UK Politics Notes

Please copy and paste the links into internet search bar to access notes.

https://www.notion.so/UKP-Voting-Change-Over-Time-
aadb53ffca354b00825819d176c9693e?pvs=4

https://www.notion.so/UKP-Intro-to-Pressure-Groups-
bb3af0c55c6042578b39bcf08e5a7a02?pvs=4

https://www.notion.so/UKP-What-is-Lobbying-865f75c247c04a55baf2da72e84b34f5?pvs=4

https://www.notion.so/UKP-Brexit-Referendum-2f5aa352c7014ea8bd093da3dcc3aebf?
pvs=4

https://www.notion.so/UKP-Old-Labour-a7062ce45593419d82bcc2e0a3b913c8?pvs=4

https://www.notion.so/UKP-New-Labour-18811256f18c4c9792cc59fb8708c9bc?pvs=4

https://www.notion.so/UKP-Labour-in-Opposition-Miliband-and-Corbyn-
5251023451cd42ba80d15100b8372b2d?pvs=4

https://www.notion.so/UKP-The-Conservatives-d7251b9b391c45428ac2e6449c0c943d?
pvs=4

https://www.notion.so/UKP-Thatcherism-46aabb36a31a456481ae1c901b21e417?pvs=4

https://www.notion.so/UKP-Conservatives-in-Government-
6c16241def9845b18521dd2157ddffcf?pvs=4

https://www.notion.so/UKP-Liberal-Democrats-4a45e6fa22544f1a88e605b79e263a33?
pvs=4

https://www.notion.so/UKP-Minority-Parties-f8f0fb1119be4d74acb861a9cda19c57?pvs=4

https://www.notion.so/UKP-Electoral-Systems-abc93dceb18d44e19a1643619f144a51?
pvs=4

https://www.notion.so/UKP-Voting-Behaviour-The-Media-
7e95e893d6834c5b90e90b3000f2ad62?pvs=4

https://www.notion.so/UKP-Voting-Behaviour-and-The-Media-2-
254dd33e057d44ceb920a04e9e1888d4?pvs=4
Conservatism and Socialism Notes

Please copy and paste the links into internet search bar to access notes.

https://www.notion.so/CPI-Conservatism-a0f1db6bdb5843218ddb250d4c2f1e4a?pvs=4

https://www.notion.so/CPI-Conservatism-Key-Thinkers-
b9f51c1ff77943de8bbd01ec289d8ea1?pvs=4

https://www.notion.so/CPI-Socialism-b5480d80973b40cbadcd80debf91e26e?pvs=4

https://www.notion.so/CPI-Socialism-Key-Thinkers-75b673c82e6946e1ac6b5a50434cc96a?
pvs=4
UK Politics Essay Plans

Evaluate the arguments in favour of reforming the Westminster electoral system

INTRO

● The electoral system that has been used for UK general elections and by-elections, by
Westminster since 1945, has been the First Past the Post system (FPTP)

● This system is also known as the plurality system, where the candidate with the largest
number of votes is electe

● However, FPTP has been argued to distort voters’ wishes, and have a lack of
representation for minority groups

● Therefore, electoral systems such as Part List system, Additional Member system (AMS),
Single Transferable Vote (STV) and Supplementary Vote (SV), are argued to be more
representational and better at improving the state of UK democracy

● However, this essay will argue that FPTP is the best electoral system for the UK and a
change in the Westminster electoral system would not improve the state of UK democracy,
through representation, participation and legitimacy

P1 - FPTP not proportional

● FPTP can be argued to not be representational/proportional, and so this reduces the

democratic aspect of everyone being represented by the government

● For example, FPTP allows a two-party domination, which are the Labour Party and the
Conservative Party

● This means that although there are smaller parties such as UKIP, they are unlikely to be in
government as they will not have enough ‘safe seats’, which guarantee them a place in
government

● For instance, in 2015 UKIP won nearly 4 million votes and the Green Party won just over 1
million votes, but they won only one MP each in the election

● This shows an unfair representation of the public who voted, which means that the people
who voted for UKIP and Green Party, will be less represented

● However, the Party List System will increase and improve representation because each
party is granted seats in proportion to the number of popular votes it receives

● Therefore, if the conservative Party got 50% of the votes they will also win 50% of the
seats
● There is a higher degree of proportionality and this will enhance the state of UK
democracy

● As well as this, STV also gives almost absolute proportionality, as there is a close
correlation between votes and seats

● Therefore, if the electoral system used by Westminster is changed to the Party List system
or STV then there would be more representation of the voters, which would enhance UK
democracy

P2

● On the other hand, a change to the electoral system would not improve representation,
and in fact it may make it worse than FPTP

● For example, STV is not fully proportional, as in large multi-member constituencies, the
link between the member and the voters may be weak

● For instance, although the votes may be equally shared among the seats, if the MPs aren’t
connected to the voters in their constituency then they are less likely to be represented, and
this would only reduce the state of democracy

● Alongside this, in the Part List system, the link between representatives and
constituencies is also weakened, and therefore there is no clear constituency representative

● This also emphasises how there is also a lack of representation in both the Party List
system as well as STV, which means that although FPTP isn’t the most equal in
representation, the other electoral systems are equally as less representative

● This is because, FPTP provides a strong link between MPs and their constituencies

● For example, Labour MP Stephen Timms, who represents East Ham in London, held the
record for the greatest number of surgeries in 2011

● He did so in spite of being stabbed by an extremist at a surgery the previous year, insisting
that it was important for him to be accessible

● Therefore, despite FPTP’s disadvantages in representation, compared to the other

systems it provides a closer connection between the MPs and constituencies, which is more
important and more representative than having equally shared MPs who aren’t closely
connected to their constituencies

P3 - Participation

● Democracy is also enhanced through participation

● FPTP can be argued to reduce participation as voters feel less appealed to vote
● For example, FPTP provides a limited voter choice

● The prevalence of safe seats means that many voters have little hope of seeing their
favourite candidate win

● As a result, this only depresses voter turnout as they feel that there is no point in voting, if
their preferred candidate won’t win

● For example, in the run-up to the 2015 general election the Electoral Reform Society
estimated that 364 seats, 56% of the total, were safe seats

● As well as this, FPTP also allows for votes to be wasted, in which a vote in a small
constituency counts more than it does in a larger one

● For example, the Electoral Reform Society also calculated that 74.4% of votes cast in the
2015 election were wasted

● However, other systems such as STV and AMS have been argued to increase participation

● As mentioned before STV allows for the almost absolute proportionality and there are
limited/almost no wasted votes, which would make voters feel as though their votes will
count

● AMS on the other hand allows voters to vote for a candidate for their constituency and for
a regional candidate, which gives voters a feel that they have more choice and control on
who they’re selecting as candidate

● Therefore, a change in the electoral system to AMS or STV would enhance UK democracy
as it would increase voter participation, and this is an important aspect of democracy

P4

● On the contrary, other electoral systems can also be seen to reduce participation

● For instance, STV is too complicated and requires a high level of political education, as the
voters have to know about all the candidates, in order to effectively vote for the right
candidate

● This can make voters not want to vote, as they haven’t got the time to research into the
candidates, or it results in ‘donkey-voting’, in which voters only vote for the candidate they
have heard about before or the rest are voting for

● Both scenarios reduce the state of UK democracy

● Alongside this, AMS may also reduce participation as smaller parties achieve less
representation, which can also discourage voters
● For example, in Wales where the small number of top-up seats has advantaged Labour,
the SNP has been the dominant part since 2007, running a majority government in 2011-16

● FPTP has also been used in the Westminster for a very long time, and therefore the public
are aware of how the system works and so it is easier and less confusing to use

● Overall, despite FPTP producing a number of wasted votes, it can be seen to not reduce
participation, as a change in the electoral system would only create less of a turnout and
would discourage further voters

P5 - would remove two party system

● Lastly, a change to the FPTP system can also enhance democracy as it will remove the
‘two-party system’ that currently exists in the UK

● For instance, if FPTP is removed then there would not be any ‘safe seats’ and the seats can
be more proportioned according to votes

● For example, the Thanet South, Kent seat, has only ever been Conservative in 1983, 1987
and 1992 or Labour in 1997, 2001 and 2005, in every general election

● The fact that the only two parties that have won that seat are the Conservative and
Labour party, illustrate how the UK system is dominated by only two parties, which FPTP
allows

● On the other hand, STV is extremely proportional as mentioned previously, and this will
allow for there to be a clear representation of all the voters, as well as allowing for smaller
parties to be able to compete for a place in government and for more seats

● Therefore, a change to the FPTP system used in Westminster would not only get rid of the
two-party system, but will also help enhance UK democracy this way.

P6

● However, other voting systems would not break the two-party system and in fact won’t be
able to enhance democracy in the UK

● For example, SV would not break the two-party system because 50% of the votes are
needed in order for a candidate to secure government, and therefore minority parties will
not be able to reach the 50% target

● As a result, the minority parties are only excluded from the chance to win government as
it will most likely always be the larger parties who will have a chance of reaching the 50%
target, therefore the two-party system is only solidified

● For example, in the 2016 London Mayoral Elections, it was the Labour party, Sadiq Khan,
and the Conservative party, Zac Goldsmith, that managed to reach a high number of votes
of 44% for Labour and 35% for Conservative
● The other parties such as the Green party, received nearly 6% of the votes, and this was
the third highest percentage

● This shows how an SV would only solidify a two-party system. Therefore, although FPTP
also encourages a two-party system, a change to the electoral system won’t improve UK
democracy by that much

CONCLUSION

● In conclusion, despite FPTP having many disadvantages that can be seen to undermine UK
democracy, the other systems such as AMS, STV, SV and the Party List system, also
undermine democracy

● Overall, a change to the Westminster electoral system will not enhance UK democracy, as
FPTP has been a system that has allowed for the UK to be democratic so far, and therefore,
there already is and enhancement in democracy

Evaluate the extent to which small parties have an impact on UK politics today.

INTRO

● Minor parties refer to those which do not have a realistic chance of winning general
elections due to the nature of the two-party system within the UK political system

● It can be said that they do have an impact on UK politics today due to their ability to shape
the political agenda, potential to act as ‘kingmakers’ in parliament and provide the basis for
government stability, diminish the support base of the two main parties and gather most
support in second-order elections such as local elections and EU elections

● However, it is the case that the impact which small parties have is limited on the whole as
more often than note they do not act as kingmakers, they also struggle to shape the political
agenda as it is often shaped around the actions of the government, they have not
successfully diminished the support base of the two main parties as there remains a two-
party system and their success in second-order as not significant relative to their lack of
success in general elections

P1 - small parties can shape political agenda

● The greatest reason as to why it can be suggested the small parties have a significant
impact on UK politics is due to their ability to shape the political agenda, an increasingly
important factor considering the tendency of voters to cast their vote based on issues more
than anything

● The Brexit party for example, managed to successfully shape the 2019 general election
debate around Brexit to the extent that those in the media and the electorate, either
explicitly or implicitly, viewed it as the ‘Brexit election’
● The Green Party have also had success in recent times as their emphasis on sustainability
and the environment has been a factor as to why climate change is now at the forefront of
political issues, thereby displaying how minor parties have been successful in shaping the
political agenda

● Yet, it is the case that the political debate is typically shaped around the actions of the
government, something acknowledged by the fact that the minor parties are in opposition
to hold the government to account

● Therefore, whilst they do spend time attempting to shape the political agenda, a lot of
their time is spent on scrutinising the government and they often fail to shape the whole
political debate around their salient issue. Indeed, in the 2019 general election in spite of
the role played by the Brexit party, it was the Conservative Party who really shaped the

political debate as they pledged to ‘Get Brexit done’ and attacked the Labour Party
leadership in the process thereby forming the debate around their agenda and supposed
inefficiency of their opposition

P2 - can act as parliamentary kingmakers

● A further reason as to why it may be suggested that minor parties have an impact in UK
politics today is due to their ability to act as parliamentary kingmakers, forming the basis
upon which the government of the day functions

● The event of a coalition government from 2010-2015 and a minority government from
2017-2019 displays that this is increasingly the case and should be considered a role of
minor parties which therefore makes them central to the political system

● The reliance of Theresa May’s premiership on the DUP displayed that minor parties are of
central importance in the UK political system

● The SNP were tipped as coalition partners for Labour in the event of a hung parliament
and therefore it has become acknowledged that minor parties cannot be marginalised and
ruled out of serving in government as the tendency of the FPTP electoral system to produce
an indecisive result makes them more important

● However, it remains true that at the moment minor parties are not important on this basis
as the government enjoys a decisive 80 seat majority and does not rely on any other party
for numerical support in parliament

● The hung parliaments produced in 2010 and 2017 were merely anomalies within the UK’s
electoral history and thus it would be a misrepresentation of facts to claim that minor
parties are important on the basis that they may prop up the government and provide them
with the stability to govern

● On this basis therefore it is the case that minor parties in the UK are not important

P3 - can diminish support of the two main parties

● The ability of minor parties in the UK to diminish the support of the two main parties is
arguably a reason which serves to display that they are of increasing importance within the
UK political system and should not be overlooked

● For example, the SNP have effectively taken over Scotland which had 42 seats in 2010, the
Lib Dems took both Labour and Conservative Party voters in the 2019 General election and
the Brexit Party also drew support from a significant number of traditional Labour voters in
2019, hence the crumbling of the ‘red wall’

● Therefore, minor parties are displaying themselves as serious players within the UK
political system and are rightly exercising an increasing influence in the process

● However, the point that minor parties may diminish the support base of the two main
parties therefore displaying their importance can be rebuked on the basis that there still
does remain a two party system which they have been able to cut through

● In spite of losing two million votes in the 2019 general election, the Labour Party still
gained just under 3 times as many votes as the Liberal Democrats and more than 4 times
relative to the SNP

● The Conservative Party enjoyed more votes over the Labour Party than the SNP and the
Brexit Party did in the election as a whole

● Therefore, it would seemingly be a misjudgement to suggest that minor parties have been
successful in diverting support away from the two main parties and therefore they are not
important in this sense

P4 - mass support and vote share

● The support and vote share which minor parties receive in second-order elections such as
the EU elections, local elections and elections to national assemblies shows the extent to
which they are an important feature within the UK political system

● The Brexit party and the Lib Dems for example, were the big winners in the 2019 EU
elections as the Conservative Party and Labour Party suffered a slump in support

● In the 2019 local elections also the Lib Dems won 10 council seats from the two main
parties and the fairer electoral system used in second-rate elections means that they are a
truer reflection of the nature of the support which the minor parties have

● However, the legitimacy of second-rate elections can be called into question and
therefore also can the importance of minor parties if it is claimed so upon this premise

● Second-rate elections in the UK rarely exceed 55% and this appears to show that the
electorate value them less and therefore it would be a mistake to cite minor parties as an
important feature within the UK political system as a result of this
● Therefore, in spite of the successes of minor parties at recent second-rate elections, they
are not conclusive indications of their general importance or support.

CONCLUSION

● To conclude, the question as to whether minor parties in the UK are important is not a
straightforward one

● Of course minor parties play important roles such as holding the government to account
and representing a share of the electorate but their impact within the UK political system is
often limited, especially due to the FPTP electoral system which concentrates their support
and makes way for a two-party system

● It is because of this two-party system and the implications of it that ultimately means that
minor parties are not of significant importance as their influence within the political system
is more often than not indirect and they rarely form part of government or assist the
governing party, 2010 and 2017 being the exceptions however

Evaluate the case for introducing proportional representation for UK general elections
PLAN

INTRO:

● Def: A device or method by which votes are translated into seats in a legislative assembly,
or by which an individual elected official is returned to office

● Prop def. an electoral system in which voters cast their votes for political parties and the
percentage of the vote that each party receives translates into the percentage of seats that
the party receives in the legislature.

● Argument: …..

P1: Single Transferable vote pros

● Used in NI Assembly, EP elections in NI and Scottish council elections

● Uses multi-member constituencies

● e.g. NI Assembly, there are 18, each returning 5 members

● Voters number their choices preferentially

● In order to be elected, a candidate needs to achieve a quota, arrived at using the Droop
formula which divides the number of votes cast by the number of seats contested plus one

● Close correlation between votes and seats

● Voter choice is high

● In NI, it has created a power-sharing government that enables representatives of the two
rival communities, the unionists and nationalists, to work together, ending 30 years of
violent disturbance in NI

● Sinn Fein 2016 - 24% of 1st preferred votes, 25% of seats

P2: cons

● Not fully proportional, particularly where smaller multi-member constituencies are used

● In large multi-member constituencies, the link between the member and the voters may
be weak

● Power-sharing governments may bring rival groups together but they are still prone to
conflict

● e.g. NI executive was suspended several times in its early years, including for almost 5
years in 2002-2007 as a result of a breakdown of trust

● Co-operation of the parties broke down again in early 2017, triggering further elections

● STV did not help the more centrist parties in the long term

● The dominant parties are now the Democratic Unionist Party and republican Sinn Fein

● Since 2007 they have now replaced the more moderate Ulster Unionist Party and Social
and Democratic Labour Party

● Voting across community lines is still rare

P3: Party List System pros

● When is it used?

○ Chile

○ Colombia

○ Israel

○ UK European Parliament elections

● How does it work?

○ The Party list system is a proportional election system in which the proportion of seats
won is as close to the proportion of votes won as is possible
○ Voters vote for a party, not a candidate, and the party gets roughly the same proportion
of seats as votes

○ Who gets the seats is decided by the party ‘list’. There are two types of party list system,
an open list system where voters have at least some influence on the order in which a
party’s candidates are elected, which is rare but used in Chile and Colombia. This is as
opposed to the closed list system, which allows only active members, party officials, or
consultants to determine the order of its candidates

○ This is more frequent and used in Israel and the UK European Parliament elections

P4: cons

● Disadvantages

○ Note that the Party list Systems give much power to parties, and especially to the central
party leadership which selects the candidates. Local party members have no say in selection,
and voters may be stuck with an unpopular candidate

○ This may explain why Blair decided to use list systems for the EP elections and partly for
the devolved assemblies

○ If you are near the top of the list, you can remain in Parliament for many years – this has
in other countries led to corruption

○ Also, there is little room for the dissenting MP in Parliament - unlike under FPTP, he can't
claim a personal mandate, so he has no authority to rebel against party policy

○ This means you are successful in politics if you are on the right side of the person deciding
on the list

P5: Additional Member System pros

● Used in Scottish parliament, Welsh Assembly and Greater London Assembly

● Voters have 2 votes: The first is for a constituency representative, who is elected using
FPTP; the second is for a party list and uses multi-member regional constituencies,
introducing an element of proportional representation

● Fewer list members than constituency representatives and so they are known as
'additional

● Produces a broadly proportional result, so is a fair system

● Gives voters a second vote that does not have the problem of safe seats, so no tactical
voting (all votes are counted in list system)

● Means all voters still have a constituency MP keeping link and accountability
P6: cons

● Produces two classes of representatives - List MPs tend to be senior. Confusion therefore
for accountability

● More complex as voters have two votes

● Can result in election of extremist parties

● More likely to result in minority and coalition Governments (SNP have only ever had a tiny
majority - no strong Govts. Produced- minority in 2016)

● One vote is still under the disproportional FPTP system

Differences between the Labour and Conservative parties over policies and ideas

INTRO

● Make it 2022

P1

● Since Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader there has been growing division on the matter
as they believe May and the Conservatives are unfairly targeting the poorest individuals in
order to eliminate the deficit. The Conservative idea of austerity is opposed to Labour
policies, but the Tories believe this is necessary, especially since the 2008 financial crisis,
which placed Britain with a heavy debt. Additionally, Conservative ideas declare that
benefits shouldn’t be encouraged as they decrease motivation for individuals to find work,
whereas Labour believe it aid those in society who are limited by factors, such as health,
background or education. For example it was announced in April 2017 that £1.2 billion
would be cut from Child Tax Credit by 2020 and this would be limited to the first 2 children
born in a family. Additionally, £350 million a year by 2020 is to be cut from disability
benefits by 2020, a plan which has outraged Labour who says that these individuals need
more support than jobseekers as they are in a more difficult position. The difference in ideas
was evident in a question time in 2017 where Corbyn urged May to rethink the “shameful”
cuts. Therefore, it is evident that the current parties are greatly divided on the issue of
welfare

P2

● However, both parties can be seen to agree on the principle of the living wage. Introduced
by the Conservative in April 2016, the living wage was introduced to establish a wage high
enough for an individual to live off of. The Conservatives have strongly supported the wage
with the ideal that a higher wage for workers would increase motivation for people to seek
employment rather than relying on benefits. The Labour Party fundamentally agree with
this, believing that the minimum wage wasn’t sufficient for citizens to live off of and wanting
insurance that individuals would benefit off of this new wage. The parties both have plans to
increase this wage and therefore we can see similarities in their policy making. However, the
parties differ on the extent to which this wage should increase. Conservative plans are
estimated by the IFS to positively affect 2.8 million workers and cost employers £1 billion on
average, whereas Labour’s plans would affect 7.1 billion workers and cost employers £14
billion a year. Therefore, while the parties agree on the existence of this wage there are
differences in how they would both implement it

P3

● Policies on taxation have also been a constant source of distinction between the two
parties. The Labour Party essentially believe that the top percentage of the country should
face more taxation than the Tories have implemented on them in order to pay for other
areas, which need reform such as the NHS, and make wealth distribution more equal in the
UK. Labour also believes that corporation tax should be increased, which opposes the
Conservative belief that corporation tax should be kept low in order to encourage business
in the UK to stimulate the economy. This is evidenced by the tax decrease from 28% to 20%
to corporations and May’s claim that she wants the tax to be the lower than any of the
other top 20 global economies to encourage business and investment. May also plans to
increase the threshold at which the 40p rate of taxation is paid to earners of £50,000 a year,
which would benefit the working class. Labour has condemned this as they claim the
wealthiest earners are benefitting, while some of the poorest in the country are being
denied benefits. Therefore, it is clear that the two parties differ on their policies of taxation
and Corbyn’s labour are very much opposed to the tax cuts implemented by the
Conservative government

P4

● Both parties seem to agree on the matter of Trident. While, traditionally Labour has been
anti-nuclear weapons they appear to have accepted the policy of maintaining a nuclear
deterrent. Meanwhile, the Conservative priority of national security favours a nuclear
weapons programme for the same reason. Both parties can therefore be seen to support
Trident for defensive reasons. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has favoured a more ‘old
labour’ approach, voicing a support for leaving Trident and global disarmament when he
was a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. However, he has since said he
supports the will of the Labour Party to keep Trident and would respect the commitment to
renewal Trident, which is in the Labour manifesto, if elected Prime Minister. Therefore, it
can be said that the current parties agree on the issue of Trident, even if the leader has a
different opinion

P5

● Lastly both parties agree on the need to move forward with Brexit, as the people have
spoken through a referendum. However at the same time they disagree about how Brexit
should look. The Tories seem to be heading towards a 'hard Brexit', committing themselves
to leaving the Customs Union and the Single Market. The Labour Party, however, after
holding a similar line have now conceded that it is in Britain's interests to remain within the
Customs Union. It is believed that within time they will also move on the Single Market, with
prominent backbench voices like Chukka Umunna calling for the right to remain within
market and the possibility of another referendum

CONCLUSION

● To conclude, there are broad differences between the current Labour and Conservative
parties. The election of Corbyn as labour leader only accentuated these differences, as he
strongly believes in the importance of benefits and taxing the rich to achieve more equal
wealth distribution in the UK. This evidently disagrees with May’s policies, such as tax cuts
and even their decisions on the national living wage can be seen to differ. Therefore, it is
clear the parties currently hugely differ over policies and ideas.

Evaluate the extent to which rights are effectively protected in the UK

INTRO

● Human rights, or natural rights, are rights that individuals are naturally entitled to

● These rights are absolute, universal and fundamental

● They also form the basis of individual protection against government intrusion.

P1 - Judiciary

● The part of a country's government that is responsible for its legal system and which
consists of all the judges in the country's courts of law

● Enhanced measures of Judicial Independence = more independent from the other 2

branches of government and can thus defend rights without political pressure

● An example of this, can be seen in the fact that Judges salaries are paid out of the
Independent budget (Consolidated fund) without possibility of manipulation

● High Court judges are on a salary of £185,197 (Outer House) and £210,876 (Inner House) a
year (April 2018)

● Furthermore, Judges are relatively neutral by nature and this can protect a person's rights
without discrimination = more effective. Judges must recuse themselves from cases
involving friends and family

P2

● HOWEVER, due to the UK's uncodified constitution, Judiciary can't strike down primary
legislation even if there's an abuse of HR, they are powerless if it is enshrined in primary
legislation
● Furthermore, while technically independent senior judges work with parliament to advise
on the legality of legislation = role in legislation creation = undermine independence and
neutrality

P3 - Parliament

● In modern politics and history, a parliament is a legislative body of government

● Generally, a modern parliament has three functions: representing the electorate, making
laws, and overseeing the government

● Parliament is meant to be representative of the people and thus can reflect the values of
society and is = open to more HR issues from many backgrounds

● MP's represent constituents and can raise issues of citizens' rights with ministers if they
are violated

P4

● BUT, Short term political considerations may be more important than defending HR. e.g.
Belmarsh Case, Gov. prepared to undermine Civil liberties to protect anti-terrorist
legislation. = highlights how MPs may be reluctant to champion HR if makes them unpopular

● Furthermore, Parliament is usually dominated by the governing party leading to ToM and
poor checking of Gov. for HR violations

● Example can be seen in Blairs 1997 Government which held a majority of over 170.

● However, parliament has a history of being an institution that defends HR

P5 - HRA

● The Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received
Royal Assent on 9 November 1998, and mostly came into force on 2 October 2000

● Its aim was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on
Human Rights.

● Legislation has to comply with HRA

● Example of effectiveness can be seen in 2004, when a law that prevented a gay partner
from inheriting a council flat was struck down under the HRA.

● Strong legal protection for core civil and political rights via HRA

● Citizens can access rights through UK courts

P6
● BUT, the Act isn't entrenched and thus can be replaced unlike the US Bill of Rights (1791)

● Act cannot overturn primary legislation in parliament

CONCLUSION

Evaluate the view that FPTP is the best system to use for general elections

INTRO

● First past the post (FPTP) refers to the plurality electoral system wherein the candidate
with the most constituency votes is elected as their parliamentary representative

● It can be said that FPTP is the best electoral system to use for general elections because it
produces a strong government, prevents the entrance of extremist parties into the political
fold, provides a strong MP-constituency link, and because of its simplicity which makes it
attractive to voters

● However, ultimately, FPTP is not the best system to use for elections to Westminster as
the claim that it produces a strong government is outdated and therefore it purely skews
representation, it prevents the entrance of minor parties with no extremist tendencies, it is
not the only system which provides a strong-MP constituency link and the extent to which
FPTP supposedly does so can be questioned, and also because its simplicity is over-
exaggerated, it is not the only ‘simple’ electoral system available to voters

P1 - strong government

● Perhaps the most convincing argument for maintaining the current system is that it leads
to a strong government

● This is because FPTP typically produces a government which has a strong parliamentary
majority, as it did in 2019, and therefore is not weak nor in a position to unwillingly
compromise on matters which are unmandated

● In providing the government with a mandate to carry out its manifesto pledges, FPTP is
the most democratic and most accountable electoral system hence why it makes sense to
use

● States which do not use FPTP, such as Italy, typically have weak governments who have to
form confidence and supply agreements or coalitions in order to govern and such harms the
political efficiency of the system and leaves the mandate which the government acts upon
as unclear

● However, the case that FPTP produces a strong government is now outdated and
therefore the claim that FPTP should be kept on this basis is now outdated and not worth
entertaining
● The fact that FPTP produced two hung parliaments in the previous decade appears to
show that FPTP no longer retains validity due to its production of a strong government

● It merely misrepresents voters and provides the government with a mandate with
potentially as little as 35% of the popular vote, as was the case in 2005, calling their
legitimacy into question.

P2 - prevents extremist parties from gaining political influence

● FPTP may also be claimed as the best electoral system because it prevents extremist
parties from gaining political influence

● Such has been the case in some countries within Europe amid the rise of populism, and
therefore it is increasingly important and meaningful that we have an electoral system
which safeguards against this prospect

● However, it could be argued that this safeguard which FPTP provides against the entrance
of extremist parties into the political landscape is at the expense of third and small parties
and this has a negative impact on democracy as millions of voters are consequently
misrepresented

● The Liberal Democrats for example, gained over 3.5 million votes in 2019 but only
obtained 11 seats, the story was worse in 2015 wherein UKIP gained around 4 million votes
but only returned 1 MP. This serves to show the extent to which FPTP is a broken electoral
system and not suitable for use at general elections.

P3 - provides a strong MP-constituency link

● Another argument in support of FPTP being the best electoral system for general elections
is that it provides a strong MP-constituency link, this is due to the fact that unlike other
electoral systems such as regional list and STV, FPTP only returns one MP and therefore the
link between MPs and constituents is maintained and accountability is clear

● This is crucial for representative democracy - For example, MPs frequently hold surgeries
and represent their constituents in parliament based on their views on a matter, as
displayed by the fact that several MPs during the Brexit gridlock ultimately voted the way of
their constituents in parliament

● However, the strong MP-constituency link which FPTP supposedly provides is

questionable and it is not the only system to provide a strong MP-constituency link

● AMS, a hybrid electoral system which is used for Scottish elections also provides a strong
MP-constituency link, and the fact that FPTP gives rise to safe-seats means that in some
instances there is no MP-constituency link nor strong accountability to representatives

● Thus, it is the case that FPTP is not the best electoral system to use for general elections
for this reason.
P4 - simple system

● Finally, it could be argued in support of FPTP being used for general elections that this
system is a very simple system to use as there is clear choice and it also produces quick
results which in the short-term is crucial for economic proceedings

● Its simplicity means that there are not many spoilt ballots, as is the case with STV in
Northern Ireland

● Therefore, due to the already complex enough nature of politics, the simplicity and easy
comprehension of FPTP for voters makes it the ideal electoral system for general elections

● However, it could be argued that the simplicity with FPTP is overstated and that it would
be an underestimation of the electorate in claiming that an alternative electoral system
would be undesirable upon this reason

● AMS is not a particularly complicated electoral system, nor is a regional list system
wherein voters cast a vote for the party of their choice

● FPTP’s simplicity is an unnecessary compromise for its misrepresentation of the electorate

and therefore it is not the best electoral system to use in general elections on this basis

CONCLUSION

● To conclude, it is the case that FPTP is significantly flawed and is not the ideal electoral
system which ought to be used for general elections

● A proportional representation system, such as STV, would be much more suitable for use
at general elections as it would eradicate the issues surrounding political misrepresentation,
a two-party system and tactical voting, all associated and maintained in the UK political
system due to FPTP

Evaluate the extent to which the media determine voting behaviour

INTRO

● The scope of the ‘media’ concerning general elections and its influence on voting
behaviour is defined into the realms of broadcasters, the press, social media and opinion
polls, and each has a varying impact on the extent to which they determine voting
behaviour

● It may be said that the media does play a crucial role in determining voting behaviour as
the broadcast media typically sets the agenda during the election campaigns, social media is
a means by which a particular demographic are influenced, opinion polls can have a
‘bandwagon’, or ‘boomerang effect’ and the press also continues to play a crucial role in
informing individuals and largely deciding the way in which they vote
● However, the influence of the media can be disputed upon the facts that the broadcast
media remains impartial and is therefore merely informative, newspapers are experiencing
a decline in readership and therefore importance, social media is limited in terms of whom
it seeks to appeal to and opinion polls are becoming increasingly ignored

● Therefore, the media ultimately does not play a large part in determining voting
behaviour.

P1

● The greatest reason as to why it may be suggested that the media plays a significant role
in voting behaviour is because of the supposed claim that the broadcast media sets the
agenda during general election campaigns and therefore helps to shape the outcome, this is
known as the agenda-setting theory

● The role of the broadcast media in facilitating voting behaviour is plausible as they offer a
platform for party leaders to debate each other and therefore enhance their personal
appeal, indirectly influencing voting behaviour

● The phenomenon of ‘Clegg-mania’ following the 2010 election BBC leaders debate
displays this

● The broadcast media also sets the agenda of the election through the nature of their
coverage

● Many media outlets, including Sky News, focused the 2019 election around Brexit and
went as far as referring to the election as the ‘Brexit election’

● However, the influence of the broadcast media in determining voting behaviour is limited
on the whole

● They merely provide a platform for parties to enhance their perception of competence
and for leaders to improve their personal appeal

● Their need to remain impartial means that they merely offer insight and information to
voters but they do not directly influence the way in which voters will necessarily vote
subsequently

P2

● The role of the press is arguably significant in influencing voting behaviour and has a
bearing on the outcome of elections as it may appear

● In 1992, the Sun launched several attacks on Labour leader Neil Kinnock and in 2019 much
was the same with several newspapers and Jeremy Corbyn

● Richard Burgon and Sir Keir Starmer claimed that Corbyn’s ‘vilification’ by the press was a
reason as to why Labour eventually suffered their greatest election defeat since 1935
● Thus, it may appear that the press has a direct influence over voters which is to say that
they directly influence voting behaviour and is therefore evident of the fact that the media
determines voting behaviour

● However, the decline in newspaper readership would suggest that the influence of the
press has, and will continue to diminish

● The Sun’s readership has been on a steady decline since the 1990s, as is the case with
many other newspaper outlets and this appears to suggest that the press does not
determine voting behaviour

● In addition, it can also be suggested that newspapers merely serve as an echo chamber
and therefore they do not reinforce views and do not influence the way in which people
vote

● Overall therefore, it is the case that the media does not influence voting behaviour in a
way which is significant

P3

● The influence of social media on voting behaviour can also be cited as a factor which
serves to show that the media has a significant impact on voting behaviour

● In 2015 for example, Conservatives spent £100,000 a month on Facebook advertising,

significantly higher than Labour’s total spend of £16,000 and this is what arguably

contributed to Cameron’s surprise election victory. Social media was also a means by which
the Brexit Party gathered support in the EU elections, organising several rallies and party
functions through facebook and social media advertising

● However, the impact of social media on voting behaviour is ultimately limited and the
2019 general election displays this. The Labour Party spent approximately £400,000 more
on facebook ads than the Conservative Party and were a lot more active on other social
media outlets such as Instagram in a bid to appeal to younger voters

● The limitations of this are evident in that younger voters tend not to vote, as they did in
2019, and that Labour went on to lose the general election

● High social media activity and youth appeal seemingly gave the Labour Party a false idea
of the influence of social media on voting behaviour, something which came to be
registered on election night

P4

● The influence which opinion polls have on voting behaviour can also be cited as a
plausible factor which serves to display the extent to which the media influences voting
behaviour
● Opinion polls can have a ‘bandwagon effect’ wherein opinion polls increase support for a
party, or they can have a ‘boomerang effect’ wherein the opposite occurs

● In 2015 it appeared that opinion polls, several of which were predicting a close run in
between Labour and the Conservative Party, had a boomerang effect for the Labour Party as
many were anxious about the prospect of a Labour-SNP coalition coming around as a result

● However, the impact of opinion polls on voting behaviour should not be overstated

● They are often inaccurate, something which has increasingly come to be acknowledged by
parties and voters, and they are therefore being ignored as a result

● Since 2015, opinion polls in Scotland which have consistently forecasted decisive SNP seat
shares have not led to a boomerang effect by voters, the majority of whom are arguably
opposed to Scottish independence, thereby displaying their limited impact

CONCLUSION

● The influence of the media in determining voting behaviour is significant but it is not
decisive as the media largely takes up the role of chief informant for voters as opposed to
the most influential factor contributing to the way in which they vote

● Whilst the influence of some forms of media platforms and outlets will grow, such as
social media, there will be a decrease, as there has been, in others namely the influence of
the press and opinion polls

● Therefore, on the whole the influence of the media in determining voting behaviour is a
modest one

Evaluate the factors that determine the success of pressure groups in the UK

Intro

● A pressure group is a collection of people who have the aim of changing or affecting
government policy without ever trying to join the government, or who attempt to influence
public opinion in one way or another

P1 - SIZE

● Larger pressure groups can have a more significant impact on public opinion and force the
government into acting on a matter

● This is since methods such as protest become more effective when there are larger groups
of people
● Snowdrop Campaign was largely backed and is an example of size, ostensibly, being the
main determinant in pressure group success

● Size is also important for pressure groups in an operational sense, as larger pressure
groups can raise more money through memberships and thus increase their exposure
through advertising

● An example of this benefit can be seen in the fact that the RSPCA has over 1600
employees that keep it running efficiently, due to having such a large membership the
RSPCA can keep its staff and keep running effectively

P2 - counter

P3 - WEALTH

● Larger funds mean that the pressure group can improve its organization and act more
effectively thus improving chances of success

● Employees, advertising and offices all cost money

● RSPCA can produce effective advertising campaigns around Christmas that effectively
spread their message to people

● They are the number 1 animal welfare charity in the UK

● Wealth arguably goes beyond factors like size as here are examples of smaller wealthy
groups that are equally able to achieve success

● For example, the Taxpayer's Alliance who are prominent in promoting a low tax Britain

P4

● Depending on the aim of the organisation, if they aim to change government policy, an
insider v outsider may be more effective

P5 - Public Opinion

● Snowdrop campaign to ban handgun use in the UK was able to campaign more effectively
when public opinion was on their side after the Dunblane massacre in 1996 (16 children
dead)

● Gurkha Justice campaign, helped by Joanna Lumley, exceptionally successful in allowing

Gurkhas stay in the UK as a result of public backing

P6

● However, public opinion and support is not a given which is shown by the Stop the War
Coalition march in 2003, despite this Labour continued to take Iraq to war.
Evaluate the view that pressure groups are more influential than corporations in
influencing government policy

INTRO - corporation >

● In recent years, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the lobbying of wealthy
corporations that have an undue influence on government policy

● The recent Owen Patterson scandal illustrated the ability of big businesses to 'buy’’
politicians

● ‘Influence’ refers to actual change to policies to serve the interest of that company

● This essay will compare the influence of corporations and pressure groups within
government policy, examining successful pressure groups and corporations as well as those
that fall short

● Ultimately, this essay will conclude that it is clear that apart from a few influential
pressure groups, corporations have a much greater influence on government policy

P1 - BMA and Stonewall

● The first argument draws upon influential pressure groups

● These are typically the groups with insider status i.e groups that enjoy close access to
government agencies and officials

● One example is the British Medical Association (BMA) which is the trade union and
professional body for doctors in the UK

● One recent success for the BMA is the winning of the judicial review which overturned
regulations that gave the UK Secretary of State for Health & Social Care the power to
suspend the payment of pensions benefits to any doctor or NHS professional charged with
certain criminal offences – but not yet convicted

● It can be argued that the BMA have a disproportionate influence on government policy in
comparison to other trade unions due to their high status and class

● Their influence has arguably amplified during the COVID pandemic as the government
cannot afford to lose public support as a consequence of seeming anti-doctor

● Another example is Stonewall, a pressure group advocating for LGBTQ+ rights

● Since Thatcher’s government and the introduction of Section 28, Stonewall have
contributed to numerous policies and laws regarding the LGBTQ+ society
● Their successes include: LGBTQ+ inclusive teaching in the national curriculum, protection
from discrimination at work, the right for same-sex couples to get married and many more

● This can be accredited to the change in norms and values within society since the 80’s
resulting in a more inclusive and progressive government

● Supporters of pressure groups suggest that this is sufficient evidence to support the claim
that pressure groups are more influential than corporations in influencing government
policy

P2 - little, insiders are exceptions

● However, this is a weak argument as these insider pressure groups are exceptions

● The majority of pressure groups, in particular outsider groups, do not enjoy these
privileges

● For example, environmental pressure groups like Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion,
despite gaining much media coverage, have not had a great influence on the government
due to their radical aims which aren’t in line with the government’s priorities. Another
instance is CAGE UK. They are a group campaigning to empower Muslims and against anti-
terror laws

● They have had little influence on government policies mainly due to their lack of electoral
power

● With only 4.3% Muslims in the UK, they only account for a small minority lessening the
likelihood of the government listening to their views

● This, therefore, undermines the strength of pressure groups thus we can maintain the
view that corporations have more influence than pressure groups

P3 - corporations rich

● An argument in support of corporations is their power in the economy

● For example, a bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion was announced by the
British government on 8 October 2008, as a response to the global financial crisis

● The management of the economy is arguably one of the best measurements of the
success of a government

● This means that corporations are too powerful for the government to allow them to fail,
consequently leading to the influence on decisions in order for their business and the
economy to flourish

● Another example is the £1 billion in support for businesses most impacted by Omicron
across the UK by Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak
● Pressure groups don’t have the same level of influence in the economy resulting in a lack
of power within political discourse

● This is another strong argument that defends the view that corporations have more
influence than pressure groups

P4 - pressure group success

● This argument could be undermined by the instances where pressure groups achieved
their goals despite the views of big corporations

● For instance, Greenpeace and numerous environmental pressure groups were successful
in delaying the decision for a third runway at Heathrow

● This was despite support from major airlines such as British Airways, EasyJet and Virgin
Atlantic

● This is relevant evidence to be considered however is not strong enough in comparison to

the various examples of billions of pounds spent for corporations so we can maintain the
view that corporations are more influential in government policy

P5 - corporations lobbying

● Even if one were to accept that their role in the economy is not a strong enough
argument, the strongest argument for corporations is their use of political lobbying

● According to The Times, from 2015-2017, £25 million was spent on lobbying by big
businesses

● As mentioned prior, there are numerous instances of politicians being ‘bought’ by these
wealthy corporations

● One example is the Greenshill scandal

● To summarise, in 2020, David Cameron lobbied the Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi
Sunak via a series of text messages in attempts to allow Greensill to join the Covid Corporate
Financing Facility scheme to keep the company afloat

● This highlights how ex-ministers continue to have unsavoury connections and lobby on
behalf of their interest

● Another example is Patricia Hewitt and Stephen Byers reaching out to lobbying firms
before their resignation

● Stephen Byers was exposed by Channel 4, claiming that he was “a taxi for hire” for £5,000
a day
● Owen Patterson, a Conservative MP, recently had to resign after he was suspended from
the House of Commons for flagrantly lobbying on behalf of his company, where he had a
second job

● These examples outline how corporations, through their wealth and resources, can lobby
politicians and gain influence via this route

● It is unlikely that pressure groups would have this same level of wealth and thus cannot
compete for influence on an equal playing field

P6 - lobbying laws

● However, the opposition may attempt to undermine this argument by emphasising the
laws made against political lobbying

● For example, the ‘Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union
Administration Act 2014’ was made to enhance the transparency surrounding lobbying

● Defenders of the new register claim it will protect ministers and their senior civil servants
from confusion and conflicts, as they will now know all the different interests represented
by the influencers for hire they meet

● On the surface this seems to resolve the undemocratic influence lobbying holds however
through further examination it is evident that this system only creates a false sense of
transparency because it will not be possible to tell from the information disclosed who is
lobbying whom, on what issues, how much time and money is being devoted to influencing
the political process, and what tactics are being used

● Moreover, the register only covers consultant lobbyists’ direct contacts with ministers and
high-ranking officials which in practice is only a small part of lobbying activity

● David Cameron did not break his own law, because it is too weakThis allows us to
maintain the view that through lobbying, corporations have significantly more influence on
government policy than pressure groups

CONCLUSION

● In conclusion, despite relevant points arguing for the influence of pressure groups, they’ve
been consistently undermined by arguments in favour of corporations so we can conclude
that corporations have more influence than pressure groups in government policy

● The strongest argument arises from corporations’ use of lobbying as even policies to
reduce this influence have been proven unsuccessful

● Unless parliament tightens up the laws regarding lobbying and money in politics,
corporations will have undue influence
Evaluate the view that minor parties have little impact on British politics

INTRO

● A minority party is a political party whose electoral strength plays a smaller role than the
mainstream parties in a country’s politics and elections

● Smaller political parties have been a long-standing feature of the British political
landscape at both national and local levels

● The 350 political parties, and other political organisations add a richness and depth to
politics that has an impact on democracy and representation beyond the limited success
they achieve at the ballot box, both locally and nationally

● The limitations of minority parties come in many forms, FPTP being the most important

● While politics at all levels in the UK are dominated by the main three parties, small parties
have been a persistent challenger to those parties and have consistently offered the voter a
choice beyond the mainstream

● This essay will argue that although minor parties are disproportionately under-
represented, they have been increasingly popular in recent years and thus, are of growing
significance in British Politics

P1

● It is clear that minority parties can be influential in British politics due to the clarity of their
position on single issues

● As many minority political parties are single-issue parties, their focus on a specific political
agenda means voters may support such parties because they consider the core-issue of that
party of vital importance and are less concerned that other policy aspects are not fully
developed

● UKIP is an example of such a minority party with its focus on anti-EU policies, it is
undoubtedly one of the most eurosceptic parties in Britain and can be considered as one of
the major manifestations of the UK’s challenge to Europeanisation

● Their growing influence over the British populace was evident through their historic
victory in the 2014 European Parliamentary Elections by winning a large number of UK seats

● Those 24 seats made UKIP the biggest UK party in the European Parliament, this makes it
a challenge to the main political parties and to the British political system as a whole

● Also, UKIP secured 3.9 million votes in the 2015 general election, although it only achieved
one seat
● UKIPs success at the European level demonstrates that minor parties have the ability to
influence voters with their clear and direct manifesto, unlike the majority parties who have
a much more obscure agendas

● UKIPs increasing popularity over the years strengthened the party as a fundamental
catalyst for the 2015 EU Referendum and the ‘victory’ of Brexit, thus proving that minor

● party ideology has permeated the agenda of the mainstream parties who are conscious of
their electoral successes

P2

● Despite the previous argument, it is obvious that minority parties have little impact on
British Politics because they are disproportionately under-represented by the FPTP electoral
system

● The FPTP electoral system creates a two-party system designed to create a strong
majority in government, thus does not favour minority parties

● Minority parties with extreme views, that is, parties likely to damage the democratic
system and create further division, are overlooked by the system

● Therefore, under FPTP, there is reduced competition between the two main parties in
order to suppress political radicalism, amongst other reasons

● The disproportionate nature of the FPTP system was demonstrated in the 2015 General
Election, as UKIPs 3.8 million votes and similarly, The Green Party’s 1.1 million votes were
translated into only one MP in Parliament each

● Therefore, the existence and activities of small parties outside of the main three and
outside Westminster does not allow alternative opportunities for citizen engagement and
participation

● This is significant as it has exposed the limitations of the FPTP system, it illustrates that the
two-party system does not effectively represent minority parties at Westminster and
subsequently, a clear and fair variation of public opinion

● Thus, it is evident that although minority parties are popular amongst the British
electorate, they do not have a large impact due to the FPTP electoral system as they are
unable to gain real traction in Parliament and so cannot make drastic changes

P3

● Contrastingly, minor parties are incredibly important and effective in representing the
views and opinions of the electorate from the devolved nations

● As the minority government in Scottish Parliament, the SNP has support from 45% of the
Scottish population
● This demonstrates SNP as an important minority party at a devolved level in British politics

● In 2014, the Independence Referendum drummed up passionate nationalist sentiment,

whilst the motion to recuse was defeated, that feeling has not gone away

● These nationalist views are reflected through the popularity of the minor party SNP

● Nicola Sturgeon’s strategy on independence has no doubt energised SNP support and
increased the turnout of their voters

● Therefore, in the 2015 General Election there was a great success for SNP, which won 48
of the 59 seats in Scotland at Westminster, marking them the third party

● The party now controls four-fifths of the Scottish seats, a much higher proportion than
Boris Johnson’s Conservatives won across the UK

● The SNP surge creates a major headache for the UK prime minister - reminiscent of 1987,
when Margaret Thatcher won big across the UK but lost more than half the Conservative
seats in Scotland – the ‘doomsday scenario’ as it came to be known

● That year the Conservative number of seats fell from 21 to 10 in Scotland; this time it’s
down from 13 to 6

● The SNPs landslide victory places the minor party firmly in the centre of Westminster,
where the Scottish population can be equally recognised

● Thus, it shows that minority parties can gain influence over governments over time
through the weakness of main parties who do not win an outright majority

● Minor parties can greatly influence British politics either as part of an official coalition or
through voting agreements

● Therefore, demonstrating that minor parties do not need to have equal amount of
support as main parties to be able to rally substantial support

● They are increasingly considered a direct threat to major political parties and
subsequently, are able to significantly impact British politics from the UK Parliament

P4

● Despite this, the issue of devolution has demonstrated that although Scotland has gained
more devolution, the inability for Scottish parties to be heard in Parliament leaves millions
of the UK electorate voiceless

● This is because governments in devolved nations do not hold equal weight in Westminster

● Such as the SNP, who have formed a majority government in Scottish Parliament, but they
are only considered a minor party in UK Parliament
● Thus, it is evident that Scottish minority parties may have an impact in devolved nations
but not enough in UK parliament

● This was demonstrated in the 2015 EU Referendum, Scotland voted in favour of the UK
staying in the EU by 62% to 38% - with all 32 council areas backing Remain

● Although Scotland had delivered a strong, unequivocal vote to remain in the EU, the UK
left the EU

● As Scotland’s vote in the EU Referendum was sidelined and ignored by the Westminster
establishment, it demonstrates that the position on minor parties from the devalued nations
are constantly undermined

● As Westminster still retains control of ‘reserved powers’ such as defence, foreign policy
and constitutional matters, Scotland want to gain full independence by becoming ‘detached’
from Westminster and the British governing system

● Also the Cameron government passed the English Votes for English Laws legislation which
restricts the ability of devolved parties to amend bills as they go through parliament

● EVEL was designed to resolve the West Lothian Question, although it still gives Scottish
and Welsh parties the right to vote on the final version of the bill. Therefore, it is clear that
despite minority parties' ability to form governments in their devolved nations, it is
incredibly difficult to have an impact in the UK Parliament. Thus, it is clear that in devolved
nations, minor parties may have political significance in their devolved powers yet they have
relatively little impact on British politics

CONCLUSION

● In conclusion, although there are numerous obstacles for minor political parties, the most
detrimental is the FPTP electoral system

● Despite this, their ability to not only to provide the voter with alternatives at election
time, but to influence the behaviour of the established parties as well as increase awareness
and popularity for particular causes

● Minor parties do not need to rely on coalitions to be influential in Westminster, as smaller

parties produce new ways for political accountability as they are able to focus on issues
ignored by the main parties

● Thus, minor parties play a significant role in British politics as they can encourage the
realignment of issues as the main parties adapt their policy agenda to the newly emerging
issues

Evaluate the view that the influence of the media is the most important factor that
determines the success or failure of a political party (30) - PLAN
INTRO:

● Media def: the main means of mass communication (broadcasting, publishing, and the
internet) regarded collectively

● As society has progressed, more and more people have access to different forms of media

● This essay will look at three aspects of media: press, broadcasting and social media

● LOA: not much influence, still many older voters don’t pay much attention/ newer forms
of social media are overexaggerated in their influence over the country as a whole

P1: Press - influence

● Newspapers previously helped to see the agenda and ensured we remembered events-
1979 ‘Crisis what Crisis?’

● Newspapers such as the Sun have previously launched successful campaigns against
Labour leaders- Neil Kinnock in 1992 and Ed Miliband in 2015 (Both lost elections)

● Newspapers help to influence valence

● Look at 1997 and 2017 case studies for stats

P2: Press - no influence

● Our newspapers do not need to be impartial can be seen to be very biased in their
reporting, however 2017 suggests their influence is reducing

● In 2017 Corbyn managed to overcome bad press to improve (Remember front page- Cor-
Bin)

P3: broadcasting - influence

● Broadcasters by law have to remain neutral, but due to the live interviews and debates
they can still be decisive in swaying voters:

● Ed Miliband was seen to have performed poorly in 2015- ‘Hell Yes I’m Tough Enough’

● Theresa May lost much of her authority in poor media appearances after social care u-
turn and refusing to turn up to debates

● Nick Clegg did very well in 2010 debates to help Lib Dem Polls (but Lib Dems still lost seats
that election)

P4: broadcasting - no influence

● Nick Clegg did very well in 2010 debates to help Lib Dem Polls (but Lib Dems still lost seats
that election)

● Debates were seen as quite dull in 2019, so no big change to anything

P5: social media - influence

● Relatively new on the scene, adverts on Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat are becoming
much more important

● In 2015 Tories outspent Labour on Social Media in key marginals

● 2017 saw a massive social media campaign from Labour and groups such as Momentum:
39% of 18-24 said Facebook and Twitter are their main forms of information in the 2017
election. 50% said Social Media was most important factor on vote

● This Momentum video was watched 5.4 million times on Facebook in just two days!

P6: social media - no influence

● 2019 Social Media dominated by Labour with higher spending, follows, retweets etc. Yet…
Tories still win the election!

Evaluate the view that the current Conservative Party has moved decisively away from
Thatcherism

INTRO

● Margaret Thatcher’s premiership between 1979 and 1990 was marked with a massive
break of the Conservative party from the “post-war consensus” orthodoxy of her
predecessors towards a neoliberal and neoconservative statesmanship known as
Thatcherism

● As Nigel Lawson described, Thatcherism put a heavy emphasis on “Free Market, financial
discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, ‘Victorian values’ (of
the self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism” exemplified by the “Big Bang”
and cuts to public service funds

● However, modern conservative leaders such as David Cameron recently tried to redefine
the Conservative party as a compassionate party due to Thatcherism’s brutal emphasis on
“self-reliance”

● Overall, the Conservative Party has started to move away from this Thatcherism
politically, economically and socially.

P1
● Politically, the Conservative Party has no doubt changed many of its individualistic
Thatcherite features into more inclusive ones

● Thatcher insisted that there was “no such thing as society”, evoking a very atomistic
individualism, where individuals live independently from one another

● She advocated for strong authoritarian centralisation of government and tough law and
order

● The Criminal Justice Act in 1982 resulted in courts imposing lengthier prison sentences
and custodial sentences

● The Act effectively shifted the criminal justice system away from rehabilitation towards
retributive sentencing

● This is the complete opposite of the current Conservative Party which has shifted towards
one nation Conservatism

● David Cameron’s detoxification of the Conservative Party aimed to detoxify the “nasty
party” (a term coined by Theresa May) into a compassionate conservatives

● He believed in “Big Society” and a “consensus” politics, emphasising the bonds between
people as opposed to Thatcherite individualism and even advocated for the “hug a hoodie”
campaign while promoting rehabilitation for criminals instead of maximising retribution

● This concept of society is very much a one nation conservatism idea, a way of seeing
society not as atomistic individuals but as a sea of little platoons that cooperate with one
another. Hence, why the conservative party has moved away from Thatcherism politically

P2

● On the other hand, other political stances such as euro-scepticism have still remained
consistent in the modern Conservative Party

● Margaret Thatcher became a symbol of early euroscepticism during her last few years in
office despite having backed Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community (EEC)
and voting yes in the 1975 EEC membership referendum

● In fact, she was a very big opponent to the Maastricht treaty

● She became a eurosceptic on the grounds that the Maastricht treaty would slowly erode
British sovereignty and replace it by EU authority, once again echoing the values of
nationalism and self-determination present in Thatcherism

● Much of the pro-Brexit argument coming from the modern Conservative Party had to do
with how the UK’s sovereignty kept getting pooled by the EU
● The main reason why Boris Johnson managed to win the 2019 general election was
because of his party’s pro-Brexit stance

● They pledged to use EU memberships fees for the NHS, taking back control of British
fisheries with Britain first in mind, once again reflecting the nationalistic stance of
Thatcherism still present in the Conservative Party

● However, it would be quite wrong to say that the Conservative Party as a whole was pro-
Brexit

● Theresa May used to be pro-EU and said that Brexit would seriously damage the economy
and security

● She also said that Brexit could potentially become fatal for the union with Scotland

● It was only because of David Cameron’s resignation that she had to u-turn and show a
pro-Brexit position, although a ‘soft’ one

● Furthermore, 21 MPs were kicked out of the Conservative Party by Boris Johnson due to
their pro-EU beliefs and their insistence to vote against the party

● This shows that the Conservative Party is split on the matter

P3

● Many Thatcherite ideas relating to self-reliance and the obligation to “ride one’s bike to
find a job” without depending on the State have changed in tone and emphasis by the
modern Conservative Party, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic

● £73 billion was given by the Boris Johnson Conservative government to help out
individuals and businesses through programs such as the furlough scheme which payed for
80% of the wages of 9.5 million people who lost their jobs due to the pandemic

● This signifies a large shift towards Keynesian economics and a return to the welfare state
that acts paternalistically, very different from the Thatcher era which saw a drop in public
spending from 44.6% to 38.9%

● An added £127 billion given to the NHS also meant further state intervention and aid to
public expenditure, something Thatcher would have been wary of

● These economic interventions prove that the Conservative Party has adopted more
Keynesian policies as opposed to neoliberal ones and hence why they have moved on from
Thatcherism

P4

● On the other hand, Thatcherite policies were still implemented in government policy for
many national industries in the early 2010s under the Conservative Party
● Thatcher was very much pro-privatisation

● 40 UK state-owned businesses in coal, gas, steel and even telecommunication employing

600,000 workers had been privatised during her premiership, totalling £60 billion in sale of
national assets

● This economic policy was also adopted by Cameron during his premiership

● In 2013, the Royal Mail was privatised which indicates that Thatcherism as an economic
idea has not yet been fully abandoned by the Conservative Party

● Furthermore, austerity still played a very big part in David Cameron’s premiership in order
to cut annual budget deficits, cutting £14,3 billion from 2010 to 2013 in many areas ranging
from education to local governments

● This austerity presents a similar approach to the “sound finance” adopted by Thatcher
from 1979 till 1990 that was also partly done in order to reduce budget deficit

● Nevertheless, the reason why austerity was implemented was not necessarily because of
Thatcherism’s dogmatic drive but instead because of what Cameron called a pragmatic
necessity

P5

● Thatcher was also a social conservative who advocated for the nuclear family and
traditional Victorian values

● Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 that was passed during her time as prime
minister stated that local authorities shall not “promote the teaching in any maintained
school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”

● This highlighted Thatcherism’s strong opposition against a permissive, socially liberal

society

● Instead, she advocated for traditional Christian values

● These alienating attitudes towards sexual minorities were repelled by recent Conservative
Governments. David Cameron introduced the Marriage Act 2013, making same-sex
marriages in England and Wales legal

● Theresa May later echoed his thoughts when she announced a consultation on gender
recognition laws for transgender people and Boris Johnson followed in 2021 when he
announced his plans to ban conversion therapy in the Queens Speech

● This shows that the Conservative Party’s views have indeed changed from the old
Thatcherite view of the nuclear family as newer forms of social and family values are being
accepted
● More importantly, this also means that the rigid dogmatic view on social issues from
Thatcherism have now been replaced by the one nation conservative idea of changing to
conserve, showing once again how the Conservative Party has separated itself from
Thatcherism

P6

● However, even though it could be said that most rigid social new right values of
Thatcherism have been abandoned by the Conservative Party in general terms, not all
conservative MPs support gay rights

● The Conservative Party may still have the biggest amount of gay representation in
Parliament with 20 gay MPs but the Marriage Act 2013 was only passed 400 to 175 because
the majority of the opposition voted for the government and not because the whole
Conservative Party was united in Parliament

● 136 MPs voted against the Act, making up nearly 45% of conservative seats in Parliament

● Jacob Rees-Mogg for instance has consistently voted against same-sex marriage and many
others have been outspoken against same-sex marriage meaning that old family values
coming from Thatcherism are still very much present in the Conservative Party

● It could of course be argued that these values do not directly originate from Thatcherism
and could more likely originate from older traditional forms of conservatism where
traditional nuclear family values have already existed far before Thatcherism

CONCLUSION

● Overall, it has become clear that the Conservative Party has moved decisively away from
Thatcherism. Euroscepticism and the occasional divisions in the Conservative Party might
showcase the presence of Thatcherite influence in the Conservative Party but the fact that
recent conservative leaders have tried to redefine the Conservative Party as a
compassionate party to remove the image of being an individualistic Thatcherite party only
shows that they have evidently tried to abandon most Thatcherite ideas

● Further proven by the recent Keynesian policies announced by Rishi Sunak in the Boris
Johnson administration and the 2013 onwards legislation of progressive social acts in
Conservative Governments, it remains clear that the Conservative Party has moved
decisively away from Thatcherism

Evaluate the view that the Labour Party is internally divided

INTRO

● The Labour Party was established at the start of the twentieth century after the working
class gained the right to vote
● It initially grew out of the trade union movement and has strong influences from socialist
thought

● However, there is a division in the labour party between new labour and old labour

● Old labour has social democratic foundations and was championed by Clement Attlee in
the 1950s

● New Labour, or the Third way, was mainly introduced by Blair and focuses on modernising
the Labour Party and bringing it more centrist

● There is also a minority of the Labour Party with more extreme left wing views,
completely rejecting the centrist third way policies

● These ideological differences have caused several disagreements within the Labour Party

● This essay will examine the divides in terms of the economy, tensions with blue labour
and education, and it will be concluded that the labour party is internally divided

P1 - economy

● The largest division within the Labour Party is arguably how the economy should be
handled and this is why it is clear that the labour party remains very divided

● Many supporters of Corbyn, members of the momentum faction, take the more far left
wing view that the economy should be managed by the state to ensure social equality

● This entails wealth redistribution, the nationalisation of key industries and the re-
establishment of Keynesian economics

● For example, Corbyn was keen to nationalise the internet

● These ideas clash with those of Blairites, centrist members who support third way thinking

● Keir Starmer as the current leader has not explicitly placed himself into the Blairite third
way camp, but his instincts are more centrist and his shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves is
wary of making too many spending and tax commitments

● This faction of the labour party is far more cautious about state intervention in the
economy, having learnt after the stagflation in the 70s

● They have accepted that the free market is the most efficient and effective way to
generate wealth and thus are far more willing to privatise industries. These are both factions
in the labour party, despite their opposing views

● This is because first past the post inevitably tends towards a two-party system, many
different factions have come together under the labour party in an attempt to attain
electoral success
● Therefore, there is a clear divide in the labour party over the economy

P2

● On the other hand, some argue, albeit in a weak way, that this division has been
reconciled to some extent after Starmer came to power as party leader

● Starmer purged the party of the left wing, expelling many of them, including Rebecca Long
Bailey and Corbyn himself

● Due to this, the far left are now a minority within the party and lack sufficient influence

● Starmer also openly criticised the ideas of the far left and Corbyn himself, in order to
distance himself from it and make it clear that he plans to pursue a centrist agenda

● Therefore, some argue that Starmer has managed to elevate the tension between the left
and centrist members of the party

● However, this is not a convincing argument as such tensions are so deeply rooted in
ideology that this is only a temporary and superficial solution

● It is arguably inevitable that the left wing influences will grow again in the party, as
Starmer has only suppressed, not eliminated, them

● This is because the membership of the party are far more left-leaning than the
parliamentary party

● Therefore, it can be maintained that the labour party is internally divided over the
economy

P3 - Blue Labour

● A further divide has been caused by Blue labour, a faction within the Labour Party who
seek to divert attention onto working class issues

● They disagree with the direction that the labour party is heading, arguing that it has
become too elitist and thus has lost the support of the working class

● In order to regain this support, blue labour adopt socially conservative values

● For example, they emphasise the importance of patriotism, religion, supporting the army
and limiting immigration

● They argue that these issues must be addressed in order to truly represent the working
class voters

● For example, Labour should adopt policies against large scale immigration, as it provides
competition for the British working class
● This is a stark contrast to the labour policies under Corbyn - Corbyn was anti-war, not very
patriotic and supported migration and many around him like John McDonnel were in favour
of the EU to some extent

● They would argue that Corbyn was very out of touch and are not willing to get on board
with such policies

● Thus, the blue labour faction represents the internal divisions of the Labour Party

P4

● However, this is a very small faction within the Labour Party and thus they are not
significant

● Not many MPs subscribe to blue labour due to the stark ideological difference from
labour’s socialist roots

● Rather, they believe that there are more socialist methods of reconnecting with the
working class

● Furthermore, Starmer has attempted to incorporate some of the blue labour ideas

● For example, he has sought to represent the patriotism of the working class by always
having a union jack behind him when he gives speeches and also he has shown more
reservation towards immigration

● This shows that, with the replacement of Corbyn as the party leader, the tension between
official labour policy and blue labour ideas has weakened

● Thus, this is actually a weak argument as it does not present a significant divide within the
party

P5 - education policy

● A topic causing much stronger divisions between the party is education policy

● Blair put a large focus on the importance of an academic education when he was prime
minister

● He pushed for as many people as possible to sit A Levels and introduced tuition fees for
university

● He also created academies to increase competition between schools to improve results

and drive up their standards

● Many members of the labour party disagree with this approach

● Some support the introduction of t-levels, a more practical qualification, however
members criticise this as a method to force the working class into non-academic study and
thereby trapping them in a cycle of poverty

● Blair’s creation of academies has also been criticised by more left wing members, who
argue that academies have the ability to innovate and move away from central education
policies and raise revenue through private means, they argue this will inevitably create
inequalities in education

● The left wing favour one standard comprehensive school education

P6

● This is a very strong argument illustrating a clear divide in the party and it is difficult to see
what labour’s policy has looked like under Starmer’s leadership

● Currently, the party has been united over less controversial topics, such as the issue of
free school meals and the government’s academic catch up schemes after covid

● \xThe party was also united in removing Latin as an elitist subject in 2021

● Despite this consensus, these deeper divisions regarding the education system remain and
it is likely that they will resurface at the next general election, when Starmer may be

compelled to address them. Thus, education remains a strong division in the labour party

CONCLUSION

● In conclusion, it is clear that the Labour Party is internally divided

● The weakest divisions are the tensions caused by minority factions such as blue labour as
these tend to have little impact

● However, the labour party is clearly split ideologically over larger matters such as the
economy and education

● The economy is certainly the largest divide as there is a large range within the party, from
far left wing members influenced by Marxist thought to Blairites continuing what many will
see as the inequalities of neoliberalism

● As labour is a broad tent coalition, it is likely that these divisions will remain and will never
successfully be reconciled

EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT THE MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES DISAGREE ON POLICIES AND
IDEAS
P1 AGAINST - Thatcher and Foot

● FOOT - FAR too left socialist

● Kaufman described Foots radical far left socialist 1983 manifesto as ‘the longest suicide
note in history’

● THATCHER - came in as PM 1979 to 1990

● Sold off many Britain’s industries and supported self-ownership of homes and free
enterprise

● Banned education of homosexuality - sold off Council Houses ‘right to buy’ scheme

● The selling of industries (privatisation) allowed a radical restructure of the countries

economy

● Thatcher lots of austerity and cuts

● Foot big on public spending

● Foot remained a high-profile member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)

● Whilst Thatcher was insistent on claiming the Falklands

P2 FOR - Blair and Cameron

● Quite similar in ideology - neo-liberals

● BLAIR - New Labour - Both PMs used Bilateralism (two parties relations or policies of joint
action- BLAIR and Brown, CAMERON and Clegg

● Both had SPADs who worked closely with them - eg. Alastair Campbell (Director of
Communications and Strategy at Number 10) and David Cameron’s leading SPAD - Steve
Hilton, No.10. Idea - they both appealed to middle Britain - the widest division of the
country - Both moved more central (Blair from Left, Cameron from Right. - Both advocated
for gay rights - Blair repealed section 28 (can’t teach about homosexuality in school
introduced 1988 by Thatcher) - Cameron legalised gay marriage (passed in 2013)

P3 - May and Corbyn

● MAY - hugely controversial policy announcement by May since her appointment as Prime
Minister has been her decision to lift the ban on grammar schools and hope to reinstall
them as a major part of our education system

● CORBYN - Left wing - adopted old labour, would abolish tuition fees, free broadband.
Taxing the rich more - Like Miliband he favoured restoration of the 50 per cent top rate of
income tax - Grenfell
P4 - Starmer and Johnson

● Resigning policy JOHNSON - refuses to resign over Partygate

● STARMER - states he will resign if the police fine him for Beergate (having a beer and curry
in Durham on 30th April 2021 with 30 other Labour MPs)

● Both share the idea of adapting to modern society - whilst their ideas are not progressive,
they are not at all reluctant to change with the times

● Both were quick to remove problematic and controversial figures in their party:
(Cummings and Corbyn)

● E.g. Boris plans to tackle climate change: “coal, cars, cash and trees”

● To allow only zero-emission vehicles to be on sale across the world by 2040

● For every country to cut carbon emissions by 68% by 2030, compared to levels in 1990 ●
To pledge collectively to achieve carbon neutrality - or net zero - by the middle of the
century

● “To end the use of coal power in the developing world by 2040 and in the developed
world by 2030

● To halt and reverse the loss of trees and biodiversity by 2030

● Mirrors Starmer: “everything we do in government will have to meet a ‘net zero’ test to
ensure that the prosperity we enjoy does not come at the cost of the climate”. He did not
elaborate on what the test would involve or how it would be applied

Evaluate the view that the Labour party has, now more than ever, moved decisively away
from Old Labour

INTRO

● Old Labour (1945-83), pioneered by Scottish socialist Kier Hardie, is defined as embodying
socialism, collectivism, ideas on class conflict, and trade unionism

● In contrast, new Labour, which came about during Blair's candidacy in 1997 in an attempt
to modernise after Thatcher’s ‘neoliberal’ Britain emphasised fewer socialist policies,
individualism, a decline in the importance of trade unionism and attempted to serve beyond
just the working class

● In the instant that Labour has decisively moved away from old Labour, it would suggest
that old Labour serves no relevance in the party's ideology anymore
● Some critics of Keir Starmer would agree with the statement, pointing to the February
2022 protests outside of Westminster which saw crowds chanting that Keir Starmer had
‘abandoned the working class’

● However, in this essay it will be argued that due to Blair still favouring welfarism

● Miliband's manifesto being heavily influenced by old Labour and Starmer’s policies still
showing loyalty to the working class that now, more than ever, a decisive move away from
old Labour hasn’t occurred

P1

● Some have argued that Blair’s shift to more central politics demonstrates that a decisive
shift away from old Labour has occurred

● Tony Blair needed to modernise the Labour party, Thatcher’s neoliberal Britain attracted
masses of voters, including those who were traditionally Labour such as among 18-24 year
olds, and so in an attempt to regain voters Blair needed to take a more central stance

● This can be seen in his policies, such as the human rights act of 1998 and the equalising of
the age of consent for homosexuals - traditionally, due to class conflict, Labour focussed on
improving the rights of those in the working class

● However, under Blair this shifted- instead of aiding just the working class, he recognised
the human rights of ALL those within society (e.g. the right to not be discriminated against)

● This can be seen in the Labour party today, and although policies such as housing benefits
aid those in the working class, it's clear the party now attempts to appease more voters as a
result of Blair trying to attract these middle-class swing voters loss to Thatcher,
demonstrating that now, more than ever, there’s been a decisive shift away from old Labour

P2

● However, the fact Blair still favoured welfarism suggests that this political shift has not
occurred

● Welfarism has always been key in the Labour party - pioneered by Annum Bevan in 1948
the NHS has been seen as the Labour parties ‘socialist landmark’

● The NHS involves collectively, through taxes, helping those in society who otherwise
would fall to ill health due to being economically disadvantaged

● This was echoed in Blair's 1997 manifesto, where he stated he wanted to safeguard the
principles of the NHS

● This impacted his policies as his work on the NHS led to the shortest hospital waiting room
times in over 40 years
● His commitment to safeguarding and bettering the NHS suggests this shift hasn’t occurred,
and in contrast to present day with Keir Starmer who also pledged to ‘protect the NHS’, it
shows this favouring of welfarism has been carried on down through the Labour party

● If this decisive shift has taken place, it would suggest that welfare would no longer be as
important, which isn’t the case showing that now, more than ever, a decisive shift away
from old Labour hasn’t occurred

EVAL P

● Despite Blairs shift straying away from the working class, this may have only been in an
attempt to modernise after Thatcher- without Blairs shift, Labour may have found it difficult
to get into government, and since by examining policies its evident Blair still aimed to help
the disadvantaged through welfare, and how it’s still central to Labour today, that now,
more than ever, Labour has not decisively moved away from old Labour

P3

● Ed Miliband rejecting both old and new Labour suggests that this decisive shift has
occurred

● In 2013, Miliband stated that both old and new Labour are obsolete, and that Labour
needed to adhere to the concept of ‘one-nation’ Labour, to attract previously alienated
voters

● This impacted his policies, which instead of being just left wing saw both left wing and
traditionally conservative policies, such as the policy to end exploitative zero-hour contracts
which is more left wing, and his policy to reform the EU to work better for Britain which is
traditionally more conservative

● Miliband adopted this more ‘forward facing’ approach to politics, which is significant in
demonstrating a decisive shift away from old Labour as traditionally old Labour focused on
dealing with societal inequalities and not more conservative issues

● This forward-facing approach can also be seen with Keir Starmer and how he’s perceived
as pragmatic demonstrating that now, more than ever, a decisive shift away from old Labour
hasn’t occurred

P4

● However, despite Miliband's rejection of old Labour, his manifesto heavily echoed
socialism and old Labour

● Not only was Miliband a ‘self-proclaimed socialist’, which was key to the foundations of
old Labour, but his party manifesto's theme was ‘Britain only succeeds if working class
families succeed’
● This heavily impacted his policies, such as the policy to monitor tax credits for working
class families to make sure they rise in life with inflation

● Again this is heavily riddled with old Labour ideology, instead of focusing on the way in
which taxes serve everyone in the country, it focused on making sure those who are at the
most disadvantaged are protected in times of financial problems, which was heavily in line
with old Labour and their ideas of class conflict

● This demonstrates a decisive shift away from old Labour hasn’t occurred, despite
Miliband's rejection he was still clearly influenced by old Labour, demonstrating its
relevance within the party. Not only that but his successor, Jeremy Corbyn, didn’t follow
through with this ‘one-nation’ principle and diverted back to Labours traditional socialist

ways, demonstrating that now, more than ever, a decisive shift away from old Labour hasn’t
occurred

EVAL P

● Overall, despite Miliband rejecting the idea of old Labour, it's clear by examining his
ideology and manifesto that old Labour had great influence on him which demonstrates its
relevance within the party

● This, alongside the fact that Corbyn didn’t carry on these one-nation principles, shows
that now, more than ever, a decisive shift away from old Labour hasn’t occurred

P5

● Starmer has been seen as heavily new Labour, with the February 2022 protests
demonstrating that people believe he’s ‘abandoned the working class’, suggesting a decisive
shift away from old Labour

● Ideologically, Starmer has been perceived as a pragmatic centrist, such as how in 2021 he
diverted away from the problem of universal basic income to focus on covid

● This shift is reflected in his policies, for example in 2021 Starmer stated that ‘the
government needs to be a partner to private enterprise, not stifle it’

● This massively contrasts old Labour, due to old Labour embodying socialism it advocated
for major strategic industries being run by the state for the people

● Starmer, however, advocated for private ownership, which was perceived as problematic
as a criticism of private ownership is that it gives way to exploitation due to a lack of
restraints on freedom - this exploitation is especially seen within the working class in both a
domestic and global level which is undeniably out of line with old Labour and their
safeguarding of the working class

● This is significant in demonstrating a decisive shift away from old Labour, out current
Labour leaders policies are much broader, and go against many principles of old Labour and
socialism, demonstrating that now, more than ever, a decisive shift away from old Labour
has occurred

P6

● However, these claims can be heavily undermined by Starmers policies which do in fact
aid the working class

● For example in Starmers 35-paged essay released in 2021 he stated that he wanted to give
pupils from low-income families the ‘soft skills’ which help private school pupils emerge
confidently, such as helping them learn an instrument

● This is significant in demonstrating that a decisive shift away from old labour has not
taken place - Starmers attempts to appease traditionally middle-class voters may not have
been his attempt to abandon the working class, but perhaps could have just been an
attempt to not make the same mistakes which gave Jeremy Corbyn such a significant loss in
the 2019 general election

● Starmer has only released a few policies and policies like these demonstrate that the
working class is still central in importance within the Labour party, demonstrating that now,
more than ever, a decisive shift away from old Labour hasn’t occurred

EVAL P

● Overall, despite Kier Starmers pragmatism and attempts to appeal to the middle class, the
fact that he has policies which still help only the working class demonstrates a sense of
loyalty on his behalf, showing that now, more than ever, a decisive shift away from old
Labour hasn’t occurred

CONCLUSION

● In conclusion, now, more than ever, a decisive shift away from old Labour hasn’t occurred

● Despite Blair's political shift allowing the party to increasingly appeal to middle class
voters, his favouring of welfarism demonstrates that the working class is still central to the
party

● Alongside this, both the policies in Miliband's manifesto and Starmers essay show that the
party still wants to help working class families out of disadvantaged positions, which fits into
old Labour ideas on class conflict, showing that now more than ever this decisive shift away
from old Labour hasn’t occurred

● No matter how many Labour leaders there are, the party always attracts working class
voters and therefore always needs to aim to serve them in some way- it’s unlikely old
Labours ideas and ideals will lose grip on new labour as its principles are so central to this
voters base, and so a decisive shift away from old Labour may never truly occur
Evaluate the view that the various electoral systems in use in the UK make significant
differences to party representation? (30)

FPTP - does make difference

● Safe seats and Marginal Seats mean there are votes of unequal value - Green needed
525,000 to elect one MP - Tories needed only 42,978

● Benefits parties with concentrated support- SNP got 7.4% of the seats, but 3.9% of the
vote. LDs got 11.6% of the vote and 1.7% of the seats

● Encourages tactical voting, rather than democratically voting for who you support

● Prevents new parties breaking in, causing inertia

● Since 1945, no party has won 50% of the vote. Meaning all Governments did not actually
receive a majority. Conservatives in 2015 only received 36.9% of the vote, and Labour in
2005 only received 35.2%!

FPTP - AGAINST the Thesis - First past the post (FPTP) makes a no significant difference to
party representation

● FPTP has recently resulted in larger roles for smaller parties - coalition, minority and small
majority governments as support for the two main parties has dropped.

● Safe seats and Marginal Seats mean there are votes of unequal value- Green needed
525,000 to elect one MP. Tories needed only 42,978.

● We can conclude that FPTP, like PR, allows for smaller parties to have a greater say in
government when support for the two main parties decreases.

AMS

● More likely to result in minority and coalition Governments (SNP have only ever had a tiny
majority- no strong Govts. Produced- minority in 2016)

● More complex as voters have two votes

● Can result in election of extremist parties

AMS - AGAINST the Thesis - AMS makes no real difference to party representation

● Rather than delivering a multi-party system, AMS has led to Scottish politics being
dominated by one party, the SNP, giving them a majority in 2011. In the Welsh Parliament, it
is the Labour Party who have dominated.

● More likely to result in minority and coalition Governments (SNP have only ever had a tiny
majority- no strong Govts. Produced- minority in 2016)
● We can conclude that AMS does not significantly affect the dominance of one party.

STV

● The dominant parties are now the Democratic Unionist Party and republican Sinn Fein

● Since 2007 they have now replaced the more moderate Ulster Unionist Party and Social
and Democratic Labour Party

STV - AGAINST the Thesis - STV makes no real difference to party representation

● Comparisons between representation in UK General elections to representation in NI

assembly elections shows a great similarity in who wins seats

● Again not fully proportional.

● Power sharing govts may bring rival groups together but they are still prone to conflict, eg.
NI executive was suspended several times in 2002-07 as a result of a breakdown of trust.

● We can conclude that there has been major party change in terms of representation, but
this is not due to the electoral system as outcomes for NI MPs elected by FPTP mirror
choices under STV

Evaluate the view that the media has a decisive impact on the outcome of elections

INTRO

● After the 1992 surprise Conservative victory, the Sun’s headline the following day was “It's
The Sun Wot Won It” claiming to have the deciding influence on the public

● By “decisive” what is meant is that the media has the power to decide who wins the
election

● While the media does have a significant impact on the election, declining uses of the print
and televised media, the message itself and the media having less of an effect means that
their effect is not decisive

P1 - decrease in popularity for TV and print media

● Firstly, the use of traditional media has decreased with the viewership for TV broadcasts
decreasing and the readership of print media also declining

● For example, the Sun’s readership went from 4 million in 1997 to just over a million in
2020 and this trend has occurred for all newspapers
● Similarly, the viewership of BBC news has decreased from 25 million to 18 million in the
21st century

● Due to increasing voter apathy, the media will have less of an effect as it is reaching a
fewer number of people to influence

P2 - CP

● However, there are arguments that both TV and print media remain a dominant force in
influencing election results

● For example, Blair made a clear point of appeasing Murdock, the owner of the Sun
newspaper, to ensure he had the Sun’s support in 1997, suggesting that the print media had
a significant impact as Blair chose to spend time and resources doing this

● Furthermore, TV and print media investigate politicians and are responsible for changing
election results by revealing scandals

● For example, Sky News picked up on Gordon Brown calling a Labour voter a “bigoted
woman” and portrayed that Gordon Brown was out of touch and the Guardian’s finding of
the “cash-for-questions” affair which undermined Major’s “back to basics” campaign

● Due to newspapers and TV broadcasters having the funding to investigate politicians, they
can often find scandals that significantly impact the outcome of elections and the time that
some politicians have spent trying to appease the print media suggests they are impactful

● However, both the print and broadcast media’s impact continues to become less decisive
as fewer voters are influenced by their work.

P3 - policies and strong leadership >>>

● Policies and strong leadership have more of an impact on the outcome of elections

● For example, Boris Johnson’s clear pledge to “get Brexit done” in comparison to Corbyn’s
lack of clarity over the referendum result contributed to the Conservative majority rather
than how the media portrayed the two leaders

● Theresa May’s policy for social care backfired as the media labelled it as a “dementia tax.”

● While this policy was portrayed negatively in the media, this was purely a reflection of the
unpopular nature of a policy where people with serious illnesses have to pay for their care,
and the policy itself is the cause of a weakening election campaign

● Similarly, May’s awkward presenting style meant that support for the Conservatives
declined over the campaign as she was labelled the “Maybot” due to her repetitive and
robotic nature

P4
● However, It could be argued that the media significantly amplifies specific policies and
leaders, increasing their effect

● For example, the TV debates magnified Ed Miliband’s undesirable traits, such as when he
was booed off stage for failing to admit that Labour made a mistake with the economy
between 2007-10

● Furthermore, politicians can play up to the media such as when Cameron used Liam
Byrne’s departing note in the Treasury that there was “no money left,” as a prop in future
elections

● However, ultimately, the party leaders and policies have the decisive influence, and the
media only represents these to the public, rather than significantly changing their effect.

P5 - social and economic factors >>>

● Social and economic factors can also have a decisive effect on the election result

● For example, in the 2019 election, Boris Johnson’s decisive impact was the shift in voting
in certain demographics rather than the media

● For instance, in 2017, the social classes D and E (working class) voted 47% of Labour
compared to 39% in 2019 meaning that Conservative’s gained in the “Red Wall'' seats that
ultimately led to their significant majority

● Demographic groups by age are shown to have a big impact on election results, with every
ten years older leading to 8-9% more likelihood of that person voting for the Conservatives

● Therefore, with age having such a big influence on voting behaviour policy is often focused
towards certain areas where votes can be gained such as having free tuition as a policy by
Labour in 2017 to attract even more young voters

P6

● However, the media is still important here as younger voters are more influenced by social
media and therefore is an echo chamber of views, while older voters have been shown to
read print media

● However, overall, demographics determine which media voters consume and therefore
the media portrays what that demographic wants to consume

● Therefore, the decisions of certain demographics have more of an impact on the outcome
of elections than the media

CONCLUSION

● To conclude, the media no longer has a decisive impact on the outcome of elections
● The impact of the media has declined through the decreased use of broadcast and print
media with voters instead influenced more by the policies and leadership of politicians as
well as their own demographics

● In the future, the influence of the media will likely continue to decrease as voters focus on
how politicians deal with certain issues rather than how the media portrays them

Evaluate the view that the UK is facing a ‘participation crisis’ (30)

VOTING CRISIS

● Turnout at elections has greatly reduced: averaging nearly 75% between 1979 and 1997,
now closer to 65%.

● 2019 saw a reduction again to 67%

● Turnout is especially poor at a younger level: 58% in 2017 for 18-24, and 47% in 2019! *

● The new elections may not be helping- 27% turnout for Police and Crime Commissioners
in 2016 and less than 30% for Metropolitan Mayors

● Due to representative democracy, people feel as if no MP can reflect or represent their

political values.

VOTING NO CRISIS

● Election Turnouts are improving since lowpoint of 59% in 2001, up to 69% in 2017 (has
gone down in 2019)

● Recent referendums have shown that on important issues where voting can be seen to
make a difference turnout increases- 84% for Scottish independence and 72% for EU
Referendum

● Votes at 16- the belief that allowing 16/17 year olds to vote it will increase level of
political awareness and ensure that young people are more informed and passionate for
voting

● Some argue that it will not work, and low youth turnout would continue (16th!)

● Compulsory Voting- belief that voting should be compulsory, fining those who don’t. This
is used in Belgium where turnout is always above 80%

● Some argue this would not increase passion and is also undemocratic

● More referendums- belief that the high turnouts of Scotland Brexit referendums show
that they are popular and will ensure participation doesn’t reduce
● the AV referendum of 2011 had a turnout of 42%.

● Some argue this would not increase passion and is also undemocratic

PRESSURE GROUPS CRISIS

● Other than huge social movements e.g. BLM, many pressure groups suffer from a lack of
active membership.

● E.g BMA or NUT may have masses amounts of members, but few who help put pressure
of the government

● Party membership has also greatly reduced with 4% of the electorate being members in
1980 compared to 1% today

● Political Party membership is increasing. In wake of Corbynism Labour is now over

500,000 and SNP more than quadrupled between 2013 and 2016

Evaluate the view that think tanks, pressure groups and lobbyists have little impact on
government decisions (30)

Pressure groups - both

Lobbyists - big impact

Pressure groups little impact

a group that tries to influence public policy in the interest of a particular cause.

● ⅗ types of pressure groups tend to have little to no impact outsider, promotional and
sectional. E.g. countryside alliance and CND - e.g blair bombing Iraq

● Countryside alliance have seen no policies whatsoever regarding their campaigning

● These pressure groups have the weakness of having no direct links to government, rely on
heavy funding and incredible public support, even then, the government often have nothing
to gain from promoting policies put forward by these groups

● Student protests direct action bad

Pressure groups big impact

● ⅖ types do! Insider

● ‘Ultra-insider’ groups are regularly consulted at ministerial or senior official level within
the executive. Examples of insider groups include the CBI, National Farmers’ Union (NFU),
BMA,

● Last year, the British Medical Association (BMA) won a judicial review which overturned
regulations that gave the UK Secretary of State for Health & Social Care the power to
suspend the payment of pensions benefits to any doctor or NHS professional charged with
certain criminal offences – but not yet convicted

● During covid, they were huge in protecting the rights of NHS workers

● Social movements - black lives matter… direct action good

Size RSPB has over 1.2 million members but how active are their members?- Cheque-book
participation?

Finance Unite Union- 4 million to Labour in 2017 But Methods can be more important

Methods Petition in 2016 stopped privatization of land registry

Active Membership Fathers4Justice But, can be too active- student protest

Government support NFU are an insider group CBI and Corporation tax But.. can change
quickly, BMA went against the Tories

Achievability Of Goals Occupy had a large aim that failed, BMA had simple aim of banning
smoking in cars with Children BUT… was the fact the BMA were insiders more important?

Public Support

Lobbyists big impact ● OutRage is a UK group that advocates for the rights of lesbians, gays
and bisexual and transgender individuals. The group believes that LGBT people have equal
rights as any other person. OutRage seeks to end violence against LGBT people,
homophobia and to affirm the right to sexual choice and freedom. ● Amnesty is a non-
governmental organization that was founded in 1961 in London, UK. The group has more
than 7 million members across the globe. The main objective of Amnesty is to carry out
research and to prevent abuse of human rights. Amnesty group also seeks to demand justice
for individuals whose rights have been abused. Amnesty works by mobilizing the public to
pressurize governments that allow abuse to take place. It draws attention to the abuse of
human rights and promotes compliance with international standards and laws.

● Protecting those most vulnerable during the pandemic. ...

● Solidarity with peaceful protesters. ...

● Campaigning to release wrongly imprisoned people. ...

● Celebrating Pride Inside.

Conservatism and Socialism Essay plans

To what extent do conservatives agree on the role of the state?

INTRO

● Conservatism is often known as the politics of pragmatism, whereby the views of

conservatives are not so much a coherent ideology as they are a set of beliefs as to how fast
society should progress, therefore when considering the role of the state in conservatism
there are a range of ideas and opinions held by key thinkers that are not completely uniform
with one another

● For example, conservative thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, and Edmund Burke saw the state
as a necessary body of authority that had to oversee every aspect of our lives in order to
ensure order and stability, whilst more contemporary conservatives like Ayn Rand and
Nozick rejected this notion and believed that the state should be as small as possible and
only act to ensure order and stability when necessary, with no attempts to promote positive
liberty

● These differences are in line with how the former two thinkers see human nature as
cynically immoral, while the latter two believe humans are rational, selfish beings

● In practice, however, one nation conservatives and the new right have disagreements
primarily on the economic side rather than on social issues

● Therefore whilst conservatives thinkers generally disagree about the role of the state, it is
based on their differing views about human nature and how they embrace it, rather than
specific views on the state

P1

● One reason conservatives disagree about the role of the state is because they have
contrasting views on human nature, Thomas Hobbes and Edmund Burke believed that
human nature was immoral by design, this stemmed from the belief in the original sin in
Christianity, a religion that is often associated with conservatism

● Due to this understanding of humanity, Hobbes could not imagine society existing in
harmony without the state, he famously said that without the state enforcing law and order,
life would be ‘tough, brutish and short’, this was because he believed that if we were
allowed to act as we wished, the very worst of human nature would manifest itself as
people did everything to protect their own personal liberty and security

● Therefore he believed that a state was not only ideal but necessary to ensure order and
security
● Furthermore, as evidenced in his book ‘Leviathan’, he believed that the state should be
all-powerful in order to fulfil its duty to the people, as he believed that if power were to be
dispersed mini conflicts would arise and therefore the state should hold all the power

● This view of an authoritarian state is in direct contrast to the views of Ayn Rand and
Richard Nozick, they argued that human nature, while not perfect was egotistical and
objectivist, they did not see selfishness as immoral, but instead a road to self-fulfilment
which was inherently good

● Therefore they believed that as rational beings, individuals in society should be allowed to
live how they wanted to without any interference from the state, except if order and
security were jeopardised

● However, Nozick wanted a minarchist ‘night watchman’ state so if order was put at risk
then the state would mitigate the problem then return to the ‘sidelines’ rather than being
permanently powerful like that under Burke or Hobbes philosophy

● Rand and Nozick believed that negative liberty should be afforded to all in society and any
attempts from the state to promote positive liberty; whereby they intervene to ‘help’
people, should be resisted as the state has no business in interfering with the daily lives of
autonomous citizens

● Therefore, it is clear that there is disagreement on the role of the state that is primarily
caused by the differing views on how human nature manifests itself in a society without the
intervention of the state

P2

● There is more agreement however between conservatives on the role of the state in the
economy, generally they agreed that there should be a free market where the government
takes a laissez-faire approach rather than implementing too many regulations, however,
there is still some disagreement

● On the one hand, in line with their beliefs in objectivism, Rand and Nozick believe that the
market should be almost entirely free from government intervention as the market is a
means to which individuals can pursue happiness in the form of profits, as humans are
selfish and egotistical a free market is essentially the perfect expression of human greed
which to the aforementioned thinkers is good rather than bad

● Furthermore, they believed that allowing people to trade freely unlocks the potential for
people to make significant advancements in society, this view was the main basis of Rand’s
novel ‘Atlas’ shrugged where the state had taken such overriding control of the free market
that there was no innovation as all of the capitalists and inventors had gone on strike,
further emphasising her views on the states limited involvement in the economy

● Burke also generally understood trade to arise organically between people and therefore
did not need to be regulated by the state to a great extent and also promoted laissez-faire
capitalism, however, these conservatives all generally agreed that the state was often
necessary to enforce contracts between different parties in a market

● On the other hand, Michael Oakeshott; who was more optimistic about human nature
than Burke and Hobbes but still had doubts, and Hobbes believed that a truly free market
was impossible to achieve as people couldn’t be trusted to operate in such a manner
without abusing their freedom, this view is even held by current ‘conservatives’, they
believe that the free market is too volatile and unpredictable without the state moderating
it and guaranteeing security, even if it takes the form of regulation which is extremely
antithetical to the beliefs of Rand and the other conservatives who disagreed with state
intervention

● Moreover, they believe that the free market cannot be trusted for the same reason that
Rand and Nozick believe that it should, to Hobbes and Oakeshott, humans are too

greedy and allowing them to trade freely could lead to people being taken advantage of by
larger entities, what we know as monopolies, therefore to prevent this they see the state as
necessary in regulating the market, which is a further disagreement between the
conservative thinkers.

P3

● In terms of the conservative political party and how the different iterations of the party
have approached the role of the state, it has taken two main forms; the ‘one nation
conservative’ and the ‘new right’, the former believes that government should be proactive
in helping people and encouraging social welfare while the latter would argue that limited
government allows for innovation and better conditions for all under a privatised system

● On the one hand, One nation conservatives such as Benjamin Disraeli would argue that we
the elite in society have a duty to help those below them who are not as well off, known as
noblesse oblige, and therefore it is morally right to for the state to pursue social reforms
that lift people out of poverty and positive liberty that targets harmful practices like smoking
or drug addiction

● This view is similar to conservative thinkers such as Burke who believed in the
accumulated wealth and knowledge of the aristocracy which gave them the right to rule
over others in society as well as the duty to ensure that everyone received what was needed

● The same could be said for Hobbes, however, he said the state as arising through a social
contract with the people in which the state's power was derived from its citizens rather than
through inheritance, this is best exemplified by his book leviathan in which the cover shows
a king made up of numerous individuals who represent society and leadership by consent

● However, on the other hand, the New Right thinkers; whose ideas became legitimate after
the rise of Thatcher as prime minister where she adopted this approach, believe that the
state should not interfere with the economic activities of the citizens and promoted a more
unregulated market although not completely free, this is in stark contrast to the one nation
conservatives as the new right instead encouraged privatisation and limited the welfare of
the workers by quelling trade unions, instead focusing on the rights of companies in the free
market system

● These views are more in line with those of Ayn Rand and Nozick however not completely
as the new right still played an active role in the market and did not completely strip back
regulations and publicly-funded welfare systems like the NHS remained

● Furthermore socially they still had much in common with one nation conservatives as they
did not believe in a permissive society as demonstrated by Thatcher’s section 28 which
banned the teaching of homosexuality in schools which is in contrast with Rand's beliefs
that the state should not interfere with individuals liberty in such matters

● Therefore in practice politically there are still overall disagreements on the role of the
state, however not to the degree to which individual conservative thinkers disagreed

CONCLUSION

● In conclusion, there is little uniform agreement between conservative thinkers as they do

not agree on the fundamental state of human nature which dictates the role of the state

● However, in regards to the conservatives parties influenced by the opposing views, there
is less disagreement on what it means to be a social conservative, with most of the
differences arising on economic policy

● However, they all generally agree that the state has a duty to ensure order and security,
as without either of those things then it is impossible to have liberty

To what extent do socialist agree on the concept of human nature?

INTRO

● Socialism offers a unifying vision of human beings as social creatures, capable of

overcoming social and economic problems by drawing on the power of the community
rather than simply individual effort

● Links to collectivism

● John Donne poem: “No man is Island entire of itself”

● Believes human nature is malleable or ‘plastic’, shaped by the experiences and

circumstances of social life - firmly nurture

P1 - AGREE
● RS - Maintain that the true cooperative and communal instincts of humans can be
liberated only by the removal of the exploitative and oppressive capitalist system and the
creation of a communist society

● Marx believed that human beings have material needs

● The driving forces of this evolution are not ideas or philosophies but material and
economic force

● Human originally fraternal and altruistic, creative and compassionate but not one
essential, unchanging nature

● Each stage changes human nature and modern era has corrupted it by simplifying into a
struggle between 2 contending classes: bourgeoisie and proletariat

● This struggle has reached a stage under capitalism where it cannot be peacefully replaced
- only complete overthrow of existing structure is possible

● SD agrees as they believe our Core value is social justice

● Agree with revolutionary socialists that if you are born into a capitalist system and a part
of the bourgeoisie you will naturally be more greedy or be more likely to offer excuses and
justifications for why the system should continue

● "Those who do not move, do not notice their chains"

P2 - AGREE

● TW agree with SD as Giddens believes that there is an embracing of individualism due to

success of neo-liberal economics and the aspiration that it provides

● This has made humans inherently more greedy in the pursuit of wealth

● This has created a “doggy dog world” in which everyone is striving for success, which in a
capitalist world is monetary wealth

● They note that humans do care about others but are more selfish and atomistic

● This links to RS as they believe people are willing to support capitalism as long as they are
thriving, regardless of the many who struggle because of it

P3 - DISAGREE

● However, there is slight disagreement between socialist thinkers in regard to human

nature as TW value moral responsibility and social inclusion

● This will not occur if revolutionary socialists are calling for a complete overthrow of the
current capitalist system
● TW such as Giddens believe in a much more gradual approach as he believes it is OK to be
an individual

● He notes that old class-based divisions of left and right are now redundant, whilst Marx
believes these represent the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and how humans will never
assimilate and be equal so long as these divisions exist

To what extent are conservatives united in their view of society? (24)

AGREE

● Traditional and one nation very similar in their view of ‘organic society’

● All its difference parts need to work together harmoniously to ensure a healthy ‘social
body’ change to the different parts may jeopardise social stability by undermining tried and
tested institutions

● Hierarchy and authority are essential to give people the security of knowing their place
and role in the social order

● HOBBES: Disaster zone without a strong government (war of all vs all) - “Life is nasty,
brutish and short” contrasts new right (DISAGREE)

● E.g. French revolution

● Defends the established order in society based on organicism, tradition, hierarchy and
paternalism

● Blindly following ideology will lead to a ridding of the fundamental stabilising factors in
society and let human nature run riot

● The aristocracy were best placed to be leaders in society and as part of their leadership
had a paternal duty to those lower down in society to maintain harmony and prevent
revolution

● Agrees with One Nation:

● - The leadership of the country should restore the social obligations of old which used to
exist between the landed aristocracy and the tenant farmers (paternalism) but which have
broken down in the industrialising cities and towns during the 1800s

● - They should try to do this by improving the living and working conditions of the
industrialising cities, while making people proud of the empire

● Disraeli one nation conservatism response to industrial revolution

○ Traditionally the poor had been protected within a hierarchical social structure headed by
the aristocracy and the church

○ Capitalism encouraged self-interested individualism and led to the abandonment of social

responsibility and paternalism - this was a big problem

○ Later, ONC argued for organicism but rather than a return to an aristocratic model of
society should employ one nation principles through a Keynesian approach to the economy

○ Still favour a pragmatic rather than ideological approach

○ Conspiracy and protection of property act 1875 - decriminalised trade unions

○ Public health act - dealt with unsanitary conditions in the city

○ Climbing boys act - chimney sweeps were banned

AGREE

● This sense of paternalism and pragmatism is echoed by OAKESHOTT: “People prefer the
familiar to the unknown, the tried to the untried, actual to the possible, the present to
utopia”

● NOZICK: “No end-state principle or redistributional justice can be realised without

interference with people’s lives”

● Ideas of society are influenced heavily by conservative ideas of human nature: Humans
are flawed which makes them incapable of making good decisions for themselves to cover
the three aspects of psychological, moral and intellectual imperfection - this necessity of
organisation is crucial

DISAGREE

● Neo-liberals reject the assumptions underpinning the organic society such as ‘natural’
hierarchy and paternalism

● Instead they see society and composed of independent and rational individuals operating
within a free-market

● The best way to thrive is to exalt the individual because individualism releases human

● RAND: “Association or co-existence among men, can be achieved only through the
individual rights of its members”

● Atomistic individualism
● Everyone is like an atom

● We work for ourselves and pursue our own goals and that is most important

● Disadvantaged people deserve no help from the state

● Rand would categorically disagree with Trad. and 1N as she believes humans deserve and
require no help to function, whilst it is not certain she has a more pessimistic view of human
nature, she believes that we don’t deserve society to serve us

To what extent do conservatives differ on the concept of paternalism?

INTRO

● Conservatism is an ideology born from the reaction to the enlightenment and French
Revolution of 1978, which saw the radical overthrow of deep-rooted institutions, including
the monarch

● Conservatism has grown over time to incorporate tradition, organic society,

libertarianism, human imperfection, pragmatism, and paternalism

● Paternalism is the idea that people in government are best equipped to lead by virtue of
their birth, upbringing and inheritance

● However, the strands of conservatism's viewpoints on paternalism vary so much, and it is

hard to see how traditional, One Nation and the New Right are under one ideology

P1

● All conservatives have a negative viewpoint on human ability

● This, therefore, affects each strand's reflection on paternalism

● Traditional Conservatives believe that morally, humans are naturally selfish and morally
imperfect

● Hobbes theorised about the hypothetical scenario of the ‘state of nature’ – if people are
free and equal and did not have to answer to any higher authority, a ‘state of war’ would
exist

● Fearful people would therefore sacrifice many of their rights and freedoms for order and
security

● Traditional conservatives, therefore, agree that paternalism should live in a ‘social

construct’ between the people and government as the people in government know what is
best for the rest
● Similarly, one nation conservatives believe that humans are intellectually different,
meaning that some humans are better to lead government than others

● Michael Oakeshott believed modern society could not be understood in terms of abstract
theories and principles such as equality

● Rational attempts to make sense of society inevitably distort and simplify facts

● Therefore, the similarities here are that the wrong humans in a position of authority can
lead to an ‘authority of his own reason’, which will guide the county into a brutal
dictatorship

● Neo-Conservatives agree with the idea of a morally ill human model in a reaction to the
1960s when an ‘anything goes’ culture had taken hold

● Neo-Conservatives sought to reverse this in a set of anti-permissive policies, such as

Section 28 in 1988 introduced by Thatcher, which banned the promotion of homosexuality

● This showed that Neo-conservatives believed humans need to be controlled as they aren’t
sure what is morally right

● The government should be paternalistic in social morality as some people clearly can’t
make the right moral decisions, harming society.

P2

● Conservatives differ on how far paternalism should be extended via the state

● One nation conservatives subscribed to the idea of ‘noblesse oblige’ where people in a
well-off position should help improve the position of the poor

● As society is arranged in a hierarchy, it falls on the upper class to help them out. This
should be ensured by state intervention that would be delivered in a welfare model

● Disraeli believed that this would prevent the UK from splitting into ‘two nations’,
eventually leading to a violent revolution

● To avoid this, Disraeli enacted reforms done via taxation, such as the Sale of Foods And
Drugs Act 1875, illustrating the state's role in a one nation system

● This was continued via Harold Macmillan and a ‘middle way’ approach to the economy

● It was then further developed by Cameron, who enacted ‘compassionate conservatism’, a

move away from the nasty party image

● This shows us that One-Nation Conservatives believe that because there are people in
higher authority than everyone else, they need to help the poor via state intervention, who
are intellectually inferior to them and would also help them stay in power
● This is in complete contrast to The New Right, which subscribes to the laissez-faire
capitalist mode

● Robert Nozick highlighted this, suggesting the state intervention model was immoral

● It amounts to a type of forced labour imposed by the state

● Collective ownership included in the welfare state violated self-ownership, which gave the
people the right to do what they wanted with their possession

● He, therefore, highlighted the need for a ‘night watchmen state’ that helped remove
barriers for people to understand their actual ability

● This was seen through Thatcher and the ‘Big Bang’ of 1986, which ended the regulation
for many sectors

● There is not much agreement on the powers of the state as the New Right believe that
paternalism shouldn’t be used as an excuse to interfere so deeply in the economy

● In contrast, One Nation believes that people in high authority need to intervene via the
state to protect the lower class

P3

● Conservatives are divided on how the higher authority can help reform society

● Traditional conservatives believe that the government should only reform society
pragmatically and gradually

● Burke believed that the state and society resemble a living organism that could be
‘pruned’ to bring about change but to make sure not to damage part of an organ of society
which would lead to the complete breakdown of it

● Paternalism should therefore develop along with the ideas of empiricism, with the higher
authority continuing with the ‘tested’ wisdom of the past

● Therefore, paternalism means that people should be in separate groups within society as
this had maintained social harmony in the past and hadn’t failed them yet

● This directly contrasts Rand, who believed paternalism shouldn’t get in the way of societal
change

● She believed in the ‘rolling back of the state'

● She believed in atomism, where people were self-interested and self-sufficient, a clear
rejection of altruism
● Organic society is therefore at odds with Rand as libertarianism should trump this, as any
attempt by a higher authority to put them in a certain group in society can corrupt them, so
paternalism would be limited

● As people are self-sufficient, they can bring about the necessary change; whether or not it
is gradual or not is irrelevant

● Therefore, traditional and the New Right differ on what sort of obligation the aristocracy
has, and in Rand’s idea, the aristocracy has a minimal role

CONCLUSION

● In conclusion, although conservatives all have a relatively negative view on human nature
and the idea of controlling this, they aren’t sure to what extent either of those is a problem

● While traditional conservatives believe that paternalism should be widely present in all of
society and the state, One Nation is less controlling, seeing the need for a middle way

● However, the New Right has a different view of how the state and economy should
operate, with paternalism playing only a role in law, order, and society

● Conservatives clearly differ more than they agree on the concept of paternalism

To what extent do socialists agree or disagree over equality of outcome

INTRO

● Equality of outcome is a concept, realisable through state policies and systems, in which
all individuals have approximately the same material wealth and income

● This is in opposition to the concept of meritocracy where the successes of individuals is

determined by their abilities, regardless of inequalities of outcome

● Revolutionary socialists, in particular, support equality of outcome, whilst social

democrats and third-way ‘socialists’ are much more sceptical of this concept

● Whilst it can be argued that socialists are committed to equality to a significant extent;
this essay will argue that the differing tensions within socialism dispute whether equality of
outcome is practical or indeed required for a fairer society

P1

● Revolutionary socialists support equality of outcome

● Marx and Engels believed in common ownership over means of production within a
communist economy
● Marx famously declared “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs”, which has been widely interpreted as his desire to create a society where needs
were not determined by effort or other factors

● The existing state – that is biased toward the ruling bourgeoisie thrives on inequality, and
stands in favour of hostility and competition

● This state should be overthrown in social revolutions to establish communist institutions

as part of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ (this was seen in the Russian revolution 1918-
21)

● As a ‘class consciousness’ develops with the proletariat becomes aware of their

exploitation, they will seek to strive for equality between workers

● Although Rosa Luxembourg warned against undemocratic, dictatorial revolutions that

diminished the proletariat, she also accepted the need for equality of outcome

● These revolutions are inevitable as capitalism is inherently unsustainable as ‘surplus value’

eventually runs out of consumer markets and collapses

● Revolutionary socialists aspire towards a society where the economy is centrally-planned

with common ownership over means of production, determined solely by human need

● This will eradicate socio-economic inequality as all individuals are entitled to the same and
equal rewards of labour, dismissing differential outcomes based on abilities

● This is further enabled by curtailing private ownership and resolving the inherent
contradiction within capitalism between production and wealth accumulation

● Thus, revolutionary socialists are committed to equality of outcome to a significant extent.

P2

● Social democrats support equality of outcome to a much lesser extent than revolutionary
socialists, favouring equality of opportunity instead

● Some see equality of outcome to be desirable but unachievable, instead they opt for the
“inevitability of gradualness” as Beatrice Webb called for

● Webb dismissed the Marxist belief in class conflict, supporting the introduction of
socialism via democratic institutions (evolutionary socialism)

● In this way, social democrats oppose the revolutionary overthrowing of the state and
reject the Marxist view of capitalism

● She argued a more evolutionary approach, calling for incremental changes to Capitalism,
would lead inevitably to a more Socialist society. This is achieved through state intervention
and managed Capitalism, argued by the revisionist Crossland as the best way to create a
fairer society

● He called for universal benefits, a mixed economy and state intervention particularly in
creating opportunities for all

● Crosland looked to state education, public housing and income maintenance for the
liberation of potential that would make the selective process of competitive capitalism into
a genuinely fair race

● Although equality of opportunity may lead to differing outcomes, social democrats saw
equal opportunity as a means to denying massive income and wealth inequalities

● Revolutionaries would argue that social democrats were at best naive to accept a market
economy would ever create equality, instead they stood guilty of furthering inequalities by
giving life to Capitalism, highlighting clear discrepancies in regard to equality of outcome
between socialist strands

P3

● Unlike revolutionary socialists, third-way ‘socialists’ dismiss the concept of equality of

outcome altogether

● Giddens rejected state intervention as encouraging a culture of dependency, and

discouraging investment and entrepreneurship through the eradication of financial
inducements

● In this way, third-way socialists promote the priority of the market over the state,
rejecting ‘top-down’ state intervention (exhibited under revolutionary and, to a lesser
extent, social democracy socialism) in favour of further privatisation and deregulation as the
opposite stifles economic growth

● Third-way socialists hold a belief in a ‘competitive state’ that develops the skills and
knowledge base of the workforce, improving job prospects of individuals and boosting
economic growth – as opposed to common ownership

● He called this “equality of inclusion” and argued his approach stood between market
Capitalism and social democracy, suggesting his thinking was in line with the ultimate aims
of socialism

● Unlike revolutionary socialism that holds a belief that private ownership within laissez-
faire capitalism perpetuates socio-economic inequality and the oppression of the

proletariat, these socialists do not necessarily oppose the huge accumulation of private
wealth, instead they promote targeted welfare toward socially-marginalised groups as part
of the concept of social inclusion to promote equality of opportunity and genuine
meritocracy (social justice)
● This can be seen in a raft of policies under Tony Blair’s government, influenced by the
Third Way, investing in schools and hospitals as well as introducing tax credits for the
poorest of families

● Thus, third-way socialists are not committed to equality of outcome but Giddens would
say they belong to the socialist tradition because he, like social democrats such as Webb,
want to achieve equality for all

● Social Democrats would argue against Giddens, suggesting his form of equality would be
too weak to work against immense wealth disparities

● Revolutionaries would question the ‘socialist’ credentials of Giddens and would claim his
commitment to the free market in effect brought him closer to Capitalism.

CONCLUSION

● Most socialists aspire to an equal society but do not agree on equality of outcomes

● Revolutionary socialists are committed to equality of outcome that can only be realised
through revolution.

● On the other hand, social democrats, who do believe in the ideal of equality of outcome,
favour equality of opportunity through the expansion of the state to introduce socialist
policies to ensure social justice, see this as practical and creating harmony between the
owners of capital and the workers

● The Third Way reject equality of outcome and neither see it as an ideal or a positive
measure of success

● Clearly, there is major disagreement between socialist strands on the matter of equality of
outcome

To what extent do socialists differ on the state? (24)

Socialism - From the Latin “sociare” meaning to combine or share.

AGREEMENT

● Soc. dem: Limited state intervention in economic and social matters can safeguard the
public and remedy the shortcomings of capitalism

● TW: Adopt a sceptical attitude towards the state, asserting that 'top down' state
intervention in economic and social matters is both inefficient and ineffective

● RS: Marxists regard the state as an instrument of class rule

● Under capitalism, the ruling bourgeoisie use the state apparatus to maintain their
dominance over the proletariat

● Clear agreement between all three strands - all calling for limited state intervention as it is
a weapon used by the bourgeoisie to maintain capitalism and is ineffective

DIFFER

● However, TW see a positive of the state: - State should focus on investment in

infrastructure and education to provide job opportunities, encourage self-reliance

● So whilst SD stated that involvement of the state can remedy the shortcomings of
capitalism, TW argue it can help build projects that increase social mobility and remove the
current class inequality e.g. SD Crosland - architect of the comprehensive schooling system
which began to replace grammar schools in the 1960s (preventing segregation at 11 and
equalise schooling)

● SD: The state is not an oppressive tool to perpetuate class difference but a benign force
that can be used to redistribute wealth

● However RS believe that the state is an apparatus that ensure wealth remains with the
bourgeoisie

● By the time he wrote The German Ideology (1846), Marx viewed the state as a creature of
the bourgeois economic interest

● Two years later, that idea was expounded in The Communist Manifesto: ... The
bourgeoisie control the economy, therefore they control the state. In this theory, the state
is an instrument of class rule

● MARX - "The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains - they have a world to win"
- Marx

DIFFER

● TW: Feels that socialism can be adapted and delivered via the current capitalist system

● Ownership should remain as it is - state should not seek to own but to provide

● Giddens, a Social democratic, believed that governments could no longer rely on

traditional statist programmes in the face of powerful global financial force - was seen in
Blair and Brown days under New Labour

● Less ideological baggage seen as driving to be efficient managers of the current (capitalist)
system
● Differs from Corbyn, who had elements of revolutionary which we’ve seen in Michael Foot
decades prior, wanted to pump billions worth of funding into the welfare state and the NHS,
using the state to increase equality

● Marx, who was a RS believes that the state will continue to limit the economic freedom of
the working class

● Contradicts Marxists: Proletariat will only be free from this class exploitation if they
overthrow the bourgeoisie in a proletarian revolution and the state is abolished with the
people taking over

To what extent do socialists agree over the concept of collectivism?

INTRO

●Overall socialists mostly agree on collectivism

●All socialists stress the importance of collectivism and largely agree that this is due to
society's positive human nature

●However there is a minority who have a negative view on human nature and there is a lot
of disagreement on how much collective action is necessary in the economy, but overall
since socialist fundamentally believe in the concept of collectivism they must mostly be in
agreement.

P1

●Socialists largely agree on the importance of the concept of individualism

●They believe humans can achieve their political, social and economic objectives more
effectively through collective action ● For example Anthony Crossland wanted the creation
of a more communitarian state

●Similarly, Giddens stressed the importance of community and responsibility, partly to

offset the negative effects of the free market

P2

●The importance of collectivism to socialists is largely due to the socialists belief in society's
positive human nature

●Revolutionary socialists, social democrats and third way socialists all have a positive view
on human nature

●They also believe humans are social animals and therefore are tied together by bonds of
fraternity
●However, democratic socialists think Beatrice Webb is one of the few socialists who have a
negative view on human nature, as she regards the average voter as selfish

P3

●The importance of collectivism can be limited when it comes to the economy

●Third way socialists believe capitalism can be beneficial and embrace the free market

●They believe competition is necessary to benefit the national work forces skills and
knowledge base

●However revolutionary socialists believe capitalism distorts human consciousness and

leaves the worker 'deformed'

●Marx and Engels would therefore argue true collectivism can only be achieved through a
communist state, which would be achieved by overthrowing the state