2024 mocks dump Flashcards
participation crisis?
yes
- general elections
- 1950 83%
- 1997 71%
- 2019 67%
- regional elections
- Wales 2021 44%
- London Mayor 2012 38%
- decline of party membership (but still large role, Truss) and increase of pressure group participation
no
- increasing again? went up in 2019 from 2015
- Scotland independence 84.6%
- Brexit 72%
- response to individuals
biggest impact on voting behaviour?
geography
- trend broken by Johnson
- linked to class
- increase of C voters breaking this trend
class
- size and role of working class decreasing
- more swing voters
- less loyalty to parties, decline of party membership etc.
gender and ethnicity
- female vote almost equally split between two parties
- ethnic groups almost always vote labour (role of Sunak?)
age
- biggest factor
- younger voters labour but lower turnout
- innbuilt advantage for conservatives
- social media distorts predictions (influence in this upcoming election)
- other things impacted over time like class but age is consistent
does the media have a big influence?
historical examples
- increased Thatcher’s strength after Falklands
- Callaghan’s ‘crisis? what crisis?’ which he never even said
- Ed Miliband being clumsy, tripping and bacon sandwich
- Major’s party of sleaze
more recently
- COVID inquiries and Johnson’s government
currently
- portraying Starmer as boring
- Rishi as incompetent (tiktok bosh and use of hammer), uncharismatic
overall exacrebates existing situations but does not necessarily decide elections
do pressure groups enhance democracy?
yes
- gives a voice to those who don’t vote
- gets more people involved
- overall decline in party membership that has been replaced by pressure groups
- low turnout, need for pressure groups
- can keep up with modern issues (Israel-Gaza, climate groups)
- interest in politics is not declining but the nature of participation is
no
- there are too many, over 4000 in the UK
- minority leading the majority, weaker governments can be too influenced by them
- mostly work to fulfil their own aims
- many are members of pressure groups but do little more meaningful action
national trust
amnesty international
just stop oil
extinction rebellion
should FPTP be replaced by PR
yes
- disproportionate outcome due to winner’s bonus
- 2019 conservatives 44% vote 56% seats
- labour 32% vote 31% seats
- produces wasted votes, discourages people from voting (input decline of party membership and turnout)
- creates limited choice (example of the two unappealing choice atm)
- parties can win a majority with just 35% which seems undemocratic
no
- produces a strong and stable government without the messiness of coalitions, 2010 coalition was not all that popular, would you really want a repeat
- simple to use and understand and produces a clear winner, many in Scotland don’t understand how AMS works
- there’s no demand for change, 2011 referendum on AV was unsuccessful
- PR produces low turnouts (Wales and Scotland 2021 referendums)
is there two party dominance?
yes
- in 2019 the big two got 76% of the vote and 87% of the seats
- the green party failed to add to its single commons seat
- the liberal democrats popularity is declining more than ever in the buildup to this year’s election despite the relative incomptence of the other two parties
- smaller parties in the UK just act as pressure groups not contenders (UKIP, green, lib dems power for coalitions)
no
- the 2010-2015 coalition suggests there is room for a third party
- the power of the SNP in Scotland (but their decline now)
- when there is an issue people divert their vote like UKIP and Brexit
is there good rights protection in the UK?
yes
- Labour’s HRA in 1998 codified the ECHR and made it easier for ordinary citizens to appeal in court such as Shemima Begum in 2020
- the role of the supreme court in replacing the judicial committee of the house of lords in the consitutional reform act of 2005, good separation of judicial branch
no
- the attempted british bill of rights shows its not entrenched, Johnson’s attempt to install this
- SUNAK’S RWANDA SCHEME and their emphasis on immigration, stop the boats can still pursue these despite outcry from the public, ECHR and supreme court
- emphasis of collective over individual rights, COVID lockdown
do conservatives agree on human nature?
P1: authoritarian and paternalistic
- introduction to conservative ideas on human nature
- hobbes and leviathan
- need for society, security, laws and traditions
- thought of Joseph de Maistre: importance of established institutions like the catholic church
- Burke and paternalism, the french rev and imperfectibility
**P2: One nation **
- similarities to above, imperfection and organicism
- basis of one-nationism, Disraeli and Macmillan
- Oakeshott’s thought
- David Cameron’s big society
P3: New Right
- optimistic, not pessimistic view of human nature
- idealism, striving for perfection opposite to Burke
- Rand, humans should be selfish
- link to Friedman
- Nozick, drive for self-fulfilment
do conservatives agree on the state?
P1: Authoritarianism and paternalism
- Hobbes and the role of the leviathian
- need for order and security, promotion of hereditary ruling
- de Maistre, established institutions like Catholic church
- pessimistic view of human nature links to need for the state
- Burke, organicism and french rev
- disagrees with burke over the leviathan in favour of hereditary aristocracy and noblesse oblige
P2: One Nation
- historical context, need to unite britain into one nation
- pragmatically adapting to the rise of unrestrained capitalism
- Disraeli and Peel
- Oakeshott philosophically expressed these reforms
- similarly organic society to above but emphasis on pragmatism
P3: New Right
- pragmatic response to effect of Keynesian economics
- grounded in ideas of free market
- Friedman: competition, privatisation, Thatcher-Reagan, Chicago school, didn’t really want a state at all, atomism
- Nozick, minarchist and privatisation
- both almost directly contradict the safety and security of traditional conservatism
all take pragmatic approach except for Rand and Nozick
do conservatives agree on society
P1: organicism and pragmatism
- traditional thinkers believe in these two things
- a lack of ideology naturally leads to them, adaptability
- how this is contrasted by the new right
- their ideology is grounded in the free market therefore is not organic/pragmatic
P2: tradition and hierarchy
- importance of established customs and institutions (Maistre and Hobbes)
- accumulated wisdom of the past should be respected (Oakeshott)
- views on hierachy, noblesse oblige, little platoons (Burke)
- contradicted by new right
- rand and nozick’s disregrard for tradition and hierarchy
P3: Property
- cementing quality of them all
- Hobbes and Burke, renting of land and responsibilities
- commerce and manufacturing in the C19 with rise of industrial society
- property owning democracy in the C20
- links all generations together
- Rand and Nozick see these as individual lifestyle choices not moral imperatives for holding society together
do conservatives agree on the economy?
P1: Authoritarian and Paternalistic
- pragmatic approaches
- Hobbes: economics came second to state security, lived in agricultural society of natural disasters, mercantilism
- Burke: crossroads of agriculture and industry, trade and markets to be as free as possible to contribute to organic nature of society
P2: One Nation
- Disraeli: result of growing divide in Britain, pragmatic state interference to correct any imbalances
- influence of keynesian economics, Oakeshott but led to inflation
- adopted by conservatice leaders form 1840s-1970s
P3: New Right
- responded to perceived failure of keynesian economics
- Rand and Nozick’s economic stances
- not just pragmatic but ideological
- free-market, privatisation, competition, minarchist, state roll-back, Thatcher-Reagan, Chicago school, unemployment can be good
overview of traditional conservatism?
- order over chaos (french rev)
- organic society, let reform happen naturally
- society is naturally hierarchical
- paternalism
overview of one nation conservatism?
- Disraeli’s concern with industrialisation and laissez-faire capitalism, turning into two nations
- late 19th to early 20th centuries
- middle way between free market capitalism and socialism
overview of the new right?
- response to the end of economic boom in the west and keynesian economics
- traditional conservative ideas and classical liberal economics
- free market over use of state
- healthy economy has natural rate of unemployment otherwise = inflation
- all business’ should be privately owned
- lower levels of direct taxation to increase competition and demand levels
- the state is the main enemy of personal freedom
overview of liberal nationalism?
- uniting states into one nation
- inclusive to all who want to join
- democratic representation, consitutionalism and individualism
- national interdependence e.g. EU
- self-determination over foreign domination
- liberties and rights, especially from opressive powers
- free trade to remove economic war incentive
