandalous youth running through corn fields. Arguably media therefore played a considerable part in a minority government in 2017. Through ensuring that information about party leaders reaches most eyes in the UK, the media plays a considerable role in encouraging people to vote on the basis of party leaders. For example, during the 2019 general election campaign, the media’s display of scandals over Boris Johnson’s islamophobic comments, and Jeremy Corbyn’s terrible interview with Jeremy Paxman, would have undoubtedly impacted a decent proportion of the population. This has become more significant in recent years, ever since the first televised leader debates in 2010.
Explain and analyse three ways in which the media have affected the outcome of UK general elections.
PARA 2: newspaper endorsements
Newspaper leanings - the Guardian is left-wing, while the Telegraph is on the right. One example on influencing public opinion and voting intentions is the Sun switching their support to Tony Blair in 1997, which many claim contributed to his landslide victory in the election of that year, one headline even reading “It was the Sun wot won it”. Another example is the headline “Crisis? What crisis?”, ran in the Sun in response to James Callaghan’s comments about the Winter of Discontent. Although Callaghan did not actually say the sentence, the Sun fashioned his words into the headline, which is regarded as ‘the three words that took down the Labour government in 1979”. Outward partisanship from news publications can therefore affect the voting intentions of their readers in response to their take on a particular candidate or party.
Explain and analyse three ways in which the media have affected the outcome of UK general elections.
PARA 3: media coverage of scandals
tests party loyalties and influence swing voters. In the aftermath of the Iraq War and Blair’s premiership, nickname “Bliar” contributed to Labour losses in the 2005 general election and the overall defeat in 2010. Another example of this is the expenses scandal of 2009, in which The Daily Telegraph published leaked documents over MPs abusing their expenses privileges. This scandal has had a huge influence on British politics to this day, contributing to the overall populist, anti-corruption and anti-‘elites’ rhetoric in today’s politics, as MPs look to regain trust from the electorate after the scandal pushed the view that they were not acting in the interests of the British people. Media coverage and focus on both of these major events have shaped public opinion on politicians as a whole in this country, with only 14% of the public saying they trust politicians in the latest (2019?) Ipsos-Mori poll.
EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS BECOME TOO POWERFUL
EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS BECOME TOO POWERFUL
Intro:
EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS BECOME TOO POWERFUL
YES: rise in applications for judicial review has held up the work of democratically elected representatives. Furthermore, the judiciary’s role to allow ECJ, the ECHR to challenge parliamentary sovereignty and recent constitutional reforms all add weight to why they are too powerful. However judicial review protects the rule of law, essential in a liberal democracy. The uk judiciary lacks power vs. a judiciary with a codified constitutions, they also demonstrate judicial restraint
EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS BECOME TOO POWERFUL
PARA 1: YES - judicial review
far too much power over public policy and influence over elected officials
ultra vires - 2017 - SC ruled that parliament must vote on whether Article 50 should begin - May could not begin talks
Sajid Javid - ‘clear attempt to frustrate the will of the British public who wanted to leave’
Boris Johnson and Lord chancellor Robert Buckland QC have set up a panel of experts tasked with examining the need “for potential reforms to judicial review”.
unelected judges vs. elected politicians
R(Miller) v the Prime Minister 2019 limited royal prerogative power to prorogue Parliament of the UK - restated parliamentary sovereignty
Oct 2013 - Court of Appeal ruled that Jeremy Hunt did not have the power to implement cuts at Lewisham Hospital
Increased 3x fold - judicial reviews were 4000 in 2000 vs. 15,000 in 2013
EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS BECOME TOO POWERFUL
PARA 2: YES - judicial independence
the creation of the Supreme Court has made conflict more likely and has strengthened the autonomy of the court.
Created in 2009 - establishing the seperation of powers, Judicial Appointments Commission and limited role of Lord Chancellors
Likely to be more active attacking members of parliament - Boris Johnsons suspension of parliament for political reasons in Sept 2019
A lot of reform to neutralise the court… diff to War Lords - defend their actions - Law Reed ‘judges aren’t staging a power grab’ after the SC landmark Brexit defeats
EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS BECOME TOO POWERFUL
YES - the HRA holds too much power
HRA makes it unlawful for any public body to act in an unconventional way against the EC in on human rights - Judges can undermine rulings
Gilian vs. Quentin case (2010) at EC found unwarranted police search - are they stepping into public policy? Hindering crime fighting?
HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2010) - homosexuality - HRA prevents immigrants from being deported to places of discrimination
Where laws were ambiguous, court now able to interpret them, and force parliament to act through declaration of incompatibility - Ruling on the merits of law, rather than the application of it
Because ECHR vaguely written, liberal judges have taken an increasingly broad view of rights that are protected e.g. become more ‘activist’. e.g. creating right to privacy where none existed in UK law - allowing super-injunctions. This has undermined Parliament’s attempts to set minimum sentences for certain crimes.
EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS BECOME TOO POWERFUL
PARA 4: NO - judicial review is undermined by sovereignty
SC exists!!! that’s why JR has increased, no longer in parliament so therefore has more independence
The courts are assuring that the government isn’t too powerful
Unlawful laws can be changed and altered as parliament is sovereign
2010 freezing of assets of suspected terrorists - SC ruled that it obstructed the rules parliament had given to government - went against HRA, put it through parliament - only bc it was a UN requirement
When a judge rules minister has acted ultra vires, they are only upholding the will of Parliament, which set out the law in the first place. Ensuring public officials only act within the powers that parliament has granted.
‘Black Spider’ memos (2015) Journalist Rob Evans wished to see letters and memos (nicknamed ‘Black Spider’ because of the distinctive handwriting) sent by Prince Charles to government ministers. The government did not want to release the letters, arguing the contents were private and sensitive.
EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS BECOME TOO POWERFUL
NO - lack of constitution
- upholding parliamentary soverignty unlike US Supreme Court who can strike down Congress because of the Constitution
We don’t have a codified document - Shelby vs. Holder - voting rights Act - shows the US power
Abortion - ‘heartbeat bill’
· Constitution still predominantly consists of statute law, passed by elected representatives in Parliament.
· SC can declare incompatibility with Human Rights Act, but this does not necessarily lead to government changing the law, see. 2004 Hirst case about voting rights for prisoners.
Also government can change the law retrospectively meaning that no offense of ultra vires has taken place ,see Reilly v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2016,
EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS BECOME TOO POWERFUL
NO - judges haven’t always been able to stop government from eroding the rights of people
limits to their power - incompatibility statements are not binding on their power - parliamentary sovereignty is actually upheld by the HRA - SC can’t automatically strike down on previous legislation
Announcing a declaration of incompatibility BUT government can denounce this declaration - Bellmarch case, they just amended the HRA
2015 - EC of HR - prison voting - in the UK, this has not changed, failed to legislate
Government are calling the shots - 2013 - secret courts within the justice system for terrorists doesn’t have to be disclosed
· 2014 R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice, SC asked to determine whether Suicide Act 1961, which forbid assisted suicide, was incompatible with art 8 HRA. Judges ruled it was not for them to decide, but instead a decision of elected representatives.
Conclusion
judges not currently too poweful, not the same as the US, recently SC brought into lime light because of vagueries of constitution, trauma of Brexit, devolution but in reality, politicians get their own way in the end. If judges seem more powerful it is only because power of state has increased, and therefore requires firmer hand from judiciary.
EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT PARLIAMENT HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY EFFECTIVE IN SCRUTINISING THE EXECUTIVE
EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT PARLIAMENT HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY EFFECTIVE IN SCRUTINISING THE EXECUTIVE
Overview
EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT PARLIAMENT HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY EFFECTIVE IN SCRUTINISING THE EXECUTIVE
scrutiny - holding government to account, parliament checking the work of the executive and the prime minister
Direction - number of tools, but are less effective if there is a majority, policy in manifesto, retraint of ministers closeness of elections
GOOD scrutiny - select committees, secret ballot, PMQ, cross benches, commons rebellions, hung parliaments, confidence in supply and minority governments
POOR scrutiny - public bill committees, PMQs, Parliament Acts, financial privelege, Salisbury convention, government whips, big majority, fusion of powers
EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT PARLIAMENT HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY EFFECTIVE IN SCRUTINISING THE EXECUTIVE
PARA 1 - parliamentary committees
1) Public Bill Committees are CRAP - examine bills line by line and suggest amendments - scrutiny of legislation is partisan and whipped, committees are stuffed with MPs voting for their party
Tend to be of little value, whips can dominate proceedings. 99% of ministerial amendments succeed, whilst no gov success rate is below 1%
Isabel Hardman - ‘MPs use PBC to write their Christmas Cards’
Bill is almost complete - they just tidy, friendly to gov with no expertise
Example of dominating whip - 2011 Sarah Wolleston was prevented from NHS bill in PSC with 21 years of experience bc she rebelled
Independent think tank Reform found that nearly 8% who are in the PBC are also in the Departmental Committee
0.5 of opposition amendments are accepted
Paul Flynn - oppositions influence is to delay
2) Select Committees - gov only take advice with recommendations - they are not binding - gov accept 40% of advice, power to compel witnesses - 2013 Theresa May rejected Head of MI5 interview
HOWEVER….
they do scrutinise - Jeremy Hunt appointment as Chair of Health Committee in 2020 raised doubts as he was previously health secretary
2009 Wright Committee Reforms - they are elected by a secret ballot - increased independence, gives voice to back benchers
Can really damage government - Home affairs Select Committee Windrush Scandal - Amber Rudd scandal with targets
Chair of SC provides a diff. career to then being a minister, less loyalty to parties, higher pay
Evett Cooper - opted for intricate scrutiny instead of Labour front bench
3) CBBB committee - 2010-15 - 300 debates tabled by committee - public commissions
4) Public Accounts Committee (PAC)
fearsome Chairship - Margaret Hodge - 2010 - 15 - cross party support - 2016 Tax affairs w/ Google - 130 million pounds
PARA 2 - Parliamentary Questions
1) PMQs - ‘Punch and Judy Show’ - David Cameron, not effective, planted questions and memorable sound bites - ‘long term economic plan’ in the run-up to the 2015 general election
PMQs can provided a useful tool to hold the government to account
John Bercow stated in 2014 ‘There are people who think culturally the atmosphere is very male, very testosterone-fuelled and, in the worst cases, of yobbert and public school twittishness.’
Hansard Society poll - just 12% of public were proud of parliament due to PMQs
67% felt that there was too much party political point-scoring as opposed to answering the questions asked.
2) use of Urgent Questions - speakers will choose short notice an MP - face around 1 hour of scrutiny
just 2 questions between 2008-9 but 2009-15 Bercow allowed 300 UQs and in 2018-19 - 178 UQs- Shamima Begum
EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT PARLIAMENT HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY EFFECTIVE IN SCRUTINISING THE EXECUTIVE
PARA 3 - house of lords
unelected - lacks legitimacy, therefore has 3 restrictions
1) Parliament Act of 1949 - 1 year delay
2) Parliament Act of 1911 - Financial Privilege and Money Bills
3) Salisbury Convention - manifesto and mandate
EU act of 2020 - Lord’s knowledge of large parliament and fresh mandate - influence curtailed
HofL - much more effective at questioning ministers and select committees given Tory hereditary peers have been removed in the 199 House of Lords Act
Crossbenchers have a pivotal status, no party affiliation, rights of vulnerable - Welfare Reform Bill - 7 defeats in the initial passage
Held up the EU reform Act (2017) to add amendments - post Brexit rights for UK immigrants
EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT PARLIAMENT HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY EFFECTIVE IN SCRUTINISING THE EXECUTIVE
PARA 4 - size of government
Big gov…
EU withdrawal Act (2020) - 80 seat maj… - House of Lords child refugee amendments rejected
The government is fused to parliament
Blair government ‘acting like a rubber stamp’ - the whips could choose members of the judiciary and promotion was tied to loyalty. Only 4 Commons defeats in all 10 years of Blair’s tenure
However… majority government is never absolute
Even Blairs gov did not get their own way as they did not prevent Gwyneth Dunwoody to continue as Transport Chair 2001
Expenses Scandal - public opinion can shape oversight
Wright Committee reforms, secret ballots, increase in salary, BBBC - shifted power to parliament??? - Boris Johnson and HS2 caution due to MP backlash in constituencies - ministers are wary of backbenchers and rebellion
Hung parliament - coalition 2010-15 - jointly dominated seats and pushed through legislation such as the bedroom tax
House of Lords - both Lib Dem and Tory peers could vote together - forming a block
Cameron made over 200 House of Lords appointments to help the Tory’s majority
2017 - 9 minority conservative government formed a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP and survived a no-confidence motion in 2019
New Speaker does not allow urgent questions (order 24)
HOWEVER….
The majority is much more efficient than a hung parliament
2017-9 - Conservatives lost majority and were reliant on the unreliable DUPs - against gov in 2 key Brexit votes and Mays 2019 record defeat of 230 votes
Conclusion
EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT PARLIAMENT HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY EFFECTIVE IN SCRUTINISING THE EXECUTIVE
trend - until the 2019 election, parliamentary assertiveness due to removal of Tories in HofL, cross benchers, Wright committee reforms and role of speakers HOWEVER.. the 80 seat restoration suggests its likely to reverse
IS THE UK DEMOCRACY IN DEFICIT?
IS THE UK DEMOCRACY IN DEFICIT?
IS THE UK DEMOCRACY IN DEFICIT?
NO - free and fair elections
voting rights, the franchise, now vs 100 years ago- right to Vote (1969) - everyone over 18 has the same right to vote, more and more people are getting involved - mayoral, HofC, devolution
Easy to vote - most people understand FPTP
it is the most efficient voting option - you don’t get a strong majority with other methods of voting - stable gov (80 seats tory) which can deliver it’s manifesto
Minor parties are negatively impacted by FPTP but could be problems w/ the leadership, policies
16/17 year olds - but do they all know about politics?
IS THE UK DEMOCRACY IN DEFICIT?
NO - parliamentary democracy
10 representation - more women, LGBTQ, BAME in the H of C than ever before, coming from similar backgrounds as the public
Legislation - scrutiny, maj governments that can deliver their manifesto - little gridlock, HofL, range of expertise
NO - rights in the UK
rights to education, votes, privacy, freedom of speech, press, association, judiciary have power and it has been strengethened over time, more independent and nuetral
Freedom of Information - Daily Telegraph revealed the expenses scandal BUT they were heavily redacted
Protection - Tory party tried to scrap in 2017 but it was dropped, Bruster case, right to protest
IS THE UK DEMOCRACY IN DEFICIT?
NO - participation
2015 rise in Labour support after Corbyn
2001-17 turnout has gradually increased
petitions are being signed 6.1 mill petition for a 2nd referendum
pressure groups - BMA, BLM, ER, educating and involvement - direct action
IS THE UK DEMOCRACY IN DEFICIT?
YES - limiting elections
FPTP is unfair, leads to winning party getting disproportionate share of the vote = Tories won 37% of vote but 51% of seats vs. Lib Dems 12% of votes but 2% of seats
How free are they?
16 and 17 year olds can’t vote in England - devolution
2021 bills currently being passed in parliament - new requirement for voter ID which surpresses voter turnout - non conservative areas…
Weaken the independence of the electoral committees
IS THE UK DEMOCRACY IN DEFICIT?
YES - one party state?
fusion of powers - no proper scrutiny, 2016 Trade Union Act and Investigatory Powers Act - altered rights of citizens and increased gov power
Policing Bill 2022 - right to protest, affects rights of citizens
representation but only 34% are women and the House of Lords are completely unelected
IS THE UK DEMOCRACY IN DEFICIT?
YES - parliamentary sovereignty
Stuart Wein - ‘rule of law is what the government says it is’ - can change laws and rights easily
Freedom of the press - but F of I has been notoriously watered down - Gaurdian weren’t allowed to publish arm deals information
2019 Tory manifesto - ‘update’ the HRA, 2021 policing Bill and Sarah Everards vigil - true democracy gives less power to the police and ensures checks and balances
Freedom of Information - Daily Telegraph revealed the expenses scandal BUT they were heavily redacted
IS THE UK DEMOCRACY IN DEFICIT?
YES - lack of participation
Labour membership isn’t rising anymore
Turn out fell in 2019
slacktivism, meaningful participation
restrictions on the right to participate
checkbook membership
EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT POLITICAL PARTIES SERVE DEMOCRACY
EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT POLITICAL PARTIES SERVE DEMOCRACY
EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT POLITICAL PARTIES SERVE DEMOCRACY
PARA 1 - Provide representation
vast majority are elected to the major parties, 650 constituencies, should be representative?
FPTP 37% vs 51% for Tories in 2015, people are underrepresented, voting system does not reflect their choices, Boris Johnson was elected as leader by Conservative Party members - less than 1% of the electorate (120,000)
small party membership - big business donations that can effect conflicting interests
Housing Minister Robert Generick in 2020 rushing through approval to satisfy Tory donor Richard Desmond to save £1 mill on tax - is this in the publics interest?
Parties might be able to put their interest of their party over those that are meant to represent - in it for themselves? growing levels of cynicism
Cash for Peerages scandal - secret donors of £12 mill to Labour Party
Expenses Scandal - Lib Dem trouser Press, PM Brown gardens
Jennifer Arcuri Scandal - public money as Boris’s ‘personal’ friend
EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT POLITICAL PARTIES SERVE DEMOCRACY
PARA 2 - holding the government to account
important part of democracy - subject gov to scrutiny, Kier starmer week after week questions government handling of COVID
child cut benefits and tuition fees are scrutinised - Heidi Allens maiden speech tax credit cuts attack
However…
The fusion of powers hinders meaningful oversight parties in gov call the shots - Labour only lost one vote of tuition fees between 1997-2007
Conservative-Lib Dem coalition only lost 2 votes in the house of commons
EU withdrawal act with little scrutiny
PARA 3 - offer clear choice between competing programmes
2015- Labour and coalition clashed on cuts to child benefits
2017 - clear choice with Corby and Boris - one party called for nationalision of railways vs. dismissal
but… are all parties the same? Kier is more moderate centrist figure and has accepted Brexit
Two party system perpetuated by FPTP drowns out voices of smaller parties with more radical and progressive ideas - both labour and tories manifestos say anything about reforming political systems - they dont want to change FPTP
PARA 4 - participation avenues
canvasing, arranging meetings, urging people to vote, focus groups
2015 leadership election massive surge in Labour membership
Local Branches in Labour Part ordinary members have a say in the leadership vote
However…
membership remains low - 0.5 m in one party and less than 1 m all together
Corbyn did franchise youth but also disengaged current less radical Labour supporters, same with Boris and Pro EU tories
PARA 1: Momentum
the “successor entity” to Corbyn’s triumphant fight to be Labour leader. ideologically aligned with Corbyn.
very separatist, holding a parallel conference during Party Conference last year.
‘party within a party’- Its mission is to transform Labour into a “more democratic party” however, fears the group will trigger purges of more moderate MPs
It boasts more than 35,000 members which can be mobilised to support (or oppose) MPs in the organisation’s favour.
Explain and Analyse 3 factions of the Modern Labour Party
Explain and Analyse 3 factions of the Modern Labour Party
PARA 2: Progress
The original Blairite pressure group, founded in 1996
Dedicated to New Labour values- its chair is Alison McGovern MP, former aide to Gordon Brown
influence has been waning since Ed Miliband
in 2020, the group was marginalised from party discussions as it was out of touch with the direction of the party and Corbyn’s leadership.
PARA 3: Labour Together
high-profile Labour politicians from different political wings of the party
Unlike Labour for the Common Good (which is a PLP body), Labour Together has the intention of operating outside Westminster and becoming a general party movement.
It’s seen by some as an anti-Corbynite reaction to Momentum and aims to bring New Labour and New Labour together
Explain and analyse three factors that favour the major political parties in the British party system
Explain and analyse three factors that favour the major political parties in the British party system
Q
Explain and analyse three factors that favour the major political parties in the British party system
PARA 1: FPTP
undermines the idea that the UK party system is pluralistic, forces voters to tactically vote for a second choice even though it might not represent their views so they aren’t ‘wasting’ their vote
The Labour and Conservative Parties are the only parties with a realistic chance of forming a govt or being the senior members of a coalition in Westminster
Consistently disadvantages the Lib Dems, whose support is widespread (not concentrated in individual constituencies) and therefore watered down
UKIP won 13% of the vote in 2015 general election but only 1 sea1
PARA 2: Broad-church nature of the main parties
Conservatives and Labour act as a catch all for voters
Voters can align themselves with different factions/politicians eg. Labour:
momentum on the far left of the party, Blairites more centrist
Minority parties are left with little space on the political spectrum to represent
Compounded by fact that there’s little public appetite for radical ideologies (communism, fascism)
if minor parties’ policies do prove popular, majority parties will often incorporate them into their own manifestos (pressure groups?) eg. environment secretary Michael Gove announced his support for outlawing bee-killing pesticides in 2018 - after Corbyn had insisted it be in Labours manifesto and got the idea from the Greens who’d been campaigning on the issue since 2013
existence of UKIP as a party became nonsensical after the Conservatives pledged to deliver its fundamental aim - to leave the EU.
PARA 3: Tribal voting (as opposed to minority of swing voters)
Tradition of voting either Tory or Labour passed down generations in families, communities and regions
Voters have long sustained ties to a certain party - it is part of their identity and many feel they owe their loyalty to a certain party on account of their class, region etc.
Voters in the former “Red Wall” confessed after the 2019 general election that they never would’ve considered voting for the conservatives if it weren’t on the one-policy basis of Brexit.
Minority parties struggle to win over voters when their voting habits are so entrenched
Explain and analyse three functions performed by UK political parties
Explain and analyse three functions performed by UK political parties
PARA 1: Political Recruitment
Main parties help to recruit, socialise, select and promote talented individuals into elected public office, ranging from local council to national government levels.
Assess the candidate’s track record and qualities
vetting process; cast aside those considered unsuitable for whatever reason
PARA 2: Representation
Traditionally, when there was mass membership of political parties in the UK and voters were clearly divided along party lines.
Thatcher vs Foot - ideologically very opposed - could argue similarities between Blair and Cameron more recently.
However - partisan and class dealignment and the rise of more centrist catch-all parties can be said to have undermined parties representative function.
Membership of political parties has been in decline in the UK since the 1950s, falling by over 65% from 1983.
PARA 3: Political engagement and participation
Perform an educative role - making the wider citizenry aware of topical issues
this raising of awareness necessarily encourages political engagement as people become more interested and passionate about politics
Promote political participation through internal democracy of parties (eg. Selection of MPs and leadership)
However, influence ordinary pay-roll members have depends on the party
Policy formulation in the Conservative Party has historically been a top-down process, with the party leader unashamedly determining policy - John Major remarked after 1992 general election manifesto “it was all me”
Explain and analyse the significance of three sources of the British constitution
Explain and analyse the significance of three sources of the British constitution
PARA 1: Common Law
Judge-made law (interpreting parliamentary statutes) and historical precedents, judges have developed the law through their binding decisions for centuries, establishing constitutional principles, defining the relationship between different branches, and the rights of citizens.
· Statute law overrides common law in the case of a conflict, however, judges must interpret statutes, and they do so in line w/ common law.
· ‘Stare Decisis’: formal system of precedent was established - when cases have similar facts + raise similar legal questions to cases decided in the past, judges must use the same reasoning as that used in the earlier court - ensuring that decisions are consistent and predictable
.· E.g. A and Others v. Secretary of State - The applicants had been detained on the orders of the Home Secretary, as it was believed that they posed a terrorist threat. The detainees argued that the evidence underlying the decision to detain them, which had been supplied by foreign govts, was obtained by torture + should not have been admitted. HofL agreed that the common law has long forbidden such evidence to be admitted.
PARA 2: Statute Law
Law of constitutional importance created by Parliament.· It covers laws that impact on civil liberties + human rights - e.g. HRA 1998, which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law.
Makes the Brit Const flexible and adaptable.
The trend had been towards expanding and protecting democracy and individual rights.
The Scotland act of 1998 was one of several acts of parliament that created the devolved administration’s. - The COVID-19 crisis has clearly demonstrated the extent to which the Scottish Government can challenge the authority of the UK government in relation to matters which have been devolved ( health, education, transport)
PARA 3: Conventions
Established political norms/ unwritten traditions .· Enable govt. and political activity to run more smoothly.· e.g. the 1945 Salisbury Addison Convention - whereby the Lords agreed not to delay policies contained in the governing party’s manifesto.· Normally work well - e.g. David Cameron had first chance to form a coalition govt after the indecisive result of the 2010 GE.
It could be debated as to whether conventions are part of the constitution as they do not have the force of law and can be ignored if political circumstances make them inconvenient. For example, in 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that it could not enforce the Sewel convention in light of the UK’s decision to leave the EU.
Explain and analyse three ways in which rights are protected in UK politics
Explain and analyse three ways in which rights are protected in UK politics
PARA 1: Judicial review
Many citizens use the courts to assert and protect their rights giving citizens the opportunity to stand up to public bodies, including the government if they feel they are taking away their given rights.· The Supreme Court in particular allows for this as this is where human rights cases take place after the Human Rights Act of 1998.
E.g. Al Rawi and others v Security Service and others. This was a defeat for the UK government and a victory for supporters of transparent justice, the case concerned human rights to a fair trial, namely whether the security services could give evidence in secret in certain terrorist trials.
The Supreme Court therefore upheld the rights given in the ECHR to a fair trial in this case.
PARA 2: Human Rights Act of 1998
This act incorporated and enshrined the rights in the ECHR, European Convention on Human Rights, into British statute law.· Includes the right to life, a fair trial, freedom of thought and expression and freedom from discrimination.
Pre 1998 human rights cases were only able to be held at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg however with the passing of this act they became available to be held by UK courts.
It requires that the any government legislation must be in line with the ECHR and alongside EU law this creates a ‘double lock’ which strengthens citizen’s rights.
An example of a rights defended by the HRA is in 2004 a law preventing a gay partner from inheriting a council flat was ‘ruled as incompatible’ by the HRA.
Although this double lock will be taken away by Brexit as EU law will no longer apply, because of the Human Rights Act citizen’s rights remain protected by the ECHR.
PARA 3: by Parliament, through statute law
This is through both anti-discrimination law, which protects citizen’s rights and allowing the right to access information through public bodies.
There is lots of legislation that has been passed to halt discrimination and the removal of rights, these statutes were compiled into one Act of Parliament with the Equality Act of 2010 which included equal pay and disability discrimination legislation.
The Freedom of Information Act of 2000 ensured more political transparency by allowing citizens to access any non-security related information held by public institutions.
This transparent access to information is crucial to protecting rights however the FOI Act’s effectiveness can be challenged by the fact that 37% of requests were declined in 2016.
Explain and analyse three arguments in favour of the view that Britain should have a codified constitution
Explain and analyse three arguments in favour of the view that Britain should have a codified constitution
PARA 1: Codified constitution would be difficult to amend - in a good way
It could be said that Parliament should not be able to make fundamental changes to the constitution w/ only a simple act of parliament - since 1911 Parl. Acts, not even HofL can prevent a govt w/ support of the majority of HofC from amending Const.
Intentionally difficult to amend = ensuring that amdts would receive intensive scrutiny and not undermine the constitution core principles.· Would stop us relying on political limits to constrain constitutional amdts and help restrain the behavior of govt. and keep MPs from ignoring the people’s demands.
E.g. Stop govt from violating human rights in times of emergencies like the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act in 2001.
PARA 2: Stronger system of checks and balances
The sovereignty of parl is essentially false as the HofL cannot veto bills and the Monarch always has to grant Royal Assent - reality the HofC is dominated by the govt. that have the majority of MPs on its side, thus essentially creating a Sovereign Government - No checks and balances.
Could avoid ‘elective dictatorship’ - Lord Halisham described this to be true in 2 elections: 1974 Feb GE, Lab minority govt after winning only 37.2% and 1974 Oct: Lab forms majority govt after winning only 39.2% of vote - Halisham argued that since a small minority can win an election in Parl then unpopular acts can be enforced by a minority on the majority.
PARA 3: UK relies too heavily on conventions
Conventions have not been written down - often up to interpretation and maybe less reliable.
Can be ignored and not followed - limited in their power as they are not enforceable by law.
Instead they are just understandings and may not be understood because they are not written down and explicitly explained.
E.g. Oct 2015: Lords had to vote on a significant cuts to existing tax credits paid to people on lower incomes but… the Salisbury Convention - also it was argued that the lords do not block on “financial privilege, the onventions that the lords should not block anything to do with tax.” - disagreememt
Explain and analyse three examples of greater protection of individual rights in the UK since 1997
Explain and analyse three examples of greater protection of individual rights in the UK since 1997
