Political Parties Flashcards
evaluate that the funding for political parties needs a reform
POINT : As political parties rely on majorly rely on donations and subscriptions means that wealthy individuals and generous benefactors can have huge influence on policy.
EVIDENCE : Labour in 2001 - 80% of all funding came from trade unions.
1997, Bernie Eccelestone’s £1 million donation may have prompted subsequent delay on ban of tobacco advertising in Formula 1 racing.
More that half of Tory donations came from bank and finance industry which led to weakened regulation of banks after 2008.
EVALUATE : This means wealthy individuals can widely impact policy which is highly undermocratic.
COUNTERPOINT : Subsequently, Blair gov passed 2000 Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act.
EVIDENCE : Limit of £30,000 per constituency. Declare all donations over £5000 to Electoral Commission.
EVALUATE : Attempt to make party funding more democratic and regulate funding to ensure parties were less reliant on individual bankers.
MINICONCLUSION : 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.
2 - Short Money
POINT : 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.
EVIDENCE : In the 2018/19 financial year, the total Short Money and Representative Money allocation was £9.95m, including £823,000 towards the costs of the office of the leader of the opposition. The Labour Party received £7.88m (79% of the total), the Scottish National Party £809,000 (8%) and the Liberal Democrats £645,000 (6%).
Labour peers received £625,000 and Liberal Democrat peers £312,000 in Cranborne Money in 2018/19.
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.
EVALUATE : This is to counter act the enormous resources that the government has of civil services and allows them to compete with larger winning party.
COUNTERPOINT: However, it is heavily biased towards large parties as it depends on how many seats parties have won at previous elections.
EVIDENCE : In the 2018/19 financial year, the total Short Money and Representative Money allocation was £9.95m, including £823,000 towards the costs of the office of the leader of the opposition. The Labour Party received £7.88m (79% of the total), the Scottish National Party £809,000 (8%) and the Liberal Democrats £645,000 (6%).
Short money and cranborne money - Labour recieved nearly 8 million whilst Lib Dens received just over a million.
EVALUATE : Smaller and minor parties are still disadvantaged shown by the unequal distribution of money.
MINICONCLUSION : Reforms needed as this provision has further disproportionally favoured larger parties and marginalises minor parties so they are unable to compete on an equal footing.
3 - Unfair advantage to bigger parties
POINT : As a large proportion and reliance of funding comes from subscriptions of their membership, this gives larger parties an unfair advantage.
EVIDENCE : 2015, Cons = £9 million, Lab = £7.8 million, UKIP = £2 million, Lib Dem’s = £1.3 million, SNP = 10,560
The 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.
EVALUATE : 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.
COUNTERPOINT : However, it could be argued that smaller parties do still matter and have chance of influence and there rise can not be ignored.
EVIDENCE : SNP Success, 2010-2017 coalition gov and UKIP clear political impact.
EVALUATE : Dominance of SNP suggests party with strong geographical base can be successful. Despite having larger amounts of funding and thus access to resources, neither Cons or Labour secured a majority - coalition with Lib Dem’s and DUP. UKIP clear political impact - majorly pushing Cons to Brexit referendum.
CONCLUSION : Despite sufficient successes of smaller or minor parties in recent years, Cons and Labour parties huge funding in comparison to smaller parties is a huge indicator that they have an unfair advantage and there needs to be reform to even the paying field to remove the great disparity in resources.
EVALUATE HOW FAR THE MODERN CONSERVATIVE PARTY MAY BE DESCRIBED AS A ONE NATION PARTY.
Modern day Conservative party can be described as a one nation party especially following the rebranding of the party by David Cameron.
Following his appointment as party leader in 2005, Cameron aim to soften the image of the party after it had been labelled the nasty party by May.
Cameron did this by changing the party is low go to a tree - represented new beginnings and show the parties new direction on climate change.
Cameron also travel to Alaska and was photographed with huskies.
Concerning crime, Cameron was an advocate for the rehabilitation of offenders and encourage people to ‘hug a hoodie’.
The image which Cameron presented of the Conservative party was much closer to the one nation ideals of Benjamin Disraeli.
It was much more compassionate and paternalistic.
Cameron also identified as a liberal Conservative who was tolerant of other lifestyles and embrace ethnic and religious diversity.
He strongly supported the legislation of gay marriage displaying a break away from thatcherism neoConservative Strand.
Well Cameron presented himself as a one nation Conservative, many of his economic policy strongly placed the party closer to Thatcher’s ideas than one nation values.
Following the election in 2010, many of the austerity policies Implemented lack compassion and heavily impacted the disadvantaged in society in a negative light.
The government sought to Penalised those they saw as undeserving and cut various benefits.
New right legislation included the spare room subsidy known As the bedroom tax, the two child limit on benefits and benefit caps across the board which lead to some accusing the government of social cleansing.
These policies are a far cry from the paternalistic nature of the state that Disraeli encouraged.
Cameron’s enforcement of the enovent changed once he was in government, as he wanted to reduce or scrap eco-charges on bills in order to look cheaper.
On balance, Cameron presented himself and the Conservative party as a one-nation party.
BUT, the economic policies presented are significant indicator of the Conservative party acting more New Right then One Nation.
2
The Conservative party can furthermore be described as a one-ish and party as Cameron successor, Theresa May, as also presented herself as a one nation Conservative.
As Home Secretary, may displayed glimpses of being a one nation Conservative e.g. She set up enquiries on black deaths in police custody, the conduct of police at Hillsborough tragedy and illegal surveillance of the Lawrence family by the police.
These are issues which new right would not interfere.
May also presented herself as a one nation during his speech at Downing Street as prime minister for the first time - May possibly spoke about ending the burning injustice face by the black community, the poor And women.
This appears very one nation Conservative as she sees the state as acting in a benevolent manner.
In January 2017, may argued in an article that an active government would step up and fix broken manets- this is a strong contrast to the Laissez Faire Attitude of the new right to manets.
While Theresa May proclaimed to end burning injustices when she became prime minister, she continued many of Camerons policies and seems to be leaning towards new right ideas.
May has continued austerity policies such as the bedroom scandal.
Despite calls from Corbin to and austerity, may insist that affordable public services are only sustainable if the economy is thriving.
Furthermore the Windrush Crandall of 2018 seemed to confirm that immigrants faced a hostile environment from the Conservative party.
Corbin accuse me of having full awareness of the problems of wind rush generation were facing When she was Home Secretary.
Despite the scandal, may has vowed to continue to take action against those who are illegally present in the UK.
On balance, Mays appointment as prime minister has not allowed a party to be described as one nation, despite me initially attempting to present herself as a one nation Conservative.
3
May’s disastrous manifesto for the 2017 election shows that the Conservative party has drifted away from its one nation principles.
The policies May included in her manifesto very much seem to confirm her pursuit of new right policies.
May pledge to cut free school meals, drop the triple lock for prisoners, provide means testing for bus passes and winter fuel payment.
These policies are new right in nature as the advocated for the reduction of government interference.
Although these policies have not been implemented, they show that the key economic And welfare policies of the modern day Conservatives could not be described as new right.
BUT, May after the 2017 election has moved party closer to its one nation origins by softening the image of the party once more.
Firstly, May has signalled the ending of austerity in some cases by increasing government spending in many areas
The Gov has lifted 1% public sector pay gap for both police and prison officers in England.
In 2018 teachers in England received a pay rise of up to 3.5%.
The NHS has also been granted extra 2 billion for mental health schemes and is hoping for 20 billion for NHS by 2023.
EVALUATE THE NOTION THAT SMALLER PARTIES ARE HAVING AN INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT IMPACT ON UK POLITICS.
Smaller parties are most definitely having an important impact on UK policy is evident by the decline of seat Share one by major parties in comments.
In the period 1954 to 1974, the influence of smaller parties were largely redundant as Labour and Conservative we’re on a combined share of 91% of the vote and 98% of seats at commons.
With this much dominance by two major parties, smaller parties were unable to exert influence.
2004 saw the influence of smaller parties increase as a vote of share and see share of the major parties stopped.
Labour and Conservatives won 67.5% of the vote, this Dropped even further in 2010 to 65.1% - In terms of seat share 2005 was an all time low for the main parties at 85%.
As less votes and seats are one by the major parties, smaller parties are growing representation in parliament and able to exert limited influence on Parliamentary agenda.
However, despite the gains made by smaller parties in gaining seats and votes since 2005, the major party still dominates in terms of seats one and continue to dominate be political agenda and Parliamentary business.
Conservatives have strongly influence and shape UK politics by implementing the new rights ideology e.g. The scale of many nationalised industries like British Airways.
Labour have also influenced UK politics significantly through the many constitutional reforms they passed e.g. constitutional reform act 2005 which created the Supreme Court and human rights act 1998.
Both Labour and Conservative were able to implement mass change due to the sweeping majoritys that each party won.
Labour in 1997 won a dominant majority of 418 seats.
On balance, the gains made by smaller parties in terms of seats and voter share, their influence over the political agenda is minimal.
2
Smaller parties influence on UK politics is undermined as there is no real prospect of any party forming a government other than the Conservative and Labour party, though the conservative party have been a part of a coalition and a governing blouf.
This is reinforced by electoral system FPTP.
Furthermore in June 2017 general election, the two main parties prove their dominance in terms of seats and votes - the main parties combined 82% of the vote and 89% of the seats in commons.
The influence of smaller parties in terms of influence is weakened by FPTP which favours establish parties with concentrated support.
Smaller parties are likely to have disparsed support Which are wasted under FPTP.
UKIP in 2015 1/3,000,000 votes yet only one seat.
The disproportional convention of their votes largely limited their influence on Parliamentary agenda.
BUT, smaller parties influence is increasing Lee evident by the recent position in the government.
2010, neither main party won a majority, forcing the Conservatives the largest party to enter into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats who won 57 votes.
Similarly in 2017, May Lost 15 seats and her majority which cause her to enter into a demand and supply governing deal with the DUP.
These events in 2010 and 2017 showed the increasing influence of smaller parties on UK politics.
However the influence was fairly limited.
Liberal Democrats envisioned there presence in coalition as a coding measure to the Conservatives.
This was evident by the 2014 AV referendum which Lib Dems wanted to be on proportional representation - referendum strongly expressed The limited influence of the Lib Dems while in the coalition.
3
In addition, the growing influence of smaller parties on the political agenda has to be considered.
UKIP and SNP have been particularly influential on the political agenda.
The rise of UKIP has seen changes made to the Conservative political agenda, by forcing Cameron to put the EU referendum on the Conservative manifesto.
Cameron felt that this was necessary in order to stop Conservative voters who were eurosceptic, voting for UKIP.
SNP have exerted a good degree of influence by allowing for greater devolution of powers to the Scottish parliament.
Following the dominance of the Scottish parliament and the prospect of Break up of the UK, the major parties including Lib Dems devolved more power.
BUT, the influence of smaller parties like UKIP and SNP may only be temporary as suggested by the 2017 general election results - LibDem only one eight seats in 2015 election this increased slightly to 12 and 2017 - UKIP went from 3.9 million votes to less than 1 million and no seats - they were wiped out in the 2018 local council election with only three seats.
Evaluate the view that the campaigns of political parties are mire important in determining the result of a general election than the competence of the government
Agree
Tony blair 1997
Positive/media
1979 thatcher used campaign to expose labours weaknesses eg labour isn’t working
2019 Boris Johnson get Brexit done simple slogan appealed to voters
Disagree
Labour 1997 win also due to perceived of 1992 govt(black Wednesday + recessions)
2010 election labour blamed for 2008-9
Perceptions of competence / or lack of e .g miliband , corbyn can turn off voters (2015-19)
Since 2019 conservatives reputation for competence (partygate, liz truss mini budget) very low poll rating
Campaigns have little impact many voters have partisan attachment based of competence around economy etc
Evaluate the view that minor parties have little impact on British politics
It is clear that minority parties can be influential in British politics due to the clarity of their position on single issues. As many minority political parties are single-issue parties, their focus on a specific political agenda means voters may support such parties because they consider the core-issue of that party of vital importance and are less concerned that other policy aspects are not fully developed. UKIP is an example of such a minority party with its focus on anti-EU policies, it is undoubtedly one of the most eurosceptic parties in Britain and can be considered as one of the major manifestations of the UK’s challenge to Europeanisation. Their growing influence over the British populous was evident through their historic victory in the 2014 European Parliamentary Elections by winning a large number of UK seats. Those 24 seats made UKIP the biggest UK party in the European Parliament, this makes it a challenge to the main political parties and to the British political system as a whole. Also UKIP secured 3.9 million votes in the 2015 general election, although it only achieved one seat. UKIPs success at the European level demonstrates that minor parties have the ability to influence voters with their clear and direct manifesto, unlike the majority parties who have a much more obscure agendas. UKIPs increasing popularity over the years strengthened the party as a fundamental catalyst for the 2015 EU Referendum and the ‘victory’ of Brexit, thus proving that minor party ideology has permeated the agenda of the mainstream parties who are conscious of their electoral successes.
Despite the previous argument, it is obvious that minority parties have little impact on British Politics because they are disproportionately under-represented by the FPTP electoral system. The FPTP electoral system creates a two-party system designed to create a strong majority in government, thus does not favour minority parties. Minority parties with extreme views, that is, parties likely to damage the democratic system and create further division, are overlooked by the system. Therefore, under FPTP, there is reduced competition between the two main parties in order to suppress political radicalism, amongst other reasons. The disproportionate nature of the FPTP system was demonstrated in the 2015 General Election, as UKIPs 3.8 million votes and similarly, The Green Party’s 1.1 million votes were translated into only one MP in Parliament each. Therefore, the existence and activities of small parties outside of the main three and outside Westminster does not allow alternative opportunities for citizen engagement and participation. This is significant as it has exposed the limitations of the FPTP system, it illustrates that the two-party system does not effectively represent minority parties at Westminster and subsequently, a clear and fair variation of public opinion. Thus, it is evident that although minority parties are popular amongst the British electorate they do not have a large impact due to the FPTP electoral system as they are unable to gain real traction in Parliament and so cannot make drastic changes
Contrastingly, minor parties are incredibly important and effective in representing the views and opinions of the electorate from the devolved nations. As the minority government in Scottish Parliament, the SNP has support from 45% of the Scottish population. This demonstrates SNP as an important minority party at a devolved level in in British politics. In 2014, the Independence Referendum drummed up passionate nationalist sentiment, whilst the motion to seceded was defeated, that feeling has not gone away. These nationalist views are reflected through the popularity of the minor party SNP. Nicola Sturgeon’s strategy on independence has no doubt energised SNP support and increased the turnout of their voters. Therefore, in the 2015 General Election there was a great success for SNP, which won 48 of the 59 seats in Scotland at Westminster, marking them the third party. The party now controls four-fifths of the Scottish seats, a much higher proportion than Boris Johnson’s Conservatives won across the UK. The SNP surge creates a major headache for the UK prime minister. It is reminiscent of 1987, when Margaret Thatcher won big across the UK but lost more than half the Conservative seats in Scotland – the ‘doomsday scenario’ as it came to be known. That year the Conservative number of seats fell from 21 to 10 in Scotland; this time it’s down from 13 to six. The SNPs landslide victory places the minor party firmly in the centre of Westminster, where the Scottish population can be equally recognised. Thus, it shows that minority parties can gain influence over governments overtime through the weakness of main parties who do not win an outright majority. Minor parties can greatly influence British politics either as part of an official coalition or through voting agreements. Therefore, demonstrating that minor parties do not need to have equal amount of support as main parties to be able to rally substantial support. They are increasingly considered a direct threat to major political parties and subsequently, are able to significantly impact British politics from the UK Parliament.
Despite this, the issue of devolution has demonstrated that although Scotland has gained more devolution, the inability for Scottish parties to be heard in Parliament leaves millions of the UK electorate voiceless. This is because governments in devolved nations do not hold equal weight in Westminster. Such as the SNP, who has formed a minority government in Scottish Parliament, but they are only considered a minor party in UK Parliament. Thus, it is evident that Scottish minority parties may have impact in the devolved nations but not enough in UK parliament. This was demonstrated in the 2015 EU Referendum, Scotland voted in favour of the UK staying the EU by 62% to 38%- with all 32 council ares backing Remain. Although Scotland had delivered a strong, unequivocal vote to remain in the EU, the UK left the EU. As Scotland’s vote in the EU Referendum was sidelined and ignored by the Westminster establishment, it demonstrates that the position on minors parties from the devalued nations are constantly undermined. As Westminster still retains control of ‘reserved powers’ such as defence, foreign policy and constitutional matters, Scotland want to gain full independence by becoming ‘detached’ from Westminster and the British governing system. Also the Cameron government passed the English Votes for English Laws legislation which restricts the ability of devolved parties to amend bills as they go through parliament. EVEL was designed to resolve the West Lothian Question, although it still gives Scottish and Welsh parties the right to vote on the final version of the bill. Therefore, it is clear that despite minority parties ability to form governments in their devolved nations, it is incredibly difficult to have an impact in the UK Parliament. Thus, it is clear that in devolved nations, minor parties may have political significance in their devolved powers yet they have relatively little impact on British politics.
Finally, smaller parties can act to galvanise political opinion and activity that may be focused on a more precise set of political objectives than those of the big three. Small political parties serve to fill a gap in political representation; a gap which occurs because the mainstream, major national parties increasingly appear to fail to adequately represent the diverse range of views and interests that make up the political dynamic at national, regional and local levels. This can be said for the minor political party the Green Party, who have been able to spark an interest, particularly in the younger demographic, on the issue of climate change. Environmental concerns are becoming a priority for the electorate, with millions of young people across the world protesting this year demanding climate action. The increase in awareness of climate change has been reflected in the growing support for the Green Party. In the 2019 European Parliament election, the Green Party won 12% of the vote in the European elected and electing 7 MEPs. The number of people voting Green increased by 40% from 2017. This illustrates a growing recognition in the single-issue political agenda of the Green Party, which has been disregarded by major parties.
Smaller parties may, over time, radically transform attitudes towards particular issues, thereby forcing the main parties to policy-poach. While the Greens remain a small party on the national stage it is possible to say of the main three parties that they are all green now. Thus, relevance, for UK small parties is related more to policy-poaching than having actual political position. This can be seen through the adoption of green policies throughout the major political parties such as the 2019 Conservative manifesto promise of reaching the net zero emissions by 2050. It is evident that the Green Party has helped push green issues towards the top of the political agenda and forced the major parties to address them. Therefore, it is clear that minor parties do not need coalitions or majorities to make a change in Parliament but through major parties policy-poaching can bring their agenda into the UK Parliament.
In conclusion, although there are numerous obstacles for minor political parties, the most detrimental is the FPTP electoral system. Despite this, their ability to not only to provide the voter with alternatives at election time, but to influence the behaviour of the established parties as well as increase awareness and popularity for particular causes. Minor parties do not need to rely on coalitions to be influential in Westminster, as smaller parties produce new ways for political accountability as they are able to focus on issues ignored by the main parties. Thus, minor parties play a significant role in British politics as they can encourage the realignment of issues as the main parties adapt their policy agenda to the newly emerging issues.
