Political parties

Question 1

Define Old Labour (social democracy)

Answer 1

It refers to the traditional Labour polices such as nationalisation, redistribution of income and wealth and an extended public sector that were rejected by the New Labour approach

Question 2

Define New labour (third way)

Answer 2

It refers to a period between the mid 1990’s and 2010 when the Labour Party was led first by Tony Blair and then by Gordon Brown. The concept of New Labour was influenced by the political thinking of Anthony Giddens’ “Third Way” which attempted to provide a “middle way” between capitalism and socialism.

Question 3

Define One Nation conservativism

Answer 3

This type of conservativism that champions the idea of paternalism. The agent of this idea is the rich. It is based on pragmatism and favours a more mixed economy. This brand of conservativism has been supported by politician such as Ted Heath and Ken Clarke.

Question 4

Define New-right

Answer 4

New-Right conservatism is a marriage of neo-liberal and neo-conservative ideas, and includes elements of both neo-liberal and neo-conservative thinking. The New Right is both economically libertarian and socially authoritarian. Eg: Most noting, the Tory-led coalition government introduced same-sex marriage in 2012

Question 5

Define Classical Liberalism

Answer 5

The classical liberal school of thought is opposed to an expansion in the role of the state. With regards to social justice, classical liberals believe that social problems should be solved by market forces.

Question 6

Define Modern Liberalism

Answer 6

Modern liberalism emerged as a reaction against free-market capitalism, believing this had led to many individuals not being free. Freedom could no longer simply be defined as ‘being left alone’

Question 7

Define Party systems

Answer 7

It refers to the typical structure of parties within a political system. It describes the normal number of parties that compete effectively. Thus we may speak of dominant, two-, three- or multi-party systems. It also refers to the typical party make-up of governments

Question 8

Define political parties

Answer 8

A group of people with the same values, goals and ideas for the country which gather together and try to promote their policies and ideologies together

Question 9

Outline what a mainstream political party is and give examples

Answer 9

A political party having electoral strength sufficient to permit it to the context of govenrment usually with comparative regular
E.g. Labour conservative, Lib-dems maybe SNP

Question 10

Outline what a minority or niche political party is and give examples

Answer 10

A minor party is a political party that plays a smaller role than a major party in a country politics and elections
E.g. Plaid Cymru, NCP, BNP maybe green party

Question 11

Define a single issue party and give and examples

Answer 11

A single-issue party is a political party that campaigns on only one issue. It is generally believed that single-issue party are favoured by voluntary voting systems
UKIP or the Brexit Party

Question 12

What is a two-party system

Answer 12

One were the two parties have a realistic chance of forming a govenrment. There receive the majority of votes and representation

Question 13

What is multi-party system

Answer 13

It is more than 2 parties having a realistic chance of gaining govenrment position

Question 14

What is a dominant party system

Answer 14

When there is a democracy but the one party tends to dominant results

Question 15

What is the left

Answer 15

Those who deserve change and reform to the way in which society operates, often this involves radical critics of the capitalism made by liberal and socialist parties

Question 16

What is the right

Answer 16

Rights support for the status quo, little or no change, stressing the need for order stability and hierarchy- generally relates to conservative parties

Question 17

Outline the key roles of political parties

Answer 17

Political parties in the UK have a number of key roles which ensure that the UK’s system of representative democracy can work in practice.

Government and opposition roles- Parties ensure that a single government is formed as a result of the general election which is able to safely pass its legislation through the House of Commons. Parties also perform the role of the opposition parties who check the actions of the government and hold it to account.

Representation- A key role of political parties is representing their members. The Labour Party’s membership has been increasing under Jeremy Corbyn, growing by nearly 200,000 members since December 2015. But, overall party membership has been declining since the 1950s - so this role has changed in recent years. Political parties represent the wider public in Parliament, regional parliaments and assemblies, and in local councils.

Political participation- Political parties allow people to have a greater participation in politics by becoming members of the party and so increase their involvement in the democratic process. Parties also aim to increase political engagement by educating citizens on political issues.

However, this function is less significant in recent years since parties are no longer mass membership organisations on the scale they were after the second world war. Voters’ loyalty towards, and identification with, parties has declined. Whereas 44 per cent of voters claimed to have a ‘very strong’ attachment to a party in 1964, this had fallen to a mere 10 per cent by 2005 through the process of partisan dealignment. The membership of the three traditional major parties in the UK has fallen – from over 3 million in the 1960s to around 384,000 in 2015, although Labour has risen since 2015.

Question 18

Outline the key roles of Political parties

Answer 18

Political parties in the UK have a number of key roles which ensure that the UK’s system of representative democracy can work in practice.

How people view parties- The general public tends to view politics in terms of the policies and general image of political parties. Individuals often identify with a party and see politics through the general philosophy of that party. Many people believe a particular party represents their interests better than any of the others. However, such close identification with a party has become less common in recent decades.
(increase in party dealignment in recent years)

Recruiting politicians- Parties recruit individuals into the political system and choose those individuals they believe to be most suitable to stand for public office. Parties also play a role in the promotion of politicians, with those who are seen as having the qualities most suitable for national leadership roles promoted to more senior positions within the party.
Prospective MPs have to apply in writing and sit interviews for selection. Some parties have all-women shortlists for some elections.

Creating policy- Political parties establish policies which they believe are in the interests of voters and meet their needs.
These policy proposals are presented to voters in the form of a party manifesto. In the 2017 elections, the Conservatives promised a balanced budget by 2025 and an orderly Brexit. Labour promised the end of austerity, tax increases, and the abolition of tuition fees for university.

Choice at elections- Political parties offer voters a clear choice at elections, ensuring that voters are able to support the party whose policies most appeal to them.

Formulating policy - Parties decide and develop policies (concrete proposals) that embody the ideas for which they stand. Policies change and are renewed as society changes and as new issues or problems arise. The core ideologies of the parties change much more slowly. At a general election they put these proposals before the electorate in a manifesto, a document setting out their programme for government. The policies proposed by parties are one of the key means through which societies set collective goals. In the process of seeking power, parties develop programmes of government (through party forums, annual conferences and, most importantly, in election manifestos). Not only does this mean that parties often initiate policy (come up with policy proposals), but they also formulate coherent sets of policy options that give the electorate a choice of realistic and achievable goals. However it can be argued that this function has changed in recent years.

Question 19

Outline the potential change in political views

Answer 19

The post ideological world? As politics has become less ideological, parties have become more managerial and pragmatic. For example the Labour Party has distanced itself from its traditional ideology by becoming less socialist- e.g removing clause 4 from its constitution. Parties generally have become less interested in formulating larger goals for society, and generally less interested in ideas.
In a related development, parties have become more eager to follow public opinion (for example, by responding to opinion polls and the views of focus groups) than in trying to shape it by adopting clear ideological stances
Elections therefore tend to be a choice between the party electors who think will manage market capitalism best.
While this might be generally true issues such as- austerity and alternatives to it or Brexit did involve parties in the formulation of genuine alternative policy choices.

Question 20

How parties are currently funded ?

Answer 20

MPs are paid from general taxation (The basic annual salary for an MP from 1 April 2019 is £79,468. ). They are also allowed to claim expenses to cover the cost of running an office, living in Westminster and their constituency, and travelling between the two. There is also a special state provision to support the activities of the opposition in Parliament, known as Short money. But parties must meet most of their election costs from the voluntary subscriptions of their membership and from fundraising events in MPs’ constituencies. In recent year all the major parties have struggled to fund these activities.

Question 21

If parties are essential to the function of our democracy why are they not publicly funder like any other essential service?

Answer 21

In the UK there has been resistance to state funding of parties (a practice that happens in some other countries). Party funding has also been a controversial area because of the suspicion that powerful interests offer financial support in return for political influence. While the Conservative Party has historically been seen as the party of big business, Labour has traditionally been funded by the trade unions, which played a major role in founding the party and shaping its policies. During the ‘New Labour’ years (1994-2010) this was to some extent replaced by donations from successful individuals as Labour became friendlier towards the business community. The financial resources of parties is also unequal. The Liberal Democrats (the least well-funded of the main UK parties) often criticise their opponents for being bankrolled by the wealthy. The large parties have been accused of offering political honours, such as places in the House of Lords, to their most generous benefactors, a practice that seems to run counter to principles of democracy and openness. Blair faced criticism within months of becoming prime minister in 1997 following the revelation that Bernie Ecclestone, the motor-racing boss, had donated million to Labour. It was alleged that there was a connection between this and a delay in implementing a ban on tobacco advertising in Formula One racing. Blair was forced to justify himself in a TV interview, in which he famously described himself as ‘a pretty straight sort of guy, and the money was subsequently returned.

Question 22

Outline the Cash for honours scandal

Answer 22

In March 2006, several men nominated for life peerages by then Prime Minister Tony Blair were rejected by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. It was later revealed they had loaned large amounts of money to the governing Labour Party, at the suggestion of Labour fundraiser Lord Levy. Suspicion was aroused by some that the peerages were a quid pro quo for the loans. This resulted in three complaints to the Metropolitan Police , Blair was interviewed by the police and two of his aides also faced questioning. Although no charges were brought, the affair cast a shadow over Blair’s last months in office. It was later decided that loans would be subject to the same rules as donations, and spending limits for parties were revised in the run-up to the 2010 election.

Question 23

Briefly outline the problems of funding political parties

Answer 23

In providing parties with a reliable source of income, it may weaken their links to the larger society. These are brought about by the need to seek financial support as well as electoral support.

It may create a bias in favour of existing parties if (as is usual) the level of state funding reflects past party performance. It may reduce the independence of parties, making them, in effect, part of the state machine and less likely to advance policies that run counter to the interests of important state bodies.

Question 24

Outline the advantages of public fundings of parties

Answer 24

It would reduce parties’ dependence on vested interests and allow them to be more responsive to the views of party members and voters. This would make parties more democratically responsive. It would create a more level playing field for the parties, removing the unfair advantages that some parties derive from the simple fact that they have wealthy backers. It would improve the performance of parties generally, allowing them to carry out their roles more effectively; and to waste less time and energy on fundraising.

Question 25

Question: Evaluate whether state funding for political parties should be introduced in the UK

Answer 25

Introduction: Political parties require income to fund their activities. Most western democracies have state funding of political parties. In Britain, most political parties receive income in the form of donations (£7/8 for Labour and Conservatives) and membership subscriptions. There have been ongoing concerns with party funding in the UK. It could be argued to be unfair if one party is able to vastly outspend the other during an election campaign, for instance. The influence of wealthy individuals, and trade unions, on political parties has also been a matter of concern, hence the introduction of rules on spending. Similarly, it could be argued that parties should receive public funds to help them campaign as part of a healthy pluralist democracy, however, this raises questions of how much they should receive, and which parties should get such money. This essay will argue against state funding as it creates to many complications and the system has a chance of being abused

In terms of Corruption one can argue that state funding should be introduced as it would reduce the influence of wealthy donors. As political parties rely on donations and subscriptions means that wealthy individuals and generous benefactors can have huge influence on policy. This would intern reduce corruption as major donors have less influence on current polices and legislation being passed through. Such as major manufacturing country may want to object to laws and regulation passed through on cheaper labour. Labour in 2001, 80% of all funding came from trade unions. This aligned with labour ideas of helping the working class and being funded by the people they were trying to adhere too. An example of how party funding may have affected current polices is in 1997, Bernie Eccelestone’s £1 million donation may have prompted subsequent delay on ban of tobacco advertising in Formula 1 racing. This is a clear example of corruption as a reduction in tobacco advertising would of lead to an decrease in the amount of money made during the Formula 1 racing. This shows that wealthy individuals having an impact on policy making is highly undemocratic as well as demonstrating the negative effect income inequality has on less advantaged individuals. However one can argue that there has been legislation passed which has allowed for regulation of parties to prevent the effect of wealthy individuals or corporations on policy making. Subsequently, Blair passed the 2000 Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act this is because as wealthy individuals would seek other ways to influence. There is now a Limit of £30,000 per constituency and they have to declare all donations over £5000 to Electoral Commission. This demonstrates that their has been a legal attempt to make party funding more democratic and regulate funding to ensure parties were less reliant on individual bankers. Despite attempts to overcome the flaws of party funding, the ‘cash for peerages’ scandal in 2006 demonstrated that wealthy individuals did still have on impact and influence on political parties as there were many wealthy individuals who donated to Labour Party were nominated for honours, this shows that any reforms have failed and we still have a very undemocratic funding system with corruption of influence from the wealthy. Therefore state funding needs to be introduced for a fairer and more democratic

In terms of short money, one can argue that state party funding could provide more resources for those parties to be advertised to the general. Funds paid to opposition parties in order to help cover administrative costs and to help provide proper scrutiny of government to fulfil its role as opposition. For example. In the 2017 general election, the Scottish National Party won more seats (35) than the Liberal Democrats (12), but the latter’s national vote share was higher (7.4% to 3%) as they contested constituencies across the country. This meant the parties received similar shares of the Short Money allocation. Consequently, both parties received similar shares of the Short Money allocation. This example underscores the significance of fair allocation, promoting equitable representation and robust participation in the political process.

However, The distribution of state party funding, such as Short Money and Cranborne Money, is heavily biased towards larger parties, as it primarily depends on the number of seats won in previous elections. For instance, in the latest allocation, the Labour Party received £7.88 million (79% of the total), while the Scottish National Party received £809,000 (8%) and the Liberal Democrats £645,000 (6%). This stark contrast in funding distribution clearly favours larger parties over smaller ones. This unequal distribution of funds perpetuates the disadvantage faced by smaller and minor parties, as they receive significantly less financial support compared to their larger counterparts. For example, Labour received nearly 8 million pounds, while the Liberal Democrats received just over a million pounds. Such disparities underscore the challenges smaller parties encounter in competing on an equal footing with larger parties. Therefore, there is a pressing need for reforms in the allocation of state party funding to address these inequalities. By implementing fairer distribution mechanisms, governments can ensure that all parties, regardless of size or representation, have access to adequate resources to participate effectively in the political process. Overall, one can argue that while state party funding, such as Short Money, aims to provide resources for parties to fulfil their roles effectively, its current distribution heavily favours larger parties, perpetuating disadvantages for smaller and minor parties and therefore the UK does not does not need state funding due to it apparent consequnces.

Finally, State funding of political parties has the potential to level the playing field in elections, transforming them into contests between equals. Currently, a significant portion of funding for parties comes from subscriptions of their membership, giving larger parties an unfair advantage due to their larger membership bases. This reliance on membership subscriptions can perpetuate inequalities in funding, as larger parties naturally have more resources at their disposal.A recent case study illustrating the potential benefits of state funding can be found in the United Kingdom. In 2019, the UK government announced plans to increase public funding for political parties, aiming to reduce their reliance on wealthy donors and level the playing field between larger and smaller parties. This move was seen as a step towards creating a more equitable electoral system and promoting transparency in political financing. By providing state funding, the government aimed to ensure that parties could focus on engaging with voters and addressing key issues rather than constantly fundraising to sustain their campaigns. This example demonstrates how state funding can contribute to fairer and more democratic elections by reducing the influence of money in politics and creating a more level playing field for all parties. On the other hand, one can argue that
While state funding of political parties aims to promote fairness and equal opportunity, there are counterarguments to consider, particularly regarding the influence of smaller parties in the political landscape. Despite their limited resources, smaller parties can still wield significant influence and their rise cannot be ignored. One notable example is the success of the Scottish National Party (SNP) in recent years. Despite being a smaller party compared to the major UK-wide parties, the SNP’s dominance in Scotland has led to significant political implications, including the surge in support for Scottish independence and their influence in Westminster politics. This demonstrates that even parties with a smaller electoral base can have a substantial impact on national politics. Moreover, the period of the 2010-2017 coalition government in the UK showcased the influence of smaller parties. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government relied on the support of the smaller Liberal Democrat party to maintain its majority in parliament. Additionally, parties like the UK Independence Party (UKIP) have had clear political impact, particularly in driving the agenda on issues like Brexit. Furthermore, the electoral dominance of the SNP suggests that a party with a strong geographical base can be successful, even without substantial funding compared to national parties. The SNP’s ability to mobilize support in Scotland illustrates that factors beyond funding, such as grassroots activism and regional identity, can play a crucial role in electoral success. Overall, this means that this allows larger parties to have access to greater resources and thus larger chances of winning elections and larger influence, than smaller parties who have very little in comparison such as Labour Party reported a total of £29.4m in income from donations, legacies, fundraising, and membership and affiliation fees in the 2018 calendar year, the Conservative Party £26.1m and the Liberal Democrats £3.9m. Therefore one can argue that state funding in not needed as it causes an imbalance within the UK political system

In conclusion, one can argue that the Conservatives and Labour parties have much larger funding in comparison to smaller parties which remains a huge indicator that they have an unfair advantage. One does believe that the UK does require state funding however there needs to be further reforming to reduce loopholes and create a higher fairer playing fields.

Question 26

Do political parties help or hinder representative democracy?

Answer 26

Political parties play a major role in democratic processes around the world. Citizens generally agree, but they also display growing critical attitudes and behaviour towards them. In the UK, as well as elsewhere, party identification is dropping and parties hold ever fewer members.
‘Political parties are the core institution of democratic accountability because parties, not the individuals who support or comprise them, can offer competing visions of the public good,”

A representative form of democracy could not function without political parties. If there were no parties and representative assemblies such as Parliament had politicians who simply represented their own individual views, it would be very difficult to form a government since there would not be a united party with a common political ideology. Parties enable voters to judge a government or opposition as team rather than individuals- in this way they can form an opinion of their competence and credibility to govern. This is called valence politics: that is, when there is little ideological difference between the main parties, voters make a judgement based on the party they think is most likely to deliver a strong economy and good public services, and the leader they prefer.

Parties enable a government to be formed more quickly. Imagine the UK would not have any parties at all, and all of the 650 parliamentary seats would be given to individual representatives acting on behalf of their voters. The MPs would still need to conclude on a prime minister, a government and a policy programme to be implemented. Even if they found common ground on all three fronts, it would take them a very long time. Parties mean this process is expedited with pre-election grouping of representatives.

Political parties develop policies ( proposals for action) by internal discussion and debate in order to form political programmes generally described in manifestos (party platforms USA). Manifestos enable voters to consider a choice of policies (see rational choice voting ) By giving support to a party programme electors give the government, if it wins power, a mandate (permission) to carry out these policies. Political parties provide an easy to understand label for voters to know what policies and values to associate with a particular candidate.
Parties give governments a mandate for policies agreed before achieving power. This means governments can be held to account more effectively if they fail to act on these ‘promises’. Parties can develop policies to address national or global issues. Imagine if the UK had 650 individual MPs with no parties that group them, without any overarching entity in place such as a party, it would be rational for MPs to only pursue small, easily recognisable projects. This would ensure visibility to those who voted for them, and it would increase the chance of re-election. They would not follow a bigger plan on what is beneficial for the country in the long run. For example weaker party discipline in the USA has led to parochialism See parochialism USA

The selection of candidates by parties prepares candidates who have the qualities to stand for public office.-Strong control by central leaderships can be an effective way to increase diversity. Controlling and imposing candidate lists as the Conservatives did through the ‘A-List’ or mandating the selection of candidates with particular characteristics, as Labour has done through all-women-shortlists delivered results in terms of a more representative pool of candidates. This is not the case in counties which hold primaries such as the USA where, wealthy individuals with populist agendas (Trump) might find it easier to get elected.

Question 27

Outline the Conservative Party as an Established Political Party

Answer 27

A brief history of the Conservative Party
The Conservative Party is the world’s oldest political party having its origins in the 17th Century. The modern party can be seen to have begun in either the 1830s under the leadership of Robert Peel. Since then the party has gradually developed a more formal structure and membership or in the 1860s under the leadership of Benjamin Disraeli and the advent of mass party politics and ‘One Nation Conservatism’. For most of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth, the Conservative Party was largely engaged in resisting the reforms proposed by the Whigs and later the Liberals. In other words, it stood for tradition and stability (conservatism). For most of the twentieth century the party also fought against the growing force of socialism. In this conflict it transformed again as a strong supporter of free-market capitalism and individualism. In 1975 Margaret Thatcher became leader of the party. Between then and her downfall in 1990, Thatcher transformed the party, modelling it on her own political philosophy known as ‘Thatcherism’, ‘neoliberalism’ and ‘neoconservatism’.

Question 28

Outline the One nation within Conservatism

Answer 28

One-nation conservatism- A development from traditional Conservatism was one-nation conservatism, originally associated with one of the party’s most colourful leaders. The ‘one-nation’ philosophy sought to bridge the gulf between the classes through a paternalistic social policy. The ‘natural leaders’ of society would accept an obligation to act benevolently towards the disadvantaged, in return for acceptance of their right to rule. One-nation conservatism peaked in the generation after the Second World War, when the party broadly accepted the changes introduced by the Labour administration of 1945-51: the mixed economy, a welfare state and government action to maintain a high level of employment. They prided themselves on a pragmatic, non-ideological approach, maintaining the party contest between themselves and the Labour Party, while undoing few of their opponents’ policies when they held office. Post-war Conservatism balanced an attachment to free enterprise with state intervention in economic and social policy.

Question 29

Compare Traditional Conservatism and the New Right

Answer 29

Traditional conservatives see society as organic, whereas the New Right sees society as no more than collection of individuals. Margaret Thatcher famously stated, ‘there is no such thing as society’. Traditional conservatives support free markets but take a pragmatic view of economic management, believing that there are times when state intervention is needed. The New Right is ideologically opposed to state intervention. Traditional conservatives have favoured a mixed economy, with some key industries remaining under state control. The New Right has been determined to virtually eliminate state control of industry and commerce. Traditional conservatives are more supportive of the welfare state than the New Right. While traditional conservatives take a pragmatic view of policies generally, judging each case on its merits, the New Right is more ideological and tends to govern on the basis of its fixed ideas

Question 30

Outline Post Thatcherite Conservative party?

Answer 30

John Major, Prime Minister from 1990-97, followed the same policies of Thatcherism, but with a less confrontational image. His party was increasingly divided over Europe, with hard-line Eurosceptics wanting stronger resistance to the European Union and a smaller pro-European group seeking to keep British influence over a rapidly integrating continent. This division, along with scandals and a growing sense of exhaustion, contributed to a devastating general election defeat in May 1997.

The next three leaders of the party failed to unseat Tony Blair, who held the centre ground of British politics to win two more electoral victories for Labour in 2001 and 2005. William Hague, lain Duncan Smith, and Michael Howard failed to distance themselves sufficiently from Thatcherism, and the party failed to appeal to an increasingly diverse society. David Cameron learned from Blair’s reinventing the Labour Party to win support beyond its traditional core vote, identifying himself as a ‘liberal Conservative’, tolerant of minority groups and different lifestyles. He maintained that they stood on the side of ordinary people, arguing for cooperation between the state and the voluntary sector in building the ‘Big Society’.

Cameron’s moderate tone helped him form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats when he failed to win an outright majority in the May 2010 general election. Theresa May continued the ‘One Nation’ theme by declaring her desire to stand up for the JAMs (Just About Managing), working families who struggle to make ends meet. Boris Johnson also declared himself a ‘One Nation’ Conservative, outlined plans to end austerity policies and embark on a British New Deal of infrastructure spending.

Question 31

Outline the Economic policy in Conservatism

Answer 31

Economic policy - Cameron’s priority was to reduce the budget deficit inherited from the previous Labour government. In traditional Conservative fashion Cameron and his Chancellor, George Osborne, accused their predecessors of irresponsible over-spending, which they blamed for the financial crisis of 2008. Their response in office was to insist on a programme of public spending cuts, dubbed ‘austerity’. However, May and Johnson both indicted an end to austerity and greater public spending. The Corona Virus forced the Conservatives to adopt a big spending and borrowing programme.

Question 32

Outline Thatcherism and the New Right in Conservatism

Answer 32

Thatcherism and the New Right- Thatcherism and Reaganomics were radical departures from the One Nation Conservatives, which sought to reduce state intervention in the economy and restore order in society. Margaret Thatcher’s New Right ideology, known as Thatcherism, was heavily influenced by Friedrich Hayek’s work and was committed to economic liberalism and social conservatism. Key policies included deregulation of business, dismantling of the welfare state, privatization of state-owned industries, and restructuring of the national workforce to increase industrial and economic flexibility in an increasingly global market. This radical policy agenda rejected the instinct of One Nation Conservatives to seek compromise. The term New Right refers to a strand of conservatism influenced by Thatcher and Reagan. Thatcherism comprised the following key themes: Control of public spending, combined with tax cuts to provide incentives for business leaders and to stimulate economic growth; Privatisation of industries and services taken into state ownership, to promote improvement and wider consumer choice through competition; Legal limits on the power of trade unions, to deter industrial action; A tough approach to law and order, with increased police and judicial powers; Assertion of British interests abroad, in relation to the challenges posed by the Soviet Union and other external threats and A desire to protect national sovereignty against the growth of the European Community (European Union).

Question 33

Outline the elements within Thatcherism

Answer 33

The two elements within Thatcherism are:
Neoliberalism (sometimes called ‘economic Thatcherism’). This is an updated version of classical liberalism. Its central pillars are the free market and the self-reliant individual and Neoconservatism (sometimes called ‘social Thatcherism’). This is a form of authoritarian conservatism that calls for a restoration of order, authority and discipline in society.

Question 34

Outline the Welfare Policy in Conservatism

Answer 34

Welfare policy - The coalition’s policies were intended to cut costs and encourage those receiving benefits to be more self-reliant. Osborne distinguished between hard-working ‘strivers’ and undeserving ‘shirkers’, whom the government sought to penalise. The ‘universal credit’ system, which merges a number of in-work benefits in one payment, is intended to simplify the welfare system and encourage low-income people to take up employment. The coalition also implemented a radical overhaul of the NHS, allowing the private sector to compete with state hospitals. Johnson has stated he is in favour of investing in the NHS although there are suggestions that Brexit will mean US health companies competing for NHS contracts. The Corona virus has led to calls for a rethink of NHS spending

In opposition Cameron seemed to take a more liberal attitude towards law and order, calling for more understanding of young offenders in a speech dubbed ‘hug a hoodie’ by the media. Boris Johnosn indicated a return to traditional Conservative approaches to law and order by a tough stance with announcements on extending jail terms, building new prisons and increasing police stop-and-search powers. Johnson said punishments “must truly fit the crime”. The new policies, following on from a plan for 20,000 extra police officers, were unveiled in a series of supportive newspapers, with accompanying opinion pieces from Johnson and Priti Patel, the home secretary.

Question 35

Outline the Foreign policy in Conservatism

Answer 35

Foreign policy - Cameron’s foreign policy was consistent with Thatcherism in most important respects, featuring strong links with the USA, support for airstrikes against Islamic terror groups in Syria and Iraq, and a pragmatic Euroscepticism. Foreign policy under May and Johnson has been dominated by Brexit and negotiation with the EU. Relations with the USA were strained by Trump’s insistence on a ban on Huawei -but China’s repressive policies in Hong Kong and towards Uighur Muslims has realigned the UK and USA over Huawei

Question 36

What is ‘Old Labour’ ?

Answer 36

After the mid-1990s, the basic principles of the ‘traditional’ Labour Party became known as ‘Old Labour’, because so-called ‘New Labour’ had come into existence.
The central ideas were collectivism and socialism which were to be realise through a welfare state, public ownership of major parts of the economy, progressive taxation, and management of the economy-particularly through the principles of Keynesianism

Question 37

Outline Nationalisation, the creation of the NHS and Welfare State

Answer 37

In the 1945 general election, Labour won a significant majority with 159 seats, despite being less radical than Churchill’s Conservatives. Clement Attlee’s government implemented Keynesian economic policies, nationalizing major industries and utilities, and implementing the “cradle to grave” welfare state. The 1948 creation of Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) under health minister Aneurin Bevan, providing publicly funded medical treatment for all, is seen as Labour’s proudest achievement.

Question 38

Outline the transition of From ‘Old’ to ‘New Labour’

Answer 38

The Labour Party shifted from its hard left stance in the early 1980s to a more pro-European approach, recognizing that policies catering solely to the traditional working class were not enough to win a general election. This process took two defeats in 1987 and 1992, and the leadership of Neil Kinnock and John Smith. Tony Blair was elected as the new leader, and the party dropped unpopular policy proposals, revising its constitution in 1995 to avoid nationalisation. The party became more pro-European, adopting policies that protected workers’ rights. The party was rebranded as ‘New Labour’, aiming to find a ‘third way’ between socialism and free-market capitalism. Blair won a landslide victory in May 1997, and was re-elected twice before being succeeded by Gordon Brown in June 2007.

Question 39

Outline the transition New Labour: a departure from socialism?

Answer 39

The term ‘New Labour’ refers to the rebranding of the party’s image and a change in the philosophy and policies. As a reaction to four consecutive election defeats the Labour party broke with ‘Old’ Labour ideas, as shown in the removal of clause 4 from the party constitution. The party was transformed beginning under the leadership of Neil Kinnock then John Smith (1992-94) and finally Tony Blair (1994-2007). The party adopted the so-called ‘post-. Thatcher consensus’ New Labour also followed a set of ideas known as the ‘third way’, an idea developed by sociologist Anthony Giddens in the early 1990s. The third way refers to a centre path steered between the old Labour tradition, which was partly socialist in essence, and the New Right policies of the Conservative Party in the 1980s.

Question 40

Key distinctions and similarities between traditional (`Old) and ‘New’ Labour

Answer 40

New Labour stresses individualism, whereas Old Labour stresses collectivism. Old Labour sought to modify and regulate capitalism, creating a mixed economy of both public and private sector. New Labour accepts free-market capitalism and encourages it.
Old Labour saw the state as a key means by which society can be improved. New Labour sees the role of the state as merely enabling individuals to prosper.
Old Labour saw society in terms of class conflict, whereas New Labour thinks class is insignificant and that individual interests are more important than class interests.
Old Labour sought to promote economic and social equality, whereas New Labour sees inequality as natural and something that can be tolerated as long as there is equality of opportunity and opportunities are enhanced.

The main similarities are summarised below. Both Old and New Labour believe:
in fundamental social justice — that excessive inequality in society is unacceptable
that the welfare state is a key element in creating and maintaining social justice
that there should be widespread equality of opportunity
that there should be equal rights and no artificial discrimination against any sections of society
that, in a capitalist society, private enterprises need to be regulated to ensure they do not act against the public interest.

The creation of New Labour aroused intense controversy. Many traditional socialists rejected these modernising efforts as a betrayal of their heritage. They felt that Blair was too much at home with business leaders and too enthusiastic for the values of the market. His building of close links with the US government, culminating in the 2003 Iraq War, further damaged his credentials as a progressive figure. On the other hand, Blair’s supporters argued that New Labour was a necessary adaptation to a changing society and that, in the words of Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, it embodied ‘traditional values in a modern setting’.

Question 41

What were the key features of New Labour in power?

Answer 41

The New Labour governments in the UK focused on wealth creation rather than redistribution, aiming to reduce poverty but not eliminating inequality. They introduced a national minimum wage, but at a less generous level than trade unions wanted. Blair believed that rights should be balanced against responsibilities, influenced by communitarianism. The prison population rose to over 76,000 in 2005, and the government aimed to emphasize counter-terrorism measures. In 2002, the government introduced Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, stating that a Labour government must be ‘tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime’.

New Labour maintained conservative spending plans in their first two years, with Gordon Brown earning the reputation as an “Iron Chancellor” with his “Golden Rule” and conservative budget handling. They accepted the economic efficiency of markets and believed they could be detached from capitalism to achieve socialism while maintaining the efficiency of capitalism. They enlisted the public sector to deliver public services, such as Private Finance Initiative contracts for schools and hospitals.

The Liberal ideology influenced Labour thinking, leading to devolution and the passage of the Human Rights Act. However, New Labour governments were willing to curb civil liberties in their campaign against crime and terrorism, such as extending detention time, widening police powers, and proposing the introduction of identity cards.

Question 42

Why did Jeremy Corbyn arouse such enthusiasm in the Labour Party?

Answer 42

n the Corbyn era, Labour’s policies included a National Investment Bank, renationalisation of railways, and a strong opposition to austerity. Corbyn opposed benefit cuts and viewed the poor as victims of capitalism, aiming to boost spending on social care and scrap hospital parking charges. He opposed hard-line policies of the New Labour era, such as increased powers to combat terrorism and the introduction of identity cards. Corbyn also renationalized industries like railways, the Royal Mail, water, and energy. He established an NHS-style service for education, aiming to increase spending on education and early years by over £25 billion. He also banned zero-hours contracts and unpaid internships, and raised the minimum wage to £10 an hour by 2020. Corbyn voted against the use of force and supported the withdrawal of the UK from NATO’s military structure and the abolition of the Trident nuclear weapons system. He supported continued British membership in the EU, emphasizing its role in protecting workers’ rights. However, he campaigned in a lukewarm manner in the 2016 referendum. Keir Starmer replaced Jeremy Corbyn as leader, indicating a move away from Corbyn’s policies, focusing on pragmatism and realism, potentially moving away from left-wing socialism.

Question 43

Outline Labour role in giving in Delivering a distinctive agenda

Answer 43

In early 2020, Keir Starmer’s leadership campaign focused on ‘Ten Pledges’, which included increasing tax on the top 5% of earners, abolishing Universal Credit, and commitments to public service ownership, devolved power, climate change, human rights, and migrants’ rights. In September 2021, Starmer published an 11,500-word essay on his vision for a UK that is ‘crying out for change’. The essay targeted critics accusing him of lacking vision and direction, focusing on putting families first through better security and opportunity through sustained investment in skills and stable jobs. In the first two years of Starmer’s leadership, there were more traditionally socialist strands, such as higher taxes on the wealthy and businesses, a recommitment to nationalisation, and significant public investment in education and healthcare. However, there were also notable links to New Labour’s agenda such as constitutional reform, enhanced rights, and devolution. At the Future of Britain conference, Starmer said Labour had had to make “really ruthless” decisions, including ruling out other unfunded spending commitments. He reversed the commitment to scrap the two-child benefit cap and warned his party that there would have to be more tough choices if Labour was to win the next election. The party agreed to ban four groups, leading to the automatic expulsion of members on the party’s left. The groups are Socialist Appeal, Labour Against the Witchhunt, Labour in Exile Network, and Resist. Shifts in influence among Labour factions were difficult to gain traction during the early 2020s due to the health crisis and the low point for Labour in the 2019 general election. Starmer delivered an effective 2021 Conference speech and was praised for tackling anti-Semitism within the party.

Question 44

Outline Examples of key policies in Labour Party

Answer 44

LABOUR: Announced in 2024 plans to renationalise the railways after 5 years

Economy: Putting economic stability first by introducing a new fiscal lock to bring economic security back to our national and family finances.

Welfare : Get NHS back on their feet by ending wait times, new technology and early diagnosis ,better public health, mental health and more importance for 8,500 staff

Law and Order : increase in policy , half the violence against women , tougher sentence

Question 45

Outline the transition from Liberals to Liberal Democrats

Answer 45

In 1981, an electoral alliance was established between the Liberal Party, a group which was the direct descendant of the 18th-century Whigs, and the Social Democratic Party (SDP), a splinter group from the Labour Party. In 1988, the parties merged as the Social and Liberal Democrats, adopting their present name over a year later. Under the leadership of Paddy Ashdown and later Charles Kennedy, the party grew during the 1990s and 2000s, focusing its campaigns on specific seats and becoming the third-largest party in the House of Commons. Under the leadership of Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats were junior partners in David Cameron’s Conservative-led coalition government in which Clegg served as Deputy Prime Minister. Although it allowed them to implement some of their policies, the coalition damaged the Lib Dems’ electoral prospects and it suffered heavy losses at the 2015 general election which relegated them to fourth-largest party in the House of Commons. Following this, under the leaderships of Tim Farron, Vince Cable and Jo Swinson, it refocused itself as a party opposing Brexit. However, since 2015 the party has failed to recapture its pre-coalition successes under Ashdown and Kennedy, and a poor performance in the 2019 general election saw leader Swinson lose her seat. Ed Davey won the Leadership election and became Leader on 27 August 2020 at the 2020 Liberal Democrats leadership election.

Question 46

Outline the Liberal Democrats experience of coalition government

Answer 46

In the period of New Labour government, especially under the leadership of Charles Kennedy, they were essentially a centre-left party rather than aiming to be equidistant between the two larger parties. They were opposed to the Iraq War, identity cards and student tuition fees, and in favour of a 50 per cent income tax rate on those earning more than £100,000. Kennedy exemplified the priorities of the Social Liberals: those who were influenced by the tradition of generous welfare provision, which could be traced back to the wartime Beveridge Report.

Nick Clegg, one of the authors of the Orange Book, which supported free market solutions to problems, and emphasised the party’s traditional commitment to the freedom of the individual, became party leader in 2007. His approach was to position the party so that it could conceivably work with either one of the two larger parties in coalition. In May 2010 after the general election the Lib Dems formed a coalition with the Conservatives the first time since 1945.

Clegg argued that the Liberal Democrats could be a moderating force on the policies of their coalition partner. Clegg was persuaded that because of the gravity of the financial crisis the party needed to demonstrate its credentials as a responsible party of government. But this meant going along with the programme of cuts and the policies of austerity. The speed with which they dropped their signature pledge to scrap tuition fees to support the tripling of fees in 2012 made them look opportunistic and devoid of principle. They failed to use the substantial power they wielded by dint of the fact Cameron relied on their votes in parliament in order to extract significant concessions on toxic policies such as the bedroom tax and the hostile environment. Instead, as part of the unlikely “quad” alliance alongside Cameron and George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander exuded an air of chummy coexistence with the architects of austerity, rather than leaders of a party fundamentally at odds with the regressive Conservative agenda, pushing for change at every opportunity. The ensuing disillusionment of party activists contributed to the Liberal Democrats’ heavy losses in the 2015 general election, which saw them reduced to a rump of eight seats.

Question 47

What do the Liberal Democrats stand for in terms of policies?

Answer 47

Economic policy- Liberal Democrat policy has generally been favourable to social welfare spending. During the 2000s, the party made pledges for major investment into health, education, and public services. In 1995, the party announced a plan to put £2 billion into education, including nursery places for under fives, while its 2005 manifesto included a commitment to use £1.5 billion to decrease class sizes in schools But this was seen as at odds with thier support for austerity and in 2015 general election the Liberal Democrats continued their commitment to eliminating the budget deficit, the most important policy underpinning their coalition with the Conservatives. However, it must be done in a way that was fair to the poor. ‘austerity lite’In government they introduced a policy, to which the Conservatives signed up, of progressively raising the basic income-tax threshold so that more low-income people were relieved of paying tax. They promised to ‘borrow less than Labour, cut less than the Tories’. They stressed their environmental credentials more than their rivals, with a commitment to renewable energy and the expansion of the Green Investment Bank they had helped to establish, to attract funding for projects such as offshore wind farms.
Welfare policy In coalition the Liberal Democrats shared the Conservative objective of controlling spending on benefits, while uprating pensions and extending free childcare to enable parents to return to work. They differentiated themselves by pledging to curb benefits paid to better-off pensioners, in order to afford more support for the low-paid. On the NHS, just like the Conservatives and Labour, they pledged increased funding from 2015.

Law and order - The Liberal Democrats aim to see that civil liberties are not eroded as a consequence of giving the authorities more powers to fight crime. In coalition they opposed the Conservatives’ plans for the so-called ‘Snoopers’ Charter’, the Communications Data Bill, the purpose of which was to allow the monitoring of Internet use. In their emphasis on the rehabilitation of prisoners, and the use of community service as an alternative to short-term prison sentences, they are close to the position taken by moderate Conservatives and Labour. In March 2016, the Liberal Democrats became the first major political party in the UK to support the legalisation of cannabis. The party supports cannabis sale and possession to be legal for all UK adults aged 18-years-old and over, the set up of specialist licensed stores to sell cannabis, the legalisation of home cultivation of cannabis for personal use, small scale cannabis clubs to be licensed, and a new regulator to oversee the market.

Foreign policy - The Liberal Democrats supported the war in Afghanistan in 2001. The party was the only of Britain’s three major parties to oppose the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The party’s leadership stressed that this was not because the party was intrinsically anti-war, but because the invasion did not have support from the United Nations In the wake of the invasion, the party’s 2005 manifesto included a pledge that the UK would never again support a military occupation deemed illegal under international law.

The Liberal Democrats have consistently been the most enthusiastic of all the UK parties for British membership of the EU. Perhaps the party’s most distinctive policy position in opposition was its reluctance to accept the result of the Brexit referendum. This contrasted with the views of both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn who.

Question 48

SNP

Answer 48

The leader of the Scottish National Party is the highest position within Scotland’s Scottish National Party (SNP). The incumbent is John Swinney, who was elected unopposed in the 2024 leadership election on 6 May 2024, succeeding Humza Yousaf as party leader. Scotland has had a devolved government since 1999. When the SNP is Scotland’s major governing party, as it currently is, its leader has also been the First Minister of Scotland.

The party ideology aligns with mainstream European social democratic traditions, commitments to same-sex marriage, unilateral nuclear disarmament, progressive personal taxation, reducing the voting age to sixteen and investment in renewable energy.
Current SNP policies include:
Hold a second independence referendum once the terms of Brexit are known
Invest £118bn in UK public services
Scotland to have control over immigration and to remain in the EU single market after Brexit
Additional NHS spending across the UK that would, by 2021/22, increase the NHS Scotland budget by up to an extra £1bn
Increase the minimum wage to over £10 per hour by the end of the parliament
Lift the freeze on benefits and abolish the two-child cap and the so-called Rape Clause
Protect the triple lock on pensions, protect the winter fuel allowance and support fair pensions for women
No increase in taxation on the low paid, in National Insurance or in VAT.
Support a UK-wide increase in the higher rate of taxation from 45p to 50p.

Support for the SNP has been significant, as it has taken away large areas of Labour support, making it much more difficult for Labour to win an overall majority at a UK election. The continuing electoral support for the party, combined with the fact that a majority of Scotland voted to remain in the EU, may make it difficult to resist pressure in the future to hold a second independence referendum.

Question 48

Why do emerging & minor parties have varying success at local

Answer 48

These parties have achieved varying successes at local, devolved and national level in recent years. This has been due to:

The movement of Labour and the Conservatives towards the centre-ground, in an attempt to win over ‘swing’ voters, has left the left and right wings respectively of these parties feeling less represented, meaning smaller parties have been able to appeal to them

Emerging parties are often populist, directly appealing to the people and presenting themselves as ‘outsiders’, away from the ‘Westminster political elite’. This has proved popular amongst many voters.

Support for the Lib Dems has declined significantly since 2010. They were often seen as the obvious choice for those not wishing to vote for either of the two main parties, however being part of government changed their statues as the ‘protest’ party. Voters therefore wished to look for alternatives to them.

Question 49

Green Party

Answer 49

Formed in 1990 after the former Green Party split into three parties (along with the Scottish Green Party and Green Party in Northern Ireland), the Green Party of England and Wales is co-led by Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley.
Although the Green Party has often been seen as a ‘single issue’ environmentalist party, it supports communitarian economic policies and proportional representation, taking a progressive approach to social policies that include drug policy reform, animal rights, LGBT rights etc.
Originally formed as the People Party in 1972, the party changed name to The Ecology Party in 1975, settling on the Green Party in 1985. Their first leadership election process was in September 2008 when Caroline Lucas became their leader until 2012, when Natalie Bennett became leader. Bennett stepped down in 2016. At the 2010 general election Lucas retained her seat as MP for Brighton Pavilion, giving the party one MP in the Houses of Parliament, one member of the House of Lords, three MEPs in the European Parliament and two members of the London Assembly. In 2015, despite gaining over 1 million votes, Lucas was the only Green candidate to win a seat.

Current Green Party Policy includes:
Hold a referendum on the terms of the Brexit deal, with the option of staying in the EU. Pass an Environment Protection Act to safeguard and restore the environment. Provide more money for public services. Move towards a four-day working week and “universal basic income”. Scrap tuition fees and fund full student grants

Question 50

A one-party-dominant system

Answer 50

A number of parties, but only one has a realistic prospect of holding power.

Question 51

A two-party system

Answer 51

Two parties compete for power at elections; other parties have no real chance of breaking their monopoly.

Question 52

A multi-party system-

Answer 52

a number of parties contend to form a government; coalitions become the norm.

Question 53

Outline the Development of a multi-party system and its implications for government

Answer 53

The relationships approach can be divided in to cooperative and competitive models.
In competitive party systems the relationships are adversarial with single parties winning and holding power, while parties out of power perform the role of an opposition. In this system the style of politics is antagonistic and conflictual. There is little chance of minor parties achieving or sharing in power and coalitions are rare. The dominant parties have high levels of party identification from their core supporters but compete for the ‘middle ground’ by offering a consensus approach to policies.. This system is very descriptive of UK politics in the period from 1945 to 1974 when the Labour party and Conservative party shared 90% of the popular vote. In Cooperative party systems, parties in the legislature (Parliament) agree cooperative arrangements for example the Lib/Lab Pact 1978-9 and the DUP/ Conservative Confidence and Supply agreement after 2017. There may also be Coalitions where parties share power for example 2010-15, In this system there may also be election pacts where parties agree not to compete with each other in elections for example the SDP- Liberal Alliance in the 1983 and 1987 Elections. In this system party support is more volatile with a higher degree of partisan dealignment. Parties will also tend to be more ideologically narrow with their policies directed to securing support form their core supporters. In this sense the system is more adversary than adversarial.

Question 54

Outline the current party system in the Uk politics

Answer 54

Traditionally the UK is seen to have a two party system but this is only describes the politics of Westminster. Taken as a whole the UK has a range of party systems and a party system which has evolved. The era of the two-party dominance was the period 1945-74, when Labour and the Conservatives won, on average, a combined 91 per cent of the votes and almost 98 per cent of the seats at Westminster. This began to change in the mid 1970s and in particular the elections of 1974. Although the Conservatives won large majorities from 1979 to 1997 and Labour from 1997 to 2010 there was a staedy revival in the electoral success of the Liberal Democrats and the emergence of minor parties particularly in the regions of the UK. The share of the popular vote of the two main parties’ combined average fell to 73 per cent between 1974 and 2017.

However the two-party system persisted, largely as a result of the distorting effect of the first-past-the-post voting system, which limits smaller parties’ ability to win seats. The two largest parties continued to share an average of 91 per cent of the seats, and they continued to monopolise government without the participation of the UK’s third party. The period of coalition government (2010-15) could be described as a two-and-a-half-party system. The Liberal Democrats secured 23 per cent of the vote in 2010 and enough seats to play a part in government, though only as the partner of a larger party in a coalition. Almost 35 per cent of voters supported parties other than the Conservatives and Labour in this election.

However, this proved a short-lived development. The 2015 general election appeared to herald a return to ‘business as usual’ at Westminster. The Liberal Democrats were devastated at the polls, losing all but eight of their seats. The most startling aspect of the 2015 contest was the landslide victory of the SNP in Scotland, where they took all but three of the 59 seats. However, the SNP is a regional party, which is not a contender for power at Westminster, even if it is able to influence the outcome of some votes in the House of Commons.

Question 55

The devolved bodies: a variety of multi-party systems

Answer 55

The use of the Additional Member System (AMS) for elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly has produced very different outcomes from the trends observed at Westminster. A partly proportional system, it tends to increase the representation of smaller parties. Although the SNP has been in power in Scotland for almost a decade now, it formed a minority government from 2007 to 2011 and once again after the May 2016 election. Before 2007 Scotland was governed for eight years by a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition. Similarly in Wales there have been periods of minority Labour government, a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition and a Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition.

In Northern Ireland a fully proportional system, Single Transferable Vote (STV), is used to elect the assembly. Until January 2017, when the power-sharing executive collapsed owing to internal disagreement, the first minister and four other members were drawn from the largest party, the
Democratic Unionist Party; the deputy first minister and three others were from the second-largest party, Sinn Fein; and one post was held by an independent. From 2011-16 three smaller parties supplied some members of the executive. It would thus be fair to describe the regions of the UK as having multi-party systems.

On way to understand different party systems is the using the effective number of parties concept introduced by Laakso and Taagepera (1979) which provides for an adjusted number of political parties in a country’s party system. The idea behind this measure is to count parties and, at the same time, to weight the count by their relative strength. The relative strength refers to their vote share effective number of electoral parties (ENEP) or seat share in the parliament effective number of parliamentary parties (ENPP).

Question 56

Various factors that affect party success

Answer 56

The strength of a party’s leadership
In an ‘age of dealignment’, parties place increasing faith in leaders and leadership to win elections. However, what makes for an effective leader in electoral terms? Successful leaders have to demonstrate a number of qualities:
Accessibility. Leaders must be telegenic and demonstrate a relaxed ‘likeability’.
Trust.Voters need to believe that what their leaders say is true.
Strength. Leaders have to demonstrate that they can ‘run the show’. Tony Blair was widely believed to have been a considerable electoral asset for Labour in 1997 and 2001. By 2005, however, his personal appeal had diminished significantly. However, Blair had not become an electoral liability, as neither of his main rivals (Michael Howard for the Conservatives and Charles Kennedy for the Liberal Democrats) were able to establish a lead over him, particularly on the issue of competence. In fact, Blair enjoyed a healthy 15 per cent lead over other party leaders when respondents were asked to choose who would make the best prime minister.

The importance of leaders was, potentially, greatly enhanced in 2010 by the introduction of US-style televised debates between the candidates of the three leading parties. Although the first debate appeared to transform the fortunes of Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, ultimately there was only modest evidence that the televised debates shifted anyone’s opinion, even though they may have had a marginal impact on turnout. Of almost certainly greater significance, in terms of explaining the outcome in 2010, was the poor personal standing of Gordon Brown, who consistently lagged badly behind Cameron in opinion polls. An advantage that the Conservatives enjoyed in the run up to the 2015 election was the clear and consistent opinion poll lead that Cameron maintained over Ed Miliband, who many voters struggled to see as a credible prime minister. 2017 Theresa May’s presidential style and her lack of charisma harmed her campaign while in 2019 Boris Johnson projected an energetic image with a clear message ‘get Brexit done’.

Question 57

Campaigning as a factor of Uk politics

Answer 57

In the run up to the 2015 general election, the Conservatives amassed a war chest of £78 million, dwarfing the spending power of Labour, and exceeding all the other parties combined. A change to the law on candidates’ election spending which allowed spending levels to rise by 23 per cent, enabled the Conservatives to deploy this war chest during the campaign itself. However, the net impact of national campaigning (via party-political broadcasts, leafleting, newspaper advertising, media interviews, rallies and the like) may be less significant than, for example, getting the backing of major newspapers (especially the Murdoch group). Not uncommonly, party strength on polling day is often little different from what it was at the start of the election campaign. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that local campaigning can make a difference.This has led to a growing tendency for parties to ‘target’ key seats as a means of artificially concentrating their support where it will have the greatest impact.

Question 58

Evaluate whether the Uk is a two-party or multi-party democracy (30 marks)

Answer 58

It is often argued that the uk is traditionally a two-party system with Conservatives and Labour being in power since the war-time coalitions and the Liberal Party government of 1906. A two party system is defined as a political system in which the electorate gives its voters largely to only two major parties and in which one or the other party can win a majority in the legislature.In this country people vote for the party which represented their social class and uk has been edging towards a multi-party system in the past years. With the increase in proportional representation smaller parties make up 33% of the vote. For the Westminster general election we are moving more from a two-party system towards a more pluralistic system where more than two parties can hope to gain power, at least as a partner in a coalition This essay will analyse this question via the following themes- Votes vs seats, Govt formation and party membership. This essay will ultimately argue that the UK is a two party system as the Uk uses First Past The Post which makes it harder for minority parties to win most seats.

One may argue that the votes vs seats theme suggests a multi party system. An example of that was in the 2010 general election First Past The Post was implemented when the Lib Dems were able to get 23% of the vote. David Cameron saw this as an opportunity and created a coalition between himself and Nick Clegg, this is how the Conservative-Liberal Democratic Coalition government came to power. This was also seen in 2015 when UKIP got 13% of the vote nationally which was about 3.8 million votes. A coalition suggests a multi-party system between majority and minority parties. On the other hand the source suggests that although the minority parties were collecting the votes they were not winning enough seats making them miss out on the opportunity to win. Lib Dems were often placed 2nd in many districts across the country, which means they collect votes but do not win any seats this is why Lib-dems have 23% of the votes but only got 57 of the seats.This is also seen as the vast majority of the seats in the last four elections have either gone to the Conserative Party or the Labour Party. This was also seen in our local voting with Maidenhead and the Conservative Party. Maidenhead has always been a conserative seat because a consituatity was formed.This makes it hard for minority parties to work which forces a two party system. This evidence shows that raw votes suggests a multi party system but the way in seats suggests a two party system because of First Past The Post

When it comes to Govt Formation, it appears that the Uk is more of a two- party system than a Multi-party system. Due to First Past The Post in 2015 and 2019 it is clear that the Uk runs on a two party system as both times the Conserative Party has won a majority of votes. Although the question asks one to evaluate the Uk runs on a two party or multi-party system one may argue that the Uk might even run on a Dominant party system as the labour party has not been able to affect the Conserative Party from winning since 2010. On the other hand the Uk is a multi-party system due to the influence of minority parties onto majority parties. This was seen in 2010 with the coalition between David Cameron and Nick Clegg for a Lib dem and conserative coalition. The coalition suggests a multi-party system. Although the polls at the beginning of the 2017 election campaign pointed towards an overwhelming Conservative victory. In the source it is seen that after the general election results of 2017 the government confirmed and more so was forced to have a confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP to secure a working majority. This suggests that a third party and in this case 5th or 6th party has a disproportionate amount of power and shows that we are a multi-party system. On balance the Uk is more multi-party than two parties due to the relationship between majority parties and minority parties to gain the majority of votes.

Finally, the theme of party membership suggests a more multi-party system due to the fact that the SNP are not that far from the Conserative party. The figures for 2021 party membership shows that Conserative party have about 200,000 members and the SNP have around 119,000. The fact that the numbers are so close suggests that the UK runs on a multi-party system.On the other hand party membership in general has declined. Party membership is not a very accurate representation of how people are thinking. Most people are not members of political parties. Instead of joining political parties people are more inclined to join a pressure group which aligns with what they feel is important as pressure groups focus on specific issues. The Guardian said in November 2013 that ‘One in 10 Uk adults are involved in environmental groups, figures show’. On balance, the party membership is not the best theme to discuss the argument but one may say the UK is more multi-party due to the chance of the SNP beating the Conserative Party in party membership.

In Conclusion, the Uk is a two party system only because we use first past the post as a election system.The public as shown by how they voted in the 2019 european election which is done under proportional representation when your vote counts the public wants to vote in a multi-party way, they like the choice but they know that first past the post ties their hands behind their back and forces them to vote in a two party way. The UK is a multi-party system disguised as a two-party system.

Question 59

Evaluate the view that the current Conservative Party has moved away from Thatcherism (30 Marks)

Answer 59

The Conservative Party has moved away from Thatcherism economically. Thatcher had a neo liberal stance economically, which entails free market competition, privatisation of industries, cutting taxes and government spending. This is evident from the legal restrictions Thatcher placed on trade unions, as she wanted to limit intervention in the economy. This contradicts the recent policies of Boris Johnson’s government, which has hugely increased spending and a rise in taxes. For example, Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced a £170 billion investment programme in the 2020 budget, in order to boost economic growth. This is furthered by Micheal Gove, who announced that public investment in Research and Development will increase by 40% across many areas of the UK in 2022. This is part of Boris Johnson’s policy of ‘levelling up the north’, and aligns with the One nation organic society view. Furthermore, the government spent £69 billion on the furlough scheme between 2020-21, in order to keep people in employment during the covid pandemic. This is a contrast to leaving employment to market forces like Thatcherism. This market intervention gives Johsnon more of a One Nation stance, rather than New Right like under Thatcher. Not only has there been a massive increase in government spending, but taxes are also rising rapidly. Rishi Sunak said in the 2022 Budget that National Insurance would rise by 1.25%, which is a historically huge amount and will go to investment in social and health. Therefore, Boris Johnson’s government can be seen to be more of a interventionist state with large amounts of welfare spending, which differed largely from economic policies under thatcherism.

However, the current Conservative Party only moved away from Thatcherism to the extent it has because of the covid pandemic. In the conservatives 2019 manifesto, they promised to not raise national insurance contributions, VAT and income tax. These policies fit in with the belief that people should keep their wealth. It is evident that the Conservatives manifesto pledge to decrease taxation was not carried out because of covid and in the future the government will move more towards a New Right stance. Furthermore, since 2010 the party has supported welfare reform which has led to a reduction of benefits through benefit caps, the ‘bedroom tax’ and introduction of universal credit. These policies support the view that welfare leads to dependency, and that market- based solutions to services are preferable. So perhaps it is arguably that in the long-term the government wants to move towards a New Right stance on economy and that the several lockdowns during the pandemic has forced the government to intervene in the short-run with policies like the furlough scheme. Without the furlough scheme, businesses would fail and this would lead to a ‘dependency culture’ on benefits, which in the long run would lead to more government spending on a less productive group. Furthermore, the conservative party’s stance on taxation is partly neo-liberal and one nation. On one hand, it wants to decrease corporation tax to boost economic growth, which aligns with Thatcherism. However, the government has also recognised that taxes on lower incomes are too high, creating poverty, which is a one-nation view. Thus, in the 2022 budget Rishi Sunak announced a decrease in income tax from 20% to 19% in 2024. Whilst it is arguable that the conservatives will move further towards Thatcherism, the huge amount of spending and taxation in the previous years clearly highlights the One Nation stance that Boris Johnson has taken, particularly with the levelling up scheme.

However, when it comes to law and order much of the government’s policies align with Thatcherism. Thatcher believed in neoconservatism, where strong forces of law and order should be imposed in an authoritarian state to impose social morality. This has been stressed by the government, who have limited various freedoms to ensure the success of lockdown measures during the Covid-19 pandemic. This included the use of statutory instruments to create policies such as the ‘rule of six’, which limited the number of people you can meet, thus your freedom. Moreover, Dominic Raab has made plans to repeal the HRA, to give more power to the government to choose when rights should be upheld. This aligns with the new right view that sentencing policy should be in the hands of an elected government and not unelected judges. Recent legislation passed also highlights the crackdown on crime. For example, in 2021 the government introduced the Police, crime, sentencing and courts bill into Parliament, which will limit the freedom to protest, as ‘noisey’ protests can be shut down by the police. As well as both the 2017 and 2019 conservative manifestos pledging to alter the HRA to ensure it had the ability to deal with national threats such as terrorism, this is becasue the tory view is that the HRA has been abused and is now a charter for criminals and terrorists. The extent to which freedom has, and is planning to be limited emphasises the strong similarities between the current conseravtiev government and thatcherism.

This view is limited by recent events. In 2022, Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson have been fined for breaking covid rules that they introduced. This is a serious breach of ministerial code, and the partygate scandal which revealed many illegal gatherings the conservatives had during the lockdowns, means that both Johnson and Sunak should resign. By breaking the law and ministerial code and not resigning, this sets a tone that law and order is weak. The labour party has also pointed out that under the conservatives there are 23,000 nuisance incidents of anti-social behaviour every week. Thus, whilst the conservatives have limited many civil liberties such as protesting and freedom of movement, they have failed to enforce strong law and order throughout the country. Therefore, although the stance on law and order has not moved away from Thatcherism, it is a weaker version. This approach to law and order is not shared by all conservatives. In the coalition government the then justice secretary the One Nation Tory Ken Clarke said ‘prison does not work’ and he sought to rebalance the criminal justice system by introducing more liberal measures such as rehabilitation and community sentences rather than punitive prison sentences. However this approach was short lived, the backbenchers were angered by these policies and within time Clarke was moved away from this role.

Furthermore, when it comes to foreign policy the current conservative government aligns with Thatcherism. Whilst Thatcher backed joining the European Economic Community, she increasingly became resistant to it as her time as prime minister went on. Thatcher felt that the EEC was venturing into areas that interfered with individual countries’ sovereignty such as a single currency. It was becoming more than an economic agreement to federal europe. This largely aligns with Boris Johnson’s view that being part of the EU took away the sovereignty from Britain. Moreover, the conservatives continually supported investment into nuclear weapons. The party is committed to retaining the Uk’s independent nuclear deterrent in the form of Trident submarine-based weapons. This aligns with Thatcherism, as Thatcher encouraged investment in nuclear weaponry, due to the ongoing threat from the Soviet Union. This also extends to the government’s stance on migration. In 2020, the home secretary, Priti Patel, proposed a points-based immigration system to reduce unskilled migration. Thatcher also argued strongly in the 1970s that immigration needed to be reduced. Therefore, the current government mostly aligns with Thatcherism on foreign policy. However, although the majority of Conservative MPs support Brexit now, at the time of the referendum in 2016, most conservative MPs campaigned to remain in the EU. This position fits in with the pro-EU stance of One Nation Conservatives.

In conclusion whilst it may seem like on the economy, the most important aspect of thatcherism, that the conservatives have moved away from her ideals, in reality this is only a temporary situation. It is clear that the party still remains wedded to her principles and in the years ahead, it is likely to move back into a pro austerity, fiscally conservative party.

Question 60

Evaluate the view that the conservative party is far more divided on policies and ideas than the Labour party.

Question 61

Evaluate the view that the strength of a party’s leader is crucial to electoral success