Politics Stats

• positives of representative democracy

  - MPs are more educated than the average person: in 2019, a study found 86% of MPs were university-educated, 23% from oxbridge

  - the public can easily remove a disliked MP: the recall of MPs act 2015; can be removed if one in ten constituents sign a petition - this lead to fiona onasanya

  - MPs often have their constituents' best interests in mind: adam afriyie defying a three-line whip to vote against heathrow airport expansion. 33 conservative MPs voted against truss over fracking in 2022
• negatives of representative democracy

  - MPs are not totally representative: the highest % of women MPs in the HoC is 35% + 29% of MPs went to public school while only 7% of the population did

  - the public being uneducated can lead to lack of turnout: the av referendum only had 42%, the 2001 GE had 59.4%. (you only see big turnout for very important issues e.g brexit 72%) -> remember these are examples of direct democracy, so this has to be used for lack of education only

  - MPs can't always be removed easily: claudia webbe was suspended in 2020 but not removed from the labour party until a year later

  - lack of trust in MPs: the 2009 expenses scandal had to be called out by pressure groups
• positives of direct democracy

  - can increase participation: 2014 scottish referendum had 84.6%, support vulnerable children and child food poverty petition got 1.1 million signatures in 6 months.

  - can enact change: support vulnerable children and child food poverty petition was then done by the government with a new support package
• negatives of direct democracy

  - not all referendums get high turnouts: av referendum only got 42%

  - can be influenced incorrectly: NHS bus for the brexit referendum, supposed £350 million for NHS
• positives of extending the franchise to prisoners

  - otherwise it could violate the first protocol of the european convention, right to free elections

  - 2004 in the us found voting prisoners would not be repeat offenders as much

  - the 1983 mental health act could be used to simply determine who gets the franchise
• positives of compulsory voting

  - could solve low turnout, e.g the av referendum only had 42%, the 2001 GE had 59.4%. (you only see big turnout for very important issues e.g brexit 72%)

  - would increase political education
• negative of compulsory voting

  - people would spoil the ballot more

  - it could make the government seem totalitarian
• positives of giving 16-year-olds the vote

  - could increase participation: the 2014 scottish independence referendum there was a 75% turnout among 16/17-year-olds

  - they can vote in wales and scotland for members of devolved assemblies
• negatives of giving 16-year-olds the vote

  - the brain is still developing during these years, so they might not make informed votes

  - 16 year olds cannot buy cigarettes, indicating they cannot make informed decisions
• positives of the 2014 registration reform

  - stopped fraud by making people register to vote individually

  - 3 million people registered to vote before the 2015 election
• negatives of the 2014 registration reform

  - 1 million people lost the right to vote, mainly students
• positives of pressure groups

  - insider pressure groups can influence legislation: british medical association and the

  alcohol minimum pricing act; the LGBT foundation worked with the scottish government in 2021 to ban conversion therapy

  - they can gain attention: attention: 2023, just stop oil interrupted a production of les misèrables. in 2022, they threw soup on van gough's 'sunflowers'. stephen fry endorsed mind (publicity)

  - they increase democracy: RSPB has over 1 million members, allowing many people to influence politics. they also highlight less talked about issues, e.g. fathers4justice.
• negatives of pressure groups

  - not always successful, especially when it comes to controversial issues: just stop the war coalition didn't stop the invasion of iraq, despite hosting marches through London; plane stupid didn't stop the expansion of heathrow airport

  - attract negative attention: just stop oil caused a car crash in 2023

  - they don't always enhance democracy: the ALF is now regarded as a terrorist group by the

  government. there being so many (over 100) can

  contribute to hyperpluralism.
• positives of think tanks

  - the joseph rowntree foundation has been cited in 157 policy documents

  - the institute for fiscal studies has been cited in 150 policy documents, for example creating the tax law review committee
• negatives of think tanks

  they often promote radical views: the IEA wanted to scrap corporation tax, the adam smith institute lobbied to unban fracking
• positives of lobbying

  - the national farming union have lobbied for developments like food origin labelling
• negatives of lobbying

  scandals:

  - labour gave F1 an exemption from the ban on adertising tobacco as they have donated £1 million to them

  - jack straw worked 'under the radar' to to change EU law for a company which paid him £60,000 a year
• arguments there is a democratic deficit

  tow turnout: 2001 general election was 59.4% + the av referendum only had 42%

  party membership has decreased: conservatives had 2,806,000 in 1956 but 200,000 in 2021
• arguments there is not a democratic deficit

  increased turnout for important issues: brexit had 72% scottish independence 84.6% + 2010 GE had 65.1%

  pressure groups are more popular: RSPB has 1 million members
• examples of demand for party state funding

  - the 'cash for honours' scandal under blair, when is was suggested labour donators were elevated to the lords: caused the phillips report (2007) to be commissioners to invent the funding issue

  - the report said there was a significant case for state funding, and for donations to be limited to £50,000
• positives of party state funding

  - would make the parties more equal: the conservatives are seen as having more power due to their support from large businesses, in 2019 63% of all donations went to them. + would help minor parties, as the main two have an advantage due to their cash: in 2019 they were responsible for 80.5% of campaign spending + the electoral commission showed the conservatives got £9.8 million and labour £6 million in the last quarter of 2023

  - could increase public trust in parties: restricting donations to £50,000 would ensure they have the public's interest in mind rather than the elite
• negatives of party state funding

  - in a democracy people should be able to support parties however they want and so limiting donations could go against that

  - it could be hard to determine how different parties are funded as there are so many and not all are popular

  - funding is not everything, as other tactics like leadership or media and more significant - in 2019 the brexit party won new seats while only spending £1,450,000 (major parties had ~5 million)

  - state funding could eliminate parties' need for membership and make them less reliant on the public
• examples of pre-existing party state funding

  - policy development grants, where main parties get £2 million to employ policy advisors

  - short money is allocated to the opposition to let them participate. the leader of the opposition can get £800,000 for running their office

  - cranborne money subsidies the work of scrutiny by the opposition
• stages of conservatism

  traditional: property, pragmatism, tradition. against major changes to the constitution

  one-nation: debt between classes, stability

  new right: minimal government intervention, businesses will maintain the economy. emphasis on security, police and harsh foreign policy
• the conservatives now

  new right:

  - euroscepticism: 'european research group', Brexit + EU referendum. 2019, points-based immigration system

  - economy: vat threshold increased to £90,000 (good for small businesses)

  - david cameron's 'austerity', less spending on welfare

  one-nation:

  - 2019 pledge of 50,000 more nurses

  - 2013, allowing gay marriage

  - 'vote blue go green' (although truss tried to reintroduce fracking)
• SNP policy and impact

  policy:

  - another scottish independence referendum

  - stop brexit

  - remove trident

  - free university tuition ( achieved!)

  - less council tax (has decreased by £101 on average under them)

  impact:

  - in 2022 the supreme court declared another referendum would be illegal

  - made major parties consider scotland more (by having so many seats)

  - westminister still blocks their stuff though (gender recognition act 2023)
• UKIP policy and impact

  policy:

  - leave the EU (achieved)

  - reduce immigration

  - oppose same-sex marriage

  impact:

  - arguably caused brexit

  - made the conservatives' anti-immigration policy harsher
• green policy and impact

  policy:

  - scrap tuition fees

  - increase education on LGBT

  - out £100 billion into cutting carbon emissions

  impact:

  - increased climate change awareness
• arguments there is a multi-party system

  minor parties have power: UKIP only had one seat in the 2015 election but was able to influence brexit. + the SNP is the third-largest party (63 seats as of 2024)

  major parties losing power: the conservatives had to form coalitions in 2010 and 2017.

  devolved systems (it's less two-party there): senedd -> labour 30, conservative 16, plaid cymru, 13 (also N.I have their own parties)
• arguments there is a two-party system

  FPTP reinforces it: in 2019 green got 800,000 but 1 seat, parties need safe seats

  they have the demographics: conservatives have upper class and labour lower class

  numbers: in 2017 conservative and labour got 87.2% of the seats + others like libdems have been declining since 2015

  -> every government since 1922 has been conservative or labour
• features of FPTP

  plurality voting: the candidate with the most votes wins, regardless of whether it's an absolute majority

  winner-takes-all: the losing candidates get nothing, no matter how many votes they gain
• benefits of FPTP

  creates strong, single-party governments: in 2015 the conservatives won a majority with 36% of votes

  is easy to understand for voters

  reinforces representative/constituency link
• drawbacks of FPTP

  disproportionate results: in 2019, the conservatives got 56% of seats with 43.6% of the vote

  wasted votes:

  lack of representation: in 2019 the greens got 800,000 votes but only 1 seat
• benefits of AMS


  less winners' bias: 2011 scottish parliament elections where labour had their representation corrected

  more representation: