democracy and participation Flashcards
Do pressure groups enhance democracy?
A pressure group is an organised group of people that aims to influence the policies or actions of the government.
1. yes they can - without substantial influence they can still influence policy.Eg The Howard league for penal reform has only 3000 members but was able to represent the rights of the prisoners and the gov was forced to take a u turn and introduce charges for legal aid for prisoners in 2015.
2. through media influence.Public support: groups with high levels of public support can expect to enjoy more influence than groups that only represent the views or interests of a minority. A good example of this is the 38 Degrees group, who gained half a million signatures on a petition opposing the proposal to privatise England’s forests. As a result of this, the government abandoned the proposal in February 2011. The group was set up in 2009 and has around 2.5 million members
3. direct access point to government -Trade unions provide substantial funding to the Labour Party, and in return, they have an influence on not only policy but also the election of the party leader, as many of the votes for leader historically came from trade union members. This influence was shown in 2010 when Ed Miliband surprisingly defeated his brother David to become the leader. A large chunk of his votes came from trade union members.
Labour’s relationship with the trade unions is not just a matter of historical ties. The party continues to rely heavily on trade union funding, with the latter contributing 58 per cent of the Labour’s donations and loans so far this year (excluding public funds) in 2022 - Legal costs, an exodus of members, and reduced trade union support has reportedly cost Labour more than £3m, forcing the party to impose a real-terms pay cut on staff earlier this year.
however they can’t because:
1. Minorities are free to operate but unlikely to influence policy if public opinion is against them e.g. countryside alliance failed to prevent passage of 2004 hunting act because their views were not in line with the dominant views in society.
However, this argument is weak as rather than spreading power in society, PGs undermine pluralist democracy by concentrating influence in the hands of the already privileged. Wealthy interests and individual corporations are disproportionately influential on the decision-making process; they can push for their own ideologies and interests to be pursued. Often, PGs with access to lobbyists will utilise their power to hire services of professional lobbies and PR companies that facilitate access to the government/civil servants. For example, Liz Truss’ government moved to remove all caps on bankers’ bonuses in 2022, whereas she failed to increase ordinary people’s wages in line with inflation. This is due to the IoD and BBA forcing Truss to act on their behalf. This demonstrates that pressure groups narrow, not widen, political access to government and power the already unfairly powerful. It is only the wealthy or elite pressure groups who prosper.
2. fails to enhance democracy as, if a pressure group represents a minority viewpoint, it is likely to be ignored by a government who seek electoral success
e. even if a pressure group does have substantial support, if it does not align with aims of a clearly mandated majority gov, it is unlikely to exert legislative influence
eg In spite of the ‘Million march’ of 750,000 protesting against Iraq 2003 (largest ever), due to Blair’s desire to establish good relations between labor and the US republican party, and Labor’s 412 seats in parl, Operation Telic went ahead
In spite of 80 UK uncut campaigns since 2010, they had little influence as Cameron gov committed to austerity
3.this depends on the type of party that is governing. Labour Party may heavily rely on pressure groups, but the Conservative party does not.1970s, the practice of corporatism was followed, whereby groups were closely integrated with the government. This was brought to an end by the Thatcher government, which had a strong suspicion of the trade unions, and so began to deny access to such groups. Combined with legislation making it more difficult for trade unions to effectively organise action (for example on the form of strikes), together with declining membership numbers, has meant that the influence of trade unions on the policy-making process has declined dramatically
The voting age should be lowered to 16
increase representation and legitimacy of elected governments -For example, in a election in 2015 only 66% voted in the election which is a representative democracy and only 36% voted for conservatives leaving the other 30% views unanswered.
Eg 2001 only 61% voted compared to those of 70 and 80%.
2. people become adults -People legally become adults at 18. Many of the things that 16 year olds can do are still limited by law,
for example, they can join the armed forces but not in frontline service
At 16 people may not have the maturity and life experience to make political judgments.
3.The voting age was lowered to 16 for the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. Politicians in Northern Ireland recommended that the voting age should be lowered. In the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, 75% of 16-17-year-olds voted.
against
1.They may still be under the influence of parents and teachers or college lecturers. They may also be easily influenced by popular trends as Cleggmania, which developed after the leaders’ debates in the 2010 general election campaign ,showed, when support for Clegg soared through the social media because of the way that he spoke on camera in the first debate.
2. young people tend to not vote -The 2019 General Election saw a turnout of around 47% amongst voters aged 18-24, a decrease of 7% when compared to 2017.
3 .Young people at early stages of political development, meaning most votes would be wasted
- Adult Activities such as joining the army & getting married requires adult consent
- Theresa May - argument of consistency where you have to ‘draw the line’ at the correct age to vote.
Britain is currently in a participation crisis
political party membership is decreasing -Labour party membership fell by almost 25,000 in 2022, while its income rose.The party had 407,445 members at the end of 2022, down almost 25,000 compared with 2021.
In the 1950s, Conservative party membership was approx 3 million and for the Labour Party 1 million. During the 2015 general election, membership significantly decline to 150,000 for Cons and 270,000 for labour.
In 2005, only 10% claimed to be very strong party identifiers.
2.It is clear that the UK is in a participation crisis compared to 1970s participation has decreased dramatically. In 1974 turnout was 78.8% and as of 2015 it decreased to 66.1% , conservatives had a turnout 36.9%
3. new generation declining in electoral turnout - Younger people tend to not vote because of political apathy. Which is when people lose interest in elections , political events, public meetings and voting. The 2019 General Election saw a turnout of around 47% amongst voters aged 18-24, a decrease of 7% when compared to 2017.
against
1.
Almost 23 million people have started or signed a petition on the Parl’s petition website. With e-petitions getting 6.4 millions signatures in a year. Protesting and campaigning via Facebook has also become a popular of participating. Using Twitter to engage with MP’s, commentators and journalists.
e.g. e-petitions which gain over 100,000 signatures can be discussed in Parliament)
‘e-democracy’, for example, online voting, e-petitions, using online resources to organise campaigns, and debating on social media. Eg in 2015 a petition emerged ‘accept more asylum seekers and help more refugees in the uk. It had 400,000 signatures and was debated in the parliament David Cameron confirmed 20,000 Syrians would be taken in under VPR this was a successful petition that had achieved its aim
2. referendums younger people vote as they feel they have more impact -the EU referendum 72.2% turned out - 64% of registered young people (18-24) turning out. Scottish Independence 2014 referendum - 97% of those who could register to vote with 10% of those being ‘first-time’ voters. 109,000 16-17-year olds also voted with 97% saying they would vote again. The overall turnout was 84.6%
1. pressure groups show participation - in 2020. The study revealed that, during this time period, whilst trade union membership grew from 6.2 million to 6.6 million in the UK, there was a 0.8 percentage point decrease in the share of male employees who belong to trade unions. In contrast, the corresponding share for females grew by 1.6 percentage points so that, in 2020, women accounted for 57 percent of all trade union members in the UK
Britain is in need of an democracy reform
One cannot consider our democracy without discussing it in terms of Parliament, representation and elections. It is these factors that need to be evaluated in order for us to conclude whether it is in dire need of reform. I will argue that factors such as the reality of having an unelected upper house, a widespread lack of scrutiny of the executive, the tyranny of the majority that can result under our system which is worsened by the First Past the Post voting system all contribute to a problem, which constitutes a crisis of democracy in the UK.
In recent years there has been increasing concern about the state of Uk democracy, particularly after a period of low turnouts and cynicism towards politicians. after assessing three important area of concern…. It will be argued that UK democracy is in need of urgent reform. By urgent, it is meant that without these reforms, UK democracy will further deteriorate.
The most significant problems with UK democracy are the lack of scrutiny of government and the executive as a whole because of its dominance in the political system and the unelected house of Lords. The executive in the UK normally has a majority in the commons and can exercise its power with few constraints. This is because the executive has very few constitutional constraints and it can end up resembling an elective dictatorship. Historically, the executive normally had super majorities such as Blair in 1997 and Thatcher in 79: Blair was only defeated in 4 bills within 10 years. Boris Johnson has not lost a single vote since a majority of 80 was won in 2019. The same applies to the house of Lords, which is unelected and so a portion of the legislature cannot hold the government to account. This is because they must give way to the Commons and conventions like the Salisbury convention means that they don’t object to any legislation that was already in the manifesto which the MPs were elected upon. This is because the PM has the prerogative powers to appoint whomever they want, and this is not limited by statute law.
However, it is often inaccurately argued that the executive has a mandate to dominate Parliament as they were elected during a General Election. The Prime Minister is head of the party, and the Cabinet is composed of party MPs who were also democratically elected. As a result, you could argue that the executive exercising power without many constitutional restraints is not an issue in our democracy. For example, the Conservatives won 43.6% of the popular vote in 2019 – the highest percentage for any party since 1979, and thus it makes little difference whether the legislature or Executive have more power, as both are dominated by the party which won the election. Further, though the House of Lords is unelected, it ultimately gives way to Parliamentary sovereignty and is useful for the expertise and experience that many Peers have in policy-making and specific niches, which may lack in MPs and party officials. It can be a useful check for bills in terms of being an extra source of scrutiny. The House of Lords, for instance, could delay the passing of the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991, which gives more time for media and governmental scrutiny for rushed or reactionary legislation.
However, although the executive does have a democratic mandate, it is clear that they do dominate the political system to the degree that they can act without many restrictions, and this is not good for the effective functioning of democracy.
Another significant problem with UK Democracy are the failures of First Past the Post to efficiently and fairly represent the voters. First Past the Post, due to its “winner-takes-all” nature, inevitably leads to a two-party system in the majority of constituencies. For instance, in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport the Labour candidate Luke Pollard achieved 25,461 votes, and Rebecca Smith, the Conservative candidate, received 20,704 votes. In England, therefore, it is clear to see that most votes go to either Labour of the Conservatives, and this excludes parties such as the Brexit Party which come in a distant third. The losing party of the two-horse race has its voters left completely unrepresented in that constituency, and all of the third-party voters are left without any impact on democratic decision making. This effect can sometimes be exacerbated when voting is extremely split, such as in 2010, when Labour candidate Glenda Jackson won her seat in Hampstead and Kilburn with only 32.8% of the vote. Moreover, the ‘winners bonus’ often creates “false majorities” by over-representing larger parties (giving a majority of the parliamentary/legislative seats to a party that did not receive a majority of the votes) while under-representing smaller ones. The presence of tactical voting can also obscure these facts. The voting system desperately needs reform to truly represent the voters.
Nonetheless, some make the less substantiated argument that there are certainly positives to the system of First Past the Post for democratic representation and participation such as the strong constituency link. When one has an issue to raise in their constituency, they can easily contact their MP who has a direct local link to the area and will have background knowledge to solve or address the problem. This is illustrated by Johnny Mercer defending a constituent who was being prosecuted for the killing of a disabled man in Ireland during the troubles and fighting for veteran’s rights as a national policy. MPs are further held directly accountable to their voters due to the constituency link, and there is the potential for recall of the MP and a by-election in extreme circumstances. It is also arguably an oversimplification to label the two-party system undemocratic, as in 2019 the Conservative Party deserved a massive majority as a result of receiving the biggest vote share of a single party since 1979.
Ultimately, though, the Conservative vote share was only 43.6%, which is not even a majority of voters. It is clear to see that elections under First Past the Post give false majorities and even supermajorities to parties, which exacerbates the negative effect of ‘electoral dictatorships’ through Parliamentary sovereignty, which urgently needs to be addressed.
Additionally, democracy desperately needs to be reformed in the UK due to the participation crisis, exemplified by less-than-optimal turnouts in General Elections but also dire levels of democratic participation on a local level. The turnout of 69.1% in the 2017 General Election fell slightly to 67.5% in 2019 in the UK. For local elections turnout can vary ward-by-ward, but in Marfleet, Hull, turnout was just 12.7% of eligible voters casting their ballot. This lack of engagement in the political process locally can lead to a self-perpetuating cycle of disinterest, as there is no canvassing or leaflets as parties just don’t focus on the ward, which is also in one of the most deprived areas in the UK. Another potential reason for disenfranchisement is the perceived lack of real voter choice. One often feels logically pressured to vote for the party which is the “lesser of two evils”, in other words the party closest to their ideology but not their ideal choice, if the party they truly support does not stand a chance of winning. In 2019, for instance, Nigel Farage stood down his Brexit Party candidates in many swing seats, making the trade-off of limiting voter choice but preventing Jeremy Corbyn from keeping many seats for Labour. This wasn’t fully effective, as shown in the Hartlepool constituency whereby the Brexit Party candidate achieved enough of the vote (26%) to prevent the Conservative candidate, Stefan Houghton, from gaining the seat.
Conversely, some point out that the United Kingdom is not an anomaly in terms of Europe for its turnout in Parliamentary elections. It has turnout higher than countries like Greece, Latvia and Bulgaria, and falls about midway in a ranked comparison. In addition, despite a perceived lack of engagement with elections, the UK Labour Party’s membership is the highest membership of any party in the entirety of Europe at around 500,000. Membership of single-issue pressure groups, such as Greenpeace or the CND remains relatively high, which one could argue signals widespread political participation. In a way, this negates the need for MPs to represent constituents on issues like climate change, as they have another method of making their voice heard. They could simply involve themselves in the organization of a protest by protest or attending meetings. However, when one views political issues in the UK as a whole that aren’t designated to a major pressure group in particular, the picture changes. Thus, pressure groups are limited in representing the views of the people in place of elections.
It is clear to see, therefore, that elections are at the core of democracies and so without adequate turnouts, there is a real problem with UK democracy. The sovereignty of Parliament means that, without engaged voters, policies can be passed that aren’t truly in line with the will of the people and popular opinion until the next General Election, meaning we indeed need to reform our democracy.
In conclusion, it is clear that UK democracy is in urgent need of reform. The participation crisis, as well as a two-party system naturally facilitated by First Past the Post all inevitably leads to a sovereign Parliament that isn’t fully representative of the people and often creates an ‘elective dictatorship’ as exemplified by the contemporary dominance of the Conservatives since 2019.
lobbyists and think tanks undermine democracy
think tanks are influential towards Government policies -Think-tanks are actually far more connected to government than they first appear, with governments often calling on them to aid with legislation.
For example, Blair used think tanks to establish his Third Way shift in the face of a more left-wing party membership.
Eg the centre of policy studies, the centre of social justice and the adam smith institute. Not only do they influence the government they get appointed by the government Ian Duncan smith .For example, he was the founder of the centre of social justice. Not only did this group have great influence on the government he got appointed in 2004 as works and pension secretary .Thus, think tanks not only have an increasing role to play in the government policy but their members might end up directing members of the government .
2. lobbyists have direct links to governments and match their views to clients -
Lobbyists remain a large active business as almost 2 billion pounds is spent on it by corporations .Lobbying voices peoples concern to the government about current policies. The government also consults with lobbyists to see the impact of legislation in certain industries
Politicians switch between being in an office into working for lobbyists.
Francis Maude, a former MP and minister of industry, worked as an advisor for Oaknorth bank and the business intelligence firm GPW. This overall shows lobbyists wield a lot and sometimes have direct links to politicians
3.However lobbying has little impact on the government decisions despite its access as the government is more inclined to pursue their own interests . think tanks simply present arguments for certain policies but are removed from the actual legislation process.
Thus they lack necessary route to the government and have little impact on government decisions
against
1. depends on the government -Think-tanks simply present arguments for certain policies/ legislation, but are removed from the actual legislative process.
Thus they lack the necessary route to government, and only have little impact over government decisions.
2. lobbyists may not match interests of people he lack of transparency, however, in the work of lobby firms has raised a red flag for the public. For this reason, Parliament passed, in 2014, the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act (2014), which mandated that all lobbying activities are registered. It could be argued that the public, by merit of being aware of lobbying activities, checks the influence that these lobby firms may have. However, many would argue that the works of lobbies are still not transparent enough
3.However the case of Brexit is less about the government ignoring pressure groups and more about attempting to retrieve political capital from turmoil. Even so the lobby group leave EU was hugely influential on the outcome of the brexit referendum and has impacted the actions of the government since Think tanks are actually far more connected to the government then they actually appear
human rights need replacing with bill of rights
Civil liberties are a range of rights and freedoms that demand non-interference by governmentEuropean Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law.
Freedom of Information Act, 2000: this established in law the public ‘right to know’, and made the government more open and therefore accountable in its decision-making.
Equality Act, 2010: The Equality Act 2010 legally protected people from discrimination in the workplace and in wider society, replacing previous anti-discrimination laws
Freedom of information act, provides the public with access to information held by public authority. Revealed hundreds of thousands of phone calls to 101 emergency police going unanswered annually, more transparency
2. protection is weak - One way in which this is done is through judicial review, which is the checking (and possibly overturning) of actions of the government. This is more difficult in the UK than in the USA, where, due to the existence of a codified constitution.
3. undermines parliamentary sovereignty -Another notable case was that of Abu Qatada, whose deportation to Jordan was blocked due to the fear that evidence obtained under torture would be used against him. In such cases, courts can issue a ‘declaration of incompatibility’, forcing Parliament to revise the legislation or to set aside Judges increasingly see themselves as the protectors of human rights and are increasingly willing to challenge ministers
Against
1government may not follow the laws of constitution. In 2008 the government tried to block a request to expose information about MPs expenses claims,information was leaked into daily telegraph. MPs were forced to give up their seat because reform was weak before information was revealed. Government still had time to repeal for some time, likely other things the government was concealing.
2. stopped many executives from infringing onto rights - Tony Blair suffered his first defeat as prime minister in 2005 when MPs rejected his call for the pre-charge detention limit for terror suspects to be increased from 14 to 90 days. The move had attracted warnings of a possible infringement of habeas corpus. MPs later agreed on an increased time limit of 28 days.
3. parliament still remains sovereignty with human rights -Parliament is more sovereign, in 2010 the supreme court ruled that the government didn’t act lawfully to freeze bank assets of terrorist suspects. PM brown was angry but had to accept it at the time. In the event, a new statute was passed later(terrorist asset freezing act 2010), the will of the parliament and the government prevailed.
to what extent is civil liberties protected in the UK? individual rights are better protected than collective rights
1.Growing prominence of rights can be seen through increased use of judicial review - from 4000 (2000) to 15,000 (2013).
EXAMPLE : High court rulings that retired Gurkha soldiers should be allowed to settle in the UK (2008)
EXAMPLE : Gov had not consulted fairly on compensation for people affected by the planned high-speed rail link (2013).
✅ - Crucial means of protecting rights as it enables gov actions to be effectively scrutinised.
❌ - Places unprecendented power in unelected and unaccountable judges.
❌ - Judges accused of creating privacy law through interpretation of HRA - Many cases, gace priority to article 8 right to privacy, than article 10 right to freedom of expression.
EXAMPLE : Wealthy individual who could afford legal action had an unfair advantage - 2008 High Court awarded Max Mosley damages after newspaper published story about his sex life.
- fault of the HRA Is that it seems to show favour to undeserving individuals, rather than protecting the legitimate freedoms of UK citizens.
Conservatives have argued for many years for the replacement with a British Bill of Rights.
EXAMPLE : Abu Qatada made speeches justifying use of violence so security saw his as a threat and wanted to deport him to Jordan for his trial. Legal advisors able to fight deportation for 8 years as he would be on trial using torture methods (breach of HRA). After UK signed treaty in 2013, that such methods would not be used that he was flown back and cleared - UK authorities continued to view him as a dangerous influence.
3.Lack of clarity over definition of rights lead to conflict between pressure groups and individuals.
EXAMPLE : Pressure group Campaign for Freedom of Information that brought about the Freedom of Info Act (2000) gives public access to data. 2006-07 group opposed MPs attempt to exclude park from this act arguing they should be allowed confidentiality. Dropped.
5
EXAMPLE OF CONFLICT : Walkers ‘right to roam’ given legal force in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000). Madonna and husband celeb landowners contested right of public to walk across their land. Planning inspectorate ruled in 2004 that public would have access to part of estate out of sight of their home so right to privacy not infringed.
6
Rights of individuals conflicted with gov priorities is counterterrorism.
EXAMPLE : 9/11, 7/7 and bus bombings 2005 led to gov measures that limited rights for the benefit of protecting wider community - ministers argued right to detain terror suspects w/o trial on grounds of national emergency.
Law lords ruled indefinite detention discriminatory > gov passed control orders that enabled suspects to be closely monitored through electronic tagging (prohibited phone use and internet access).
Despite judges opposition, control orders kept until subsequently replaced with TPIMs.
7
Not erosion of rights, some restrictive measures abandoned following public opposition.
EXAMPLE : Blair gov proposal to extend period suspects held from 14 to 90 days defeated in Commons (2005) - gov then compromised on 28 days and no chance of increasing filling defeat in lords. Later halved under coalition gov.
8
Public willing to sacrifice liberties at time of heightened security concerns - place society safety over protection of individual rights.
EXAMPLE : Pro-human rights pressure group Liberty limited in deflecting gov policy.
2013 failed to stop organisation of ‘secret courts’ which permit suspects to be tried w/o full disclosure of evidence.
Didn’t stop passage of ‘Snoopers Charter’ which increased power of intelligence by enforcing internet companies to store info about customers browsing history.
9
Howard League for Penal Reform which campaigns for prisoners rights struggled to implement agenda.
Small victory - securing 2014 High Court Ruling obliging gov to drop it’s ban on prisoners families sending books to them > wider issues of reducing size of prison population they have been less successful.
Gov unlikely to side w/ pressure groups campaigning for minority rights which the wider public regards as undeserving of sympathy.
Threat to rights of liberty and security
evaluate that reforms are needed to solve the participation crisis
POINT : Compulsory voting would force people to vote so there would be 100 % voter turn out would mean that MPs are more representative and legitimate.
EVIDENCE : Since compulsory voting was introduced in Australia 1924, turnout has never dropped below 91%.
EVALUATION : This forces people to see the importance in voting and would lead to wider educational implications so that decisions can be well informed, since everyone is aware that they are compulsory.
COUNTER POINT : But, this is not necessarily the case as compulsory voting could encourage non serious voting as it only masks the deeper disengagement issues.
EVIDENCE : Rio Di Janero (Brazil) 41.5% of people who voted in 2016 mayoral elections submitted a blank or annulled ballot.
EVALUATION : Compulsory voting would not mean more representation and legitimacy as the deeper engagement issues and issues of democracy will surely prevail and it could be considered a violation to force someone to vote.
2
POINT : Another reform would be to lower the voting age to 16, ensuring people are engaged in political issues from a younger age, especially as many of this decisions made will come to affect them very soon. This would also encourage political education from a young age to ensure they are educated and well informed.
EVIDENCE : Liberal Democrats- a pledge to lower the voting age appeared in their 2001 manifesto. In 2008, the Welsh Assembly voted in favour of lowering the voting age. In 2009, the Scottish Parliament voted in favour of allowing 16-17 year olds a vote in an independence referendum, and this is agreed in 2012. Currently, all opposition Parties support lowering the voting age and Scotland has reduced the voting age to 16, MoLlY Scott Cato, Green Part representative citing “At 16, you’re eligible to pay taxes, you can leave home, you can get married, you can even join the armed forces. If you can do any of these things, you are entitled to vote - you are entitled to have a say in the direction of your country, you’re entitled to have your say on the key issues affecting your life.”
2017 manifesto point for Labour - 2018 Jeremy Corbin visited UK Youth Parl annual sitting to show his support for the organisation.
EVALUATION : There are many issues that would benefit 16 year olds that also effect their lives for example in university fees and brexit. Policies affecting young people means that young people should be represented. And it would also match other aspects of being this age. Helping to re engage young voters by strengthening their interests and allowing them to be heard.
COUNTERPOINT : However many argue that 16 is too young.
EVIDENCE : Conservatives argue that 18 is when one is recognised as a full adults. Additionally, 16 and 17 year olds are still required to gain permission from their parents before getting married or joining the army.
EVALUATE : This means that the rights they have are overstated and a person that young does not need that right especially as most young persons are in full time education and living with their parents.
Additionally, it should be recognised that voter registration among young people is the lowest already and they are less likely to vote, resulting in a decline of turnout percentage.
MINICONCLUSION : Whilst lowering the age would extend the franchise by 1.5 million ‘whom we cannot deny the full rights’ (Corbyn), lowering the voting age does to 16 is too young and is not compatible with the rights or responsibilities that they have at that age as they do at 18 and the rights they have at this age.
3
POINT : The increased use of the internet has led to reform suggestions that of eDemocarcy to enhance citizens engagement.
EVIDENCE : This would include e petitions, where already 6.3 million are signed each year. Blogs, e-campaigns and Twitter which many political parties have made use of already for example Labour.
EVALUATE : Due to the ease and availability that most have to the internet, citizens able to easily express their views without leaving the home and lessens low turnout.
COUNTERPOINT : This has the risk of hacking which would undermine the legitimacy of elections. And marginalise those who do not have access to the internet.
EVIDENCE : hacking allegedly took place in US presidential election.
EVALUATE : This corrupts the whole process and further undermines the ability of e democracy to be accurately representative of all and the importance of elections, by putting democracy all to put phones.
MINICONCLUSION : Although e democracy could help enhance democracy, mobilising the already increased use of the internet and social media, it has the risk of hacking and marginalises those who do not have access to the internet which undermines the legitimacy of it.
There is a participation crisis in the UK’
The possibility of a participation crisis can be seen through the significantly declining levels of turnout in general elections and referendums. In 1950, turnout was 84%. In 1979, turnout was 76% and in 2001, it was 59%.
In 2011, on average only 42% bothered to vote in some referenda.
This shows a huge decline in people voting in the recent years which undermines the legitimacy of the UK democracy as a large number of the population in not represented. The can lead to a single interest voter or groups and special interest groups added influence. This means a small sample of people are represented.
COUNTERPOINT : Increase in Scottish independence and EU referendum turnout.
EVIDENCE : 85% turnout in Scotland and 72% in EU referendum.
EVALUATE : This shows that uk still capable of producing high turnout, showing voters will turnout depending on the importance of the issue being voted on.
MINICONCLUSION : Although, there has been a spike on singular issue like the Scottish independence and EU referendum, the overall low turnout for general elections and referendum is a huge indicator that there is a participation crisis as there seems to be people voting scarcely.
2
POINT : Over the recent years, there has been a significant increase in number and membership of pressure groups.
EVIDENCE : 38 Degrees is a ‘progressive’ pressure group that advocates to ‘campaign for fairness, defend rights, promote peace, preserve the planet’. The groups has 2.9 million members and use social media to bring about their aims - gained half a million signatures on a petition opposing the proposal to privatise England’s forests. As a result of this, the government abandoned the proposal in February 2011.
EVALUATION : This suggests that political participation has changed, rather that decreased.
COUNTERPOINT : On the other hand, there has been a decrease in political party membership.
EVIDENCE : In the 1950s, Conservative party membership was approx 3 million and for the Labour Party 1 million. During the 2015 general election, membership significantly decline to 150,000 for Cons and 270,000 for labour.
In 2005, only 10% claimed to be very strong party identifiers.
EVALUATE : This shows a great loss in popular base and support.
MINICONCLUSION : The significant rise of pressure group membership and decline in political party membership shows that participation has not declined but rather changed. The way people participate has changed, with apparent favouring to pressure groups. This gives people the ability to engage in politics between elections and allows for minority’s to be heard, who may not be by political parties.
Allows for plural distribution of power where many groups and interests can have an influence on the political system demonstrating that there is not just one way of participating and this gradually changed through the years.
3
POINT : The rise of social media has most definitely contributed to a changed method of political participation - participate in campaigns and share information.
EVIDENCE : Almost 23 million people have started or signed a petition on the Parl’s petition website. With e-petitions getting 6.4 millions signatures in a year. Protesting and campaigning via Facebook has also become a popular of participating. Using Twitter to engage with MP’s, commentators and journalists.
EVALUATION : This shows that the use of social media has in fact increased participation due the ease and quickness of being able to sign elections online.
EVIDENCE&EVALUATION : Justice4Grenfell - social campaign to provide justice and fair treatment to those affected by Grenfell tower incident, resulting in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry where lawyers such as Imran Khan from the Stephen Lawrence case, sought to examine circumstances leading up to and surrounding the fire.
COUNTERPOINT : On the other hand, the increased use of social media has potentially been due to significant anti-politics in recent years - distrust, dislike and disaffection of political parties and leaders.
Or hapathy - no need to push for political change .
EVIDENCE : This may be due to failed manifesto promises like the Lib Dem’s who received a large amount of votes due to the promise of decrease tuition fees, but whilst in gov raised them. Or serous of scandals and allegations such as the sexual harassment allegations in 2017.
Stephen Crabb, secretary for state of work and pensions who sent sexually suggestive exit messages to a young women he had interviewed.
Joan Ryan claimed £173,000 in MP expenses during 2006/07 and voted for a bill in favour of keeping MP expenses a secret.
EVALUATION : The lack of trust and disengagement has led voters finding other ways to engage in politics, one which they can trust and rely on then corrupt MPs who may act out of self interest.
MINICONCLUSION : The rise of social media has led to a multitude of platforms and methods of political participation, with the ability to have mass power which potentially strays from traditional methods and may be due to a rise in anti politics.
Examples of dishonest MPs with broken electoral promises and general sense that voting doesn’t change anything has reduced levels of trust in democratic politics.
Evaluate the view that valence factors are the most important factors determining voting behaviour
Valence issues are when there isn’t significant disagreement between parties and therefore voters choose based on which party they think is going to be the most effective in government. Leadership and competence are key to this. This essay will accept the view that valence factors are the most important factors determining voting behaviour in UK elections.
The public image of party leaders has become more important in recent decades as politics has become increasingly personalised, especially since the growth of digital and social media. Where visual images and personalities are highly important. Commentators have talked about the presidentialisation of British politics since the 1979 election, with the suggestion being that UK campaigns are increasingly shaped by voter’s perceptions of leading public figures, as they are in the USA. For example, during the 1997 election the electorate saw Major as ancient and out of date, his party had their fair share of sexual scandals and Major had failed to ever hold his MPs accountable for their misdemeanours whereas Blair aided the ‘Cool Britannia’ image. He was a fresh, young face that was a strong asset to the redefined labour party. This shows that parties appreciate the importance of presenting their leaders in a good light, with attention given to photo opportunities that will show a ‘human touch’, as well as leaders’ debates. Leaders with charisma attract wavering voters to vote for the party, furthermore, they also act in petition for funds and donations in order to contest in elections and achieve success.
However, rather than voting based on the leadership and personnel of political parties, it can be argued that voters care far more about the policies they are putting forward, and how these would affect the electorate if implemented. Rational choice theory is the idea that voters behave like consumers by looking at the available options and evaluating which is the most beneficial for them. This is linked to the growth of a more educated electorate, especially with the rise of the internet and the abundance of information online. For example, this explains why many younger voters chose Corbyn in the 2017 and 2019 elections, as one of his key policies was abolishing university tuition fees. Issue based voting is similar to the rational choice theory, however it mainly suggests that voters choose on which party is closest to them on the policy they deem the most important, even if they are not aligned with the party’s other policies. The 2019 election was a key example of this. 74% of leave voters voted for the Tories (including many in the red wall constituencies who had never done so before), whilst 50% of remain voters coted labour. This shows that issue-based voting and the rational choice theory can be seen as particularly important when there are stark policy differences between political parties.
Overall, even though both leadership and rational choice/issue based voting are key factors in determining voting behaviour, leadership is now arguably more important, especially with left wing/centrist parties like labour and the lib dems moving closer to tory values- there is little policy difference between parties.
It can be argued that the more short-term issues and events that arise during a campaign are more influential in how voters decide. During the campaign, parties publish their manifestos and make active efforts on the ground/in the media to win over voters, including spending significant amounts of money on advertising or appearing in TV interviews and debates. It can be argued that many voters only pay attention to politics during election campaigns and they can therefore ben seen as highly important to election results, especially if key events happen during them. For example, in the 2017 election campaign, a key moment was when Theresa May announced plans to change social care so that those receiving car at home would also have to contribute to the cost of their care. This was dubbed by the media as the ‘dementia tax’ and received a massive backlash. The damage to the conservative party inevitably led them to dropping this policy within 24hrs of announcing it. This shows that campaigns can turn seemingly decisive party leaders into the most unpopular people due to their appeal to the public.
However, how competent voters perceive the current government to be is a key factor determining how they vote. In an election, they are able to pass judgement on the government’s performance in power and replace them in they’re deemed to be incompetent. For example, competence was an important factor in the 1979 election, when labour was voted out due to the perception they were unable to manage the economy and trade unions after they produced the ‘winter of discontent’. Their attempts to impose a 5% limit on pay increases led to widespread strikes and a sense of national paralysis. This provided the conservatives with an irresistible theme: that the country needed a new direction and a government that could grapple with economic and social breakdown. They utilised the slogan ‘labour isn’t working’ in their campaigns. this shows that if a party is presented and seen as unfit to govern by many, they are unlikely to win an election.
Therefore, it is clear that valence factors are the most important factors in determining voting behaviour because of perceived competence. The importance of campaigns is seemingly limited, as voters have often already made up their mind having evaluated the performance of the government since the previous election.
Rather than voting based on aspects of parties that change, such as leadership and perceived competence, it can be argued that the electorate often vote for a particular party irrespective of these factors. This is especially the case when there are significant policy differences between the parties, as different policies appeal very differently to different parts of the population. Social factors are key to understanding this. For example, up until the early 1970s voting behaviour was strongly influenced by class and social status. Today, age can be seen as a key determinant of voting behaviour. In 2017, YouGov called it the new dividing line in British politics. Older voters are much more likely to vote Conservative, whilst younger voters find labour best suited because of the ‘left wing’ approach. In 2019, 22% of 18-29 year olds voted conservative, compared to over 60% of 60+ year olds. Proof of this can be seen in the conservative party’s domination over elections in the 21st century. Turnout is much higher amongst older voters, therefore benefitting the Tories.
However, this argument is weak as since the 1970s and 80s ‘partisan dealignment’ has occurred, which can be seen as increasing the influence of valence factors. In the post WW2 period, voters had strong affiliations with and attachment to political parties, which were part of voters’ identities. This was influenced by family tradition, class, the workplace, and the community. These attachments have continued to decline in the 21st century. There are now a lot more swing voters who are comfortable voting for any party (including rising minor parties) and decide each election. This can be seen in the large number of voters in the traditionally labour ‘red wall’ switching to the conservatives for the first time in 2019. In this context, valence factors can be seen as the most important factors in determining voting behaviour as voters feel comfortable voting for either of the main parties and therefore vote based on changing factors within these parties. This included leadership and perceived competence.
overall, social factors are certainly less important determinants of voting behaviour than they used to be when class was central. In light of class/parliament dealignment, valence factors including leadership and competence are more important than ever.
In conclusion, valence factors have certainly increased as determinants of voting behaviour as class allegiances and partisanship have declined in importance. In elections where the policy differences between the parties are limited, such as 2010 and 2015, leadership and competence are now the most important factors in swaying the electorate. If a leader isn’t seen as eligible enough to be the prime minister, then they will have no support from the media and be painted as a clown. Furthermore, they will be able to make their party united, creating a strong and stable government with no internal conflict.
