Debates

Question 1

Did the bill of rights and act of settlement mark a significant change in the power or parliament ?
For

Answer 1

• Monarch was now of parliament choosing rather than ruling through divine right
• Established the principle of regular and free elections
• Restricted monarch’s ability to interfere with laws
• Meant taxation could only be passed by Parliament

Question 2

Did the bill of rights and act of settlement mark a significant change in the power or parliament ?
Against

Answer 2

Parliament remained only advisory in nature
Monarch remained the dominant force in British politics
Parliament itself only represented the wealthiest 2% of the country

Question 3

Is the Westminster model a desirable political system ?

For

Answer 3

• Government is representative and responsible. It is accountable to Parliament for its actions and accountable to the people through elections. Collective responsibility means that Parliament can force the resignation of the government. Individual ministerial responsibility means that ministers must account for their actions in Parliament
• Government is strong and effective. The electoral system produced single-party governments with parliamentary majorities. Executive control of the legislature ensures that governments deliver the commitments they made to voters
• Voters are presented with a clear choice between the governing party and the opposition party
• Rule of law defends basic civil liberties and ensures that power is not exercised arbitrarily. Ministers and officials are not above the law

Question 4

Is the Westminster model a desirable political system ?

Against

Answer 4

• There are insufficient checks and balances. parl sovereignty the single-member plurality electoral system and executive dominance of the legislature allow the government do whatever it wants. This can produce an elective dictatorship
• The concentration of power at the centre means decisions are not taken close to the people
• There are limited opportunities for political participation
• There is not a strong rights culture governments can use ordinary legislation to restrict the rights of citizens

Question 5

Should the UK have a codified constitution?

For

Answer 5

• The logical conclusion of recent constitutional reforms
• Would provide greater clarity on what is constitutional
• It would be an authoritative reference point for the courts
• It would set limits on the powers of the state and its institutions
• It would provide greater protection for the rights of citizens
• It would better inform citizens about the values and workings of the political system

Question 6

Should the UK have a codified constitution?

Against

Answer 6

• Pragmatic adaptation has worked well and is preferable
• There is no agreed process for establishing a codified constitution
• There is no elite consensus on what a codified constitution should include
• It would be rigid and difficult to amend
• It would give judges who are unaccountable greater political power
• No great popular demand and other issues are more important

Question 7

Should the UK become a federal state ?

For

Answer 7

• Creation of a federal state would provide a coherent constitutional settlement for the UK and its nations establishing a clearer relationship between the UK government and the governments of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
• Establishing a federal state would resolve some of the anomalies ( West Lothian question) that have arisen under the current ad hoc approach to devolution
• Creating an English Parliament and government as part of a federal UK would answer the English question
• The status of the Westminster Parliament would be clarified it would be a federal Parliament dealing with issues such as border control, defence and foreign affairs
• House of Lords can be reformed to become a chamber representing the component nation of the UK or abolished

Question 8

Should the UK become a federal state ?

Against

Answer 8

• Federalism works best in states in which there is not a dominant nation or region unsuitable for the UK where England makes up 4/5 of the population
• An English Parliament would rival the Westminster Parliament particularly if different partners were in gov in England and the Uk
• Measures to reduce the dominance of England such as the creation of elected assemblies in English regions would be problematic and unpopular
• Disputes over funding occur in federal states - creating the federal UK would not automatically resolve difficult issues such as equity of funding and welfare provision
• There is little public appetite for the federal UK

Question 9

Has devolution undermined the Union ?

For

Answer 9

• Piecemeal approach to devolution has meant that problems have not been addressed effectively
• Insufficient attention has been paid to the purpose and benefits of the Union and Britishness in the post-devolution UK
• Rules of the game on policy coordination and dispute resolution are not clear enough
• Policy divergence has undermined the idea of common welfare rights in the UK
• The SNP has become the dominant political party in Scotland and support for Scottish independence has increased
• Some unease in England about the perceived unfairness of the devolution settlement

Question 10

Has devolution undermined the Union ?

Against

Answer 10

• Devolution has answered demands for greater autonomy, bringing decision making closer to the people
• Devolution has proceeded relatively smoothly without major disputes between the UK government and the devolved bodies.
• Policy divergence reflects the interests of the nations of the UK and has allowed initiatives that have been successful in one nation to be copied.
• Devolution has delivered peace and power sharing in NI after 30 years of violence and instability unity
• Most people in Uk feel British

Question 11

Should the House of Lords be wholly elected ?

For

Answer 11

• A fully elected House of Lords would have the legitimacy that can only be derived from democratic elections
• It would be more confident in its work of scrutinising and amending government bills thus improving the quality of legislation
• If no party has a majority as would be likely under proportional representation it would challenge the dominance of the executive
• If elected by proportional representation it would be more representative of the electorate

Question 12

Should the House of Lords be wholly elected ?

Against

Answer 12

• It would come into conflict with the House of Commons as both Houses would claim democratic legitimacy
• The institutional conflict between two elected chambers with similar powers would produce legislative gridlock
• An appointed house would regain the expertise and independence of cross bench peers
• Problems associated with party control in the House of Commons would be duplicated in an elected upper house

Question 13

Are Select Committees effective in scrutinising the executive
For

Answer 13

• Select committees scrutinise the policies and actions of government conducting detailed examinations of controversial issues
• They question ministers civil servants and outside experts and can request access to government papers
• Many select committees’ recommendations are accepted by the government
• The election of chairs and members by MPs has enhanced the independence of select committees

Question 14

Are Select Committees effective in scrutinising the executive
Against

Answer 14

• A gov with a majority in the commons will also have a majority in committees
• Ministers and civil servants may not provide much information when questioned and access to documents may be denied
• They have no power to propose policies governments can ignore recommendations made by a select committee
• Some members do not attend regularly some maybe be overly abrasive when questioning witnesses

Question 15

Has the Backbench business committee been a success ?

For

Answer 15

-Has given backbench MPs a greater say over the parliamentary timetable
-Has enabled debate on and raised the profile of issues that would otherwise not have been discussed in depth in Parliament including an EU referendum
-Debates initiated by the BBBC have influenced government policy including those on reducing fuel and beer duty
I-t was a successful vehicle for public engagement with Parliament allocating time for debates for topics receiving 100,000 signatures in an e-petition

Question 16

Has the Backbench business committee been a success ?

Against

Answer 16

• The government does not have to respond to or accept motions passed after debates scheduled by the BBBC
• The government allocated time for BBBC debates at short notice and in an ad hoc way
• The government ignored criticism from the BBBC and forced through changes which gave party groups a greater say in the election of BBBC members
• Smaller partners are underrepresented 7 BBBC are conservative or labour the other being from SNP

Question 17

Is Parliament an effective check on the power of the executive ?
For

Answer 17

• The executive’s control over the parliamentary timetable has been weakened by the creation of the BBBC and the greater use of urgent questions
• Backbench MPs provide greater checks on government policy than in the past with increased incidents of rebellion a constraint on government action
• the reformed House of Lords in which no party has a majority is a more effective revising chamber amendments made in the lords often force the government to rethink legislation
• select committees have become more influential with governments accepting around 40% of their recommendations. The election of select committee chairs and members has enhanced their independence

Question 18

Is Parliament an effective check on the power of the executive ?
Against

Answer 18

• Executive exercises significant control over the legislative timetable and MPs hoping to steer legislation through Parliament face significant obstacles
• governments defeats are rare- most backbench MPs from the governing party o eg the whip on a majority of votes
• the government is usually able to overturn hostile amendments made in the House of Lords and can resort to the Parliament act to bypass opposition in the Lords
• Select Committees have little power. The government is not required to accept their recommendations and often ignores proposals that run counter to its preferred policy

Question 19

Do the resources available to the Prime minister bring him or her significant power ?
Patronage
Yes

Answer 19

They can appoint ministers
They can place allies in key roles
They can dismiss ministers
They can appoint outsiders to government

Question 20

Do the resources available to the Prime minister bring him or her significant power ?
Patronage
Against

Answer 20

• Senior colleague might have claims to posts
• They can be restricted by a desire for an ideological balance across all parts of the party
• Botched reshuffles can create rivals
• Their choice is limited by the availability of talent

Question 21

Do the resources available to the Prime minister bring him or her significant power ?
Authority in the cabinet system
For

Answer 21

The prime minister chairs and manages cabinet meeting
They steer and sum up cabinet decisions
They create cabinet committees and appoint members to them
They can use bilateral meetings with ministers to steer policy

Question 22

Do the resources available to the Prime minister bring him or her significant power ?
Authority in the cabinet system
Against

Answer 22

• Problems can arise if senior ministers feel ignored
• senior ministers may challenge the prime minister’s policy preference
• The prime minister is not involved in detailed policymaking in cabinet committees
• Ministers represent departmental interests seeking additional resources and influence

Question 23

Do the resources available to the Prime minister bring him or her significant power ?
Party leadership
For

Answer 23

• The prime minister has authority as party leader
• they have been elected as leader by MPs and party members ( conservative and labour parties)
• The party normally has a majority in the House of Commons

Question 24

Do the resources available to the Prime minister bring him or her significant power ?
Party leadership
Against

Answer 24

Support of the party is not unconditional
Party rules allow for a leadership challenge
Backbench rebellions have become more frequent

Question 25

Do the resources available to the Prime minister bring him or her significant power ?
Public standing
For

Answer 25

The prime minister has a higher public profile than other ministers
They are communicator in chief for the government
They provide national leadership in times of crisis

Question 26

Do the resources available to the Prime minister bring him or her significant power ?
Public standing
Against

Answer 26

Unpopularity with voters can undermine their authority
They are blamed for the government’s failings
They are expected to represent the public mood

Question 27

Do the resources available to the Prime minister bring him or her significant power ?
Policy making role
For

Answer 27

The prime ministers direct government policy and sets agenda
They can direct policy in areas of their choosing
They can represent the UK in international affairs

Question 28

Do the resources available to the Prime minister bring him or her significant power ?
Policy making role
Against

Answer 28

They are expected to be able to articulate a vision
They lack the time and expertise to have any significant involvement in this
Globalisation has reduced the scope for action

Question 29

Do the resources available to the Prime minister bring him or her significant power ?
Prime ministers office

Answer 29

Yes - the office provides advice and support to the prime minister
No- it has limited resources available to it

Question 30

Is the cabinet submissive to the prime minister ?

For

Answer 30

• The prime minister can appoint his or her supporters to cabinet and dismiss members who disagree with his or her preferred policy
• The PM has significant control over the cabinet agenda steering and summarising discussions as they see fit and without having to call a vote
• many decisions are taken outside of the cabinet often in bilateral meetings
• PMs office has expanded and plays a greater role in directing and coordinating policy across government
• PM can claim a personal mandate from the public and their party

Question 31

Is the cabinet submissive to the prime minister ?

Against

Answer 31

• There are practical limits on the prime minister’s patronage powers potential rivals may have strong claims for inclusion in the cabinet
• Senior ministers can frustrate the prime minister’s policy preferences by working together to oppose them or by threatening to resign
• Ministers with concerns about decisions that affect their department can refer issues to the cabinet as a final court of appeal
• Government departments provide minsters with expertise and support
• Senior ministers who are popular with the public or their part may gain additional influence

Question 32

Has the prime minister become more presidential

For

Answer 32

• leadership in the executive has been personalised, with the prime minister expected to impose his or her personality and agenda
• prime ministers increasingly rely on a close circle of senior ministers and advisers
• Prime ministers have created a strategic space between themselves and their governments distancing themselves from other actors in the executive
• Prime ministers appeal to the public directly through the media and claim a personal mandate from the electorate
• Prime ministers have additional authority as party leaders where they are elected by MPs and members and exercise personalised leadership

Question 33

Has the prime minister become more presidential

Against

Answer 33

• The prime minister leads but cannot command the executive particularly in coalition and directs rather than controls the agenda
• senior ministers have resources of their own including support from government departments
• The prime minister needs the support of minsters and officials to achieve his or her objectives
• The prime minister’s position is strong only if he or she enjoys policy success and popular approval and makes effective use of his or her own personal abilities
• support from the party is not unconditional and unpopular leaders face concerted efforts to remove them

Question 34

Was coalition government a significant constraint on the power of David ton as prime minister ?
For

Answer 34

• The coalition agreement for stability and reform set the number of Liberal Democrat cabinet ministers. Cameron could not dismiss or reshuffle Liberal Democrat ministers without Clegg’s approval
• the government’s principal policies were set out in the Coalition Programme for Government and the Liberal Democrat’s resisted deviation from it
• Coalition required a more collective style of government with key issues discussed in the cabinet system to ensure the agreement of both parties.
• The prime minister had to manage tensions between Conservatives and Liberal Democrat’s in addition to dissent within the Conservative party

Question 35

Was coalition government a significant constraint on the power of David ton as prime minister ?
Against

Answer 35

• The prime minster retained significant patronage powers, such as creating and making appointments to cabinet committees
• The prime minster determined the overall direction of government policy and shaped its response to new issues
• Key decisions were taken by the prime minister in consultation with Clegg or in the Quad where relations were often smoother than those between Blair and Brown
• Forming a coalition gave Cameron a healthy parliamentary majority and the coalition proved stable

Question 36

Has the UK Judiciary become more politicised in recent years?
For

Answer 36

• The HRA 1998 has drawn senior judges into the political fray by requiring them to rule on the merit of an individual piece of statute law as opposed to its application
• The factortame case 1990 established the precedent that UK courts can suspend Acts of Parliament where they are thought to contradict EU law
• The creation of the Supreme Court 2009 and the physical relocation of those senior judges to Middlesex Guildhallhas brought senior judges into the public arena and subjected them to greater scrutiny by the media
• politicians have broken with convention by publicly criticising rulings handed down by senior judges. Brexit minister David Davis did this when he reacted to a November 2016 High court ruling

Question 37

Has the UK Judiciary become more politicised in recent years?
Against

Answer 37

• The appointments process for senior judges has been made more transparent and less open to accusations of political Interference through the creation of the JAC and the spectate Supreme Court appointment process
• Although politicisation is often associated with political interference as or control the UK senior judiciary has in fact become more independent in the wake of the Constitutional reform act 2005 such as through the downgrading of the role of lord chancellor
• increased conflict between judges and politicians is a positive thing because it shows that the courts are prepared to challenge the government when it appears to be encroaching upon our civil liberties
• the fact that senior judges still benefit from security of tenure and guaranteed salaries helps to insulate them from political pressure

Question 38

Has the UK judiciary had a greater impact on the work of the executive and parliament in recent years ?
For

Answer 38

-In diminishing the role of lord chancellor and removing UKs most senior judges from the House of Lords, the constitutional reform act 2005 inevitably enhanced judicial independence making it more likely that judges would feel able to hold the executive and parliament to account
- by allowing causes under the ECHR to be heard
In UK courts the human rights act 1998 allowed the UKs most senior judges to directly question acts of parliament as well as the the actions of those working in the executive
- the precedent established under the factortame case (1990) allows senior judges to suspend the actions of both parliament and the executive where either branch appear to have breached EU law
-the extension of EU law in the wake of the Maastricht treaty 1992 brought senior judges into conflict with both the executive and parliament a cross a far wider range of policy areas than had previously been the case
- the growth in judicial action has had a further indirect impact those in the executive and in parliament now look to head off potential conflict in the courts by ensuring that all legislation complied with HRA

Question 39

Has the UK judiciary had a greater impact on the work of the executive and parliament in recent years ?
Against

Answer 39

• The physical relocation to Middlesex guildhall in 2009 though highly symbolic did little to change the legal-constitution relationship between the three branches
• Although the human rights act gives judges the right to issue a declaration of incompatibility where an act of parliament appears to have violated the ECHR parliament is under no legal obligation to fail in line with court ruling s
• while senior judges have the ability to rule that ministers in the executive have acted beyond their beyond their statutory authority (ultra votes) those very ministers can use the executives control of parliament to pass retrospective legislation which legitimises their earlier actions
• although the scope and scale of EU laws has grown significantly since Maastricht many areas of public policy remain largely in the hands of parliament thus limiting the scope of judicial action
• any move to review the status of the HRA or complete brexit would massively reduce the ability of the Supreme Court to have a significant impact on the operation of the executive or parliament

Question 40

Did violent methods help women get the vote

For

Answer 40

• the violence was sensational and meant the media reported on these acts, raising public awareness of the issue of women’s suffrage
• regular violent actions kept the public fearful of an attack and therefore kept the issue in the public eye
• violent methods led to brutal suppression by the police which created sympathy for the suffragettes
• people already opposed we’re not going to be any more put off by the use of violence

Question 41

Did violent methods help get women the right to vote ?

Against

Answer 41

• violence seemed to prove women were not responsible enough to vote
• the government could not be seen to be giving into terrorists which prevented them from extending the right
• violence turned many moderate men and women away from the cause
• membership of the WSPU was decreasing by 1913 as people turned to the peaceful NUWSS
• the peaceful work of women during the First World War played the crucial role in gaining the right to vote rather than earlier violent actions

Question 42

Should prisoners be given the right to vote ?

For

Answer 42

• The denial of the right to vote removes a sense of civic responsibility making rehabilitation harder
• there is no evidence that loss of the franchise acts a deterrent
• the right to vote is fundamental and cannot be removed
• removal of the vote makes a prisoner a non person and further alienated them from society
• the ECHR has ruled that the blanket ban on prisoners is a violation of the HRA

Question 43

Should prisoners be given the right to vote ?

Against

Answer 43

Those who commit a custodial crime against scout should lose the right to say how that society is run
The threat of losing the right to vote prevents crime and enhances civic responsibility
Giving convicted criminals the right to have a say in how laws are made would undermine the principle of justice
Prisoners are concentrated in certain constituencies they are unlikely to remain once free so should not be able to choose the local representatives

Question 44

Is the internet good for pressure groups ?

For

Answer 44

• an online campaign can be a cheap way of spreading information, raising awareness particularly if it goes viral
• the internet makes it easier and cheaper to coordinate a large group or event
• internet gives people an easier and more convenient means of participation

Question 45

Is the internet good for pressure groups

Against

Answer 45

• the market place can be swamped with groups making it difficult to stand out if a campaign does go viral there is no way of guaranteeing that people will understand the message behind it
• to be really successful a group needs a professional website and expertise which can be expensive
• the internet can lead to slacktivism where people might like something but fail to engage with the wider issue

Question 46

Does the HRA effectively protect rights and liberties in the UK?
For

Answer 46

• rights are now clearly enshrined in statute law
• legislation has to comply with the HRA
• citizens can access rights protection through uk based courts

Question 47

Does the HRA effectively protect rights and liberties in the UK?
Against

Answer 47

• the act is not entrenched and therefore it can be replaced as the Conservative party has pledge to do with a British bill of rights
• the act cannot overturn primary legislation in parliament
• the act can be set aside by government as happened with the derivation of the rights of terror suspects after 9/11

Question 48

Should the first past the post system be retained for general elections ?
For

Answer 48

• it is simple to use and voters are familiar with it
• tends to produce a strong and stable majority government which can deliver manifest commitments
• the governing party is held accountable by voters who have a clear choice between two major party’s and can remove unpopular governments
• rarely produces unstable minority governments or coalitions that emerge from secretive negotiations
• there is a clear link between an MP and the constituency they represent
• extremist parties are kept out of parliament and government

Question 49

Should the first past the post system be retained for general elections ?
Against

Answer 49

• voters are not translated into seats fairly larger parties get more seats than they merit
• a party can win a parliamentary majority with as little as 35% of the vote this is far from a democratic mandate
• regional difference in support are exaggerated creating electoral deserts
• most MPs do not have the support of a majority of voters in their constituencies
• many voters do not influence election outcome particularly in growing number of safe seats
• FPTP is becoming less likely to deliver what it’s supporters claim is its key strength - strong single party government

Question 50

Has the additional member system, supplementary vote, single transferable vote and regional list been effective five in the UK ?
For

Answer 50

• election results have been more proportional translating votes cast into seats won more effectively
• the rise of multiparty politics is reflected in election outcomes with smaller parties winning seats and taking office
• voters have greater choice as votes for small parties are less likely to be wasted
• minority and coalition governments in the devolved assemblies have been stable
• the new electoral systems have helped to produce more representative political systems
• voters have become more sophisticated often engaging split ticket voting

Question 51

Has the additional member system, supplementary vote, single transferable vote and regional list been effective five in the UK ?
Against

Answer 51

• the new systems have not always delivered highly proportional outcomes
• extremist parties have gained seats
• the closed list element of AMS restricts voter Choice and gives party bosses a significant at over the composition of the legislature
• the relationship between representatives and constituents has been weakened by using large multi member constituencies or in AMS creating two classes of representative
• turnout has been low
• some voters appear confused by the different systems - more wasted votes and spoiled ballot papers

Question 52

Have referendums enhanced representative democracy in the UK ?
For

Answer 52

• they have introduced direct democracy ensuring that citizens not politicians have the final say on major issues
• they have checked the power of government making it more responsive to the wishes of the people
• they have enhanced political participation Notably in Scottish referendum
• they have educated people on key issues and improved popular understanding of politics
• they have legitI used important constitutional changes such as devolution

Question 53

Has referendums enhanced representative democracy in the UK?
Against

Answer 53

• they have undermined representative democracy taking decision making on complex issues away from those with the political knowledge or experience
• have undermined parliamentary sovereignty in the case of 2016 EU referendum created tensions between parliament and the people
• governments take advantage of their authority to decide whether and when to call referendums in order to strengthen their position
• turnout in referendums is often poor with decisions taken on the basis of votes by a minority of eligible electors
• referendum campaigns have been ill informed and distorted by inaccurate claims made by rival camps and media bias

Question 54

Does the class system still matter In UK politics ?
For

Answer 54

• Issues of tax and benefits remains a key distinction between the two main parties
• Many voters do still identify with a party based on their perceived class
• Geographic voting trends still reflect the relative wealth and class make up of a region or constituency
• class inequality and a lack of social mobility remain major concerns for many voters

Question 55

Does the class system still matter In UK politics ?
Against

Answer 55

• Major issues such as immigration, cross class divides ions
• the size and role of the working class has declined by more than half making it less of a political pressure
• increasing property ownership and improved education make it more difficult to categorise classes
• successful parties appeal across a range of issues not just those relating to class

Question 56

Are politicians to blame for declining turnout ?

For

Answer 56

• They have failed to inspire the public
• scandals and corruption have turned many people away from politics
• Negative campaigning and adversarial politics have alienated many problem

Question 57

Are politicians to blame for declining turnout ?

Against

Answer 57

• If the public are not happy with what is on offer they need to make their voices heard not remain silent
• The media are responsible for undermining the respect of politics in the UK
• Low turnout reflects social and generational changes that politicians can do little about

Question 58

Are party leaders the main reasons for a party’s electoral fortunes?
FOR

Answer 58

• A strong leader will inspire confidence from floating voters
• A strong performance will motivate core voters and enthuse activists
• A leader can maintain party discipline to ensure a unified party during an election campaign

Question 59

Are party leaders the main reasons for a party’s electoral fortunes?
AGAINST

Answer 59

• People vote for their local MP, not the Prime minister
• Other factors such as major events that have affected public opinion (the Iraq war or Financial Crisis) are far more important
• Core supporters will remain loyal dispute the leadership

Question 60

Were the televised leaders’ debates important in the 2010 election campaign?
FOR

Answer 60

• They raised the profile of Nick Clegg
• David Cameron lost vital support
• They became the ‘main event’ of the election campaign and concentrated media attention

Question 61

Were the televised leaders’ debates important in the 2010 election campaign?
AGAINST

Answer 61

• Shifts in polls were marginal after the debates
• They do not appear to have altered the result of the election
• The second and third debates made little impact and few headlines

Question 62

Does the concept of an electoral mandate make sense?

FOR

Answer 62

• The franchise is widely held and there is a high level of individual voter registration
• The first past the post system usually results in a single-party government so it flows that the victors should have the right to implement their stated polcies
• Each party’s manifestos is readily available to voters ahead of polling day both in print and in electronic form
• Digested summaries of the main policies of each party are disseminated by mainstream media. Televised leaders’ debates at the last two general elections have seen the leaders of the parties questioned on their main policies

Question 63

Does the concept of an electoral mandate make sense?

AGAINST

Answer 63

• The low turnout at recent general elections means that the winning party can hardly claim to have secured a convincing mandate
• Coalition governments mean that two or more parties must agree to a compromise programme for which no single party has the mandate
• Most voters pay little attention to the party manifestos. Voting behaviour is more about long term factors or personalities than it is about policy details
• The concept of the mandate is flawed because voters can’t cast a ballot against a given party based on a single policy

Question 64

Does the UK have a multiparty system?

FOR

Answer 64

• In the 2015 general election 13.5% of UK voters backed parties other than the main two
• In some parts of the UK such as Scotland there is genuine multiparty competition for elected office
• Although parties such as UKIP, the Green Party and the BNP have struggled to secure parliamentary representation at Westminster they have achieved success in second order elections
• Any party that was able to mobilise non-voters would stand a chance of winning the general election in 2015 that was 33.8% of registered voters

Question 65

Does the UK have a multiparty system?

AGAINST

Answer 65

• The labour and Conservative parties are the only parties that have a realistic chance of forming a government by being the senior party in a coalition at Westminster
• Even in 2015 Labour and Conservatives secured 67.25% of the popular vote-winning 86.5% of the 650 seats contested
• The success of parties such as the BNP at second-order elections has proved fleeting. The Green Party has failed to add to its single common seat. UKIP was widely seen as a spent force by the end of 2016
• Of the parties that contested seats across mainland Britain in 2015 the Liberal Democrats finished with 22.5% of the vote and 224 seats behind labour

Question 66

Have recent years witnessed the end of ideology?

For

Answer 66

• The three main parties are all essentially social democratic in nature. They are concerned with making piecemeal changes to the current arrangements
• The ideological wings of each of the three main parties have been marginalised
• There are significant overlaps in the stated policies of the three main parties
• Parties that once appeared fundamentally opposed to one another were able to enter coalition
• There is an increased emphasis on presentation and personality over substance

Question 67

Have recent years witnessed the end of ideology?

AGAINST

Answer 67

• The three main parties still have distinct ideological traditions and committed core support that strongly identifies with such traditions
• The ideological dividing lines became more apparent in the wake of the global financial crisis
• The election of Jeremy Corbyn in 2015 as labour leader offered the prospect of a return to the ideologically polarised politics not seen since the 1980s
• The rise of smaller ideological and single-issue parties and pressure groups suggests that ideology still matters to a significant proportion of the electorate

Question 68

Should political parties be state funded?

FOR

Answer 68

• If parties are not funded by taxpayers they will be funded by wealthy individuals and interest groups
• State funding would allow politicians to focus on representing their constituents rather than courting potential donors
• Parties such as the Liberal Democrats could compete on an equal finical footing because funding would be based entirely on membership or electoral performance

Question 69

Should political parties be state funded?

AGAINST

Answer 69

• Taxpayers should not be expected to bankroll political parties they oppose
• Politicians could become isolated from real-world issues if they are denied access to interest groups
• Parties will always have unequal resources even if state funding is introduced not least because will be differences in membership levels and human and material resources