Essentials of UK Politics and Government [5 ed.] 9781352012323, 9781352012309, 1352012324

Citation preview

PEARSON EDEXCEL A-LEVEL POLITICS

Essentials of

UK POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT FIFTH EDITION

ANDREW HEYWOOD KATHY SCHINDLER Endorsed for

2GCRSON'FGWEGĚ3TCĚKĂECěKONS

ADAM TOMES

Endorsement Statement In order to ensure that this resource offers high-quality support for the associated Pearson qualification, it has been through a review process by the awarding body. This process confirms that this resource fully covers the teaching and learning content of the specification or part of a specification at which it is aimed. It also confirms that it demonstrates an appropriate balance between the development of subject skills, knowledge and understanding, in addition to preparation for assessment. Endorsement does not cover any guidance on assessment activities or processes (e.g. practice questions or advice on how to answer assessment questions), included in the resource nor does it prescribe any particular approach to the teaching or delivery of a related course. While the publishers have made every attempt to ensure that advice on the qualification and its assessment is accurate, the official specification and associated assessment guidance materials are the only authoritative source of information and should always be referred to for definitive guidance. Pearson examiners have not contributed to any sections in this resource relevant to examination papers for which they have responsibility. Examiners will not use endorsed resources as a source of material for any assessment set by Pearson. Endorsement of a resource does not mean that the resource is required to achieve this Pearson qualification, nor does it mean that it is the only suitable material available to support the qualification, and any resource lists produced by the awarding body shall include this and other appropriate resources.

‘This definitive companion to Edexcel A-Level Politics will prove indispensable for students. Essentials of UK Politics and Government presents the study of Politics as it should be, a living and breathing discipline that evolves through debate. It not only provides students with a lively and highly readable guide to the specification content, but also develops their understanding of how to use this content when responding to essay and source questions. A valuable learning and teaching tool that will undoubtedly improve grades.’ – Benjamin Smith, Wrekin College, Shropshire ‘An engaging and accessible access point to Politics with sage exam advice and contemporary examples to support and challenge students’ thinking. This is the go to text for A-Level Politics.’ – Sarah Bennett, New College, Swindon ‘Clear, concise and up-to-date, the new edition of Essentials of UK Politics and Government is a fantastic companion to the Edexcel Politics A-Level and a great tool in aiding students in their studies. The book lays out information in a way that is going to help students to access and engage with the material with ease. The topical case studies and the presentation of key debates in a “for and against” format lends itself nicely to being applied to essay style questions. I can see my students benefiting greatly from this textbook.’ – Louis Sugden, Jumeirah College, Dubai ‘Essentials of UK Politics and Government provides an excellently comprehensive guide to the Edexcel Paper 1 and 2 specifications. Using debates to present complex course content, it allows students to develop their thinking. Clear signposting of synoptic links and definitions means that this textbook suits all students, providing students both the opportunity to check their understanding of the fundamentals as well as stretch and challenge themselves. I would highly recommend this to teachers and students in the Politics community.’ – Lucy Ryall, Poole High School, Poole ‘An accessible and intuitive guide to A-Level Politics. This comprehensive book offers vital guidance on how to effectively teach, and understand, all aspects of the syllabus. I highly recommend this book to help guide teachers, as well as students.’ – Suzanne Asherson, Menorah High School, London ‘Essentials of UK Politics and Government has everything students need in an A-Level textbook. This is a book that develops students’ skills, deepens their knowledge and ignites debates. Students of A-Level Politics will find this book helpful, engaging and thought-provoking. Fresh, accessible and well-laid out, I would highly recommend this to fellow A-Level Politics departments.’ – Dom Giles, Stratford Girls’ Grammar School ‘This book is an excellent tool for any student studying A-Level Politics, or any teacher teaching it. The clear layout of different topics in a for and against structure perfectly suits students’ learning needs, and the helpful graphs and infographics make key information clear and easy to understand.’ – Laurie Huggett-Wilde, Godalming College

ESSENTIALS OF UK POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT PEARSON EDEXCEL A-LEVEL

Andrew Heywood Kathy Schindler Adam Tomes Fifth edition

© Andrew Heywood, Kathy Schindler and Adam Tomes, under exclusive licence to Macmillan Education Limited 2021 © Andrew Heywood 2008, 2011, 2015, 2017 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This edition published 2021 by RED GLOBE PRESS Previous editions published under the imprint PALGRAVE Red Globe Press in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Education Limited, registered in England, company number 01755588, of 4 Crinan Street, London, N1 9XW. Red Globe Press® is a registered trademark in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN 978-1-352-01232-3 hardback ISBN 978-1-352-01230-9 paperback This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Commissioning Editors: Peter Atkinson and Milly Weaver Associate Development Editor: Sophiya Ali Assistant Editor: Becky Mutton Cover Designer: Laura De Grasse Senior Production Editor: Amy Brownbridge Marketing Manager: Amy Suratia

Brief Contents

1

Democracy and Participation: Suffrage

2

2

Democracy and Participation: Pressure Groups and Other Influences and Rights in Context

30

3

Political Parties

60

4

Elections and Referendums

92

5

Voting Behaviour

132

6

The Media

160

7

The Constitution

186

8

Parliament 218

9

The Prime Minister and Executive

248

10

The Supreme Court, the EU and Sovereignty

280

11

Exam Focus

307

Index 336

v

Contents

List of Key Topic Debates

1

viii

About the Authors

ix

Tour of the Book

x

Digital Resources

xii

How to Use the Book

1

Democracy and Participation: Suffrage

2

Democracy 4

2

3

4

Enhancing democracy in the UK

15

A wider franchise and debates over suffrage

21

The right to vote in the twenty-first century

23

Democracy and Participation: Pressure Groups and Other Influences and Rights in Context What are pressure groups?

32

Methods used by pressure participants to exert influence on both government and parliament

38

What are rights?

49

Political Parties

62

Party funding

66

Established political parties

70

Emerging and minor UK political parties

81

Party systems in the UK

83

Elections and Referendums

92

Elections in the UK

94

Electoral systems in the UK

96

Voting Behaviour Voting behaviour in the UK

vi

60

What is a political party?

Referendums in the UK 5

30

124

132 134

Contents

6

7

The Media

160

The changing nature of the media

162

Opinion polls

169

The media and elections

173

The media and democracy

180

The Constitution

186

What is a constitution?

188

The UK’s constitution

189

Devolution 204 8

9

10

11

Parliament 218 What is Parliament and how is it different from government?

220

Parliamentary government

220

The House of Commons

221

The House of Lords

223

The monarchy

225

The comparative powers of the House of Commons and House of Lords

226

The legislative process

227

The Prime Minister and Executive

248

What is the executive?

250

The significance of ministerial responsibility

270

The Supreme Court, the EU and Sovereignty

280

The Supreme Court

282

The aims, role and impact of the European Union on UK government

293

Sovereignty

300

Exam Focus

307

Introduction

307

Assessment Objectives in detail

312

Source questions

323

Structuring source and essay answers

327

Putting it all together

331

Final thought

335

Index 336

vii

List of Key Topic Debates Is direct democracy superior to representative democracy? 

6

Is the UK suffering from a participation crisis?

10

Will reforms enhance democracy in the UK?

15

How effective are insider methods?

38

How effective are outsider methods?

40

Are some groups more successful than others?

42

Does group politics promote democracy in the UK?

46

How effectively does the UK’s democracy protect human rights and civil liberties?

54

How effectively do political parties support democracy in the UK?

62

Should UK parties be state funded?

69

Is one nation conservatism the main ideological influence on the current party?

72

Is the modern labour party more influenced by Old Labour than New Labour?

76

Is the UK a two-party system?

84

What are the main factors that drive party success?

85

Do elections enhance or hinder UK democracy?

94

Is first-past-the-post fit for purpose?

99

Has the impact of the new electoral systems made the case for reform?

121

Should referendums be used in the UK’s representative democracy?

125

Are social factors the most important in determining the outcome of general elections?

153

Are traditional media sources now becoming increasingly irrelevant?

163

Do opinion polls have a positive impact on UK democracy?

170

Does the UK media have real influence over public opinion and voting behaviour?

177

Does the media enhance democracy?

180

Is the UK constitution fit for purpose?

193

Have constitutional reforms in the UK improved the UK political system?

194

Should the UK constitution be codified?

203

Has devolution been a success?

213

Is parliament effective in fulfilling its functions?

229

Is parliament effective in scrutinising the executive?

235

Is the House of Lords as effective as the Commons in fulfilling its functions?

241

How important is the Cabinet?

254

Are Prime Ministers still as powerful as they once were?

257

Are the conventions of ministerial responsibility still important?

273

Is the Supreme Court independent and neutral?

286

Does the Supreme Court have too much power?

290

How influential has EU membership been on UK politics?

297

Is Parliament sovereign?

301

viii

About the Authors ANDREW HEYWOOD is author of such best-selling textbooks as Politics, Political Ideologies, Global Politics and Political Theory, used by hundreds of thousands of students around the world and translated into over twenty languages. He was Vice Principal of Croydon College, having previously been Director of Studies at Orpington College and Head of Politics at The Sixth-Form College Farnborough. Andrew had many years’ experience as an A-Level Chief Examiner for Government and Politics, and Principal Examiner for Political Ideologies and Global Politics. He currently works as a freelance author.

KATHY SCHINDLER has been teaching Politics for 30 years, working in a large comprehensive school in London for most of that time. Kathy is part of the Senior Examination Team for a large exam board and was involved in the development of the linear Politics specification. Subsequently, she led many training sessions for the exam board around the country, helping teachers to get to grips with the demands of the new specification as well as supporting individual politics departments and holding student revision conferences in schools. In addition to this book, Kathy has also written textbooks published by Pearson. You can also find Kathy on Facebook (search for the page Politics_Tutor) and on Twitter @ politics_tutor.

ADAM TOMES has been teaching since 2000, working at York College, a large further education college, for most of that time. Adam has taught History, Philosophy and Politics at A-Level with the majority of his teaching experience in Politics, the subject that is closest to his heart. Adam is a strong advocate for Politics A-Level, hoping to see it grow across the education sector and really engage and enthuse students. Adam has held a range of roles as an examiner and trainer for a large exam board while also co-authoring a number of textbooks. 

ix

Tour of the Book Chapter Preview The study of government has traditionally meant the study of central government at a national level. The study of UK government therefore focused primarily on bodies such as the Westminster Parliament, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. However in light of changes to the UK constitution, it is important to understand the impact of the Supreme Court and the European Union on the UK and how the nature of sovereignty has changed.

Chapter Preview These offer a broad outline of what each chapter will cover.

Law and politics are supposed to be different things. When judges administer the law, they are meant to act in a strictly non-political way. Being neutral and independent from the other institutions of government, judges (and therefore law itself) are ‘above’ politics. How accurate is this image of non-political judges and a non-political court system? Furthermore, own beliefs and prejudices. Can judges (or, for that matter, any of us) be strictly impartial? Recent years have seen major changes within the judiciary. In particular, the introduction in 2009 of a Supreme Court tends to strengthen the tendency for senior judges in the UK to act as policy makers, threatening to give them a role similar to that of US judges. At the same time, it has Key Questions and Debates served to strengthen the principle of the separation of powers. » What is the role of the Supreme Court, On 23 June 2016, the UK voted to leave the EU and there is little and to what extent can it be considered doubt that politics has been transformed by that vote. Therefore, neutral and independent? it is important to understand the desire for closer political and » How far does the Supreme Court act economic union within Europe, the UK’s politically contentious as a check on the powers of both the relationship with the EU and how that relationship has impacted legislature and the executive? on the political system and policy making. It also raises the question » What are the aims of the EU and how far of what the future relationship with the EU will look like and how has the EU impacted on both UK policy that might shape British politics. making and the UK political system? » What is sovereignty and where can it now be said to lie in the UK political system?

4.1 The Supreme Court and its interactions

Specification Checklist A short checklist of the points from the Edexcel specification that will be covered by each chapter.

Key Questions and Debates At the start of every chapter there is a list of the key questions and debates addressed by the chapter.

processes. » The role and composition of the Supreme Court. » The key operating principles of the Supreme Court, including judicial neutrality and judicial independence and their extent. »

including the doctrine of ultra vires and judicial review.

4.3 The aims, role and impact of the European Union (EU) on the UK government. » The aims of the EU, including the ‘four freedoms’ of the single market, social policy, and political and economic union, and the extent to which these have been achieved. » The role of the EU in policy making. » The impact of the EU, including the main effects of at least two EU policies and their impact on the UK political system and UK policy making.

4.4 The location of sovereignty in the UK political system. » The distinction between legal sovereignty and political sovereignty. » The extent to which sovereignty has moved between different branches of government. » Where sovereignty can now be said to lie in the UK.

The debate between a separation of powers versus a fusion is much discussed within the core political idea of liberalism. This link can be made to earn important synoptic marks in Component2 essays.

Definitions Definitions of important terms to help you deepen your understanding of political concepts.

Synoptic link In Component 2 chapters only you will find suggestions of how you can make synoptic links back to Component 1 topics.

General elections: Full parliamentary elections, in which all of the 650 seats in the House of Commons come up for re-election. They traditionally take place within a term.

MILESTONES... – This abolished ‘rotten boroughs’, which had either no electors or were controlled by a single powerful patron. The Act enfranchised almost all male m owners. Although it increased the electorate by about two-thirds, it still meant that fe population could vote.

– This extended the franchise to rural and mining areas, and enfra householders and tenants. – This Act widened suffrage by abolishing almost

– By lowering the voting age for women from 31 to 21 and abo

Milestones Timelines of key historical events in UK history with clear explanations to provide the context for the political debates of today.

the UK.

Election Results Key information on the General Elections in 2015, 2017 and 2019 laid out in a clear and helpful way.

x

Case Studies Relevant case studies to illustrate key issues in UK politics and enhance your understanding of them.

Tour of the Book

Chapter Summary Bullet lists summarising the key points covered by the chapter, so you can check your understanding.

Further Resources A list of books, articles, websites and that will help you explore the topic more widely.

Companion website Throughout the text there are there are directions to find further content related to the topic at hand on the book’s extensive companion website. FOR

Visit the companion website to access the Further Resources Booklet to explore a range of useful web links related to: the Leveson inquiry, OFCOM data and reports on news consumption, the rise of fake news, the relationship between the media and austerity and more.

AGAINST

 The CRA enforced a strict separation of



The biggest threat to judicial independence in the UK has been the lack of a strict separation of powers.

 Judicial independence relies on the



Judicial independence is threatened by a growing willingness of ministers to publicly criticise the courts.





Judges are argued to be taking a more judicially active role.



Increasing attacks by the media on the character of judges rather than their decisions plus the more public role of senior judges undermines impartiality.

power by moving the judicial function from the Lords to the Supreme Court. commitment of ministers to respecting the independence of the judiciary.



Judges recognise the limits to their role.

public in their personal impartiality and that of the judiciary.

IS THE UK SUFFERING FRO CRISIS? Perhaps the main modern concern about democracy in the UK st political apathy. Some have seen this as nothing less than a democracy be healthy when, despite increasing opportunities for citizens seem to be uninterested or unwilling to engage in political l

Exam Style Questions A list of exam-style essay and source questions at the end of every chapter.

Key Debate Summaries Two-column table summaries with a bulleted list of the for and against points from the preceding topic debates. Useful for quick revision.

Key Topic Debate Throughout the book, we have selected the most important debates within each topic and outlined the arguments for and against. We have paired these arguments up, which is crucial for success in essay writing.

Exam Focus Chapter Unique to this book, a whole chapter devoted to exam skills and detailed step-by-step instructions on how to structure essays and sources.

Tips Short bits of advice to help you maximise your understanding of what you need to do to develop your skills.

Spec Key Term These are named Key Terms from the Edexcel Specification. It is important to know what they are because they can be used in exam questions.

xi

Digital Resources

Accompanying this book is a suite of supportive online resources to help you get the most out of your learning. Go online to the companion website macmillanihe.com/heywood-essentialsuk-5e to access further learning materials to support each chapter.

Bonus case studies – Access fascinating bonus case studies and deepen your insights on key topics and events. Further resources booklet – Delve into a range of engaging news articles, blog posts, reports and political websites to explore a chapter topic further. Tips for planning and organising revision – Get expert tips from the authors on how to plan and organise your revision effectively. Flashcards of key terminology – Check your understanding of key specification terms and other important political concepts. Further sample student answers – Analyse and critique real-life exam answers written by students. Guided author annotations will help you to pinpoint exactly what the examiner is looking for. Your teacher will be able to download and provide you with these. Specification checklist – This handy chart will help you to target your revision by mapping the specification directly on to pages in the textbook. Your teacher will be able to download and provide you with this.

xii

How to Use the Book

Welcome to the latest edition of Essentials of UK Politics and Government, which has been fully revised and updated to cover every aspect of the 2017 Edexcel Pearson Specification. Between the three of us we have decades of experience in teaching politics and extensive knowledge of the Pearson Edexcel specification. We wanted to outline for you the changes we have made to this edition of the book and why we think it’s in a good position to help you do well in this subject. All the chapters in the book relate directly to a part of the Pearson Edexcel specification for A-Level Politics. You will see in the Tour of the Book (pages x–xi) that we have listed the relevant parts of the specification at the beginning of each chapter. This allows you to see clearly how the content of each chapter relates to the specification. In addition, the page design is also organised to help you identify content and features that are related to the specification, the exam and the skills needed. For example, you will notice that the key debate summaries, the spec terms, the tips and the specification checklists are all presented in the same colour (light green) throughout the book. A unique and exciting aspect of the book is that it offers an entire chapter to help you understand the skills needed to write good answers – answers that address the three Assessment Objectives on which you will be assessed. The Exam Focus chapter at the end of the book is packed full of helpful advice on how to write essays, use comparative language, develop your synoptic skills and ensure you’re fully prepared for the A-Level Politics exams. Another distinctive feature of this book is the way the chapters have been organised to help you get to grips with the key debates in each topic. As well as covering the relevant subject knowledge for each topic, we have also provided for and against points and examples for the key debate areas. We have organised these in a paired format, meaning that each argument on one side of a debate is paired with an opposing argument on the other side. The reason for this is that we want this book to do more than just provide you with the essential content. We have gone beyond the content traditionally found in textbooks to help you understand the debates that will form the basis of the essay and source questions you will be set, and to help you understand how to bring the content together to answer essay questions. A final thing to note is that throughout the book you will find links to our companion website. You will find it packed with additional debates and case studies as well as downloadable templates and some useful revision tips. Most importantly, we will be regularly adding to the website and plan to provide further examples of annotated essay and source answers. We really hope you find this book helpful. We have put all our experience and expertise together to make it the ideal guide for all students of A-Level Politics.

1

DEMOCRACY 1 AND PARTICIPATION: SUFFRAGE

2

Chapter Preview Democracy is one of those rare political issues over which everyone seems to agree: we are all democrats. Very few of us, and even fewer politicians, are prepared to say that they are against democracy. But what is it that we all support? Is democracy in danger of becoming simply a ‘good thing’ – something we all think we believe in, but have little idea about what it is? Democracy is, in fact, a difficult issue. On the one hand, it seems simple. Democracy is ‘government by the people’, however there is no agreement about the form it should take. There are various models of democracy, the most common being ‘direct democracy’ and ‘representative democracy’. Not only do these models offer quite different ways in which popular rule can and should take place, but each has its own supporters and critics. What is the best form of democracy?

Key Questions and Debates

If democracy is popular rule, then popular participation must be the lifeblood of democracy. In the UK, political participation has become highly problematic with low levels of party memberships and voter turnout across elections. Ensuring that there is increased participation is therefore a major issue facing British politics.

»» What is democracy and why is participation central to democratic politics in the UK? »» Is the UK suffering from a participation crisis? »» How could UK democracy be improved? »» How was universal suffrage achieved and what does the future hold for expanding the vote?

Specification Checklist 1.1. Current systems of representative democracy and direct democracy »» The features of direct democracy and representative democracy. »» The similarities and differences between direct democracy and representative democracy. »» Advantages and disadvantages of direct democracy and representative democracy and consideration of the case for reform.

1.2. A wider franchise and debates over suffrage »» Key milestones in the widening of the franchise in relation to class, gender, ethnicity and age, including the 1832 Great Reform Act and the 1918, 1928 and 1969 Representation of the People Acts. »» The work of the suffragists/suffragettes to extend the franchise. »» The work of a current movement to extend the franchise.

So

ur ce

: ja

co

blu

nd

/G e

tt y

Im

ag

es

3

4

Component I: UK Politics

Democracy Definition

What is democracy?

Democracy: All the citizens are equally entitled to participate in the society’s decisions about its policies.

Democracy is an answer to the question: who rules? Most political systems throughout history have been based either on rule by one person (monarchies, empires and dictatorships) or rule by a small group of people (elites and oligarchies). Democracy, on the other hand, is rule by the demos, or the people as a whole rather than by any section, class or group within it. As such, it was a revolutionary idea and was largely spoken about in critical language until the twentieth century. Democracy means giving power to the people. In its simplest sense, democracy is ‘people power’ and involves the concept of popular participation.

Universal suffrage: The right for all adults to vote (however adulthood is defined). Political participation: The involvement of citizens in politics through, for example, voting, membership of a political party or the activities of pressure groups, in order to shape policy making.

In order to think about whether a political system is democratic or not, we need to establish some criteria to judge it by. In his book, On Democracy (1998), Robert A. Dahl used five key measures of democracy: 1. Participation: Before a decision is made, all have an equal and effective opportunity to make their opinions known to others about which decision should be made. 2. Voting equality: When a decision is to be made, every member must have an equal and effective opportunity to vote, and all votes must be counted as equal. 3. Understanding: Each person must have equal and effective opportunities for learning about the relevant alternative choices and their likely outcomes. 4. Agenda setting: Each person must have the opportunity to decide how to set the agenda and what to place on the agenda so that past decisions are always open to be revisited. 5. Universal: All adults should have the same rights, as citizens, that are necessary for participation, voting equality, understanding and setting the agenda. While the UK has democratic roots that go back as far as the Magna Carta of 1215, it can be argued that the UK system can only be seen as democratic since the granting of universal suffrage by the Equal Franchise Act of 1928. It was at this moment that the democratic rights for effective political participation became universal.

Definition Consent: Assent or permission; in politics, usually implies an agreement to be governed or ruled.

Spec key term Legitimacy: Legitimacy is usually defined simply as ‘rightfulness’ or the ‘right to rule’. The issue of legitimacy raises two important questions. What makes the powers exercised by a government legitimate? Why should citizens obey the laws of the state?

Legitimacy Democracy is of central importance in politics because it provides the basis for legitimacy, the right to rule, and so is the key to political stability. Democracy provides those in power with the legitimate right to rule and places an obligation on the people to obey the law in at least three ways. In the first place, it does so through consent. Citizens implicitly invest political authority with a ‘right to rule’ each time they participate in the political process. Democracy thus underpins legitimacy by expanding the opportunities for effective political participation, most importantly through the act of voting, but also through activities such as joining a political party or pressure group, and having the chance to serve in public office. Secondly, democracy ensures that political power is widely dispersed, each group having a political voice of some kind or other. As such, it gives rise to a process of compromise, conciliation and negotiation that allows people with different interests and preferences to live together in conditions of relative peace and order. Finally, democracy ensures that the political system fairly reflects the views of the people.

Types of democracy The task of understanding democracy is made more difficult by the fact that democracy comes in such a variety of shapes and forms. However, the two main types of democracy are: 1. Direct democracy 2. Representative democracy.

Democracy and Participation: Suffrage

Direct democracy Direct democracy is associated with the origins of democracy itself, which are usually traced back to Ancient Greece, and notably to its pre-eminent city state, or polis, Athens. From about 500 to 322 BCE a form of democracy operated in Athens that has served ever since as the model of ‘classical’ democracy. Athenian democracy, however, was a very particular form of democracy, quite different from the forms that are found in the modern world. In particular, it relied on the participation of all citizens in open assemblies which made all the key decisions. The key features of direct democracy are:

»»Popular participation is direct in that the people ‘make’ policy decisions – they do not merely choose who will rule on their behalf.

»»Popular participation is immediate in that the people ‘are’ the government – there is no separate

5

Tip – When evaluating how democratic the UK and its institutions are, it is important to establish the measures against which you are making your judgement.

class of professional politicians.

»»Popular participation is continuous in that people engage in politics on a regular and ongoing basis – all decisions are made by the people.

Athenian democracy was built upon three important institutions: 1. The Ekklesia, or Assembly, which was the main governing body. Any citizen could attend, debate and vote on all the major decisions such as declaring war, foreign policy, making and revising laws. Decisions were made by majority vote. In the Assembly, all citizens had the rights that are necessary for participation, voting equality, understanding and setting the agenda. However only the very best speakers, such as Demosthenes, could hold the attention of the demanding crowd so a small elite of the best orators often dominated the Assembly.

Direct democracy: A form of democracy that is based on the direct, immediate and continuous participation of citizens in the tasks of government. As such, there is no distinction between government and the people. It is therefore a system of popular self-government.

Source: Nastasic/Getty Images

Photo 1.1 Demosthenes, a Greek orator and statesman.

Spec key term

2. The Boule, or Council, was made up of 500 men and met every day to do the hands-on work of running the state. Council members were chosen by lot and only served for a term of one year. Drawing by lot, or sortition, was seen as more democratic than elections because it could not be affected by money or popularity, and would not lead to a professional class of politicians separate from the people. 3. The Dikasteria, or popular courts, made up of 501 jurors chosen each day by lot from male citizens over the age of thirty resolved court cases brought by the people. This principle can still be seen as active in the UK, where juries are randomly selected from those between 18 and 70, who are on the electoral register. The aim is to ensure a justice system that is fair, democratic and independent.

Definition Sortition: The use of random selection to fill public offices. Sortition aims to create public bodies which are composed of a representative random sample of people.

6

Component I: UK Politics

Representative democracy Spec key term Representative democracy: A limited and indirect form of democracy. It operates through the ability of representatives to speak for, or act on behalf of, the people. At the heart of representative democracy is the process through which representatives are chosen and can be removed. In practice, this is usually done through regular and popular elections.

Representative democracy is the dominant form of democracy in the modern world because it solves the problem inherent in direct democracy that only a small percentage of people can or want to spend their time learning about, debating and voting on political issues. Representative democracy is a way of voters electing a small group of representatives who work full time on getting informed, debating and voting on political issues on behalf of the people. In a representative democracy, people acquire the power to make political decisions by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote. Those who win elections can claim to ‘represent’ the people and the legitimate right to govern. The key features of representative democracy are:

»»Popular participation is indirect – the public do not exercise power themselves; they choose (usually by election) who will rule on their behalf.

»»Popular participation is mediated – the people are linked to government through representative institutions.

»»Popular participation in government is limited – it is infrequent and brief, being restricted to the act of voting every few years.

Whereas direct democracy is based on the principle of popular participation, representative democracy operates on the basis of popular control – ways of ensuring that professional politicians represent the people and not themselves. This is the role of elections and relies at the most basic level on the people exercising their right to vote. The basic condition for representative democracy is the existence of democratic elections. These are elections that are based on the following rules:

»»Freedom, fairness and regularity: voters can participate freely and express their own views. »»Universal suffrage: all adults can vote and there is voting equality, based on the principle of one person, one vote.

»»Party and candidate competition: voters have a choice and effective opportunities for learning Definition General elections: Full parliamentary elections, in which all of the 650 seats in the House of Commons come up for re-election. They traditionally take place within a five-year maximum term.

about the relevant alternative choices and their likely outcomes.

Historically in the UK, mass participation in representative democracy has been limited to voting in general elections to select MPs and in local elections to select local councillors. However the number of opportunities for participation has increased with voters, depending on where they live, now also able to vote in a wide range of elections including:

»»Elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for the devolved governments since the first elections in 1998.

»»Elections for the London Mayor and Greater London Authority since 2000. »»Elections for metro mayors, such as the Mayor of Greater Manchester, since 2017. »»Elections for Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) since 1979, which came to an end with the 2019 European Parliament Election.

»»Elections for Police Crime Commissioners, who make sure that local police meet the needs of the community, since 2012.

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  IS DIRECT DEMOCRACY SUPERIOR TO REPRE­SENTATIVE DEMOCRACY? There is considerable debate over the advantages and disadvantages of both direct and representative democracy.

Advantages of direct democracy/disadvantages of representative democracy In the Athenian model, democracy meant putting power in the hands of ordinary people, giving them time and information so they would come up with effective solutions to the problems of the day and doing it frequently to increase understanding and participation.

Democracy and Participation: Suffrage

Genuine democracy:



Direct democracy is the only pure form of democracy.

»»This is because it ensures that people only have to obey laws that they make themselves.

Popular participation in government is the very stuff of freedom: it is how the people determine their collective destiny, their ‘general will’.



Representative democracy always means that there is a gulf between government and the people.

»» This can lead to political apathy because citizens feel powerless when they want to make a

change. Governments therefore govern in the name of the people, but, in practice, the people may have little meaningful control over government. This certainly appears to be a common attitude in the UK (see Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1  Influence over decision making in the UK How much influence, if any, do you feel you have over decision making in the country as a whole? 47%

50%

A great deal of influence

36%

40%

Some influence

30% 20%

Not very much influence

14%

10%

1%

0%

None at all

Source: Compiled using data from The Hansard Society ‘Audit of Political Engagement 16: The 2019 Report’.

Personal development:



Direct democracy creates better informed and more knowledgeable citizens.

»»In this sense, it has educational benefits. Direct and regular popular participation in government

encourages people to take more interest in politics and to better understand their own society – both how it works and how it should work.



In representative democracy, with votes taking place so infrequently, people can literally switch off from politics.

»» As a result, effective political understanding decreases (see Figure 1.2). This reduces the ability

of people to learn about the relevant alternative choices and their likely outcomes, which are necessary for effective participation and voting equality.

Figure 1.2 Discussing government and politics with others How often, if at all, do you discuss government and politics with others? 10%

Nearly every day

30% 22%

A few times a week A few times a month Less often

19%

19%

Never

Source: Compiled using data from The Hansard Society ‘Audit of Political Engagement 16: The 2019 Report’.

7

8

Component I: UK Politics

End of professional politics:



Direct democracy reduces, or removes, the public’s dependence on self-serving professional politicians.

»»This increases public trust, political understanding and the development of long-term solutions

while decreasing corruption, which means that decisions will have real legitimacy in the eyes of the people.



Representative democracy places too much faith in politicians, who are always liable to distort public opinion by imposing their own views and preferences on it.

»» It therefore amounts to ‘government by politicians’, acting only in the name of the people. It is

argued that this political class will not be socially representative of the wider public (in terms of age, gender, wealth, ethnicity), is interested in furthering its own objectives over those of the people and is more interested in winning elections than arriving at long-term solutions. In the UK, this is increasingly a widely held attitude; in 2019, 63% of people felt the political system was rigged to the advantage of the rich and powerful (Hansard Society, Audit of Political Engagement 16).

Legitimate government:



Direct democracy ensures that rule is legitimate, in the sense that people are more likely to accept decisions that they have made themselves.

»»When citizens make political decisions directly, they have to take responsibility for them – there is no one else to blame. This helps to ensure political stability and legitimacy for decisions.



Representative democracy in the UK is experiencing something of a crisis.

»» Voter turnout remains low and people feel increasingly disengaged from politicians, political institutions and processes. Overall satisfaction with the system of governing in the UK has been on a downward trend from 36% in the first Hansard Audit in 2004 to 25% in 2019.

Advantages of representative democracy/disadvantages of direct democracy The strength of representative democracy is that it places ultimate power in the hands of the public – the power to decide who governs – while leaving day-to-day policy making in the hands of experts (professional politicians). It is therefore based on a compromise between the need for ‘government by the people’ (popular participation) and the need for ‘government for the people’ (government in the public interest). As representative democracy usually operates through the mechanism of elections, its effectiveness is therefore based on the extent to which the electoral process gives the people control over government.

Practicable democracy:



Direct democracy is only achievable in relatively small communities, especially in the form of government by mass meeting.

»» Such a form of democracy is widely considered to be quite unworkable in modern political

conditions. Athenian citizens devoted a great deal of time and energy to political activity. They were also able to meet together in a single place. How can such a high level of face-toface interaction be achieved in societies that are composed of tens or hundreds of millions of people?



Representative democracy is the only form of democracy that can operate in large, modern societies like the UK.

»»It is therefore a practical solution to the problem of popular rule. This does not mean that representative democracy cannot be complemented by aspects of direct democracy.

Democracy and Participation: Suffrage

Division of labour in politics:



One of the drawbacks of direct democracy is that it means that politics is a job for all citizens, restricting their ability to carry out other duties and activities.

»» The answer in ancient Athens was simple but deeply undemocratic: foreigners and slaves did

the bulk of the work, and women looked after family life. The ‘citizens’ of Athens constituted only a tiny minority of those who lived within the city state and so rights were by no means universal. The groups excluded from political participation and voting equality included women, men classified as ‘immigrants’ and slaves, who made up at least three-fifths of the population of Athens.



Representative democracy is more efficient because ordinary citizens are relieved of the burden of day-to-day decision making.

»»They simply have to choose who they want to govern them. Government by experts:

 

Direct democracy is not a sensible way to make complex decisions.

»» This is because many of the big issues facing the UK don’t have easy or clear solutions.

Representative democracy places decision making in the hands of politicians who have better education and greater expertise than the mass of the people.

»»They can therefore govern for the people using their superior understanding to act in the public interest.

Political stability:



Direct democracy can engage people too much, which may create deep divisions in society.

»» In cases where direct democracy creates clear winners and losers over a political choice, it will be very hard for the losers to see the political choice as legitimate.



Representative democracy maintains political stability by helping to distance ordinary citizens from politics, thereby encouraging them to accept compromise.

»»A certain level of apathy is helpful in maintaining political stability. The more involved in decision making citizens are, the more passionate and committed they may become.

Key Debate Summary: Is direct democracy superior to representative democracy? FOR

AGAINST

99Direct democracy is genuine democracy

88 Representative democracy is the only

99The continuous participation of direct

88 Representative democracy creates a

99Direct democracy ends the reliance on a

88 Representative democracy allows for

99Legitimacy and political stability are both

88 Representative democracy is built on

with direct, immediate and continuous participation. democracy allows for the personal development of citizens.

political class by returning power to the people to ensure decisions are in the public interest not the interest of the political class. created by the direct involvement of citizens in decision making.

practicable form of democracy in modern societies. division of labour which is far more efficient than continuous participation. government by experts; it is the sensible way to make complex decisions in the public interest. compromise, helping to maintain political stability.

9

10

Component I: UK Politics

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  IS THE UK SUFFERING FROM A PARTICIPATION CRISIS? Spec key term Participation crisis: The idea that there is a crisis in citizen involvement in the processes aimed at influencing the government and shaping politics due to the lack of interest by a significant number of citizens. This creates a serious issue for democracy as it undermines the legitimacy of elected institutions.

Perhaps the main modern concern about democracy in the UK stems from evidence of growing political apathy. Some have seen this as nothing less than a participation crisis. How can democracy be healthy when, despite increasing opportunities for participation, more and more citizens seem to be uninterested or unwilling to engage in political life? This has been most evident in:

»»Not voting »»Not joining political parties »»Not engaging with politics due to high levels of dissatisfaction with the current political system.

There are many different opportunities for participation within UK democracy (see Figure 1.3). What is very noticeable from the figure is that, apart from voting, all other forms of participation are carried out by a minority rather than a majority.

Figure 1.3  Different actions people take when they feel strongly about an issue Which of these would you be prepared to do if you felt strongly enough about an issue? 11%

Donate money or pay a membership fee to a political party Take part in a march, demonstration or strike Take an active part in a campaign Donate money or pay a membership fee to a charity or…

18% 18% 20% 29% 34% 37%

Create or sign a petition Create or sign an e-petition Contact a local councillor or MP/member of Scottsh…

58%

Vote in an election

22%

None of the above

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percentage

Source: Compiled using data from The Hansard Society Audit of Political Engagement 16: The 2019 Report.

However, the idea of a participation crisis in UK politics has also been criticised. The problem may not so much be a decline in the overall level of political participation but, rather, that there has been a shift from one kind of participation to another. In particular, as disillusionment and cynicism with conventional party politics have grown, new forms of participation have developed to compensate for low voter turnout and declining party membership. Nevertheless, voter apathy should not be dismissed lightly. Elections are the lifeblood of a representative democracy such as the UK. The level of electoral turnout must therefore be an important indication of the health of the larger democratic system. Others have further criticised the notion of a political crisis in the UK, making the case that actually apathy is a sign that voters are content with the way that things are rather than an expression of their alienation from the political process. In this way, lower turnout is positive rather than negative.

Visit the companion website for more on the debate around why participation has declined.

Democracy and Participation: Suffrage

Voting and non-voting Low turnout is a growing cause for concern in the UK. The slow collapse in voter turnout in general elections and the low turnouts in elections beyond the general election suggest there is a growing participation crisis in the UK. However the increasing number of voting opportunities and the recent signs of life in voter turnout suggest that the crisis is being exaggerated.



Voter participation is slowly on the rise in recent elections.

»»Since 2001, there has been a slow rise in the voter turnout, back up to 69% in 2017 from the low of 59% in 2001 (although it fell back in 2019 to 67%) (see Figure 1.4), suggesting participation is on the rise.



However, participation is still very poor compared to elections during the twentieth century.

»» General elections in the UK with universal suffrage have been in place since 1928 and, in the

period between 1945 and 1992, the average turnout usually remained above 75%, with a postwar high of 84% being achieved in 1950. The 2001 general election recorded a turnout of 59%, the lowest figure since 1918 while the recovery to 67% in 2019 is still well below pre-1992 levels. There is also a consistent pattern in local elections of much lower turnout than for general elections, possibly because people perceive local councils to have limited power.

Figure 1.4  Turnout across elections between 1979 and 2019 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1979 1983 1984 1987 1989 1992 1994 1997 1998 1999 2001 2003 2004 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019



European Parliament elections

Scottish Parliament elections

Welsh Assembly elections

Northern Ireland Assembly elections

General Elections

It is clear that not everyone is participating equally.

»» A minority is engaging more frequently and in more ways. The make-up of this group is

likely to be unrepresentative of society as a whole but rather made up for those with higher income, managerial and professional jobs and higher levels of education. This pattern was clearly evident in the 2019 election, where turnout among those with degrees and above was 69% while it was 59% for those with other qualifications and those with no qualifications. Higher managerial, middle manager and professional workers had a turnout of 68% while semi-skilled, unskilled workers and those not working had a turnout of 53% (Ipsos MORI estimates).

11

12

Component I: UK Politics



However, the number of opportunities to vote has been increasing.

»»Since 1979, there has been a widening in the number of voting opportunities in the United Kingdom, with European elections starting in 1979 and elections to the devolved assemblies in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland from 1998.

Definition Referendum: A vote in which the electorate can express a view on a particular issue of public policy. Good Friday Agreement: Brought to an end 30 years of ‘the Troubles’ between Republicans and Loyalists and, in the devolution settlement, established a new government and parliament in Northern Ireland with power shared between the parties from both sides.



But turnout is even lower in these elections.

»» The turnout in these elections has remained consistently lower than for general elections

during the same period (see Figure 1.4). This could be attributed to voter fatigue from too many opportunities to engage or down to the institutions themselves. The European Parliament was perceived as remote and lacking power, while it has been argued that if the devolved governments were given more power then more people would be inclined to turn out and vote in the elections.



There is increased use of referendums.

»»There has also been a widening of participation opportunities since 1997 with the increased use of referendums across the UK. The turnout figures for referendums have been inconsistent; where matters have been of considerable historical importance the turnout has been very high but in many other referendums the turnout has remained lower than in general elections. For example, in the Northern Ireland 1998 referendum on the Good Friday Agreement the turnout was 81% which was topped by a turnout of 85% for the Scottish Independence Referendum of 2014.



However, there is low turnout in many referendums.

»» Unlike the Scottish independence vote, the referendum on devolution in Wales saw a turnout of

50% while the referendum on the creation of the London Mayor and Assembly saw a turnout of just 33%.

Party membership The modern British political parties that emerged in the twentieth century had mass memberships with very strong party loyalty. Table 1.1 shows that since the 1950s there has been a large collapse in party membership as the British public appeared to move away from this type of participation, although in recent times, there has been a slow increase suggesting a revival of participation.

Table 1.1  Party membership figures in the UK Year

Conservative Labour

Liberal Green Democrat

SNP

UKIP

Total

1953

2,806,000

1,005,000

2003

248,000

215,000

71,000

5,300

9,500

16,000

564,800

2013

149,000

190,000

43,000

14,000

25,000

32,000

453,000

2019

180,000

485,000

115,000

49,000

125,000

29,000

983,000

3,811,000

Source: Data from Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.



It is increasingly clear that mass membership has seriously declined, as have strong party loyalties.

»» The Labour party was traditionally seen as the party of the working class and the Conservatives

the party of the middle class. Some argue that the decline reflects the fact that the political

Democracy and Participation: Suffrage

13

parties remain stuck in the past and no longer reflect the modern UK, where age, ethnicity, education and income divides, along with whether you are a renter or home owner, are more important than out-of-date class structures.



However, since 2013, there has been a resurgence in party membership.

»»This is true particularly within the smaller parties such as the Scottish National Party (SNP) and

the Green Party as people turned to them and away from the Labour and Conservative parties. The Labour party also saw its membership numbers increase rapidly after 2015, when people joined as personal support for Jeremy Corbyn, with the desire for a new style of Labour politics and, for those who felt left behind, to back a more radical political approach.



It may be more a case of a drop in the quantity of party membership but a rise in the quality of participation.

»»Many members of political parties in the post-war period paid a subscription and enjoyed the social facilities provided by Labour and Conservative clubs rather than being active party members. In the twenty-first century, parties have changed their structures, giving members a far greater input into policy and the ability to vote for the party leader. Most current party members joined because of this ability to participate more widely, as was shown in 2019 when Boris Johnson was elected leader of the Conservative party with 66% of the votes based on a turnout of 87.4% of party members.

Group politics A further traditional route for participation in UK politics has been to engage by joining groups in order to campaign on political issues. Historically in the UK, the most influential group has been the trade union movement.



The decline of the trade union movement.

»» Group politics (see page 32), in some ways, can be seen to be headed in the direction of political

parties. The largest and most influential of all groups in UK democracy in the twentieth century, the trade unions, reached their peak in 1979 with around 13.2 million members. By 2016, trade union membership had dropped to an all-time low of 6.23 million, although there was slight growth in memberships in all the three years that followed. This has largely come about due to the decline in manual jobs in large, traditional industries like coal mining and ship building. With this decline in membership, many of the organisational skills and communication and social networks that connected working people to politics are being lost.



The rise of new groups around issues like the environment.

»»At the same time, there has been an explosion in the number of charities and campaigning

organisations, particularly around environmental issues since the 1960s. This growth has come about as people feel that groups built around single issues are more effective than parties at representing their interests and ensuring that policies are shaped to meet their views. In 2013, the Passionate Collaboration study found that the 139 environmental groups they analysed had a total membership of 4.5 million, which means nearly one in ten adults in the UK are members of such groups.

Social movements and direct action A recent trend that has seemed to transform political participation is the rise of new social movements. Most new social movements involve the use of direct action; mostly through mass peaceful protest, but also civil disobedience such as obstruction of roads, sometimes accompanied by violence to property.

Definition Trade unions: Groups of employees who join together to maintain and improve their conditions of employment. Direct action: Political action in the form of protest that aims at forcing change but does not go through the usual channels such as Parliament. Civil disobedience: Law breaking that is justified on the grounds it is being used to create a more just and fair society.

14

Component I: UK Politics



These movements are loosely organised and flexible, seeming to emerge quickly in response to issues as they appear on the political agenda, and have mass participation.

»»The numbers of people taking part are very large, as can be seen in the anti-war marches

of 2003 and the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, often engaging many of the people, in particular the younger generation, who have switched off from voting and party membership.



Direct action is seen as a real challenge to democracy and traditional forms of participation.

»» New social movements, like the anti-war movement and anti-capitalist movement, are looking

to challenge the traditional politics of working through elections, parties and Parliament with a new form of direct action politics. This raises the question as to whether new social movements are undermining democratic participation and reducing legitimacy, or are part of a transformation in the way that people participate and the way that UK democracy works.

Individual politics It has been argued that, in place of the more traditional forms of participation, the UK is experiencing a rise in individual rather than collective acts of participation. Individuals are sparked into action by issues that concern them, finding ways to engage on that particular issue rather than joining a formally organised group or party. This helps to explain the rise of the new forms of protest politics and why these movements appear so quickly, only to disappear at the same speed. This form of individual action can only be seen in a number of other political actions which are becoming increasingly common place:

»»Political consumerism – This is when people use their purchasing power to buy particular products, such as fair trade products, and boycott other products and brands to force change. The anti-sweatshop consumerism targeted at key fashion brands has pushed global corporations to take more responsibility.

»»Petitions – The arrival of modern technology has made signing petitions online a much more

common action. Campaign organisations such as 38 Degrees claim their campaigns are chosen and led by more than two million members, while Change.org claims that globally one of its petitions secures a campaign victory every hour.

»»E-petitions – The introduction of e-petitions by the government allows the public to petition

the House of Commons and press for action from the government. In 2019, the Revoke Article 50 and Remain in the EU petitions secured 6,103,056  signatures and triggered a debate in Parliament.

»»Clicktivism – The signing of online petitions is part of a wider culture of clicktivism that allows individuals to use social media and other online methods to promote a cause. This can range from using social media and emails to contact elected representatives, share and comment on news stories, sign petitions and join crowdfunding activities.



This type of participation brings the benefit that it allows individuals to express their preferences.

»»Essentially, the individual is able to express their concerns rather than finding them moderated

by mass political parties who are seeking to appeal to the widest possible audience. These forms of individual participation are engaging people in politics in new and innovative ways that may revive democracy’s flagging fortunes.



However, can individual politics be more of a case of slacktivism than activism?

»» Some critics feel that individual participation is fleeting rather than sustained and also at a very

low level of engagement because it requires so little effort. These kinds of individual actions are really no replacement for higher levels of political participation like voting or joining a political party.

Democracy and Participation: Suffrage

15

Key Debate Summary: Is the UK suffering from a participation crisis? FOR

AGAINST

99There has been a long-term decline in voter 88 There has been a widening in the number turnout in the UK in general elections, with low turnout also a persistent issue in other types of election and many referendums.

of opportunities to vote in UK politics, with a revival of turnout in general elections and strong engagement with referendums.

membership since the 1950s in the UK, in particular for the two major parties.

membership and the quality of engagement in political parties is far higher than historically.

99There has been a long-term decline in party 88 There has been a recent revival in party

99There has been a decline in the membership 88 There has been an explosion in single issue and power of the largest and most influential organisation in group politics; the trade union movement.

groups, which now have mass membership and engagement.

99New social movements undermine

88 New social movements have been a vehicle

99Individual politics is more a case of

88 Individual politics has become a way for

participation in the key building blocks of a representative democracy – political parties and voting – and so reduces the legitimacy of our elected institutions.

slacktivism than activism; participation is shallow and does little to support democracy.

of mass engagement in politics in an era of protest politics. New forms of political engagement are replacing the more traditional methods of voting and party membership.

people to engage in politics in new and innovative ways. These methods are very democratic as they are open to all and are reaching those who have been turned off by party politics. The nature of participation is changing not declining.

Enhancing democracy in the UK As criticisms of the UK’s democratic system have increased, a growing debate has emerged about how democracy can best be protected or enhanced. In particular, how can the decline in electoral turnout and other forms of participation be reversed? This is seen as crucial because the participation crisis has created a ‘democratic deficit’ in the UK. The democratic deficit can be understood through three different but linked issues:

»»Voters are dissatisfied and disengaged so are not voting in large numbers, undermining the support for democratic institutions.

»»Elected representatives are seen as unaccountable for their actions and not widely trusted. »»There has been a widespread recognition among politicians that there are problems with political participation, yet they have struggled to reform democratic institutions and processes to increase voter engagement.

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  WILL REFORMS ENHANCE DEMOCRACY IN THE UK? More direct involvement of the public in modern politics is used to supplement rather than replace representative democracy, in which voters elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. Recent years have witnessed a steady trend, evident in the UK and elsewhere, towards the wider use of direct involvement. This has occurred because representative democracies have been seen

Spec key term Democratic deficit: The democratic deficit is a flaw in the democratic process whereby decisions are taken by people who lack legitimacy.

16

Component I: UK Politics to suffer from increased political apathy and growing popular disillusionment with politics. The great advantage is that it strengthens popular participation in government, by placing power directly into the hands of the people.

Definition

Referendums

Constitution: A set of rules and principles for the conduct of government and politics within a state, which sets out the relationship between the different parts of the political system and the relationship between the government and the people.

A referendum is a vote on a specific issue. Normally this would relate to particular circumstances, such as amending the constitution of a country, or to a political issue, such as membership of a political body like the EU, or in relation to any major political issue that is of great importance to society. In the UK, unlike other countries, referendums are held whenever and on whatever issue Parliament decides to call them. Since 1973, there have twelve referendums in the UK, with eight of these happening after 1997, including the Scottish Independence Referendum 2014 and the EU Referendum of 2016 (for more on referendums, see page 94). In many other countries, referendums are mandatory; most commonly states, such as Ireland, hold mandatory referendums on any proposed changes to their constitution. It is also the case that in other countries, such as Switzerland, referendums can be held on whether to accept or overturn any legislation or international treaty that has been agreed in the Parliament provided the right number of signatures is gained. In Switzerland, this requires 50,000 signatures within 100 days of the law or treaty passing in order to trigger the referendum.

Source: PAUL FAITH/AFP/Getty Images

Photo 1.2 Stormont – the site of the Northern Ireland Assembly set up in the Good Friday Agreement.

Referendums are at their most successful where they are used to provide legitimacy to a key decision. This sense of legitimacy provides a higher level of certainty and stability to key decisions, as can be seen in the 1998 referendum on the Good Friday Agreement. The fact that 71% of voters endorsed the Agreement, on a turnout of 81%, gave the new setup in Northern Ireland the popular consent it needed.



There is support for the wider use of referendums on key political decisions.

»»Support for the use of more referendums in the UK is reflected in the Hansard Society Audit of

Political Engagement 16 (2019), in which 55% of the public in the UK agreed that important questions should be resolved by referendums more often than they are today. High levels of engagement in the EU and Scottish Independence Referendums point to how this would improve democracy in the UK by encouraging participation and political education.



One of the current weaknesses of referendums is the absence of popular control over when and where they will be used.

»» This creates the suspicion that governments will only call referendums on issues which they support and when they are confident of winning, especially in light of the EU Referendum result.

Democracy and Participation: Suffrage



17

However, this problem can be overcome by establishing processes through which citizens can initiate referendums to overturn legislation.

»»This can usually be done by getting the required number of signatures on a petition. This could be used to create a people’s veto giving far greater popular control over legislation.



There is no need to use more referendums because the current situation of only calling referendums on key constitutional issues is the most successful way of bolstering the legitimacy of such decisions.

»» Increased referendums use may well lead to voter fatigue and apathy; there is already clear

evidence that turnout is low when questions that do not engage the public are asked, such as the referendum on a London Mayor and Assembly, and this undermines the legitimacy of these votes. In addition the people’s veto would undermine representative democracy by weakening the power of the government to turn the policy promises on which it was elected into legislation.

Initiatives

Definition

Initiatives are not currently used in the UK but are used in other democracies such as Switzerland and certain states in the USA. Initiatives allow people to propose a new law or constitutional amendment by gathering the required number of signatures from the public. If the proposal is then passed by the voters, it becomes part of the law of that state or country. The key difference to a referendum is that initiatives allow the people to put the measure on the ballot paper and then vote on it themselves without any role for elected politicians.

Initiatives: Give people the power to propose a new law or constitutional amendment and then vote on it.

In 2016, a vote was held on whether Switzerland should introduce a guaranteed basic income of around £1,700 per adult and £400 per child per month for all. This proposal was placed on the ballot having achieved over 100,000 signatures despite having no support from any major party. The initiative was rejected at the ballot box with 77% voting against and 23% voting for the proposal.



The UK could introduce the use of initiatives to give the public more direct control over making law.

»»Essentially, the UK could allow the public to put new laws on the ballot paper and then vote on it themselves without any role for elected politicians as happens in Switzerland or some states in the USA.



However, initiatives would undermine UK democracy by removing politicians from making decisions and potentially create a situation where the majority could undermine the rights of minority groups.

»» In 2009, Swiss voters used an initiative to ban the construction of minarets in a vote that was seen by opponents as an attempt to curb the religious practices of Muslims, impacting on the right to freedom of religion.

Citizens’ assemblies Citizens’ assemblies are made up of a representative group of between 50 to 200 people, who are chosen using sortition. Certain criteria such as age, gender, ethnicity, region and social background are used as part of the selection process to ensure that the group is broadly representative of wider society; it should represent the country in miniature. The assembly is then given the job of carrying out an in-depth analysis of a particular policy issue; this process involves analysing the problem, deliberating on potential solutions, then making informed recommendations for action. Two of the most high-profile examples both come from the Republic of Ireland. The first, the Convention on the Constitution 2012 to 2014, made recommendations that led to the 2015 Marriage Equality Referendum. The second, The Irish Citizens’ Assembly, made proposals on removing the country’s abortion laws; this recommendation was put to a referendum in 2018 and supported by 66% of voters.



Citizens’ assemblies are a way of exploring the views of the public on a policy issue and coming up with concrete solutions.

»»For example, the environmental group Extinction Rebellion campaigns for UK citizens’ assemblies on climate change. Citizens’ assemblies can reinforce and add to representative democracy, not

18

Component I: UK Politics only by giving elected politicians an understanding of informed public viewpoints on complex policy issues, but also by building trust in the political process through participation and engagement. For example, Ireland established citizens’ assemblies to deliberate on abortion and same sex marriage, both of which led to referendums and changes in the law.



However, in order for assemblies to be successful, the following is required:

»» Firstly there would need to be a clear question, sufficient time and a large enough budget to

cover the topic in the appropriate detail. Secondly, there would also need to be the political will, probably backed by cross-party support, to implement rather than ignore the recommendations made by the assemblies. There are already plenty of ways for politicians to understand the public’s views on key policy issues, including opinion polls, and the rise of social media has made it far easier for the public to make their views known to their elected representatives.

Definition

Recall elections

Recall elections: Allow the voting public to trigger a special election to remove an elected representative before the end of their term in office.

Recall elections allow the people to trigger a special election to remove an elected representative before the end of their term in office in order to increase their accountability and limit corruption. In the UK, this process was introduced by the Recall of MPs Act 2015 and allows MPs to be recalled under any of the following three circumstances: 1. If an MP is convicted in the UK of an offence and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained and all appeals have been exhausted.

Constituency: This an area whose voters elect an MP; there are 650 constituencies in the UK.

2. If an MP has been suspended from the House of Commons, for at least ten days, by the House Committee on Standards for breaking the Code of Conduct for MPs. 3. If an MP is convicted of making false or misleading Parliamentary allowances (expenses) claims. Once this has happened, if 10% of those eligible to vote in the constituency of the MP sign a recall petition, then the MP is removed from their post, and a by-election is called to fill that seat. Between 2015 and 2020, there were three recall petitions opened, and on two occasions the petition was successful and a new election called. In 2019, the sitting MP, Fiona Onasanya (Labour), was recalled having been convicted and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for perverting the course of justice, with Lisa Forbes (Labour) winning the by-election. In 2019, the MP for Brecon and Radnorshire, Chris Davies (Conservative), was convicted for making false expenses claims and recalled. He stood as the Conservative candidate in the by-election but lost the seat to Jane Dodds (Liberal Democrats).

By-election: These take place when a seat in the House of Commons becomes empty between general elections.



»»Recall elections in the UK have a very narrow set of criteria under which MPs can be recalled.

Recall elections could be widened so that constituents could recall their MPs where they feel they have failed to deliver on the promises they made at elections or due to a failure to represent their constituents’ interests. This would strengthen the link between MPs and their constituents by increasing the accountability of the MP.

Definition Electoral Commission: An independent body, charged both with reviewing the operation of the UK’s democratic processes and with making recommendations for strengthening democracy. It was established by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA).

Recall elections, as they stand, do not make MPs accountable enough to their constituents.



Critics would point out that this essentially removes the ability of MPs to think for themselves so they simply become mouthpieces for their constituents.

»» MPs would make decisions based on polling the attitudes of their constituents out of fear of a recall election triggered by supporters of the opposing parties. The current recall elections legislation does its job of increasing accountability, and so no further reform is needed.

Electoral registration reform In 2019, the Electoral Commission found that more than 9 million people (around 17%) who are eligible to vote in the UK are not correctly registered to vote, limiting their ability to participate in elections. Their investigation also found clear differences in registration levels between younger people, renters, low-income and ethnic minorities, compared with older white people who own their homes.

Democracy and Participation: Suffrage



Automatic voter registration would ensure everyone is able to vote.

»»This has led to calls for automatic voter registration, supported by the House of Commons

Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in 2014, whereby public officials would directly enrol people without ordinary citizens having to take any action.



How accurate, safe and cost effective would the system be?

»» A number of concerns were raised by the government in response to the Committee in 2014: the cost of automatic voter registration, the issues with ensuring its accuracy and the concerns around security against fraud.

Voting and electoral reform Elections in the UK are seen as free and fair, are overseen by the independent Electoral Commission and supported by various campaigns to register to vote and get the vote out, such as Bite the Ballot. However, the downturn in voter turnout in the UK is a significant problem for UK democracy, and a number of suggestions have been made to increase voter participation:

Logistics:



There a number of options to explore which could increase turnout:

»»Weekend rather than weekday voting – The pattern across Europe is that turnout is 10% higher in countries that run weekend rather than weekday voting.

»»The introduction of online voting – This proposal is strongly supported by the National Union

of Students in its submission to the Reform Committee where they cited evidence that 85% of students at the University of Sheffield said they were more likely to vote if voting was online.



But fears remain over electoral fraud and cost.

»» There are concerns about electoral fraud when it comes to online voting and worries that it would be difficult to guarantee the secrecy of the ballot, while the move to weekends is seen to involve additional costs for limited rewards.

Compulsory voting:



Compulsory voting would increase engagement in the political process across all social classes and ages.

»»This would increase the legitimacy of the UK’s elected bodies (for more see page 86). In order

to tackle the issue that this is a restriction on freedom, it has been suggested that ballot papers should include a voting option for ‘none of the above’ so people could show they did not support any of the candidates.



People should have a choice whether or not to participate.

»» Critics argue that, as a matter of principle, voting should not be made compulsory, and that people should be free to not participate at elections if they so choose.

Voting age:



Reducing the voting age to 16 would increase youth turnout in the short term and increase voter turnout across all age groups in the medium to long term (for more see page 138).

»»This could go hand in hand with wider education about citizenship in school, which would encourage people to vote for the first time, and encourage voting as a habit.



Interest in politics at a young age could be low.

»» Critics argue that 16–18-year-olds are unlikely to be interested in or have an understanding of politics, and lowering the voting age will lead to lower turnout.

19

20

Component I: UK Politics

Voting system:



Change the voting system from FPTP.

»»The electoral system used in the UK – First Past the Post (FPTP) – has created a situation in which

too many people don’t vote because they feel that their vote does not matter. Under FPTP, the candidate with the most votes wins the seat while the votes for all the losing candidates elect no one, so are seen as wasted and worthless (see Chapter 4). This problem is made worse by safe seats, where one party dominates so strongly that the outcome of the election in that seat is a foregone conclusion, raising the question, why vote? It is argued by Unlock Democracy that a move to proportional representation, where the percentage of votes equals the percentage of seats in the elected body, would increase turnout by around 3% to 7%.



FPTP is already established with voters.

»» Opponents point to the fact that FPTP is simple for voters to use, is embedded in UK political culture

and helps to deliver clear majorities for the winning party, meaning that the government has clear legitimacy. Any changes to the electoral system would undermine these key features of UK democracy. The system simply works well and has the support of the wider public, so why change it?

Wider institutional reform: Many critics argue that enhancing democracy in the UK involves more wide-ranging institutional reform, across a whole range of areas that are covered later in the book.



Shortcomings in existing processes.

»»These include whether the House of Lords should be a fully elected chamber so there is real

accountability, whether devolved bodies should be granted more decision-making power to bring power closer to the people (see page 204), and whether the system of funding for political parties needs to change in order to reduce the perception that parties are in the pockets of their main donors (see page 66).



However, wide ranging institutional reforms can create further issues in democracy

»» such as whether a fully elected Lords should have the same power as the Commons, whether

devolution is undermining the power of the democratically elected Parliament in Westminster, and whether state funding for political parties would ever be acceptable to the taxpayers who would have to pay the bill.

Key Debate Summary: Will reforms enhance democracy in the UK? FOR

99More direct involvement of the public in politics would benefit representative democracy by creating higher levels of engagement and participation, increasing legitimacy while also making politicians more accountable.

AGAINST

88 More direct democracy could increase political apathy and undermine representative democracy by weakening the ability of politicians to deliver their election promises.

99Automatic voter registration would ensure that all 88 Concerns remain about fraud, citizens were ready and able to vote, increasing participation across all sections of society.

accuracy and the cost of the automatic registration.

99Voting and electoral reform will increase

88 Voting and electoral reform may not increase

99Institutional reforms are needed to tackle the

88 Institutional reforms run the danger of

participation across all sections of society, enhancing the legitimacy of elected politicians. democratic deficit and participation crisis.

effective levels of participation and may undermine key features of UK democracy.

increasing opposition to elected institutions and weakening the power of parliament.

Democracy and Participation: Suffrage

A wider franchise and debates over suffrage Universal suffrage Elections in the UK became democratic through the progressive extension of the franchise throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, first on the basis of social class, then on the basis of gender, and finally on the basis of age. Voting equality was achieved largely through parliament responding to popular pressure from below to widen the franchise. The main steps on the UK’s road to universal suffrage are shown below.

MILESTONES... Widening suffrage in the UK 1832

Great Reform Act – This abolished ‘rotten boroughs’, which had either no electors or a few electors and were controlled by a single powerful patron. The Act enfranchised almost all male middle-class property owners. Although it increased the electorate by about two-thirds, it still meant that fewer than 6% of the total population could vote.

1867

Second Reform Act – This Act gave the vote to all settled tenants (men only) in the boroughs, creating a substantial working-class franchise for the first time.

1884

Third Reform Act – This extended the franchise to rural and mining areas, and enfranchised virtually all male householders and tenants.

1918

Representation of the People Act – This Act widened suffrage by abolishing almost all property qualifications for men (effectively establishing universal manhood suffrage) and by enfranchising women over 30 who met a minimum property qualification. These changes saw the electorate triple in size, reaching over 21 million, about 43% of whom were women (a figure inflated by the loss of men in WWI).

1928

Equal Franchise Act – By lowering the voting age for women from 31 to 21 and abolishing property qualifications, this created equal voting rights for women and men, and established universal adult suffrage in the UK.

1969

Representation of the People Act – This lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, enfranchising 18–20-year-olds.

2014

Scotland – Following the precedent set by the Scottish independence referendum, the Scottish Parliament unanimously approved the proposal to reduce the voting age from 18 to 16 for Scottish Parliament elections (in 2016) and Scottish local elections (in 2017). The Welsh Senedd (Parliament) lowered the voting age in Wales to 16 in 2020 in Welsh Senedd elections.

21

Spec key term Franchise/Suffrage: Franchise and suffrage are both terms that refer to the right to vote in public elections, such as the general election.

22

Component I: UK Politics

CASE STUDY 1.1: THE WORK OF THE SUFFRAGISTS/SUFFRAGETTES TO EXTEND THE FRANCHISE

Source: Topical Press Agency/Getty Images

Photo 1.3 Suffragette march in London, March 1911.

Events In the second half of the nineteenth century, the franchise was extended to include more men. This led to a growing sense of injustice and a new movement emerged to campaign for the right to vote for women with two factions dominating the movement: the Suffragettes and the Suffragists. In 1897, the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (Suffragists) was formed, led by Millicent Fawcett. The organisation believed in making change happen through peaceful means and to raise the issue in debates in the House of Commons. In 1903, angered by the lack of progress in Parliament, Emmeline Pankhurst among others formed the Women’s Social and Political Union (Suffragettes) with the motto ‘Deeds not words’. The Suffragettes believed that peaceful, parliamentary means of achieving change had been exhausted and they committed to direct action and civil disobedience to achieve the vote. In 1918, the Representation of the People Act was passed to give the franchise to women over the age of 30 who met a property qualification. Only about two-thirds of the total population of women in the UK met the criteria and could vote. It was not until the Equal Franchise Act of 1928 that women over 21 were given the right to vote and women finally realised the same voting rights as men.

Significance The right to vote for women was a massive shift from 1868 when the MP John Stuart Mill’s bill to extend

suffrage to women was met by derisive laughter in the House of Commons. The question is, how was this change achieved? The first emphasis tends to fall on the Suffragist movement and the unsung groundwork that they did: petitioning, letter writing, producing pamphlets with their arguments and fundraising alongside peaceful demonstrations such as the Great Pilgrimage of 1913. The aim was to garner public support as well as the support of MPs in order to make the change inevitable. The Suffragettes became increasingly frustrated with the slow progress of change and saw the Suffragists as being way too optimistic about the Liberal government bringing about universal suffrage. This led some to argue that it was the militant tactics adopted by the Suffragettes, including destroying letterboxes, smashing windows, cutting telephone wires, burning down properties owned by politicians and carving slogans into golf courses, which forced change. The tactics adopted, including the most high profile when Emily Davison chose to throw herself under the King’s horse at the Derby, lived up to Pankhurst’s view that, ‘You have to make yourself more obtrusive than anybody else, fill all the papers more than anybody else if you are really going to get your reform realised.’ The fear of the return of this sort of activism after the First World War may well have persuaded MPs to grant women’s suffrage. Even if that is the case, questions still remained over the conflict between their aim of achieving votes under the law and their tactics of breaking the law. Critics believed this approach was counterproductive because it alienated public and parliamentary support, and many MPs thought it showed women were unfit to have the vote. Finally, the arrival of the First World War saw the campaign put on the backburner as women from the movement committed to war work with great achievements in many areas, such as science and engineering. Many felt it was inevitable in light of the contribution of women that the vote would be granted after the War. The debate continues about whether the influence of Suffragists or Suffragettes was more important. There can be little doubt that the struggle from below forced Parliament to pass the changes that granted women the right to vote.

Democracy and Participation: Suffrage

The right to vote in the twenty-first century The extension of the franchise in the UK has moved over 200 years in the direction of widening the number of people who can vote to achieve voting equality. In the twenty-first century you can vote in the general election if you are over 18, are a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen, resident at an address in the UK and have not been legally disqualified from voting. The following individuals cannot vote in a UK Parliamentary election:

 

Members of the House of Lords

 

Convicted people detained in prison

EU citizens resident in the UK and anyone other than British, Irish and qualifying Commonwealth citizens

Anyone found guilty within the last five years of corrupt or illegal practices in relation to an election. One area of the franchise that is controversial is the need for voter identification (Voter ID) when voting. The Conservative Government in 2017 set out the aim of defeating voter fraud by the introduction of a Voter ID system to increase trust in the democratic system. This was trialled in five areas in 2018 and ten areas in 2019 during local elections in preparation for being rolled out for use across all elections in the UK. Critics point to the fact that there is no real evidence of voter fraud undermining trust in UK elections and democracy, with only 28 allegations of voter fraud out of over 45 million votes in the 2017 General Election. Instead, opponents have argued that Voter ID laws will suppress the vote, particularly among already marginalised groups – the low paid and unemployed, disabled people, ethnic minorities and young people – because they are the least likely to have access to any form of photographic ID. The Electoral Reform Society estimated that around 3.5 million people (7.5% of the population) do not have access to ID and that more than 750 people were denied a vote in the May 2019 local election trials.

Should the franchise be extended to 16- and 17-year-olds? Currently in the UK, young people in Scotland and Wales have the right to vote in elections to their Parliaments (but not in general elections), while young people in England and Northern Ireland do not.



Responsibilities without rights.

»»The UK has a blurred ‘age of majority’, with the minimum age for various activities being lower

than 18. The case for votes at 16 is based on the fact that this is the age at which young people can leave full-time education to start an apprenticeship or traineeship or spend 20 hours or more per week working while in part-time education or training, pay direct tax, consent to sexual relationships, and (with parental consent) join the army, get married or enter a civil partnership and give full consent to medical treatment.



Immature voters.

»» The main argument against lowering the voting age is that until 18 most young people are in full-time education and continue to live with their parents. This means that they are not full citizens, and their educational development, even though they can leave school, remains incomplete. Most 16–18-year-olds are unlikely to be interested in, or have knowledge of, politics.



Youth interests ignored.

»»The lack of political representation for young people between 16 and 18 means that their needs, views and interests are routinely marginalised or ignored. Lowering the voting age may

23

24

Component I: UK Politics therefore give greater attention to, and stimulate fresher thinking on, issues such as education, drugs policy and social morality generally.



Deferred representation.

»» To regard the lack of representation of 16–18-year-olds as a political injustice is absurd. Unlike women and the working classes of old, young people are not permanently denied political representation. Their representation is only delayed or deferred. Moreover, 18-year-olds are also likely to be broadly in touch with the interests of 16- and 17-year-olds.



Stronger political engagement.

»»Concern about declining civic engagement focuses particularly on the young, as 18–24-year-

olds have had the lowest turnout rates. Lowering the voting age would re-engage such voters in two ways. First, it would strengthen their interest and understanding, and, second, it would help to reorientate politics around issues that are more meaningful to younger voters. The evidence from the Scottish Independence Referendum shows that estimated turnout for 16–17-yearolds was 75%, much higher than the 54% for 18–24-year-olds. The earlier a person has the chance to vote, the more likely they are to use it and to continue to use it, helping to tackle the participation crisis.



Undermining turnout.

»» There is a possibility that, by lowering the voting age, turnout rates may decline. As young voters

are less likely to vote than older voters, many, and possibly most, 16–18-year-olds may choose not to vote. As voters who do not vote in their first eligible election are the most unreliable voters, this may create a generation of abstainers.



Irrational cut-off age.

»»The notion that the current voting age is a reflection of intellectual and educational development

is flawed. It both ignores the steady rise in educational standards, with citizenship education compulsory in secondary schools since 2002, and the fact that no restrictions are applied to politically ignorant and poorly educated adults. If 16- or 17-year-olds are being excluded from politics on the grounds of their knowledge and level of understanding, the principle is being very inconsistently applied. There are already over 20,000 young people active in youth councils and over 600 elected Members of Youth Parliament showing that young people are ready to engage.



Preserving ‘childhood’.

»» The campaign to lower the voting age is a symptom of a larger trend to erode childhood by

forcing adult responsibilities and choices on children and young people. Adolescence should be a period during which young people can concentrate on school, enjoyment and personal development, without having weighty political matters placed on their shoulders.

Should voting be compulsory? The debate centres on whether compulsory voting would increase engagement in the political process across social classes and ages. The question was investigated by the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in November 2014 and February 2015, but the idea is seen as lacking widespread public support.



Increased participation.

»»The almost certain consequence of introducing compulsory voting would be that turnout rates would increase. At a stroke, the UK’s ‘participation crisis’ would be resolved. Indeed, a significant impetus for the introduction of compulsory voting in Australia was a decline in voter turnout, which had fallen to 60% at the 1924 election but has remained stable at over 90% since. Citizens are already made to do things for the public good, such as jury duty, and compulsory voting would be no different. When they get to the ballot box, voters would still have the option to spoil their ballot paper rather than vote for a party or candidate.

Democracy and Participation: Suffrage



Abuse of freedom.

»» Compulsion, even in the name of democracy, remains compulsion, a violation of individual

freedom. The right not to vote may be as significant as the right to choose who to vote for. Nonvoting may, indeed, be entirely rational, reflecting, for instance, the absence of choice between parties or a principled rejection of the political system.



Greater legitimacy.

»» Governments formed on the basis of compulsory voting would be much more likely to rest on a

popular majority (over 50% of the votes) or at the very least, a much larger percentage of the total electorate, not just an electoral majority (over 50% of the seats). This has never occurred in a UK general election, and in 2005 the winning Labour Party’s popular support was just 22% of the total electorate (which includes those who voted and those who did not vote). Compulsory voting would therefore strengthen the democratic legitimacy of UK governments.



Cosmetic democracy.

»» Compulsory voting addresses the symptom but not the cause of the problem. Making voting compulsory would undoubtedly increase electoral turnout, but it would not address the deeper problems that account for the accelerating decline in political engagement. Higher turnout levels brought about through compulsion may simply mask these problems.



Civic duty.

»»Making voting compulsory would have wider educational implications in emphasising, for

voters and would-be non-voters alike, that political participation is a civic duty. The more people participate in politics, the more they will think and act as full citizens, as members of a political community.



Worthless votes.

»» Generally, those who do not vote have the least interest in and understanding of politics. Forcing such would-be non-voters to vote would therefore simply increase the number of random and unthinking votes that are cast or votes that are cast in light of the most recent scandal or highprofile issue rather than in line with policy preferences. Forcing people who are sceptical about the democratic system in the UK to vote may intensify their negative attitudes to democracy and incentivise people to vote for extremist or anti-establishment parties.



Stronger social justice.

»»Voluntary

voting effectively disadvantages the most vulnerable elements in society, the unemployed and low-skilled workers, young people and ethnic minorities, those who are least likely to vote. The interests of the educated, articulate and well-off are thus represented at the expense of those who do not enjoy these advantages. Genuine political equality requires not only that all can vote, but that all do vote. This has led some to argue that by making traditionally disengaged people vote, it is likely to benefit parties of the left.



Distorted political focus.

»» A final problem with compulsory voting is that disengaged individuals who are forced to vote may be more likely to choose extremist parties and parties that are anti-establishment in their policies, particularly those on the far right.

25

26

Component I: UK Politics

CASE STUDY 1.2: VOTES FOR PRISONERS: A MODERN CAMPAIGN TO EXTEND THE FRANCHISE

Source: Ian Forsyth/Stringer/Getty Images

Photo 1.4 Should prisoners be granted the right to vote?

Events Protocol 1, Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 protects ‘free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature’. In 2004, a case brought forward by Hirst, with Definition the support of groups such as the Secret ballot: A Prison Reform Trust, was heard in ballot in which the the European Court of Human casting of votes Rights. The Court ruled that the is private and blanket ban in the UK on prisoners’ protected from public scrutiny. right to vote broke Protocol 1, Article 3. In 2004, the Prison Reform Trust and Unlocked (National Association of Ex-Offenders) launched the ‘Barred from Voting’ campaign to argue that the ban on prisoners’ voting undermines the principle of voting equality. The UK Government was finally seen to be in compliance with the Hirst ruling in 2017 when it ensured that prisoners can register to vote, and can vote while released on temporary licence, although this will only affect a small number of people, not much more than a few hundred.

Significance The decision by the Government in 2017 was seen as the most minor change that it could make and

be seen to be compliant. The ‘Barred from Voting’ campaign has found it is almost impossible to cut through to the public or politicians with their arguments. These arguments include: voting is a human right, voting equality is central to democracy and that the vote would promote rehabilitation and reintroduce prisoners into society, which is particularly important because social exclusion is a major cause of crime and reoffending. Additionally, it would perhaps ensure that politicians would take the rights, needs and interests of prisoners more seriously. However politicians have remained steadfast in their opposition. David Cameron described the idea of giving prisoners the vote as making him feel ‘physically ill’ and every time the issue has arisen in Parliament since 1970, the ban on prisoners’ voting has been supported by cross-party agreement. The key argument for opponents has been the idea that if you break the law, you cannot make the law; prisoners have broken their contract with society so they should lose their rights. The issue in Parliament is further complicated by that fact that many feel the Hirst ruling involves the European Court of Human Rights overextending its powers in telling the UK how to run its own country. The position of politicians is mirrored by the position in wider society where there remains widespread opposition to granting prisoners the right to vote. The wider situation across Europe shows the UK to be in a minority position: there are currently 18 countries in Europe where prisoners have the right to vote, including Denmark and the Netherlands, while there are another 12 where the right is partially restricted, including France. In only 13 countries, do prisoners have no right to vote at all. In France and Germany, courts have the power to impose loss of voting rights as an additional punishment as part of a sentence for a convicted person. However the situation in the UK remains unlikely to change despite the Court ruling and the ‘Barred from Voting’ campaign because the main political parties and the public remain opposed to granting the vote to prisoners.

Democracy and Participation: Suffrage

27

Chapter Summary ‐‐Democracy is of central importance in politics because it provides the basis for legitimacy, the right to rule, and so is the key to political stability.

‐‐Democracy requires high levels of political participation, yet in the UK there appears to have been a decline in traditional methods of participation such as voter turnout and party membership, creating a participation crisis.

‐‐The UK has seen the rise of alternative methods of participation based around group politics, new social movements and individual politics, which some argue has counterbalanced the fall in traditional forms of participation.

‐‐In light of the perceived participation crisis, multiple reforms have been suggested to re-energise UK democracy

Exam Style Questions Evaluate the view that the UK is suffering from a participation crisis (30). zz Evaluate the view that direct democracy can be considered superior to representative democracy (30). zz Evaluate the view that democracy in the UK is in need of reform (30). zz Evaluate the view that reforms to UK democracy can tackle the democratic deficit in the UK (30). zz

Source Question Source One There is a clear argument that there is no participation crisis in the UK. Since 2001, there has been a slow rise in the voter turnout up to 69% in 2017. Moreover, since 1979, there has been a widening in the number of voting opportunities with elections to the devolved assemblies from 1998 and since 1997 with the increased use of referendums across the UK. Since 2013, there has been a resurgence in party membership, particularly the SNP, the Green Party and the Labour Party, which saw its membership numbers increase rapidly when Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader. Lastly, the number of pressure groups has soared and, with it, their membership. This also links to increased online participation and engagement with political issues, as well as the rise of the politics of protest. The UK is clearly as connected to politics as ever, just in different ways.

Source Two Average turnout in UK general elections between 1945 and 1992 remained above 75%, yet the 2001 General Election recorded a turnout of 59%, the lowest figure since 1918. The recovery to 67% in 2019 is still well below pre-1992 levels, and there is also a consistent pattern of much lower turnout in second-tier elections. It is also clear that a minority is engaging more frequently and, in more ways, and the make-up of this group is likely to be unrepresentative of society. Also, not all referendums have high levels of turnout; for example, the referendum on the creation of the London Mayor and Assembly saw a turnout of just 33%. It is also increasingly clear that mass party membership has seriously declined, as have strong party loyalties, with parties stuck in the past and no longer reflecting the modern UK. Group politics has seen a decline in the membership of trade unions, which reached its peak in 1979 with around 13.2 million members, but by 2016, it had dropped to an all-time low of 6.23 million.

Using the source, evaluate the view that the UK is suffering from a participation crisis In your response you must:

»»Compare and contrast different opinions in the source »»Examine and debate these views in a balanced way »»Analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.

28

Component I: UK Politics

Further Resources Dahl, R. (2015) On Democracy (2nd edn) (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press). Griffiths, S. and Leach, R. (2018) British Politics (3rd edn) (London: Red Globe Press): Chapter 16. Heffernan, R., Hay, C., Russell, M. and Cowley, P. (2016) Developments in British Politics (London: Red Globe Press): Chapter 8. Moran, M. (2017) Politics and Governance in the UK (3rd edn) (London: Red Globe Press): Chapter 14.

Visit the companion website to access the Further Resources Booklet to explore a range of useful web links related to: political engagement, membership of political parties, electoral registration, electoral turnout, voter engagement, voting at age 16, compulsory voting and votes for prisoners.

DEMOCRACY AND PARTICIPATION: PRESSURE GROUPS AND OTHER INFLUENCES AND RIGHTS IN CONTEXT

30

2

Chapter Preview Viewing political participation as simply about party membership and voter turnout only gives a limited understanding of participation in the UK. There has been an increased role for group politics in democracy with a highly diverse and growing number of groups looking to represent their interests in the decision-making process. Beyond these formal groups, the UK has also seen a return to its long history of public protest, with a rise in marches, demonstrations and direct action. This has raised questions as to whether group politics is enhancing UK democracy or undermining it. The link between rights and democracy is founded on the belief that political participation is only meaningful when it is carried out by individuals who are able to think and act for themselves. UK citizens are entitled to certain liberties, such as freedom of speech and the right to vote, which act as an effective check on the power of the state. This raises the question as to how effectively rights are protected in the UK, and whether they act as a building block or a stumbling block to democracy.

Key Questions and Debates »» What is group politics? »» Why are some groups more successful than others? »» How much influence do groups exert on UK politics and how far does group politics enhance democracy? »» What are rights and how well protected are they in the UK?

Specification Checklist 1.3. Pressure groups and other influences. »» How different pressure groups exert influence and how their methods and influence vary in contemporary politics. »» Case studies of two different pressure groups, highlighting examples of how their methods and influence vary. »» Other collective organisations and groups including think tanks, lobbyists and corporations, and their influence on government and Parliament.

1.4. Rights in context. »» Major milestones in their development, including the significance of Magna Carta and more recent developments, including the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equality Act 2010. »» Debates on the extent, limits and tensions within the UK’s rights-based culture, including consideration of how individual and collective rights may conflict, the contributions from civil liberties pressure groups – including the work of two contemporary civil liberties pressure groups.

So

ur ce

:L uk eD

ra y/G e

tt y

Im

ag

es

31

32

Component I: UK Politics

What are pressure groups? When people are asked to name a pressure group, certain groups come to mind; for example, Greenpeace, Black Lives Matter, trade unions such as UNISON and Unite, the Stop the War Coalition and Extinction Rebellion. These are groups that tend to have a high public profile based on their success in grabbing the attention of the media. However, the pressure participant universe is much broader than just pressure groups and includes other collective organisations, corporations such as Amazon UK or CITIBANK, think tanks such as the Centre for Policy Studies and Common Wealth, and lobbying firms such as Hanbury Strategy. Because pressure participants appear in such a variety of shapes and sizes, it is often unhelpful to treat them as a ‘job lot’. How do groups differ one from another? What categories do groups fall into?

Types of groups Pressure groups Pressure groups are defined by three key features: 1. They seek to exert influence from outside, rather than to win or exercise government power. Pressure groups do not make policy decisions, but rather try to influence those who do. In that sense, they are ‘external’ to government. They can therefore act as a channel of ongoing communication between the people and government between elections. 2. They typically have a narrow issue focus. In some cases, they may focus on a single issue (for instance, opposing a planned road development) or a narrow cluster of issues (for instance, all issues that affect workers’ rights). 3. Their members are united by either a shared belief in a particular cause or a common set of interests. People with different ideological and party preferences may thus work happily together as members of the same pressure group. Pressure groups are categorised in different ways – interest or cause groups and insider or outsider groups.

Definition

Interest and cause groups

Interest group: A pressure group that exists to advance or protect the interests of its members.

The interest/cause distinction is based on the purpose of the group in question. Interest groups are groups that represent and defend the interests of a particular section of society: workers, employers, consumers, an ethnic or religious group, and so on.

Peak group: An association of industries or groups with common interests, which pool resources and work together to achieve their aims. Cause group: A pressure group that is based on shared values, ideals and principles.

Trade unions, business corporations, trade associations and professional bodies are the prime examples of this type of group. They are called interest groups because they represent the interests of a particular section of the population. Specific examples include the National Education Union (NEU), representing more than 450,000 teachers and education workers, and so-called peak groups such as the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), which speaks on behalf of over 190,000 businesses, and the Trades Union Congress (TUC), bringing together 48 unions and over 5.5 million workers. Cause groups are groups that are based on shared attitudes or values, rather than the common interests of their members. The causes they seek to advance are many and various, and so the range of cause groups is infinite: from charity activities, poverty reduction, education and the environment, to human rights, international development and peace. Specific examples of cause groups include Greenpeace, with its vision for a greener, healthier planet, the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), working on behalf of children growing up in poverty in the UK, and Shelter, bringing people together to fight homelessness.

Democracy and Participation: Pressure Groups and Other Influences and Rights in Context

33

Insider and outsider groups The insider/outsider distinction is valuable because it is based on a group’s relationship to government. It therefore affects the strategies that a group can adopt. Insider groups are groups that are consulted on a regular basis by government. They operate ‘inside’ the decision-making process, using their influence rather than the politics of direct action or civil disobedience. The degree, regularity and level of their consultations vary. ‘Core insider’ groups have regular and meaningful consultation at ministerial or senior official level within the government while peripheral insiders may have regular but only cosmetic consultation with government that does really bring them into the corridors of power.

Definition Insider group: A pressure group that enjoys regular consultation with government.

Visit the companion website for a bonus case study on the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) to see the work of an insider group.

Outsider groups, by contrast, have no special links to government. They are kept, or choose to remain, at arm’s length from government. They therefore try to exert influence indirectly via the mass media, through public opinion campaigns and the use of protest politics. Groups may be outsiders for one of two reasons: 1. They may be denied insider status by government. Lacking formal access to government, such groups are forced to ‘go public’ in the hope of exercising indirect influence on the policy process. Ironically, then, some of the highest-profile groups in the country may be among the UK’s weakest pressure groups.

Definition Outsider group: A pressure group that is either not consulted by government or does not want to be closely involved with government.

2. Groups may choose to operate as outsiders. This reflects the radical nature of a group’s goals and a fear of becoming ‘domesticated’ by being too closely involved with government. Many outsider groups have therefore been attracted by what is sometimes called the ‘new politics’, which turns away from traditional methods of political engagement towards more innovative and theatrical forms of protest politics. This style of politics has been closely associated with the ‘new’ social movements that emerged in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries – the women’s movement, the green movement, the peace movement and the anti-capitalist or antiglobalisation movement.

Think tanks A think tank is a group of experts who provide advice, ideas and policy proposals on political, economic and social problems. They carry out research with the aim of building up a bank of detailed evidence about an issue and use their links with politicians, the media and political parties to present that evidence in order to shape policy making. It is their expertise that gives them access to politicians and access to the media. Think tanks can be left wing or right wing, but many claim to be politically neutral and academic so they can shape policy without being tied directly to the world of party politics. For instance, the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) states that it is a free market think tank, ‘entirely independent of any political party or group’ and that is its ideas are consistent with a wide range of political positions, including no political position at all.

Spec key term Think tank: A group of experts who provide advice, ideas and policy proposals on political, economic and social problems.

Component I: UK Politics

CASE STUDY 2.1: EXTINCTION REBELLION Photo 2.1  A pink ship that formed the centrepiece of the coordinated protest by the Extinction Rebellion group on 19 April 2019 in London.

Source: Leon Neal/Getty Images

34

Events Extinction Rebellion declares itself to be ‘a politically non-partisan international movement that uses non-violent direct action to persuade governments to act justly on the Climate and Ecological Emergency’ (https://extinctionrebellion.uk/). As a group, it is clearly an outsider by choice and a cause group, which uses direct action strategies to get its message across as it believes ‘conventional approaches of voting, lobbying, petitions and protest have failed because powerful political and economic interests prevent change’. It has set itself three key objectives: 1. The government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency. 2. The government must act now to reduce greenhouse emissions to net zero by 2025. 3. The government must create and be led by recommendations from a citizens’ assembly on climate and ecological justice.

Significance Extinction Rebellion’s first demand appears to be the most realistic to achieve. Their actions certainly

appear to have had some success on this front – by 2020 over 460 local councils and both the Scottish and the Welsh Parliaments had declared a climate emergency, while in 2019 the House of Commons adopted a climate emergency motion to demonstrate the will of the Commons, although it is non-binding on the government. On the second demand, success has been far more limited because the objective is far less realistic and was too far from the view of the Conservative Government and business groups, like the CBI. In June 2019, Parliament did pass new legislation that required the UK to reduce its net emissions of greenhouse gases by 100% relative to 1990 levels by 2050 (the previous target was 80%). However the government was already not on track to meet its previous target of 80%, set back in 2008, so despite bringing forward the ban on the sale of new diesel and petrol cars to 2030, many more policy interventions will be needed, and these are viewed by critics as expensive, time consuming and complex. The Labour Party in 2019 adopted a more radical timescale to achieve the substantial majority of UK emissions reductions by 2030, although election defeat means that will not be put into practice. The third demand for a citizens’ assembly is perhaps the area where the least has been achieved, with this idea only being taken up by a few MPs, such as Stella Creasy (Labour), but not really gaining any widespread support in the main political parties or in the House of Commons. In the wider context, there can be little doubt that the direct action organised by Extinction Rebellion has achieved widespread media coverage, with the idea that climate change is an existential threat to humanity now part of the public debate. It is an issue that those in power now must address, as was shown when Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, published an article in 2019 stating that the global financial system ‘cannot ignore the risk before our eyes’.

Democracy and Participation: Pressure Groups and Other Influences and Rights in Context



Many see think tanks as enriching democracy by carrying out policy research, developing policy options and aiding public debate.

»»By proving different ideas and the evidence to back them up, think tanks are using their expertise to enable the public and politicians to weigh up different ideas, make decisions about what they believe and inform their choices. Their expertise is crucial to improving political decision making in the UK.



Critics argue that think tanks push policies and evidence that favour the powerful corporate interests who fund them, undermining democracy.

»» The concerns centre on the lack of transparency around think tanks since they do not have

to declare the sources of their funding while politicians do not need to declare meetings with think tanks in the same way as they do with corporations. The IEA lists the five main areas its money comes from (see Figure 2.1) but due to privacy concerns does not reveal the names of the companies or individuals who donated. Critics argue it is not possible for politicians or the public to have confidence in the independence and objectivity of a think tank report if they do not know who funded it, while think tanks themselves maintain this is more about people who are opposed to their ideas using the funding question to attack them rather than engaging in an evidence-based debate.

Figure 2.1  IEA funding breakdown (2018) 4%

private individuals, entrepreneurs and small family businesses

14%

foundations and trusts 37% income from events, competitions and conferences

17%

large businesses [defined as listed in FTSE350]

28%

other income from book sales, subscriptions, speakers’ fees, interest & dividends

Source: Compiled using data from IEA report ‘Who Funds You: FAQ’ (2018).

Corporations Corporations do not vote in elections, but it is argued that they have a huge impact on democratic societies. Corporations, such as Tesco and Shell, are so vital to the running of the economy that it is little wonder they expect to have a right to a say in the making of laws and regulations in a wide range of areas from tax, the environment, and trade deals with other countries to workers’ rights.



Clearly, as corporations play such a crucial role in the economy, it is important for democracy that their voice is heard.

»»The success of the economy depends on firms investing their money and employing workers, and

on their workforce producing the goods and services that people want to buy. As corporations have such a big stake in society, it is only right that they should seek to have their opinions heard in policy matters that will directly impact them. They tend to be organised into highly

35

36

Component I: UK Politics

CASE STUDY 2.2:  THE CENTRE FOR POLICY STUDIES Events The Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) (https://www. cps.org.uk/) states that it is the UK’s leading centreright think tank, whose mission is to develop a new generation of conservative thinking, centred around pushing enterprise, ownership and property. It is an independent, non-partisan organisation, supported exclusively by funding from its supporters. The CPS was founded in 1974 by Keith Joseph, Tory Minister, MP and close adviser to Margaret Thatcher, and Margaret Thatcher, who went on to become Prime Minister in 1979. The CPS and IEA were the two biggest influences on the policies of the Thatcher Government between 1979 and 1990. Margaret Thatcher is quoted on the CPS website as stating that the CPS ‘was where our conservative revolution began’.

Significance The CPS has been influential in shaping many policies that altered the political landscape of the UK. During the Thatcher years, the CPS was the seed from which the policies of the Conservative Party grew: curbing inflation, privatising industries to create modern companies like British Telecom, limiting the power of the trade union movement and the shrinking of the state. In more recent times, a CPS pamphlet was the origin of the 2010 Coalition Government’s main tax policy of raising the personal allowance for income tax (the amount a person can earn before they pay tax).

The success of the CPS can be put down primarily to its ability to help shape the political debate by winning the battle of ideas. This involves influencing the media and academics in universities using high-quality research with the aim of shifting public opinion. Media contributions by the CPS can be found in the mainstream media, such as the Sunday Telegraph, Daily Telegraph and on BBC Radio 4, while the CPS has set up CapX, its own online news website and news aggregator to push its case. Secondly, its success can be seen in terms of the members of its board and its staff who are highly experienced and incredibly well connected. In 2019, the Board included Lord Bamford, the Chairman of JCB and Conservative Party donor, Professor Niall Ferguson of Harvard University, Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator and Sir Graham Brady, a Conservative MP. The Director, Robert Colville previously worked at the Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph and Buzzfeed UK, while Nick King, the Head of Business, was an adviser to Sajid Javid between 2012 and 2017. Thirdly, in 2019 the CPS reported that it is the most influential think tank among Tory MPs, with high levels of approval for its freedom from political and commercial influence and the quality of its research. The closeness of this link with the Conservative Party can be seen in the report, After the Virus, published in 2020 jointly by the CPS and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sajid Javid.

effective blocs – like banks in the British Bankers Association (BBA) whose tag line is ‘the voice of banking’ – which have built up strong ties with government, have high levels of expertise in their area that can be tapped into by government to improve decision making, and many are wealthy enough to employ their own lobbyists or hire lobbying firms.



However, the role of corporations invites the question whether the world of group politics is a level playing field.

»» Corporations possess the wealth, central economic role, organisation and expertise to ensure

that they have a healthy head start in the race to influence government decision making. The natural counterbalance to the corporations in terms of workers’ rights is the trade unions, but their membership and power has been in decline since the end of the 1970s, with only around 13.5% of those who work in the private sector being unionised in 2020. However it is worth noting there is one thing that corporations don’t have that politicians want: votes at the ballot box.

Visit the companion website for a bonus case study on Tesco to see the influence of a corporation on policy making.

Democracy and Participation: Pressure Groups and Other Influences and Rights in Context

Lobbyists Lobbyists are individuals and firms who, as their business, aim to influence government or advise others on how to influence government. Lobbying in the UK is an industry worth an estimated £2bn per year and employing over 4,000 people.



Lobbying is a central part of any democracy because it allows groups who are likely to be impacted by a particular decision to engage with the government and parliament.

»»Lobbying allows groups, representing a wide array of interests, to provide detailed evidence

to the government prior to a decision being made and focus on problems with current policies. This improves the quality of the decisions being made. There are many lobbying firms such as Hanbury Strategy that can be hired by groups, while other groups, particularly wealthy and well-organised groups, have their own in-house lobbying teams.

37

Spec key term Lobbyists: Individuals and firms that are paid by clients to influence government and/or MPs and members of the House of Lords to act in their client’s interests, particularly when legislation is under consideration.

Visit the companion website for a bonus case study on the work of the lobbying firm Hanbury Strategy.



Critics argue that lobbying in the UK can be abused by those seeking to further their own private interests.

»» In particular, the focus is on the fact that the wealthiest groups can afford to spend vast sums

on lobbying and can rely on who they know rather than what they know to influence policy making in their interests, no matter the consequence to the wider public. The perception of the misuse of public office for private gain is very damaging to trust in politics, and there has been a history of lobbying scandals:

» In 1998, political lobbyist Derek Draper was caught by the Observer boasting about his »

links to at least 17 people in the Labour Government, while in 2009, two Labour Peers were suspended from the House of Lords for allegedly offering to make amendments to legislation in return for payments of up to £120,000. In 2012, Lord Blencathra, a former Conservative minister in John Major’s government, was found to have accepted a £12,000 per month contract in which he agreed to lobby on behalf of the Cayman Islands.

»» The influence of lobbying, particularly by powerful industry groups, is seen as having undue influence on policy making.

»» The alcohol industry in the UK is very powerful, having won past health battles over advertising

rules, minimum pricing of alcohol and labelling in regard to health risks. In 2020, heavy lobbying by the UK Spirits Alliance and Scotch Whisky Association contributed to a continued freeze on taxes on spirits.

»» The revolving door between lobbying firms and public office suggests that influence is more about who you know than what you know, undermining the idea of equal participation.

»» Hanbury Strategy was established prior to the Brexit referendum by leading political advisers from both the Leave and Remain camps in the Conservative Party, and has recruited staff from advisers to both the Labour and Conservative parties.

In 2010, David Cameron warned that lobbying was the next big scandal waiting to happen and decided to legislate to remove any undue influence with the Transparency of Lobbying, NonParty Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014.



The Act puts transparency at the heart of the political agenda in order to increase trust in politics by ensuring that consultant lobbyists have to sign up to an official register and disclose four times per year a list of clients.

Definition Revolving door: A process whereby former, high-level public officials move into the private sector and vice versa.

38

Component I: UK Politics



However, the Act has come under heavy criticism.

»» It excludes in-house lobbying by those firms and organisations that lobby directly themselves,

meaning around 85% of lobbying still goes unreported according to the Cabinet Office. There are also no restrictions on the revolving door, no limits on gift giving and, although clients are reported on a publicly accessible register, there is no detail of who lobbyists target, how much they spend on what, or what is discussed in their meetings with government officials.

Methods used by pressure participants to exert influence on both government and parliament Who do pressure participants seek to influence? What methods do they use? Pressure participants are confronted by a wide range of ‘points of access’, such as ministers and civil servants, the courts and public opinion. Their choice of targets and methods, however, depends on two factors. First, how effective is a particular strategy likely to be? Second, given the group’s aims and resources, which strategies are available?

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  HOW EFFECTIVE ARE INSIDER METHODS? Working with ministers and civil servants It is easy to understand why pressure participants want to influence ministers and civil servants. They work at the heart of the network of bodies headed by the Prime Minister and Cabinet, which develop and make government policy. This is where power lies. Many groups therefore aspire to insider status, and those who have it are reluctant to lose it. But why should government want to consult pressure participants? Governments consult pressure groups, lobbying firms, think tanks and corporations because they have a need for specialised knowledge and advice to inform the policy process, a desire to gain the cooperation of important groups and a need to gauge the reaction of affected groups to proposed policies or government measures. A very wide range of groups therefore stalk the ‘corridors of power’, under both Labour and Conservative governments, and much of the work that goes on here is hidden away from the gaze of the media and the public. It is unthinkable that economic, industrial and trade policies would be developed without the consultation of major corporations, trade associations, think tanks and business groups. The objective is to get involved in the government’s early thinking and draft proposals and it is so much easier to apply influence before the government has taken a public position. This gives pressure participants the ability to shape the substance of policy and, even if they can’t shift the government position on the substance, to help shape the details as much in their interest as possible. However, with power moving to Parliament and devolved assemblies the effectiveness of this method has arguably been reduced.

Working with Parliament Pressure participants that cannot gain access to the government may look to exert influence through Parliament, and this is much more likely to achieve media coverage. Historically it has been felt that less can be achieved by influencing Parliament than the government because Parliament is generally dominated by the government. However the years between 2010 and 2019 saw governments with smaller majorities and more independently minded MPs who were willing to rebel and vote against their own party, which made influencing Parliament a more effective option for pressure participants. Pressure participants can look to influence legislation as it passes through Parliament in a number of ways:

Democracy and Participation: Pressure Groups and Other Influences and Rights in Context

39

»»Asking MPs and Peers to introduce amendments to legislation, and working with them to draft

those amendments, although this is likely to be unsuccessful if the government opposes the amendments.

»»Influencing the way that MPs and Peers vote on a bill, although this is unlikely to be successful if parties already hold a clear position on the bill and which way their MPs should vote.

»»Drafting Private Members Bills. There is an annual ballot of MPs, and if they win they get the chance to present a Private Members Bill. Groups will work with MPs to draft bills and, as many of these bills are on moral issues where the political parties don’t have a party line for MPs to follow when voting, this allows groups to persuade MPs to vote in a particular way. The National Autistic Society’s ‘I Exist’ campaign worked successfully to persuade MPs to back Cheryl Gillian’s Autism Act of 2009, which ensures that Government publishes and regularly reviews a strategy to meet the needs of autistic adults in England.

»»Contributing to departmental reports. Since 2010 departmental select committees (see page

238) in the House of Commons have been increasingly powerful in their role of examining each government department’s spending, policies and administration, making influencing Parliament a more effective method for groups. Pressure participants can provide evidence to the Committees and aim to influence the reports they produce. In 2020, the Runnymede Trust, a race-equality think tank, gave evidence to the Education Select Committee about its concerns over bias against working class and ethnic minority students creeping into the calculation of grades by schools during the Covid-19 pandemic, gaining widespread media attention.

Working with political parties The motive for pressure participants developing links with political parties is clear. The UK has a system of party government, in that governments are formed from the leading party in the House of Commons. Influencing party policy can therefore lead to influence on government policy. The most obvious way in which groups influence parties is through funding and donations. The Labour Party receives money from trade unions, with the GMB, UNISON, Unite and USDAW all donating six-figure sums in 2019, while the Conservatives are funded largely by donations from individuals and businesses, particularly from the banking, property and fossil fuels sector.

The effectiveness of targeting a particular party relies on the party achieving power and sticking to its promises and commitments. Working too closely with a particular party can also mean that the pressure participant potentially pushes away support from other political parties.

Photo 2.2  The then Labour party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, addressing the TUC Conference in 2019. Source: BEN STANSALL/AFP/Getty Images

Many think tanks have also developed close ties to political parties, helping to inform their process of designing new policies. The think tank Common Wealth, established in 2019 with the previous Labour leader Ed Miliband on the advisory board, developed strong links with the Corbyn-led Labour Party and focused on getting workers more of a say in how businesses were run. The controversial policy that involved the transfer of 10% of shares in big businesses into the hands of their workers over a 10-year period was adopted by the Party as a proposed policy for the 2019 election.

Wider access points One of the big changes in UK politics has been the large increase in access points for pressure participants to target. The creation of devolved institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland since 1998 has provided new targets for lobbying with the CBI and Trades Union Congress having offices in each of the Scotland and Wales as well as their London headquarters. With the growing powers of the devolved assemblies, this method has been seen as increasingly effective, with the CBI claiming success in delivering policy changes for small businesses in regard to digital connectivity.

40

Component I: UK Politics Since the UK joined the European Economic Community, the European Union (EU) has become a powerful political actor in how the UK is run. As a consequence, many groups moved the focus of their activities to the institutions of the EU. The European institutions use a style of decision making that entails very close engagement with any affected interests before making decisions, ensuring that this was a very effective route for group politics until 2021; it is no surprise that the CBI and British Retail Consortium, a trade association for all UK retailers, had offices in Brussels where the TUC also had its own European Officer. However, with the UK’s departure from the EU on 1 January 2021, groups will revert their focus back to ministers and civil servants in Whitehall.

Key Debate Summary: How effective are insider methods? FOR

AGAINST

99Influence with ministers and civil servants is 88 Power has been moving away from central seen as the most effective method, as this is where most power lies in UK politics.

99Parliament has arguably become more

powerful and lobbying more sophisticated, increasing the effectiveness of this method.

government to the EU, devolved assemblies and parliament reducing the effectiveness of this method.

88 The government still dominates Parliament, especially when it has a large majority, meaning this method is more likely to gain media coverage than changing the law.

99Influence inside a political party can result in 88 Insider status with one party can reduce an impact on government policy, when that party wins power.

99Insider status with the EU and devolved

assemblies has become more important as these institutions have grown in power.

influence with other parties, and this is problematic when that party is out of power.

88 Power still remains concentrated in

Westminster and the UK left the EU on 1 January 2021.

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  HOW EFFECTIVE ARE OUTSIDER METHODS? Engaging the public These strategies are adopted by outsider groups, although many pressure groups and collective organisations may also engage in public-opinion campaigning. The purpose of such strategies is to influence government indirectly by pushing issues up the political agenda and demonstrating both the strength of commitment and the level of public support for a particular cause. The hope is that government will pay attention for fear of suffering electoral consequences. The classic strategies include public petitions, marches and demonstrations, such as the mass demonstrations against the Iraq War organised by the Stop the War Coalition in 2003, which may have been effective at shaping public opinion against military intervention in other states over the long term but failed to change the decision of the Labour government to go to war. Civil disobedience tactics that are non-violent but disruptive are utilised by radical campaigning groups. For example, Extinction Rebellion, a non-violent direct action movement challenging inaction over climate change and the mass extinction of species, shut down five major bridges in London in 2018, leading to mass arrests of the participants, but was effective in gaining highprofile media coverage for their cause. More rarely, violent tactics are employed, such as attacks on property and people, as seen in the actions of the Suffragettes. However, governments are unlikely to want to change policy direction on the basis of direct action, often seeing it as giving in to mob rule which will only encourage more direct action in the future. The 2010s was a decade of dissent. In 2019, there were over 280 protest events in comparison to 154 in 2010 and only 83 in 2007. Demonstrations remain the main type of protest action, while more confrontational actions like blockades and occupations have been used consistently with over 3,000 hunger strikes in immigration removal centres between 2015 and 2019. There has

Democracy and Participation: Pressure Groups and Other Influences and Rights in Context

41

also been a rise in more innovative protests, such as the naked bike ride through London in 2015 to protest against car culture and oil dependency, while in 2019 a group of semi-naked Extinction Rebellion protestors with environmental messages written on their bodies occupied the public gallery in the House of Commons. Both protests were effective in catching media attention and raising the profile of these issues with the public. Strategies to influence public opinion have been transformed by the arrival of modern technology. Pressure participants have used Facebook, Twitter and hashtag campaigns to generate media focus and shape the political agenda. The campaign launched by Marcus Rashford to end child food poverty used social media to pressure the government into supporting children on Free School Meals over the summer holidays with food vouchers. In October 2020, Rashford launched a parliamentary petition to #EndChildFoodPoverty that was signed by over 1.1 million people triggering the government into announcing a new funding package to help alleviate child food poverty while images of the contents of food parcels circulating on the internet in 2021 saw the Government abandon its food parcel first approach and allow schools to issue vouchers instead to parents of children on free school meals. However, the use of this technological approach is often seen as ineffective, as much of the work of online groups like 38 Degrees is perceived to be purely an attempt to block the governing party from delivering on the policy promises it made during its election campaign.

The courts

Definition

The substantial increase in the use of judicial review (see page 283) in recent years has encouraged a growing number of campaigning groups to seek influence through the courts. This usually involves attempts to challenge government policy on the grounds that ministers or officials have exceeded, or breached, their legal powers or to use the court case to generate media publicity. The weakness of the strategy is that using the courts is normally an admission that attempts to convince the government to change course have already failed, while the costs of court cases can be seen as prohibitive.

Judicial review: A type of legal action which every citizen, as well as organisations, can use to challenge decisions made by public bodies, including the government, which they feel to be unlawful or contravene rights.

In 2014, opponents of the high-speed rail scheme (HS2) argued in the Supreme Court that the government had failed to follow the rules when assessing the scheme’s environmental impact. Although, as in this case, taking action through the courts is often unsuccessful, it can generate useful publicity for groups and can slow down the implementation of policy. However, legal challenges may also be successful, as in the case brought before the High Court in 2016 by ClientEarth, an environmental law charity, alleging that the government was failing in its responsibility to tackle air pollution. Defeated in the case, PM Theresa May committed the government to taking meaningful action on the issue, suggesting that this type of action can be successful.

Key Debate Summary: How effective are outsider methods? FOR

AGAINST

99Engaging public opinion can shift the political 88 Shaping public opinion can be done over agenda and force government into action out of fear of the electoral consequences.

99Direct action has become more common,

as it can be used to set the agenda for the 24-hour, 7-day-a-week news media.

the long term, but it is harder to shift government policy in the short term.

88 Governments are unlikely to change policy

on the basis of direct action because they view it as mob rule and acting outside of the normal rule of democratic politics.

99The arrival of new technology has enabled 88 The Coalition and Conservative Governments groups to generate media attention, set the agenda and force political change.

99Judicial review is being used more

frequently to challenge policy and/or generate media coverage.

have been dismissive of groups like 38 Degrees, seeing them as aiming to block the will of an elected government.

88 Judicial review is only used when all other methods have failed, and is often seen as too costly to be widely effective.

42

Component I: UK Politics

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  ARE SOME GROUPS MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN OTHERS? Some groups are clearly more powerful than others. Some succeed while others fail. But what does ‘success’ mean? How can we weigh up group power or influence? These are difficult questions because success may be measured in different ways. Success may mean:

»»Affecting government policy »»Pushing an issue up the political agenda »»Changing people’s values, perceptions and behaviour.

Definition Pluralism: A theory of the distribution of political power that holds that power is widely and evenly dispersed in society, rather than concentrated in the hands of an elite or ruling class. Elitism: The theory that political power is concentrated in the hands of the few, sometimes called a ‘power elite’.

Another difficulty in measuring group power is that there is considerable debate about how power is distributed among pressure participants; which types of groups hold the most power – pressure groups, think tanks, lobbying firms or corporations? There is disagreement, in particular, about whether groups tend to widen the distribution of power, giving power to the people, or whether they tend to concentrate it, strengthening the already powerful. This is often portrayed as a battle between two rival theories of political power, pluralism and elitism. In practice, a variety of factors affect the power of individual groups.

Wealth 

The most powerful groups in the country are the ones that government must listen to because they have financial and economic power – they are wealthy.

»»This largely explains the power of corporations, business groups and their peak organisations. »»All government, regardless of party or their ideological beliefs, must seek the cooperation and support of key business groups and corporations as they are the main source of employment and investment in the economy.

»»They

possess knowledge and expertise that are essential to the formulation of effective economic, industrial and trade policies.

»»They possess the financial strength to employ professional lobbyists and public relations

consultants, and to make donations to political parties. Transparency International reported that between April and June 2014, eight out of ten of the most frequent lobbyists of UK ministers were from large corporations listed on the FTSE 100 Index (Index of top 100 companies on the Stock Exchange).

»»They often have high public profiles, have access to the media and can run advertising

campaigns. The CBI is widely consulted by the media, often getting media interviews and mentions in both the printed and broadcast media.



Wealth does not always buy success, particularly where wealthy groups’ aims are out of touch with the party in power or where they run up against hostile public opinion.

»» In 2019, PM Boris Johnson announced at the CBI Conference that he was shelving the cut to

corporation tax (tax paid on profits by companies) from 19% to 17% as he felt the tax cut would fall foul of public opinion. In 2021 the Conservative Government announced it would increase corporation tax to 25% in 2023 to help pay for the costs of the pandemic that was broadly supported by public opinion.

»» Wealth matters less in the modern world where internet technology and social media have

made it far cheaper and easier for people to express their opinions to elected politicians using Twitter, email, likes and shares of political stories and online campaigns as well as e-petitions.

Democracy and Participation: Pressure Groups and Other Influences and Rights in Context

Size 

Are the largest groups the most powerful? This is one of the assumptions that is made by pluralist theorists, who believe that pressure-group power is democratically based.

»»Large groups can claim to represent public opinion. Government listens to them because, at

the end of the day, their members can have an electoral impact. Groups such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) therefore ensure that their membership levels remain high, with hundreds of thousands of supporters. The NSPCC’s ‘Flaw in the Law’ campaign in 2014 led to the government making the sending of sexual messages to children and young people a criminal offence as part of the 2015 Serious Crime Act.

»»More members mean more subscriptions and donations. Large groups tend to be wealthy

groups. This enables groups to employ full-time professionals to carry out research and run campaigns. In 2018–19, the NSPCC had a total income of £117.9 million, with 90% of that coming directly from supporters.

»»A large membership allows groups to organise political campaigns and protests. Groups such as trade unions use their members as a key resource. Members are the majority of the people who turn up to marches and demonstrations and, in the case of unions, carry out strikes. In 2011, the TUC organised ‘The March for the Alternative’ to protest against spending cuts by the Coalition Government, which was attended by between 250,000 and 500,000 protestors.



However, it would be a mistake to believe that big groups are always the most powerful groups.

»» Membership size cannot usually compensate for a lack of insider status. The trade union

movement has the largest membership base, can organise large campaigns and protests, has huge economic resources and makes large donations to the Labour Party yet it has lacked insider status under Conservative-led governments since 2010.

»» Small membership groups, which are highly specialised, can exert influence through their

expertise. The Howard League in 2019 had only 19 staff but was regularly consulted by Parliamentary committees and the media, included being quoted by over 500 media sources in one day in its criticisms of government plans to build more prisons. Think tanks and lobbying firms may lack size, but their insider connections to government and political parties can provide them with high levels of influence.

»» Finally, the density and extent of membership within a particular group of people may be more important than its overall size. The BMA’s influence stems, in part, from the fact that about 80% of doctors are members, allowing it to claim to speak on behalf of the medical profession generally.

Organisation and leadership 

Organisation helps groups to mobilise their resources effectively and to take concerted action. Effective organisation also requires financial resources and high-quality leadership.

»»High-quality leaders can bring:

o Acute political skills – they know how the policy process works, who to network with and how to exert pressure. o Good political contacts – they know the ‘right’ people. o Developed media and presentational skills – they know how to put a case. o A high public profile – they are publicly recognised and maybe even liked.

»»Both the CPS and Hanbury Strategy have high-quality leadership and effective organisation.

The same principle can apply to many corporations, such as Facebook which employed Nick Clegg, the ex-Deputy PM and leader of the Liberal Democrats as head of its global affairs. The ability of think tanks, corporations and lobbying firms to use the revolving door to recruit high quality leadership is seen as a key method of developing their influence.

43

44

Component I: UK Politics



Organisation and leadership can only go so far; when a pressure participant finds themselves in opposition to the government’s view, they are unlikely to succeed.

»» Talks between the BMA, a highly organised and well led group with insider contacts, and the

government began but broke down in 2014 over the Government’s desire to introduce a new contract for junior doctors. Six five-day strikes by junior doctors went ahead between January and April 2016, the last of which included A&E units, the first ‘all-out’ strikes in the history of the National Health Service (NHS). A compromise deal in May 2016 appeared to have settled the dispute but doctors rejected the agreement in a ballot over the summer, and a further series of strikes was planned. However, in November, junior doctors abandoned the threat of strike action, effectively admitting defeat in the battle over the new contract. This occurred partially because the Government remained resolute, particularly once the Conservatives had won the 2015 General Election with a seven-day NHS as a key election pledge.

Compatibility with the government 

Groups are far more likely to succeed when the government is broadly sympathetic towards their aims or goals.

»»The 2011 ‘March for the Alternative’ made limited impact on policy because the Governments

of David Cameron were committed to spending cuts, believing debt and deficit to be the main issues affecting the UK after the economic crash of 2009. The Government felt able to ignore the protests as it had been elected on its promise to tackle debt and the deficit, and governments are generally more likely to introduce policy that imposes costs on their opponents than their own voter groups.

»»On the other hand, the Institute of Directors, a group representing UK business leaders, and

the Taxpayers Alliance, a think tank and lobbying group that campaigns for a low-tax society, published a report entitled How to save £50bn, showing how the debt and deficit could be tackled by public spending cuts not tax rises. This report was in tune with the opinions of the Cameron Governments, and some of the ideas of the Taxpayers Alliance found their way into policy: the public sector pay freeze, shifting the funding for free TV licences to the BBC, and reducing the benefit cap (the limit on the total amount of benefits a household can get) from £26,000 to £20,000 per year.



Where pressure participants can mobilise public opinion and clearly illustrate the depth of opposition to a view, they can still influence policy even if they are ideological outsiders.

»» It is also the case that they may be able to bring about long-term changes in political values and attitudes, even if they can’t change policy in the short term.

Source: Richard Baker/Getty Images

Photo 2.3  The Poll Tax riots of 31 March 1990.

»»

I n 1990, the Poll Tax was introduced by the Conservative Government of Margaret Thatcher. The Tax was widely opposed, with public demonstrations and then civil disobedience with many refusing to pay the Tax. The government doubled down using the full force of the law against the Anti-Poll Tax movement. This led to even wider-scale public demonstrations and, on 31 March 1990, there was a mass demonstration in London in which there were violent confrontations with the police. It was becoming clear that the Tax was almost impossible to enforce and public opinion turned against the Conservatives. This contributed to Margaret Thatcher being removed as leader by Conservative MPs because they feared an election loss, and the new PM, John Major, quickly replaced the Poll Tax with the Community Charge.

Democracy and Participation: Pressure Groups and Other Influences and Rights in Context

45

Popular support 

Pressure groups that enjoy high levels of public support have greater political influence than ones with only minority support.

»»Crudely, governments calculate how much electoral damage may be caused by not acceding to a group’s demands.

»»In 2020, the campaign to get free school meals offered to children for the school holidays during the coronavirus pandemic was boosted by the intervention of England and Manchester United footballer Marcus Rashford. Rashford used an open letter to MPs, TV appearances and his 2.7 million Twitter followers to get public opinion on side, effectively forcing PM Boris Johnson into a U-turn on his policy when he extended the use of vouchers beyond term time to cover the sixweek summer holidays.



Nevertheless, public support is not always reflected in political influence.

»» For instance, the Stop the War Coalition organised what it claims to be the largest peacetime and wartime marches in UK history during 2003, and despite opinion polls moving against the Government, the campaign failed to have any impact on the Blair Government’s decision to participate in the Iraq War.

»» The BMA, and doctors in general, have widespread public support yet still lost their 2014–16

battle with the Government over the new contract for junior doctors. The decision to take strike action, once the insider strategy of negotiations failed, did get media coverage but also split public opinion.

»» Think tanks, corporations and lobbying firms do not rely on public support, rather on their connections, the revolving door and party donations for their influence.

Key Debate Summary: Are some groups more successful than others? FOR

AGAINST

99Wealthy groups which are central to the

88 Wealthy groups lack one thing elected

99Groups with large memberships have real

88 The large membership of a group does not

economic success of the government – and so its re-election prospects – hold huge influence. This influence is strengthened by the revolving door, donations and lobbying. influence as they represent large numbers of voters and can run effective campaigns.

politicians need: votes. Where wealthy groups’ aims clash with public opinion, their influence is limited.

make up for wealth and insider status with government.

99Groups with highly effective leaderships can 88 High levels of organisation and effective win the battle of ideas and gain high-level access within government.

leadership make limited impact where groups are out of step with the government’s views.

99Where groups are ideologically aligned with 88 Ultimately, the party in power wants to win the government, they have a real chance to impact on decision making.

99Groups, backed by high levels of

public support will naturally influence the government due to the electoral implications.

re-election; if public opposition is too strong then the government has to be sensitive to that opinion.

88 Where groups backed by public opinion

clash with the policy commitments made by the government in an election campaign or its strongly held view, their influence will be limited.

Tip – In judging the influence of groups, it is worth considering which types of group are most influential – is it lobbying firms, think tanks, corporations or pressure groups?

46

Component I: UK Politics

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  DOES GROUP POLITICS PROMOTE DEMOCRACY IN THE UK? Questions about group power are closely related to debates about the implications of group politics for democracy. On the one hand, pluralist theorists argue that group politics is the very stuff of democracy, advancing the idea of pluralist democracy.

Spec key term

The conditions for pluralist democracy include firstly that there is a wide dispersal of power among competing groups and, in particular, there are no elite groups. Secondly, groups promoting a cause or interest naturally trigger the emergence of rival groups. These rival groups through their actions promote debate, educate the public and improve decision making so key government decisions take into account the balance of public opinion. Thirdly, groups are internally democratic in the sense that leaders are accountable to members and, finally, government is ‘neutral’ in the sense that it is willing to listen to any group or interest.

Pluralist democracy: A form of democracy where power is widely dispersed throughout society allowing ordinary people to influence decisions and policies.

On the other hand, elitists and others attack group politics and claim that it can weaken or undermine the democratic process. Power remains concentrated in the hands of the few, with the competition between groups being deeply unequal due to the huge differences in resources. To examine this debate it is necessary to look at the ways in which groups promote and threaten democracy.



Supplementing electoral democracy.

»»Pluralists often highlight the advantages of group representation over representation through

elections and political parties. Groups may either supplement electoral democracy (making up for its defects and limitations) or they may have replaced political parties as the main way in which people express their views and interests:

»» Elected representatives know there is a need for ongoing dialogue with different sections of the public over detailed policy choices in order to increase the legitimacy of decision making. In particular, it is crucial that minority voices, often ignored by parties in their desire to appeal to the majority to win elections, are heard so that policy choices minimise harm and maximise legitimacy. The school meals campaign spearheaded by Marcus Rashford ensured that the interests of children of any age residing in households on income-related benefits were represented.

»»Pressure participants offer alternative viewpoints and widen the information available to the public, especially through their access to the mass media and the use of ‘new’ communications technology such as the internet. This allows groups to change the political agenda, as Extinction Rebellion has achieved, and force political parties to take notice.



Holding unaccountable power.

»» Regardless of which participants are most powerful, influence is exerted in a way that is not subject to scrutiny and public accountability, and so undermines democracy. Pressure participants usually exert influence ‘behind closed doors’.

»» This particularly applies in the case of organisations whose representatives stalk the ‘corridors of power’ unseen by the public and away from media scrutiny. No one knows (apart from occasional leaks) who said what to whom, or who influenced who, and how. This is unaccountable power. It is seen as particularly problematic because the Lobbying Act of 2014 fails to offer the sort of transparency and accountability required in a democracy, while the hidden funding of highly influential think tanks further undermines transparency.

»» Groups are not publicly accountable, meaning that the influence they exert is not democratically

legitimate. This problem is compounded by the fact that very few groups, apart from trade unions, operate on the basis of internal democracy. Leaders are very rarely elected by their members, and when they are (as in the case of trade unions) this is often on the basis of very low turnouts, so groups are not an accurate communications channel for the views of their members to politicians or the wider public.

»» Some groups use direct action to achieve their objectives. Through the use of strikes, blockades

and even intimidation and violence, pressure groups, in effect, ‘hold the country to ransom’. Once

Democracy and Participation: Pressure Groups and Other Influences and Rights in Context

47

pressure groups start to operate outside the established legal and constitutional framework they are also operating outside – and arguably against – the democratic process.



Widening participation.

»»The level of political participation is an important

Photo 2.4  Black Lives Matter protest assembled near the US embassy on 7 June 2020 in London.

indicator of the health of democracy.

agents of political participation as they allow new and previously excluded groups a voice in society. Not only has single-issue politics proved to be popular but the grassroots activism and decentralised organisation of many campaigning groups have proved to be attractive to many young people and those who may be disillusioned with conventional politics.

»»This participation has been amplified by the growth

of new access points in UK politics, meaning that, with so many decisions taken elsewhere, it is no longer so crucial to be an insider at Westminster.

»»The

Source: Becky Mutton

»»Pressure groups have become increasingly effective

rise of new social movements has seen a massive increase in the politics of protest such as the anti-war and Black Lives Matter protests and the direct action of Extinction Rebellion, while the rise of new technology and online activism has created new ways for the public to participate in politics.



Narrowing participation.

»» A central argument against the pluralist image of group politics is that, far from dispersing power more widely and empowering ordinary citizens, group politics tends to empower the already powerful. They therefore increase, rather than reduce, political inequality.

»» Pluralists argue that political inequality is broadly democratic, in that the most successful

groups tend to be ones with large membership, and which enjoy wide public support. This is very difficult to sustain. In practice, the most powerful groups tend to be the ones that possess money, expertise, institutional leverage and privileged links to government.

»» By the same token, there are significant, and sometimes large, sections of society that are

effectively excluded from the pressure-group universe. This is usually because they are difficult or impossible to organise and so must, at best, rely on others to protect them. Examples of such groups include children, asylum seekers, the homeless, and prisoners.

»» Much of the participation in groups is purely chequebook membership, where signing up to groups like the National Trust is more about the membership benefits than their campaign objectives, while the new levels of online engagement are more slacktivism than real activism so provide very superficial political engagement.



Widening power.

»»Pressure participants help to promote democracy by widening the distribution of political power. They do this, in part, because groups compete against one another. This ensures that no group or interest can remain dominant permanently.

»»As pluralists would argue, there is no such thing as a ‘power elite’. Instead, as one group becomes

influential, other groups come into existence to combat them and offer rival viewpoints; these rival groups through their actions promote debate, educate the public and improve decision making. The tobacco lobby may have been influential before 1997, but its power waned in the face of an effective campaign by Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) and the health professionals’ community.

48

Component I: UK Politics

»»The expertise and evidence that groups can bring to the decision-making process improves the

quality of policy making, increasing its legitimacy. The scientific and public polling evidence put forward by ASH and the health community was crucial in informing the 2006 Health Act passed by Labour in the face of corporate lobbying by the tobacco industries.

»»Trade unions developed in response to the growth of business power. The fossil fuel corporations are now faced by a growing environmental movement. In this way, public policy is developed through an ongoing debate between rival groups that ensures that political influence is widely and evenly dispersed. Group politics is therefore characterised by a rough balance of power. This is the essence of pluralist democracy.



Concentrating power.

»» Groups widen political inequality by strengthening the voice of the wealthy and the privileged:

those who have access to financial, educational, organisational resources and whose role in the economy is crucial to the economic policy success of the party in power. Other groups are poorly organised, lack resources or are ignored by government.

»» Group politics therefore strengthen the voice of the wealthy and privileged, giving those core insiders real power due to their economic importance to the government, their ability to offer donations to parties, afford lobbying and gain access to power through the revolving door.

»» Sectional interests may prevail at the expense of the interests of the majority or the larger

public. Therefore, as certain groups become more powerful, elected governments may find it more difficult to serve the public interest and to do what is best for society as a whole; the power of the financial services corporations and the BBA in relation to the interests of the consumer.

»» Politicians tend to listen and respond to those groups on whose support they rely, while

imposing costs on those which naturally oppose them or lack the electoral strength to make an impact.

»» It is hard to see the government as a neutral umpire between competing ideas as governing

parties clearly have their own ideological outlook, which naturally aligns with the interests of particular pressure groups and collective organisations.

Key Debate Summary: Does group politics promote democracy in the UK? FOR

AGAINST

99Group politics supplements electoral politics 88 The unaccountable power of groups is and helps to compensate for the slow decline in party membership and voter turnout.

a threat to democracy, due to the lack of transparency and accountability.

allowing increased participation as new causes and interests emerge, and reaches those who have previously been politically disengaged or excluded.

by increasingly placing power in the hands of the few, excluding large sections of society while new forms of participation are superficial.

99Group politics is flexible and ever changing, 88 Group politics narrows political participation

99Group politics disperses political power

away from the centre and allows groups to emerge as a counterbalance to the government.

88 Group politics is the preserve of insiders,

channelling political power into the hands of a narrow elite.

Democracy and Participation: Pressure Groups and Other Influences and Rights in Context

49

What are rights? Human rights are rights which are common to all people. They are based on a moral view of what all human beings deserve wherever they live, whenever they live and whatever government they live under. Human rights are:

»»Universal in that they belong to all humans everywhere, regardless of nationality, ethnic or racial origin, social background.

»»Fundamental in that they are inalienable – a human being’s entitlement to them cannot be removed.

»»Absolute in that, as the basic grounds for living a genuinely human life, they must be fully upheld in all circumstances.

Civil liberties, which include many human rights, are the rights and freedoms that are recognised within a particular country and protect the individual from the state. A key principle of any democracy is the effectiveness with which civil liberties that clearly set the boundaries to the power of the state are guaranteed. This link between rights and democracy is founded, most importantly, on the belief that political participation is only meaningful when it is carried out by individuals who are able to think and act for themselves: that is, free individuals. As the UK emerged as a democracy, there was a growing consensus that Parliament in exercising its powers should respect basic civil liberties. The civil liberties that emerged were built around the basic principle that the individual was free to do whatever they wanted as long as it was not forbidden by law. This basic principle was reinforced gradually over time by constitutional events, such as the Magna Carta, the passage of legislation such as the Representation of the People Act 1928 establishing universal suffrage, and in common law, such as fundamental rights of access to justice and to the courts.

Definition Civil liberties: The rights and freedoms that are recognised within a particular country and protect the individual from the state. Common law: Law that is based on long-standing customs and traditions developed over time by the courts and judges through cases.

Visit the companion website for a list of the milestones in the development of rights in the UK.

How are rights protected in the UK? The consensus around rights in the UK began to change in the second half of the twentieth century with the UK involved in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (1950) while lacking any equivalent legislation domestically. From the 1960s onwards concerns were raised that the powers of public bodies were open to abuse, particularly in the treatment of immigrants, minorities and other groups without political power. This coincided with a period of lobbying by pressure groups to reform the law in light of growing evidence that civil liberties were being restricted. Finally, in the 1970s the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) began to show up large gaps in the UK’s civil liberties legislation with Court decisions affecting UK law in areas such as freedom of expression, freedom from discrimination and the right to a fair trial. These different influences all came together in the Labour Party manifesto of 1997, which pledged that UK citizens should have statutory rights to enforce their human rights in the UK courts. Labour saw the Human Rights Act as establishing a floor for human rights, not a ceiling, and that rights could be enhanced further by Acts of Parliament such as the Equalities Act to tackle unjustifiable discrimination.

Human Rights Act The Human Rights Act of 1998 is seen as the key symbol and protection of civil liberties in the UK (see Table 2.1).

Definition ECHR: Drafted in 1950, the Convention protects the human rights of people in countries that belong to the Council of Europe (it is entirely separate from the EU with 47 members, including non-EU states such as Russia and Switzerland).

50

Component I: UK Politics

Table 2.1  Some of the key rights incorporated in the Human Rights Act Article 2:

Right to life

Article 3:

Prohibition of torture

Article 4:

Prohibition of slavery and forced labour

Article 5:

Right to liberty and security

Article 6:

Right to a fair trial

Article 7:

No punishment without law

Article 8:

Right to respect for private and family life

Article 9:

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Article 10:

Freedom of expression

Article 11:

Freedom of assembly and association

Article 12:

Right to marry

Article 14:

Prohibition of discrimination

Before the passing of the Human Rights Act, taking a case to the ECtHR was very lengthy and expensive, while law passed in the UK did not need to make any reference to the Convention. The passing of the Human Rights Act had three key aims in respect to civil liberties in the UK: 1. Bringing rights back home. The HRA made rights much more readily available by ensuring that British citizens could bring rights cases to British courts, although once raised in UK courts, citizens can still ask the ECtHR to look at the case. It is possible to challenge an Act of Parliament, and the courts can issue a declaration of incompatibility if a law is incompatible with rights in the Convention. This is a formal legal statement that the law contravenes the HRA, but does not invalidate or strike down the law; instead it encourages Parliament to take action to amend or remove the law in question. In R v Secretary of State for International Development [2018] UKSC 32, the Supreme Court ruled the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 as incompatible because different-sex couples could not enter into civil partnerships, which breached their rights under Article 14 (non-discrimination) and Article 8 (right to private and family life). The Government then decided to amend the law the following year via The Civil Partnership (Opposite-sex Couples) Regulations 2019.

Tip – In judging the success of the Human Rights Act, it is worth assessing whether it meets its three key aims.

2. Creating a culture of respect for human rights. The HRA placed a legal duty on all public organisations, such as NHS bodies, the police, central government departments and local councils but not Parliament, to respect and protect those rights listed. This means that human rights should inform the everyday practices and actions of these bodies, and any action, or failure to act, in line with rights can be challenged. Mersey Care NHS Trust worked with Barnado’s and the British Institute of Human Rights to develop a ‘rights-based’ approach to their services. They developed safe spaces for relatives to visit children in secure mental health settings that complied with Article 8. 3. Increasing public awareness of human rights. By placing civil liberties in one document, it helps to make people aware of and understand their rights so they can challenge decisions that do not treat them equally, with fairness, dignity and respect.

Freedom of Information Act 2001 The Freedom of Information Act allows the public access to information held by public authorities. Public authorities are required to publish certain information about their activities, and the public can request further information from them. The aim of the Act was to create more open government, where decisions taken by public authorities that affect people’s lives and involve spending the taxpayers’ money should be open to scrutiny. This would build trust and public confidence in the authorities, and make it easier to hold public authorities to account for their actions. Between 2005 and 2015, there were over 400,000 requests under the Act by central government, with around 90,000 requests being denied because they were deemed not to be in the public interest.

Democracy and Participation: Pressure Groups and Other Influences and Rights in Context In 2019, Liberty published a report, Policing by Machine, which claimed that at least 14 police forces in the UK had used or intended to use discriminatory computer programs to model where crimes would be committed and by whom. The report, based on over 90 freedom of information requests sent to police forces across the UK, argued that these systems, used in their current format, were a threat to everyone’s rights and freedoms.

CASE STUDY 2.3: LIBERTY Events: Liberty was founded in 1934 and has become one of the UK’s largest civil liberties organisations, with more than 10,500 members and supporters. It campaigns for everyone in the UK to be treated fairly, with dignity by challenging injustice and defending freedoms. Liberty works by taking landmark legal cases to the courts, by meeting with politicians and providing evidence to government, exposing human rights abuses through investigations, influencing the debate through the media and providing free legal advice to empower people to stand up for their rights. Liberty campaigns around a whole host of civil liberties issues including the Human Right Act, mental health and disability rights, immigrations and migrant rights, policing as well as privacy and mass surveillance.

Significance: In the twenty first century, Liberty has been involved in a number of high profile campaigns: Firstly, in the case of Gillan and Quinton, Liberty challenged section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which authorised the police to stop and search anyone for items which could be used for terrorism within a specified area, even in the absence of reasonable suspicion. The case first came to light in 2003, when Liberty’s two clients were stopped outside an arms fair in the Docklands in 2003 and it was revealed that the whole of Greater London was designated for stop and search. In 2010, the European Court of Human Rights ruled the counter

terror powers as a violation of Article 8 because the powers were not subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse. Secondly in 2007 to 2008, Liberty engaged in a campaign to build up public and parliamentary support to oppose the clause in the counter terrorism bill that would allow the police to detain terror suspects without charge for 42 days. In October 2008, the 42-day measure was dropped by Gordon Brown’s Government after a large defeat in the House of Lords. Thirdly in 2006, the Labour Government passed the Identity Cards Act to introduce identity cards, which Liberty argued would represent a significant erosion of civil liberties. Liberty worked to convince the opposition parties of the issues with this Act, and when the Coalition Government came to power in 2010, the first bill they introduced was the Identity Documents Act, which repealed the Identity Cards Act. Finally, Liberty were part of a court case brought by a range of human rights and journalism groups into the UK government’s mass surveillance programmes after they were exposed by Edward Snowden. In 2018 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the bulk interception of communications (the records of who, what, when, where and how we communicate) violated Article 8 and 10 as it did not contain adequate safeguards against abuse in order to keep interference with rights to what is necessary in a democratic society.

Equality Act 2010 The Equality Act 2010 brought 116 separate pieces of legislation on discrimination together into one Act to make the law easier to understand and to strengthen protection in certain areas. The Act lays out the different ways in which it is unlawful to treat someone in the workplace and in wider society. There are nine characteristics that are protected from discrimination under the Act: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation. The Act lays out what an individual can do if they feel that they have been discriminated against and also requires public bodies to pay attention to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations between different people in carrying out their work.

51

52

Component I: UK Politics

The limits and tensions of rights protection in the UK The focus on rights since the introduction of the HRA in 1998 has raised a number of key issues about how rights work in practice within a democracy.

Rights and responsibilities Definition Responsibilities: Obligations or duties towards others or the larger society. This includes paying tax, jury duty, abiding by the law and voting.

Rights are commonly viewed as the other side of the coin from responsibilities, on the grounds that having an entitlement to act or be treated in a particular way entails an obligation to respect the entitlement of others to do the same. Citizenship is thus normally seen to be composed of a combination of rights and responsibilities. Conservatives, in particular, have seen the growth of a human rights culture as a threat to the moral fabric of society, with people being more concerned with what society owes them than with what they owe society. Rights have thus become divorced from responsibilities, especially when these rights are seen as fundamental, meaning that they do not have to be ‘earned’.

Can rights be restricted? The UK Parliament has the power to ‘derogate’ from (set aside) certain articles in the ECHR when passing law during a state of emergency or at a time of war. The Labour Government of Tony Blair derogated from Article 5, the right to liberty and security, in the passing of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which included the power to detain foreign nationals who were suspected international terrorists because they believed they represented a threat to the UK. This is seen as a clear example of the common good overriding the rights of the individual but raises the question as to whether rights really are universal, fundamental and absolute. However there are four exceptions to this rule: the UK Parliament cannot derogate from Articles 2, 3, 4 and 7 as these rights are considered absolute. All other rights within the HRA can all be compromised in times of crisis, provided the action is proportionate and lawful, to protect the public. A clear example can be found in the Coronavirus Act 2020, which massively increased state power and was backed by emergency regulations that allowed the police to prevent people from leaving their homes without a ‘reasonable excuse’, which could be argued to restrict Article 5 in order to protect public health.

Clash of rights It is by no means clear that rights belong only to individuals, as they are also claimed by collective bodies, ranging from trade unions and political parties to cultural or religious groups. Collective or group rights nevertheless often clash with individual rights, as the former tend to place restrictions on freedom of choice. These issues are generally resolved via the Courts rather than by elected politicians and Photo 2.5  Supreme Court rules in favour many of the decisions receive widespread publicity as of a Belfast Bakery under Article 10 they can be controversial:

Source: Leon Neal/Getty Images

of the Human Rights Act.

»»Ashers v Lee (2018): In this case it was decided by

the Supreme Court that a Belfast Bakery run by evangelical Christians did not have to make a cake with the message “support gay marriage” on it. The Court ruled the bakery did not refuse to make the cake because of Lee’s sexual orientation and so there was no discrimination on these grounds. Under Article 10, the Court ruled that freedom of expression includes the right not to express an opinion that one does not hold. The decision was welcomed by some as a victory for free speech, while gay rights groups, such as Stonewall and the Rainbow Project, as well as the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, saw it as a backward step for equality.

Democracy and Participation: Pressure Groups and Other Influences and Rights in Context

»»HMCI v The Interim Executive Board of Al-Hijrah School (2017): The case concerned Al-Hijrah

school in Birmingham, which is a voluntary-aided faith co-educational school for boys and girls. The school segregated boys and girls from Year 5 onwards and they had separate classrooms, used separate corridors and play areas, attended separate clubs and went on separate school trips. The Court of Appeal ruled that the segregation broke the individual rights of both boys and girls under the Equalities Act as both were denied the opportunity to mix socially and interact with pupils of the opposite sex.

Individual rights versus the collective rights of the state The biggest conflict arises though between individual rights and the collective rights expressed by the state such as national security, public health and keeping the public safe. These clashes often pit the government, backed by the will of those who elected them, against individual rights and the courts are left to resolve the dispute. This often brings the courts into direct conflict with the government and according to critics could put the safety of the country at risk and undermine the trust of the public in the legal system. Individual rights have come into conflict with the priorities of government in four main areas: 1. Sentencing laws: In Vinter and Others v the United Kingdom (2013), a case involving convicted murderers Jeremy Bamber, Peter Moore and Douglas Vinter, the ECtHR ruled that for a life sentence to remain compatible with Article 3, there had to be both a possibility of release and a possibility of review. Former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said it was this case that led him to propose a new British Bill of Rights to replace the HRA to ensure that UK Courts and Parliament should have the final say in these matters. 2. Treatment of prisoners: In Hirst v UK (2005) the ECtHR ruled that a blanket ban on prisoners voting violated Article 3 in a case that David Cameron described as making him feel physically ill. 3. Terrorism: This has perhaps been the most controversial area of all, especially in light of the perception of an increased terrorist threat since 9/11.

»»A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004), known as the Belmarsh

case, saw the Law Lords rule that the Labour policy of indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects without charge broke the Human Rights Act. The court ruled that laws like this were ‘the real threat to the life of the nation’. Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, did not release the suspects until the following year, having passed new legislation that allowed him to place the suspects under control orders that impose strict restrictions on suspects, including electronic tagging and limits on who they can meet.

»» In Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK (2012), the ECtHR ruled that the radical cleric Abu Qatada could

not be deported back to Jordan as it was believed evidence obtained using torture would be used in the case against him, contravening his right to a fair trial. The verdict angered the Home Secretary, Theresa May, and the PM, David Cameron, while also drawing the anger of the mainstream media and public opinion. Theresa May eventually agreed a new treaty with Jordan in 2013, guaranteeing a fair trial and Abu Qatada was deported the same year.

4. Right to privacy and family life versus the need to protect others. In S and Marper v United Kingdom (2008), the ECtHR ruled that the blanket retention of DNA profiles taken from innocent people posed a disproportionate interference with the right to private life, in violation of Article 8 of the ECHR. The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith (Labour), was disappointed in the ruling, arguing that keeping the fingerprints and DNA profiles was vital to fighting crime. In 2010, the case of Aso Mohammed Ibrahim triggered an angry response from the PM David Cameron and was highlighted by the Daily Mail in its campaign against the HRA. In 2003, Aso Mohammed Ibrahim knocked down and killed a young girl in a hit and run. Seven years later, an immigration tribunal turned down the application to deport him under Article 8, as in the intervening seven years he had married a UK citizen and his family also consisted of two children and two stepchildren.

53

54

Component I: UK Politics

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  HOW EFFECTIVELY DOES THE UK’S DEMOCRACY PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES?



Judicial review allows citizens to challenge decisions made by public bodies, including the government, which they believe may be unlawful or contravene rights.

»» This allows the courts in the UK to protect the rights of the individual against the power of the state.

In particular, since judges are unelected and unaccountable, they are free to protect the rights of the individual against the overbearing state whereas elected politicians need to pay close attention to the wishes of the majority to win re-election. The court’s protection of the rights of prisoners, suspected terror suspects and migrants even where the rulings are unpopular seem to back this up.

»»If a public body contravenes a right, the courts can award a just and appropriate remedy and where an Act of Parliament contravenes the HRA, the courts can issue a declaration of incompatibility. The courts cannot strike down an Act of Parliament and this means that they are part of the discussion about rights, but leaves Parliament with the final say in determining the law regarding human rights.

»»As a result, Parliament has changed the law in response to court decisions in cases regarding

civil partnerships and the police keeping DNA and fingerprints on file, but those changes were passed by elected politicians.

»»The UK has one of the best records among the 47 signatories to the ECHR of compliance with the decisions of the ECtHR, as most decisions are readily accepted with only the controversial decisions making the news.



Judicial review, the ECHR and HRA are increasingly coming under attack from the media, think tanks and politicians on the right for upsetting the balance between individual rights and the need for efficient and effective government to deliver in the public interest.

»» This has been driven by the sense that the courts have been increasingly active in expanding

rights through their decisions, as in prisoner’s rights. In this way, judges have stepped into the role of law making and are treading on the toes of Parliament.

»» The courts have too much power for an unelected and unaccountable body in a democratic

society. This criticism is most strongly laid at the door of the ECtHR as it is felt by some that its decisions bind the hands of Parliament. Their decisions have put the country at risk, making it harder for the government to tackle terrorism and deport criminals and extremists.

»» On 31 July 2020, the Conservative Government established an independent panel to look at

whether there was a need to reform the judicial review process to see if the right balance was being struck between the rights of citizens to challenge executive decisions and the need for effective and efficient government.

»» The Conservative Party included in its election pledges for the 2019 election that it would ‘update the Human Rights Act and administrative law to ensure there is a proper balance between the rights, our vital national security and effective government’.



There is a strong culture of respect for civil liberties within Parliament and public bodies, which remain publicly committed to respect and protect human rights as well as preventing discrimination.

»»Parliament has established a Joint Committee on Human Rights, made up of both Peers from the House of Lords and MPs from the House of Commons, to scrutinise every government bill for its compatibility with human rights. On 19 March 2020, the Committee opened an inquiry into whether the Government response to the pandemic was compliant with human rights, in particular Articles 2, 5 and 8.

Democracy and Participation: Pressure Groups and Other Influences and Rights in Context

»»Public organisations, such as Mersey Care NHS Trust above, work to ensure that they meet their public duty in respecting and protecting rights.

»»The Equality and Human Rights Commission promotes and upholds equality and human rights ideals and laws across England, Scotland and Wales. In 2020, the Commission carried out investigations into allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and suspected past pay discrimination against women at the BBC.



The strong culture of respect appears more as lip service than a real commitment to rights, with governments of both main parties and public bodies having a patchy record of upholding rights.

»» The Labour Government’s Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, introduced indefinite detention for terror suspects, which was ruled incompatible in the Belmarsh case. The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which introduced control orders, suffered two defeats with 18-hour curfews ruled in breach of rights in 2007, while in 2009 the reliance on secret evidence to impose control orders was seen to clash with the right to a fair trial.

»» In

2016, the Conservative Government oversaw the passage of the Investigatory Powers Act, which detailed the power of law enforcement and intelligence and security agencies to obtain communications and data about communications. Liberty crowdfunded a challenge against the Act, and in 2017 it was ruled that the government unlawfully obtained data from communications companies and didn’t put in place operational safeguards under Article 8. This led the Government to introduce The Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice) Regulations 2018, which was created to ensure there was more rigorous safeguarding and oversight, including the setting up of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to oversee the powers.

»» The Coronavirus Act of 2020 has been subject to criticism from a range of human rights

organisations, such as Liberty and the British Institute of Human Rights, in particular in relation to the rights of older adults, disabled adults and children, carers and those detained in mental health hospitals.



In UK society, there is now a far greater awareness of civil liberties, and a strong commitment to fighting for and protecting rights. Human rights also have strong levels of public support, particularly among the younger population and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

»»The Howard League and Prison Reform Trust has run long-term campaigns about the human rights of prisoners.

»»Liberty has been vocal in campaigning against any weakening of the HRA or Judicial Review and against discrimination in policing.

»»The devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland remain opposed to any changes to the HRA.

»»The HRA and Equalities Act are frequently used by groups and individuals to get public bodies

and Parliament to change their minds without resorting to court proceedings. The survivors and the families of those who died in the Hillsborough Stadium tragedy have used Article 2, the right to life, to argue that the original Coroner’s Inquest that ruled all deaths were accidental did not meet the requirement for a proper, effective investigation into all deaths caused by the State or where it appears the State has failed to protect life. In 2016, the new inquests ruled that the 96 victims had been unlawfully killed.



While there is support for laws dealing with human rights and discrimination in the UK, there has been growing criticism from the media, politicians and the public over the way human rights work in the UK.

»» In particular, some of the strongest criticisms have been reserved for court decisions that protect the rights of criminals, terror suspects and prisoners. The Abu Qatada decision, for instance,

55

Component I: UK Politics came in for heavy criticism from the media and politicians. This has raised concerns that it is undermining public trust in the legal system.

»» There has been growing concern about human rights inflation, where individual rights like the

right to privacy and a family life have been elevated to the same level as absolute rights like the right to life. This inflation of the right to privacy and family life has severely limited the state, the police and intelligence services from doing their job of keeping the people safe and deporting suspected terrorists and criminals.

»» There is a developing narrative that ECtHR judges don’t really appreciate or understand the UK human rights tradition. It is better to leave judgements about rights to MPs in Westminster and UK judges who understand British traditions and ways of thinking.

»» This has led elements of the Conservative party to campaign for replacing the HRA with a British Bill of Rights, written by Parliament and ruled on in UK courts.

CASE STUDY 2.4:  THE HOWARD LEAGUE FOR PENAL REFORM Photo 2.6  Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Justice at the Howard League Annual General Meeting in 2015. Source: Andrew Aitchison/Getty Images

56

Events: The Howard League is a national charity that campaigns and works for safer communities, less crime, fewer people in prison and promoting civil liberties via the law. As a campaigning group, it works with Parliament, the media, criminal justice professionals and the wider public to achieve its aims. In 2018 to 2019, it posted a total income of £2,434,707, had forty two staff, trustees and volunteers working with it and had more than thirty thousand followers on twitter. The Howard League has been campaigning for over one hundred and fifty years and can point to a number of significant achievements.

Significance: In 2014, the Howard League took up a campaign against restrictions placed on prisoners receiving books from friends and family. The Books for Prisoners campaign was backed by leading authors who had a letter published in the Telegraph, supporters tweeting “shelfies” to the Ministry of Justice and included many protests including a poetry reading outside Pentonville prison by the Poet Laureate Carol Ann Duffy that achieved widespread media attention. By the end of 2014, the High Court had ruled the restrictions as unlawful. In April 2015, the Coalition Government introduced a mandatory criminal courts charge of up to £1,200 for anyone convicted of an offence. The Howard League opposed the charge as unfair, because it led people to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity to reduce the cost, even if they were not guilty, and unrealistic, because it was even imposed on those who were unable to pay. In particular, the homeless, people with addictions or with mental health problems were being given charges that they could never pay. Using #criminalcharge, the Howard League tweeted out examples of unfair cases, such as the woman charged £300 for stealing a chocolate bar even though she had not eaten for days, and formed the stories into a press release. This set off a series of newspaper stories, including a front page in the Independent and the charge was dropped in 2015 within four months of the campaign being launched.

Democracy and Participation: Pressure Groups and Other Influences and Rights in Context

Key Debate Summary: How effectively does the UK’s democracy protect human rights and civil liberties? FOR

99The UK has a strong legal framework for protecting rights in the Equalities and Human Rights Acts.

AGAINST

88 The new framework is seen by some to

tilt the balance too far in favour of rights detracting from effective and efficient government in the public interest.

99A strong culture of respect for civil liberties 88 Governments led by both major parties in parliament and public bodies means human rights inform decision making and are taken seriously.

99There is a strong commitment to human

rights within wider civil society, with the public and pressure groups using the HRA and Equalities Act to further human rights.

have a patchy record, introducing a number of pieces of legislation that restrict rights, while public bodies do not always put rights at the centre of their practice.

88 There is growing criticism of the HRA

and the ECtHR, with proposals to amend the HRA or replace it with a British Bill of Rights, an inquiry into reforming judicial review and the possibility of leaving the ECHR all being floated.

Visit the companion website for a bonus study on the question: How democratic is the UK? This will help you to revise the topic of democracy and participation covered in Chapter 1 and 2.

57

58

Component I: UK Politics

Chapter Summary ‐‐Group politics allows for the public to be more directly involved in politics, with pluralists arguing that groups disperse power in society and promote democracy.

‐‐Group politics remains contentious, with critics arguing the group politics concentrates power, narrows participation and undermines democracy.

‐‐Democracy relies on the respect for rights, to allow people to freely and effectively participate in the political process. ‐‐The UK has seen a strengthening of the protection of rights since 1998. However, the role of the courts in protecting rights remains contentious.

Exam Style Questions Evaluate the view that human rights are well protected in the United Kingdom (30). zz Evaluate the view that the largest pressure groups in the UK are the most powerful (30). zz Evaluate the view that group politics promotes pluralist democracy in the UK (30). zz Evaluate the view that think tanks, lobbyists and pressure groups have a significant impact on political decision zz making in the UK (30).

Source Question Source One It is clear that rights are well protected in the UK. Firstly, judicial review allows citizens to challenge decisions made by public bodies, including the government, which they believe may be unlawful or contravene rights. This power to protect rights has been enhanced by the Human Rights Act and the Equalities Act. In addition, there is a strong culture of respect for civil liberties within Parliament and public bodies, which remain committed to respecting and protecting human rights both at home and abroad. Lastly, since the inception of the Human Rights Act, there is now a far greater awareness of civil liberties and a strong commitment to fighting for and protecting rights in the UK and this is often led by pressure groups. Human rights also have strong levels of public support, particularly among the younger population.

Source Two Judicial Review, the ECHR and HRA are increasingly coming under attack from the media, think tanks and politicians. This has focused on the idea that the new arrangements have upset the balance between individual rights and the need for efficient and effective government to deliver in the public interest. This has been driven by the sense that the courts have been increasingly active in expanding rights through their decisions. The idea that there is a strong culture of respect appears merely superficial rather than a real commitment to rights, with governments of both main parties and public bodies having a patchy record of upholding rights. Moreover, while there is support for laws dealing with human rights and discrimination in the UK, there has been growing criticism over the way human rights work in the UK. Some of the strongest criticisms have been reserved for court decisions that protect the rights of criminals, terror suspects and prisoners.

Using the source, evaluate the view that rights are well protected in the UK. In your response you must:

»»Compare and contrast different opinions in the source »»Examine and debate these views in a balanced way »»Analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.

Democracy and Participation: Pressure Groups and Other Influences and Rights in Context

59

Further Resources Griffiths, S. and Leach, R. (2018) British Politics (3rd edn) (London: Red Globe Press): Chapter 16. Heffernan, R., Hay, C., Russell, M. and Cowley, P. (2016) Developments in British Politics (London: Red Globe Press): Chapter 8. Moran, M. (2017) Politics and Governance in the UK (3rd edn) (London: Red Globe Press): Chapter 14.

Visit the companion website to access the Further Resources Booklet to explore a range of useful web links related to: how democratic the UK is, how well the UK protects human rights and civil liberties, and the nature of protest politics. You can also find links to various pressure group websites such as Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion, the TUC and more.

POLITICAL PARTIES

60

3

Chapter Preview UK politics is party politics. When we vote, we vote for a political party. When governments are formed, they are formed by parties, and they govern very largely as parties: that is, through a process of party discipline. If parties did not exist, we would have to invent them to fulfil the key functions they currently carry out in our representative democracy. Since the introduction of universal suffrage, the Labour and Conservative Parties have dominated the UK political landscape and shaped the political debate around the role of the state versus the role of the market in managing the economy. In recent years, this division has become less dominant with the rise of Scottish and Welsh nationalism and growing divides over the Key Questions and Debates UK’s relations to the EU. »» Do political parties effectively fulfil their And yet, party politics in the UK appears to be in a sorry state. roles within the UK’s representative Somehow parties seem to be failing in one of their basic functions: democracy? getting people involved in political life. Turnout levels at elections »» Where do parties get their income from have fallen; there has been a decline in party membership (at least and is party funding in need of reform? until 2015) and fewer voters claim to ‘identify’ with a particular »» What do the established main parties party. The decline of the mass party has impacted their funding at stand for and how have they changed the very time parties have moved to centrally organised, expensive over time? national campaigns in elections. This has led critics to talk of a crisis in party funding and the need for funding reform.

»» How wide is the division between and within parties over ideology and policy? »» How is the party system changing and what has been the impact of emerging and minor parties on politics in the UK?

Specification Checklist 2.1 Political parties.

»» The functions and features of political parties in the UK’s representative democracy. »» How parties are currently funded, debates on the consequences of the current funding system.

2.2 Established political parties. »» The origins and historical development of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and Liberal Democrat Party, and how this has shaped their ideas and current policies on the economy, law and order, welfare and foreign policy.

2.3 Emerging and minor UK political parties. »» The importance of other parties in the UK. »» The ideas and policies of two other minor parties.

2.4 UK political parties in context. »» The development of a multi-party system and its implications for government. »» Various factors that affect party success – explanations of why political parties have succeeded or failed, including debates on the influence of the media.

So

urc

e:

iSt

oc

k.c

om

/st oc

kn

sh

are

s

61

62

Component I: UK Politics

What is a political party? A political party is a group of people that is organised for the purpose of winning power at a national and local level. In a democratic system, parties do this by putting candidates up for election, in the hope of gaining popular support and ultimately winning and exercising power. Political parties have three main features: 1. Parties aim to exercise power by winning political office; historically only the Labour and Conservative Parties could hope to win power in a general election, with smaller parties, like the Green Party which won one seat in 2019, using general elections more to gain a political platform than to win power. At a devolved level and local level, there has been a far wider range of parties which can realistically expect to win and exercise power.

Definition

2. Parties typically adopt a broad issue focus, addressing each of the major areas of government policy. Prior to an election, parties produce a manifesto, which sets out the policies, covering all that they hope to implement in the period until the next election if they win power. Some smaller parties, like the Brexit Party in 2019, however, may be perceived to have a narrower, or even a single issue focus, thus resembling pressure groups.

Ideology: An ‘ism’, like conservatism, liberalism or socialism, which is a more or less coherent set of ideas, values and theories that help to explain the world and guide political action.

3. Members of political parties are usually united by shared political preferences and a general ideological identity, although these are often loose and broadly defined. For example, ideologically the Labour Party is a socialist party, with a loose and broadly defined commitment to creating a more equal society. Ideological identity is a way for parties to signpost to voters how to vote and is usually expressed in the policy promises made by the party.

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  HOW EFFECTIVELY DO POLITICAL PARTIES SUPPORT DEMOCRACY IN THE UK? Why are parties so important to politics? Parties carry out a wide range of functions within the political system. However, in many cases, these have come under pressure in recent years, even allowing some commentators to speak of a ‘crisis’ in party politics.

Policy formulation The main role of political parties is to create a coherent policy programme that can be placed before voters at election time so they have an effective choice.



Political parties are one of the key means through which societies set collective goals, formulate public policy and offer the voter an effective choice.

»»In the process of seeking power, parties develop programmes for government. Not only does

this mean that parties often come up with policy proposals, but the major parties have clear ideological convictions and develop rival programmes of government, giving the electorate a meaningful choice between potential governments.

»»By offering a manifesto at election time and by accepting that they will be judged on that platform, parties can be held responsible for their performance in government, ensuring accountability within UK democracy.

»»The rise in the number of parties contesting seats since the Second World War suggests that electoral choice has increased (see Figure 3.1).



However, the effectiveness of parties in formulating policies has also been questioned.

»» As the major parties have distanced themselves from their traditional ideologies in recent years,

they have become less interested in formulating larger goals for society, and generally less interested in ideas. Parties have moved from presenting an ideological choice about where society should be headed to a technocratic choice between which team will run the country more effectively or a choice between leaders based on their personalities over their policies. Parties have become more eager to follow public opinion than to try to shape it.

Political Parties

Figure 3.1  Number of candidates put forward and number of seats won by the eight largest parties in the 2019 election 635

650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

631

611 476

365 276 203

Number of candidates Number of seats won 36

4

m

KI

ru

P

0

Pl

ai

lD

d

Cy

U

P

44

Li

be

ra

Co

SN

ex

re

en

it

0

Br

em

1

G

t ra oc

bo La

ns

er

va

tiv

ur

e

11

5948

»» Where parties lack a clear ideological identity and where there is a lack of choice for the voter, this can contribute to political apathy and low voter turnout (see Table 3.1).

»» Given that the Conservative and Labour Parties dominate the seats won in general elections, there is a lack of real choice for voters between potential governments.

Table 3.1 Voter turnout and perceived differences between parties Year

General election turnout

Percentage of voters who perceived a great difference between the parties (%)

2015

66

27

2010

65

23

2005

61

13

2001

59

17

1997

71

33

1992

78

56

1987

75

85

Recruitment of leaders Political parties both train and recruit people for elections, political office and government posts.



All senior political careers start with the decision to join a political party and it is almost impossible to think of a major politician in the UK who is not associated with a party.

»» Thus parties control the process for who is chosen as a candidate to stand for election and therefore

who is elected. Through this process, parties provide the candidates for elections and help fill the seats in elected bodies, from local councils to the devolved assemblies to the House of Commons.

»»Parties also act as a training ground for future party leaders because a budding politician can

gain experience of canvassing, debating issues and helping to run a constituency party. This local activity trains people in the values and processes of their party, allows them to test and grow their political skills and work their way up the party.

63

64

Component I: UK Politics



However, the effectiveness of parties in recruiting and training leaders has also been questioned.

»» Parties are likely to choose leaders who are the most expert at winning elections, choosing in effect the most popular rather than the most competent. The skills for winning elections are not necessarily the same skills needed to run the country, especially when difficult decisions need to be made.

»» The selection of party leaders has switched from elected MPs to the party membership. The

membership of parties is only about 2% of the population, is not democratically accountable yet has disproportionate power in that it chooses leaders. The consequence has been leaders, such as Jeremy Corbyn, who were widely out of touch with the ideology of a majority of the party’s MPs and, as in the case of Boris Johnson in 2019, who were chosen as party leader (and Prime Minister) by a small band of membership-paying Conservatives in 2019, thereby undermining the democratic principle of equal participation.

Organisation of government Political parties take control of government in the UK, and it is political parties that are held accountable for their actions in government.



The operation of government relies on parties in many ways.

»»Parties help to form governments, meaning that the UK effectively has a system of ‘party government’. Traditionally, a single party with a majority of seats in the House of Commons forms the government and implements its manifesto (see Table 3.2).

»»They give governments a degree of stability and coherence, especially as the  members of

the government are usually drawn from a single party  and are therefore united by common sympathies and attachments.

»»They organise the legislative programme for government and ensure that it is passed in the legislature.

»»They provide a source of opposition and criticism, helping to scrutinise government policy and provide a ‘government in waiting’.

Table 3.2  Size of majority for the government from 1970 to 2019 Year

Party in government

Prime Minister

Size of majority in the House of Commons

1970

Conservative

Edward Heath

31

1974 February Labour

Harold Wilson

No majority

1974 October

Labour

Harold Wilson

4

1979

Conservative

Margaret Thatcher

44

1983

Conservative

Margaret Thatcher

144

1987

Conservative

Margaret Thatcher

101

1992

Conservative

John Major

21

1997

Labour

Tony Blair

178

2001

Labour

Tony Blair

166

2005

Labour

Tony Blair

65

2010

Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition

David Cameron

80

2015

Conservative

David Cameron

12

2017

Conservative

Theresa May

No majority

2019

Conservative

Boris Johnson

80

Political Parties



65

However, the effectiveness of parties in organising government has also been questioned.

»» The decline in party unity since the 1970s has tended to weaken the majority party’s control of the Commons.

»» Instability can occur, even where a single party in power has a majority, if there are clear internal

party splits. This was seen in the Major Government of 1992, which started with a majority of 21, or the 2015 Government of David Cameron, and then Theresa May, which started with a majority of 12.

Participation and mobilisation Political parties play a key role in encouraging voters to turn out at election time. Taking an active role in a party is a key route for ordinary people to participate in democracy.



Political parties foster participation in two ways.

»»They provide opportunities for citizens to join a group of like-minded people and therefore help to shape party policy and, if the party wins, government policy.

»»They help to educate and mobilise the electorate through a range of activities  – canvassing,

public meetings, advertising and poster campaigns, party broadcasts, and so on, building up loyalty and identification among the electorate.



However, the effectiveness of parties in ensuring participation and mobilisation has also been questioned.

»» Voters’ loyalty towards, and identification with, parties has declined. This is known as partisan

dealignment. Whereas 44% of voters claimed to have a ‘very strong’ attachment to a party in 1964, this had fallen to a mere 9% by 2015. The consequences have been that people are less likely to vote and that voting patterns are far more unpredictable.

»» Turnout in general elections has fallen sharply since 1997, with only 59% voting in 2001,

the lowest turnout since 1918, and 66% voting in 2015, still about 9% below the historical average.

»» The membership of the three traditional major parties in the UK has fallen. This suggests parties

are not only less able to mobilise the public to participate more widely in politics, but also unable to mobilise people to participate in their own internal party democracy.

»» Party leaderships have increasingly taken over running election campaigns based around centralised messaging, using the media and online platforms to replace the role of local activists.

Representation Political parties exist to articulate the interests of the electorate.



Representation is often seen as the primary function of parties in liberal democracies.

»»Parties link government to the people by responding to the demands of public opinion and turning them into deliverable policy positions. The winning party in an election can thus claim a popular mandate to carry out its policies.

»»The emergence of parties in the UK is tied to the introduction of universal suffrage, with the Labour Party emerging from the trade unions and socialist societies to represent working-class interests, while the Conservatives have been associated with representing the interests of private businesses and the middle classes.

»»With the increasing wealth of UK society in the second half of the twentieth century and the move

away from a heavy industry economy, parties have distanced themselves from their traditional interests and ideology by developing policies that appeal to the mass of the electorate. The major UK parties are now ‘catch-all parties’.

Definition Partisan dealignment: The process where individuals no longer identify themselves on a long-term basis as being associated with a certain political party. Mandate: An instruction or command that gives authority to a person or body to act in a particular way; a mandate therefore confers legitimacy on a political actor. Catch-all party: A party that develops policies that will appeal to the widest range of voters, by contrast with a more ideological party.

66

Component I: UK Politics



However, the effectiveness of parties in ensuring representation has also been questioned.

»» By moving away from representing their traditional groups, such as Labour looking to reduce its

links with trade unions under Tony Blair in order to attract the uncommitted voter, the ability of parties to represent interests has been reduced.

»» In modern society, pressure groups (see Chapter 2) have been seen by some as more effective than parties in articulating interests to policy makers.

Key Debate Summary: How effectively do political parties support democracy in the UK? FOR

AGAINST

99Parties provide a mechanism to formulate

88 Questions remain over whether there is

99Parties select candidates to contest

88 There is concern that the new selection

99Parties are necessary for the effective

88 The decline of party unity and discipline has

99Parties play a key role in educating and

88 Falling voter turnout, party identification

99Parties play a key role in representation,

88 As parties have become catch-all parties,

policies and offer the voters a choice.

elections and train future leaders.

working of government and Parliament. mobilising the electorate to ensure wider participation. linking together the people and the government.

enough difference between parties and a real choice for voters. processes for choosing party leaders is undermining democracy. increased instability.

and party membership reflect a failure of parties to engage people in politics. this representation function has weakened and pressure groups have challenged the role of parties in this area.

Party funding The funding of political parties has become an increasingly controversial issue in the UK. Parties have seen a decline in their memberships and with it the subscription fees, while they have moved to more centrally organised, media-based and expensive campaigning methods. This has meant that political parties are increasingly reliant on donations from individuals, corporations and trade unions, raising a key question for democracy: to what extent are political party donors effectively buying influence and power? There is a long history of allegations of cronyism and money buying power in the UK. David Lloyd George, Liberal leader and PM between 1916 and 1922, was alleged to have sold around 100 peerages in return for party donations. During Tony Blair’s time in power, the Labour Party was embarrassed in 1997 when a large donation from Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone was linked by critics to the exemption for Formula One events from the ban on any tobacco advertising at sporting events, and the party was caught up in a cash for peerages scandal in 2006. In 2020, the SNP called for a public inquiry into cash for honours after PM Boris Johnson raised 26 people to the House of Lords, including a number of Conservative Party donors.

How are parties funded in the UK? There are three main sources of funding for political parties in the UK: subscriptions from party members, donations from individuals and organisations (see Figure 3.2) and state funding in the form of grants.

Political Parties

Figure 3.2  Membership income and donations (2017) 40 35 £ millions

30 25 20 15

Donations

10

Membership Income

5

en re

P

G

KI U

P SN

t ra

e

oc

tiv ra

lD

em

va

er be

Li

Co

ns

La

bo

ur

-

1. Membership fees: Parties receive funding from membership subscriptions. This has been in decline with the collapse of party membership, especially for the Conservative Party, although the surge in party membership for Labour, the SNP and Greens since 2015 saw their membership income come close to matching or even exceeding their income from donations (see Figure 3.2). 2. Donations: These can be donations from individuals, corporate donations from businesses and institutional donations from pressure groups such as trade unions. Critics have long alleged that Labour has, in effect, been controlled by the trade unions while the Conservatives are similarly open to the allegation that their major business backers (such as finance, insurance and real estate) exert undue influence over the process of policy development. 3. Grants: There is a limited amount of public money made available to the parties in the form of grants.

»»There is ‘Short money’ available to opposition parties to help them with their Parliamentary duties, but not with election or campaigning expenses. It is calculated on the basis of the number of seats and votes won at the last election with additional income for the Leader of the Opposition’s Office to assist them with their key constitutional role of holding the government to account.

»»‘Cranborne money’ is a similar scheme that operates for the largest and second largest opposition party in the House of Lords.

»»The Electoral Commission has £2m in money from the UK Parliament, to allocate to parties with at least two sitting MPs, to develop policies to include in their election manifestoes.

The rules In light of allegations about party funding surrounding the Ecclestone Affair in 1997, Labour commissioned a review of party finance by the Committee on the Standards in Public Life. The proposals by the Committee were adopted in the Political Parties, Elections and Referenda Act (PPERA) of 2002, which was updated further in 2009. The Act aimed to manage party finance by regulating donations and spending, and increasing the transparency about where parties got their funding. PPERA established the Electoral Commission to oversee the laws relating to party finance. All parties must submit audited annual accounts, which are made public, while the Commission monitors and publishes details of party spending during elections. All donations in excess of £7,500 must be declared by parties to the Commission and this information is made available for

67

68

Component I: UK Politics public scrutiny. The Act also increased the amount of Short money available for opposition parties and introduced the Policy Development grant, although in 2016 the Conservative Government introduced a £3.6bn reduction in Short money alongside greater transparency in how it is used. Finally, election spending is capped at £30,000 per constituency contested during an election to stop parties attempting to outspend each other.

CASE STUDY 3.1: PARTY FUNDING AND THE 2019 ELECTION Events In the six weeks prior to the 2019 elections, UK political parties received a total of £30.7m in donations, with the Conservative Party receiving 63%, the Labour Party receiving 18% and the Brexit Party 13.5% of all donations. Donations by individuals made up 62% of all money donated, donations by companies 21% and donations by the trade unions 16%. When looking at the main two parties, individual donations made up 71% of all money received by the Conservatives compared to only 6% for Labour. In contrast, 93% of Labour’s donations came from the trade unions while Labour also had a much healthier income stream from its larger membership.

Significance The main conclusion of reviewing party election finances is that the 2019 arrangements clearly benefitted the main two parties. The income that they generated far outstripped that of other political parties, allowing them to outspend the other parties during the General Election campaign. Critics suggest

The second issue that arises is the reliance of the political parties on their donors; in May 2020, The Times revealed that in the preceding year, the top 50 political donors had donated £35.5m between them. The Conservatives received £24.9m of that money, including £3.6m from Lord Bamford, Chairman of JCB, £1.24m from financier Michael Spencer, £1m from financier Peter Hargreaves and £1m from property tycoon Tony Gallagher. Overall, the largest donor was Lord Sainsbury, previously Chair of Sainsbury’s and a junior Minister in the Blair Government, who contributed £8m to the Liberal Democrats, while Labour only received £5,000 from the top 50 donors. In contrast, Labour received large donations from the trade unions, including £3m from UNITE led by Len McCluskey. While evidence of corrupt activity is weak, the perception that parties work for their donors and not the public undermines trust in democracy in the UK. Finally, PPERA was written in an era before Facebook, and other social media platforms existed, so the law needs updating to ensure transparency, fairness and to create a level playing field in light of concerns around disinformation and foreign

Table 3.3  Donations in the six weeks prior to the 2019 General Election Individual

Company

Trade union

Other

Total

Conservative

£13,265,157

£5,997,751

£0

£108,000

£19,370,908

Labour

£159,442

£201,600

£5,039,754

£10,500

£5,411,296

The Brexit Party

£4,150,000

£0

£0

£0

£4,150,000

Liberal Democrat

£1,004,998

£241,000

£0

£0

£1,245,998

SNP

£14,929

£10,000

£0

£0

£24,929

Green

£232,477

£10,000

£0

£0

£242,477

that the current system creates an uneven playing field, ensuring that realistically only the Labour and Conservative Parties can finance the sort of nationwide campaign that is required to win power.

interference in elections. In particular, it is argued that all online ads should state who produced them and on whose behalf (all printed campaign literature is already required to do so), while social media spending should be reported by parties separately.

Political Parties

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  SHOULD UK PARTIES BE STATE FUNDED? In 2007, following the cash for peerages scandal, the Labour Government established the Phillips Review to look into the state of party funding. The wide-ranging report made eight major recommendations, including an extension of state funding of political parties to make a fairer, more sustainable system of party politics in the UK and to increase democratic engagement. However, the approach to party funding taken by the Conservatives and Labour has been to continue to focus on limits to party spending and to increase transparency. Both parties have studiously avoided the debate around state funding of parties, which is one of the major issues that concerns minor parties in the UK, and the state funding remains highly controversial with the public, especially following the MPs’ expenses scandal of 2009. On the other hand, supporters of the state funding of parties argue that it is used widely in other representative democracies such as Sweden and Germany in order to generate a party system that gives the voting public a wider choice on election day. It is worth exploring the issues around the state funding of political parties in more depth.



State funding would reduce parties’ perceived dependence on vested interests.

»» While the perception remains, much of the public might question why they would bother paying modest membership fees or making small donations or even voting, as their voice will not be heard.

»»State funding would allow parties to be more responsive to the views of party members and voters, making parties more democratically responsive and increasing public trust in politics.



The provision of a reliable income stream to parties from the state may weaken their links to larger society. Parties currently need to reach out to society to recruit members and to seek donations; this means they have to listen and be responsive to a range of interests and groups.

»» The Labour Party under Tony Blair looked to reduce its reliance on trade union money by attracting a wider range of donors, while under Jeremy Corbyn the party generated a very healthy membership income stream due to the large increase in membership and looked to attract smaller donations in order to increase the links to wider society.

»» The Conservative Party has also looked to reach out to society by expanding its base, increasing

its membership from 124,000 in 2018 to 160,000 in 2019 as new members joined in order to have a say in the leadership election.



State funding could be allocated based on an agreed measure of parties’ popularity and democratic engagement.

»»This might include votes won across a range of different elections (especially as smaller parties are far more successful in local and regional elections) and the size of party membership.

»»This 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. This would provide a far healthier party system in the UK, giving voters a wider range of realistic choice at election time and helping to increase voter turnout.



It may create a bias in favour of existing parties if the level of state funding reflects past party performance measured in terms of votes cast in preceding elections.

»» This would further entrench the power of the Labour and Conservative Parties, and leave minor parties behind.



The current regulatory framework is inadequate. Since passing PPERA in 2000, allegations that donations secure peerages and political influence have continued.

»»The regulations have also failed to create a level playing field for smaller parties and are out of date due to the rise of social media. Further regulation, such as capping donations at £10,000, looks politically unlikely as the Conservatives and Labour can’t agree on whether such a cap should apply to the trade unions.

»»State funding provides the solution, and the cost to the taxpayer would be relatively small, with the parties requiring around £25m per year of taxpayers’ money to carry out their functions.

69

70

Component I: UK Politics



Politically, state funding is unpalatable. The public already distrusts politicians with public money following the ‘expenses scandal’ of 2009 while the public do not like the idea of their money going to parties they do not support.

»» This problem is exacerbated by the fact the state funding measure may end up allocating funds to parties that much of the public consider to be extremists, such as the British National Party.

»» Finally, in a free democratic society, it is the right of the individual to freedom of expression

that allows them to financially support whichever party or political cause they like, and this right should not be restricted. The answer is not state funding, but more transparency on party funding so the public can scrutinise the political parties before making a choice on whether to join or vote for a particular party.

Key Debate Summary: Should UK parties be state funded? FOR

AGAINST

99State funding would reduce parties’

88 Reliance on state funding might reduce

99State funding would create a level playing

88 State funding could lead to reinforcing the

99A reliable income would allow parties to

88 Reliance on state funding might reduce the

99State funding is needed to replace the

88 State funding is unpopular with the wider

reliance on their donors.

Spec key term Left-wing: Political ideas that are based on generally optimistic views about human nature and believe that the state can be used to deliver social change; left-wingers tend to support liberty, equality and state intervention in the economy. Right-wing: Political ideas that tend to be pessimistic about human nature and oppose change; right-wingers typically favour order, authority and oppose state intervention in the economy, instead favouring free markets.

parties’ links to wider society.

field and healthier party system. fulfil their democratic functions. failed existing framework.

existing two-party dominance. independence of parties. public.

Established political parties Left and Right Political ideas and beliefs are often categorised on the basis that they are either left-wing or rightwing. Although the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ do not have exact meanings, they tend to summarise different attitudes to the individual, society, the economy and the role of the state. This can be illustrated by the traditional, linear left/right political spectrum (see Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3  The left/right political spectrum LEFT

COMMUNISM

RIGHT

SOCIALISM

LIBERALISM

CONSERVATISM

FASCISM

In the UK, the left/right divide has traditionally been portrayed as a battle between two contrasting ideologies – socialism and conservatism – with liberalism somehow standing between them. In turn, these ideologies have been represented by political parties that have dominated UK politics since the early twentieth century, the Labour and Conservative Parties. Socialism has traditionally been viewed as the ideology of the Labour Party, and conservatism has traditionally been seen as the ideology of the Conservative Party. These two parties developed policies on the basis of a vision of how they believed society should be organised. This vision was always defined in very general terms, allowing both major parties to be ‘broad churches’ and, when in

Political Parties

71

power, to respond more to practical pressures than to ideological beliefs. Nevertheless, both parties had a sense of what they ‘stood for’ (see Table 3.4). This was underpinned by the class basis of their support: working-class voters tended to vote Labour and middle-class voters tended to vote Conservative.

Table 3.4  Left and right characteristics Left

Right

A more positive view of human nature, seeing humans as social creatures with a propensity for cooperation and sociability.

Traditionally associated with a more pessimistic view of humans, seeing them as fragile, fallible and security seeking. More recently associated with humans as rational, self-seeking individuals.

The state as a force for good that can intervene to deliver equality and the redistribution of wealth via progressive taxation, universal welfare and higher spending on public services.

The key role of the state is to provide strong law and order and promote social unity, with a more limited welfare state that protects those most in need and incentivises people to work.

The state plays a major role in the economy, through nationalised industries, support for trade unions and using public spending to maintain economic growth and employment.

The state plays a limited role in the economy because a market free from high levels of tax, regulation, too much union power and nationalised industries is the best way of creating wealth and rewarding hard work.

In society, the left is associated with an internationalist approach to global affairs, a focus on equal rights and equality of opportunity.

In society, the right is traditionally associated with more traditional values, based around patriotism and the national interest, the nuclear family and Christian values.

Definition Pragmatism: The belief that action should be shaped by practical circumstances and practical goals, that is, by ‘what works’ rather than abstract principles or systems of thought. Tradition: In the conservative view, tradition reflects the accumulated wisdom of the past, and institutions and practices that have been ‘tested by time’.

The Conservative Party The origins of conservatism

Definition

The Conservative Party emerged in the first half of the nineteenth century and was the heir to the old Tory party, which originated in the seventeenth century. Conservatism was a reaction to the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution, which conservatives saw as a threat to traditional political and religious authority in the UK. Conservatism established itself as a pragmatic view of the world that was rooted in its understanding of human nature as imperfect, was sceptical about radical change and ideology and favoured tradition.

Organic society: Society is seen as a living entity, where the ‘we’ is more important than the ‘I’ and where traditional values, institutions and a common culture bind the people together.

Ideology Conservatism emphasises the need for change to conserve: slow, gradual change, rather than radical reform, based on pragmatism that conserves the best of existing political institutions (such as Parliament), social institutions (such as the Church) and economic institutions (such as private property). This approach fitted with conservatives’ scepticism about the power of human reason to understand the complex world we live in and their belief in the organic society. The flexibility of this pragmatic approach allowed the Conservative Party to emerge as the party of property, of gradual reform in order to benefit all classes bound together in the organic society and of furthering British national interests abroad. Two main strands of conservatism have been observed in the UK: One Nation conservatism and Thatcherism.

One Nation conservatism One Nation conservatism is generally traced back to Benjamin Disraeli, who was Prime Minister in 1867 and again in 1874–80. Disraeli warned of the dangers of the divisions between two nations – the rich and the poor – and therefore believed that the conditions of the working class needed to

Spec key term One Nation conser­ vatism: At its core, One Nation conser­ vatism aims to heal the divisions in society in order to reinforce the ties that bind people together and to ensure everyone has the opportunity to flourish.

72

Component I: UK Politics

Definition Paternalism: Acting in the interests of others who are unable to make informed moral decisions, supposedly as fathers do in relation to children.

Spec key term

be improved to bring together the two nations into one. One Nation conservatism was paternalistic, as it strived to create social unity by using the state to provide a safety net for the least well-off so they could have a measure of independence to make choices for themselves. However, the role of the state was to remain small, with individuals and the wider community also encouraged to provide support and aid to the least well-off. During the post-war period, One Nation conservatives, such as Harold Macmillan (PM 1957 to 1963) and Edward Heath (PM 1970 to 1974), saw the state as playing an important role in promoting economic growth, providing a welfare state paid for by higher levels of taxation and seeing the trade unions as playing an important role in society. This promotion of social unity typified conservatism, as it was sceptical about any great ideological ideas to transform society and aimed to conserve the existing social, political and economic order.

Thatcherism

New Right: In the UK, this refers to an economic policy of neoliberalism, which is an updated version of the classical liberal belief in the free market and selfreliant individual tied to a neoconservative view of society, with the emphasis on order, discipline and authority.

During the 1970s, as the ‘long boom’ of the 1950s and 1960s came to an end, the UK suffered from renewed economic problems. Unemployment rose and prices also increased, creating the problem of ‘stagflation’ (a combination of economic stagnation and inflation). This brought about the ‘Thatcherite revolution’, initiated by the Thatcher Governments of 1979–90, and consolidated by the Major Governments of 1990–97. What became known as the New Right, and in the UK was more commonly called ‘Thatcherism’, amounted to a kind of counter-revolution against both the post-war drift towards state intervention and the spread of liberal or progressive social values.

Definition

When it came to society, Thatcherism was described as ‘neoconservative’; Margaret Thatcher was deeply committed to a strong but minimal state in order to maintain law and order as well as social cohesion. This translated into a policy programme that increased the use and length of prison sentences while toughening prison regimes due to the belief that prison works to maintain public order. Secondly, Thatcherism looked to defend the traditional values associated with the nuclear family and the Christian faith. Finally, Thatcherites placed particular stress on strengthening national identity, seen as one of the cornerstones of political strength and social stability. Over time, this came increasingly to be expressed in the form of Euroscepticism.

Privatisation: The selling off of nationalised industries and other state assets, transferring them from the public to the private sector. Deregulation: In line with free market principles, the removal of a wide range of restrictions and controls on the economy.

In terms of economics, the New Right adopted a more ideological approach driven by a faith in the benefits of free markets, private property and competition. This would mobilise the hard work, creativity and ambition of self-reliant individuals in order to generate greater wealth and prosperity. These ideals translated into a policy programme that included the sale of council houses, the privatisation of the nationalised industries, deregulation, the reduction of trade union power, the cutting back of the role of the state as well as cuts to public spending and taxation. The rolling back of the state also targeted the ‘nanny state’, the welfare system that undermines hard work and initiative by creating a culture of dependency.

For supporters, Thatcherism moved on from the One Nation conservatism of Macmillan and Heath, which had strayed too far away from the core principles of conservatism in favouring the big state. Thatcherism was about going back to the roots of conservatism, to build a propertyowning democracy in which property ownership was available to all so that people could be independent from government, and ownership would encourage responsible citizenship because people would respect the property of others, respect the law and recognise their duties to others. For critics, it introduced an alien, ideological element that broke with Conservative Party traditions with its faith in free markets and the rational self-interest of the individual; abstract ideals more commonly associated with classical liberalism. Thatcherism replaced a world view that aimed to heal divisions with a view that revelled in an uncaring, selfish and greedy individualism, which placed the ‘I’ over the ‘we’.

Visit the companion website for a case study on the Conservative Party in the twenty-first century. KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  IS ONE NATION CONSERVATISM THE MAIN IDEOLOGICAL INFLUENCE ON THE CURRENT PARTY? The modern Conservative Party remains a broad church with a range of views and influences that influence its outlook.

Political Parties Economy When it comes to the economy, the modern Party remains firmly wedded to the power of the market and private property to drive wealth creation. The 2019 manifesto emphasised the importance of using aspiration to unleash enterprise and remained committed to the tax cuts of the Cameron years, with its pledge not to raise the rate of income tax, VAT or National Insurance. Thatcherite influences:

»»Fiscal responsibility: the 2019 manifesto commitment to not borrowing to fund day-to-day

spending, and limiting infrastructure spending to no more than 3% of GDP with the aim of reducing the debt by the end of the Parliament.

»»Boris Johnson also remains committed to further tax cuts for higher earners, as was seen during

his leadership campaign where he pledged to raise the threshold for paying the 40p tax rate from £50,000 to £80,000 per year at an estimated cost of £9.6bn per year.

»»A strong commitment to free trade and a points-based immigration system. One Nation influences:

»»The economic strategy of reaching Net Zero carbon emissions by 2050 by investing in clean energy solutions and green infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions and pollution.

»»The aim of tackling the cost of living pressures facing people in the UK; in the 2019 manifesto,

the Party pledged to increase the national living wage and set an ambitious future goal that the first £12,500 earnt would be completely free of tax in order to support working families and give everyone the chance to flourish.

»»A pragmatic approach to the Covid-19 pandemic, with the introduction of a furlough scheme and in the 2021 Budget, the party committed to increasing corporation tax from 19% to 25% commencing in 2023. The tax rise was to help offset the costs incurred from Covid-19 between 2019 and 2022 so was about fiscal responsibility.

Welfare The Conservative Party remains united in its commitment to make sure that it pays to work, to support those who cannot and to provide opportunities to all. However, the Party remains at odds over how to deliver these objectives. Thatcherite influences:

»»The desire to roll back the state and tackle the debt and deficit. The benefits system was cut and

restructured with the introduction of the benefits cap, universal credit and the benefits freeze during the period 2010 to 2019.

»»At the same time, according to the Party, cuts to public spending needed to be made, which had

wider impacts on education, the NHS and the provision of community services at a local level, while more competition was needed in the delivery of public services to increase efficiency.

One Nation influences:

»»The 2019 manifesto pledged to strengthen the NHS by building 40 more hospitals, hiring 17,000

more doctors and 17,000 nurses and increasing spending by 3.4% year on year. This was matched by a commitment to increase funding in schools to £4,000 per year for each primary pupil and £5,000 per year for each secondary pupil in order to increase equality of opportunity.

»» In light of the pandemic and growing debt, there are questions about the Party’s ability to deliver

on these One Nation promises and meet their Thatcherite commitment to balancing the books. The 2021 Budget showed that public spending as a share of GDP would only be 2.1% higher than pre pandemic levels in 2025–26 suggesting very limited room for further investment in public services.

Law and Order The Conservative Party remains strongly committed to its principles of law and order, and this binds the party together. In the years 2010 to 2017, austerity remained a greater priority than anything else and the Police were streamlined with the aim of becoming more efficient, but that meant fewer officers on the street. However, in 2019 the Party returned to a stronger law and

73

Definition Minimal state: A state that only maintains domestic order, enforces legal agreements and protects against external attack, leaving other matters in the hands of the individual. Euroscepticism: Opposition to the process of European integration, based on a defence of national sovereignty and national identity.

74

Component I: UK Politics order message with a plan to recruit 20,000 police officers, increase police powers of stop and search to tackle knife crime and create 10,000 more prison places. However the two ideological influences still have some points of conflict. Thatcherite influences:

»»There are those in the Party membership and among MPs who saw many of the Covid restrictions as running counter to the values of individual choice and freedom; in particular, they felt the state had taken on a role that is too large in its interference in people’s lives.

One Nation influences:

»»The party leadership endorsed many policies to restrict individual freedoms with the aim of protecting the health of all in society during the pandemic; the fine for not wearing masks in shops and fines for not self-isolating being good examples.

Foreign policy The Conservative Party has always been patriotic, believing in a Britain that should be at the forefront of tackling global challenges and strongly committed to the union of nations within the United Kingdom. In particular, the party is united by its commitment to investing in the armed forces, maintaining the Trident nuclear deterrent and continuing to be a leading partner within NATO. However, the issue of the UK’s relationship with Europe remains deeply controversial within the Party. While the key element of the 2019 election campaign was to ‘Get Brexit Done’, which has widespread support in the party, the debate over the type of Brexit remains divisive. Thatcherite influences:

»» On the one hand, there are the hard Brexiteers, who had formed the European Reform Group (ERG)

to push for a complete break with Europe to focus on a turn towards America, free trade deals with the wider world and a popular nationalism of returning power to the UK to make its own decisions.

One Nation influences:

»»The One Nation caucus within the Party feels that the Party has been captured by EU ideologues of the New Right who will pursue hard Brexit whatever the cost to the nation. They argue for a closer relationship with Europe.

Key Debate Summary: Is One Nation conservatism the main ideological influence on the current party? FOR

AGAINST

99The Party remains One Nation in its

88 The Party still holds fiscally conservative

99The Party has stated its aim of increasing

88 The fiscally conservative drive to balance

99The Party remains largely united on

88 The need to balance the books limited

99The One Nation caucus favours a

88 The deep Euroscepticism of Thatcherism

commitment to tackling the cost of living issues and wider environmental problems. funds for the welfare state to ensure work pays, and providing a safety net for those unable to work. law and order, seeing it as of central importance to stability and order.

pragmatic approach, with an emphasis on a Brexit that builds bridges.

views, favouring a minimal state, free market and low tax economy.

the books and belief in the benefits of competition remain strong impulses.

the Party’s law and order spending in the austerity years, while divisions have arisen over the Covid response. has developed into a key ideological issue based on returning power over law making and immigration to the UK and an abiding faith in free trade.

Political Parties

75

The Labour Party Origins of the Labour Party The Labour party emerged out of the trade union movement and socialist societies at the very start of the twentieth century with the aim of representing the newly enfranchised working class and creating a more equal society. While the party was built around socialism, its influences have largely come from the moderate strands of socialism rather than Marxism.

Ideology Equality is the central value of socialism. Socialists believe that a measure of social equality is the essential guarantee of social stability and cohesion, encouraging individuals to identify with their fellow human beings. Equality can be seen in two main ways: equality of outcome, which looks to a move towards equalising incomes, and equality of opportunity, which aims to create equal life chances for individuals. Socialism has often been associated with a form of class politics; it analyses society in terms of divisions and inequalities between classes, and seeks to minimise those divisions. This is done through redistribution, where progressive taxation seeks to narrow the gap between the highest and lowest earners, and the provision of universal public services such as the NHS, universal benefits and comprehensive education. The third main principle is common ownership, the idea that key industries should be brought under the control of the state through a programme of nationalisation. This would allow the state to harness material resources to the common good within a capitalist economy. This emerged from the view that capitalism had to be given a human face; capitalism was accepted as the only reliable means of generating wealth (because of the profit motive, competition and incentives), but it was seen as a very poor means of distributing wealth (because the wealthy would get wealthier and the poor would get poorer). Lastly, the socialism that informed the Labour Party aimed to achieve change via parliamentary democracy. By winning the votes of the working classes, the Labour Party would gradually reform the capitalist system from the inside to achieve its goals.

Definition Nationalisation: The extension of state control over the economy through the transfer of industries, such as coal, steel, ship building, the railways, gas and electricity, from private ownership to public ownership.

Old Labour The ideological identity of the Labour Party, and the nature of British socialism, was deeply influenced by the reforms enacted by the Attlee governments of 1945–51. These reforms gave rise to a particular brand of socialism, best referred to as Old Labour (social democracy). It was an attempt to create greater equality within a capitalist society by redistributing wealth. This is reflected in the overriding principle of social democracy: social justice. Old Labour came to be associated with three key policies: 1. A mixed economy. A programme of nationalisation created a ‘mixed’ economy made up of both publicly and privately owned industries. The Attlee government nationalised industries including coal, steel, ship building, the railways, gas and electricity. 2. Economic management. A managed economy is an economy that is regulated by the government and is based on the ideas of economist John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946). Keynesianism reflects the belief that governments achieve full employment and stimulate growth by ‘reflating’ the economy through higher levels of public spending when the economy goes into slowdown. 3. Comprehensive social welfare. Under Attlee, the welfare state was expanded to provide ‘cradle to the grave’ care for British citizens on the basis of the Beveridge Report (1942), written by the economist and social reformer, William Beveridge (1879–1963). The Beveridge Report set out to attack the so-called ‘five giants’ of want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness.

New Labour By 1992, the Labour Party had suffered four consecutive election defeats and during the late 1980s and early 1990s looked to move on from its commitment to nationalisation, full employment and the redistribution of wealth via progressive taxation. New Labour ideas formed around the

Spec key term Old Labour (social democracy): Principles embodying nationalisation, redistribution of wealth from rich to poor and the provision of continually improving welfare and state services.

Definition Social justice: A morally justifiable distribution of wealth, usually implying a desire to reduce material inequalities.

76

Component I: UK Politics

Spec key term Third Way: Developed by sociologist Professor Anthony Giddens, the ‘Third Way’ moved away from the old class-based divisions to focus on community. It attempts to merge together the centreleft aims of social policy with centreright economic policies.

‘Third Way’, believing the old politics of the Left and Right was obsolete in a changing world where globalisation had transformed the economy and the ability of the state to manage it. This period of change culminated in the new look of the Labour Party under Tony Blair in 1995; the commitment to nationalisation in Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution was abandoned in what was seen as a symbolic break with Labour’s past. The party mobilised under the Third Way, which looked to marry together aspects of liberalism with aspects of social democracy in order to focus on traditional values such as democracy, social justice and commitments to the community.

»»Market economics. Labour came to accept that the economy should be regulated by the

market and not by the state. Blairism therefore accepted the Thatcherite belief in the power of free markets and individuals to create wealth. This particularly applied in relation to the core elements of economic Thatcherism – privatisation, reduced union power, lower taxes and deregulation. This included greater use of the private sector in delivering public services because what mattered was what worked not how it was delivered.

»»Social justice. The party remained committed to social justice, but equality was reinterpreted to mean social inclusion, to ensure that rather than a redistribution of wealth there would be a redistribution of possibilities to create equality of opportunity. There was a strong emphasis on education and training to create a competitive workforce and tackling environmental issues as a matter of justice.

»»Social investment state. The welfare state needed to be redesigned from universal benefits to targeted benefits that aimed to give the individual the means to be independent and to tackle inequality and poverty; welfare was seen as a hand up, not a handout.

»»Community, not class. While giving the individual the widest possible freedom economically, the Third Way emphasised that individuals needed to balance their rights with their responsibilities to others based on the ideas of communitarianism. This idea found expression in Blair’s 2005 ‘Respect Agenda’ that focused on bringing ‘back a proper sense of respect in our schools, in our communities, in our towns and our villages.’

Visit the companion website for a case study on Labour under Brown, Miliband and Corbyn. KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  IS THE MODERN LABOUR PARTY MORE INFLUENCED BY OLD LABOUR THAN NEW LABOUR? Economy The Labour Party remains united around the idea of economic justice, although how far the idea is influenced by New Labour or Old Labour remains a matter of debate: Old Labour influences:

»»The Party’s commitment to increasing income tax for the top 5% of earners, reversing the

Tories’ cuts in corporation tax from the Cameron years and clamping down on tax avoidance, particularly of large corporations as well as tackling insecure work and low pay.

»»The belief that key public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders.

The Party supports the common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; in addition it opposes and wishes to end outsourcing in the NHS, local government and the justice system.

New Labour influences:

»»The tying together of climate justice with economic justice has its roots in New Labour. Labour wishes to put a green new deal at the heart of its policy and pass a Clean Air Act to tackle pollution locally.

Political Parties

77

»»The Party still recognises the importance of the market and the individual in generating wealth.

The proposed top rate of tax falls well below the progressive tax rates of the 1970s when it stood at 86%, while the Party wishes to return corporation tax to the levels under New Labour. In 2021, the party opposed any immediate tax hikes on businesses due to a fear it would restrict economic recovery.

Welfare In terms of welfare, the Labour Party comes together around the principle of social justice, although differences remain about how to interpret what social justice means. Old Labour influences:

»»The desire of the Party to abolish Universal Credit and replace it with an alternative that is designed to end poverty by delivering a minimum standard of living. The party is committed to the idea that equality of opportunity relies on a certain level of social justice.

»»The Party supports the abolition of tuition fees, first introduced under New Labour, and supports investment in lifelong learning.

New Labour influences:

»»There remains an emphasis on social inclusion by delivering a minimum standard of living rather than an emphasis on the redistribution of wealth.

Law and order The Labour Party remains committed to the idea that crime in the UK reflects the type of society we live in, and that a policy of building a stronger, fairer society and focusing on crime prevention and rehabilitation is the key to tackling crime. Old Labour influences:

»»The central plank of policy is to focus on social justice: tackling poverty, inequality and rebuilding public services as the key way to make society safer.

New Labour influences:

»»The Party’s commitment to placing an extra 2,000 police officers on the streets over the number promised by the Conservatives.

Foreign policy The Labour Party continues to coalesce around the idea that foreign policy should be based on a more internationalist, rather than nationalist, approach, with the aim of making foreign policy about international peace and justice. The Party, having been bitterly divided over whether to remain Photo 3.1 Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer delivers or leave the EU, has since 2019 accepted that Brexit his keynote speech during the party’s online needs to happen. The Party has settled on a position of conference from the Danum Gallery, Library and implementing an immigration system that it says will Museum on 22 September 2020 in Doncaster. be based on compassion and dignity, and of making a stronger public case for the benefits of immigration. Old Labour influences:

introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act that will make war only possible when certain legal steps have been achieved and it has been approved by a vote in Parliament.

»»Old Labour was historically more anti-EU due to

what is perceived to be the lack of democracy and accountability within EU institutions. Jeremy Corbyn fell into this camp, making him a very reluctant Remainer.

Source: WPA Pool/Getty Images

»»The party pledges no more illegal wars, seeking to

78

Component I: UK Politics New Labour influences:

»»Sir Keir Starmer, who took over from Jeremy Corbyn, has argued that the UK should continue to accept the freedom of movement of people with the EU after Brexit.

»»The Party under Starmer has adopted a more open commitment at home to a sense of patriotism, with a more wholehearted support for investment in defence, the nuclear deterrent and NATO.

Key Debate Summary: Is the modern Labour Party more influenced by Old Labour than New Labour? FOR

AGAINST

99The party has returned to emphasising the 88 The party has included environmental importance of economic justice.

99The party has returned to a more Old

Labour interpretation of social justice in its policies on the welfare state.

justice in its approach, and still values the role of the market and individual aspiration.

88 This interpretation still owes much to the idea of social inclusion rather than the concept of the redistribution of wealth.

99Social justice and economic justice are key 88 There remains a commitment to tackling to tackling the causes of crime.

99There is a wider acceptance of

internationalism and rejection of illegal wars. A small rump of Labour MPs are opposed to the EU while Jeremy Corbyn was at odds with his own party on foreign policy.

crime with more police officers and a more coordinated approach among local services.

88 The wider party and party leadership

have accepted Brexit needs to be done, but favour support for the freedom of movement and more open commitment to patriotism and national security.

Spec key term

The Liberal Democrats

Classical liberalism: An ideology built around the view that freedom and individualism are best achieved under a form of limited government and the free market.

Origins

Modern liberalism: An ideology built around the view that freedom and individualism are best achieved by a greater role for the state in the economy and society to deliver equality of opportunity.

The Liberal Democrats have therefore drawn on a range of ideological traditions. Although they are the party most clearly associated with liberalism, their liberalism has encompassed both a classical liberal belief in a minimal state and the free market (reminiscent of economic Thatcherism), and a modern liberal belief in social and economic intervention in order to deliver the freedom that is needed for individuals to grow and flourish. Both traditions are united in their belief that individualism and liberty are core values, favouring equal rights and equality of opportunity, a tolerant society that celebrates diversity and limited government, and where the relationship between the people and the state is defined in a constitution. In foreign policy, Liberal Democrats come together around a liberal internationalist approach that places working through global institutions such as the UN to tackle global issues like climate change and human rights abuses.

The Liberal Democrats was formed in 1987 through the merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party (SDP), which had broken away from the Labour Party in 1981. Between 1983 and 1987, the Liberals and the SDP had worked closely together under the banner of the Alliance, but this constituted little more than an arrangement for fighting general elections.

Ideology

Political Parties

79

Centre Left In electoral terms, the Liberal Democrats set out to ‘break the mould of British politics’, by providing a centrist alternative to the agendas of the left and the right. However, in ideological terms, the Liberal Democrats were generally viewed as a centre-left party, based around a Keynesian economic approach, and a larger role for the state in delivering equality of opportunity so everyone could lead happy, fulfilling lives. This emphasised the need for the state to deliver a minimum standard of living. Such trends were reflected during the Labour years in power (1997–2010) in the Party’s commitment to increase income tax by one penny in the pound in order to better fund education and to abolish tuition fees for university students, as well as in opposition to the Iraq War, which broke out in 2003.

Centre Right In light of their previous commitments, the advent of a Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition in 2010 was surprising. Nevertheless, shifts in the Liberal Democrats’ views in the run-up to the 2010 General Election arguably provided an ideological basis for the coalition. Associated with The Orange Book, published in 2004, which contained significant contributions from Nick Clegg and David Laws, there was growing support within the Liberal Democrats for a more free market, free trade economic strategy. This aimed to shift the Liberal Democrats from the centre left to the centre right.

Visit the companion website for a case study on the Liberal Democrats in coalition and beyond. The modern Liberal Democrats Economy The Liberal Democrats unite around the idea that individuals who work hard and contribute to society should have good, fulfilling and well-paid jobs, while businesses and entrepreneurs who are creative, invest in their workforce and behave responsibly to their employees and to the environment should be supported. Centre Right influences:

»»The Liberal Democrats entered the 2019 Election with the toughest rules on government

borrowing in an attempt to position themselves as the strongest party on public finances. The party stated it would run a 1% surplus on current spending, meaning the money spent on public services would be lower than the amount raised in tax.

Centre Left influences:

»»Targeted tax rises would be used to pay for spending commitments to improve public services

and tackle climate change in order to deliver equality of opportunity for all. This included one penny in the pound extra on income tax, corporation tax increases and a tax on frequent flyers.

»»A 20% minimum wage boost for those on zero hours contracts was proposed in order to make work pay and decrease the use of these types of business practices.

Welfare The party is united around the belief in delivering welfare that supports people in the hardest of times and delivers equal opportunities across the whole country. Centre Right influences:

»»Responsible welfare spending where all additional spending is paid for by specific tax rises.

Centre Left influences:

»»An extra £7bn per year for health and social care that would come from putting one penny in the pound on income tax to enable every individual to lead a healthy life.

»»Free childcare for all children aged between the ages of two and four, paid for by a corporation tax rise, to give all children the access to opportunities early in life.

80

Component I: UK Politics Law and order The Liberal Democrats are united around the idea that a law and order policy involves being willing to take the preventative measures that actually work to stop crime. Centre Right influences:

»»An extra £1bn per year for policing, which will place two new police officers in every council ward in the UK.

Centre Left influences:

»»The emphasis is on community policing that prevents crime, investing in the local services that

will help people build lives free from crime and focusing on rehabilitation within the prison system to prevent re-offending.

»»The legalisation of cannabis would help break the grip of criminal gangs that make their money from the trade in illegal drugs.

Foreign policy The Liberal Democrats believe in international liberalism and wish to ensure that the UK plays an active role in building a better world by working with and through international institutions such as the UN, EU and World Trade Organization (WTO) to tackle global issues like climate change and human rights abuses. This was the cornerstone of their opposition to the Iraq War. Although the party was opposed to a like-for-like renewal of the UK’s nuclear deterrent in 2010, they have moved to a position of maintaining a minimum nuclear deterrent. On Brexit the party remained united around its desire to stop Brexit; the 2019 manifesto commitment to reverse Brexit and stop the UK’s departure was the centrepiece of their election campaign. However following three heavy election defeats in a row, the new leader of the party in 2020 has looked to move the party beyond the EU issue, claiming it will now campaign for closer ties with the EU in a Brexit deal rather than campaign to rejoin the EU.

How ideologically similar are the main political parties? Table 3.5  Similarities and differences between the political parties Similarities Economically, all parties remain committed to the market and aspiration as central to the generation of wealth, higher levels of public spending and a commitment to the economically insecure.

Differences Key divisions remain over tax policy, the role of the state in the economy, especially nationalisation and the need to balance the books.

All parties support higher levels of spending on There are differences over the levels of welfare, especially on the NHS and education. spending and how they are paid for. It is clear that there are wider differences over the role of competition in the delivery of public services and the workings of the benefit system. All parties favour an increase in the number of police officers on the street and investment in law and order.

Differences remain over how to tackle crime, in particular the causes of crime.

The parties remain committed to an open and outward-facing UK playing a key role in the world. The gap between the parties in relation to defence policy appears to have narrowed following the 2019 Election.

There are clear differences over the relationship with the EU, the wider world and immigration policies, and the free movement of people.

Political Parties

Emerging and minor UK political parties What is an emerging or ‘minor’ party? The 2015 General Election emphatically demonstrated what has gradually become apparent since the 1970s, which is that it is no longer possible to confine a discussion of political ideas and policies in the UK to the ideological positions of the traditional major parties. In 2015 minor or emerging parties gained, collectively, one-third of the popular vote. These parties may not yet be ‘major’ parties, in the sense that they have a realistic possibility of winning, or sharing, government power, but reflect the increasing fragmentation of UK politics.

Visit the companion website for a case study on how much impact minor parties have had on UK politics.

The Scottish National Party (SNP) The central goal of the SNP has always been independence from the UK, although the Party was long divided between fundamentalists, who wanted to concentrate on the goal of Scottish independence, and the gradualists who paid attention instead to policies such as devolution or federalism. Until the 1960s, the SNP was essentially a moderate centrist party. However, its ideological orientation subsequently became more clearly social democratic, helping the SNP to make inroads into Labour’s support in urban, industrial Scotland. In 2007, the SNP became the largest party in the Scottish Parliament and formed a minority government with Alex Salmond, the party leader, as First Minister. In 2011, the party formed Scotland’s first majority government, paving the way for the 2014 Referendum on Scottish Independence. Although the ‘yes’ campaign was defeated by a full 10 percentage points, the SNP, under its new leader, Nicola Sturgeon, emerged dramatically strengthened, buoyed up by a significant decline in Labour’s Scottish vote. In 2016, the SNP returned to government for the third successive term, although they fell two seats short of a majority, while the Party won a majority of the 59 Scottish seats in Westminster in 2015, 2017 and 2019.

Economy The SNP places itself firmly as an opponent of austerity, arguing whoever forms the government in Westminster must reverse the spending cuts that began in 2010. The party would also like to see power over employment rights moved from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament. The power over employment rights would be used to boost the minimum wage and to protect those on insecure contracts. Standing apart from the dominant parties in the rest of the UK in 2019, the SNP argued for the scrapping of the Trident nuclear armed submarine system (currently located in Scottish waters), which would free up tens of billions of pounds to be spent on public services and conventional armed forces.

Welfare The SNP would like to see more powers over welfare moved to the Scottish Parliament, and would like to scrap the roll-out of universal credit and reverse many of the benefit cuts introduced since 2010. The party would also like to see an increase in healthcare spending and introduce a bill to protect the NHS from further privatisation.

Law and order On law and order, the party’s focus is very much on its own performance in Scotland, pointing to the fact that since coming to power, the party has recruited a further 1,000 officers while the number of officers in England and Wales declined between 2010 and 2019. One key focus for the SNP has been to persuade Westminster to scrap VAT for emergency services in Scotland, to bring it in line with England and Wales, and to refund the £175m in VAT back to Scotland.

81

Component I: UK Politics

Foreign policy The key policy of the Party has been stopping Brexit; they supported in 2019 a second Brexit referendum with Remain on the ballot paper. The Party also believes that Brexit is such a huge change to the nature of the UK that it should trigger a second vote on Scottish Independence, believing that the referendum (IndyRef2) should take place within the 2019–2024 Parliament, but the SNP would like to secure the right to hold the referendum with the support of the UK Government.

CASE STUDY 3.2: UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY AND THE BREXIT PARTY Photo 3.2 Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage arrives to appear on the Andrew Marr Show at the BBC Television Centre on 2 February 2020. Source: Hollie Adams/Getty Images

82

Events The UK Independence Party was founded in 1993 by the Anti-federalist League, a cross-party organisation that had been formed to campaign against the Maastricht treaty. UKIP emerged as the leading right-wing Eurosceptic party in the UK following the dissolution of the Referendum Party in 1997. Despite internal power struggles and leadership changes, the party made steady electoral progress. Having gained three seats in the 1999 European Parliament election, UKIP came third with 12 MEPs in 2004 and second with 13 MEPs in 2009. Its major electoral breakthrough came with the 2014 European elections, the Party becoming the largest UK party with a total of 24 MEPs. However the Party has struggled to make inroads in general elections, with 2015 being its high point where it secured 12.6% of the vote but only one seat.

Significance At the heart of UKIP’s ideology was the desire to strengthen national identity in the face of the twin threats of EU membership and immigration. Indeed, these have been seen as linked issues, on the grounds that increased immigration into

the UK, particularly since the early 2000s, has stemmed, in significant part, from the joint impact of the EU’s enlargement into Eastern Europe and the organisation’s commitment to the principle of ‘freedom of movement’. Nevertheless, the achievement of its overriding goal through the ‘Leave’ outcome of the 2016 EU Referendum posed a possibly existential threat to UKIP, by both depriving it of its central purpose and forcing the Conservatives to join them in supporting Brexit. In these circumstances, UKIP attempted to remain ideologically meaningful by becoming the champion of so-called ‘hard’ Brexit, which involved emphasising the need for the UK to regain full control of its own borders and therefore control over immigration. Following the collapse of UKIP’s vote share in the 2017 General Election, the Brexit Party was launched in April 2019, with Nigel Farage at its centre, to ensure that the UK left the EU and with the aim of changing UK politics for good. Its core philosophy was to give the UK back control over its borders, laws and money, and to challenge the two-party system as well as restoring trust in democracy. In May 2019, the party secured 29 MEPs in the European Parliamentary election gaining more votes than Labour and the Tories combined. In November 2019, the party stated it would not stand candidates in the General Election in any seats won by the Tories in 2017 to give the Conservative Party a chance to win a majority. In the end the Party won 2% of the vote and no seats, while the Conservative Party won a comfortable majority. Nigel Farage claimed the Party had ‘killed the Lib Dems and hurt the Labour Party’. In some Leave seats, such as North West Durham, the Labour vote dropped considerably, with some of those votes moving to the Brexit Party, and this allowed a Conservative candidate to win. However, somewhat unexpectedly in 38 seats that Labour won, the combined Tory and Brexit Party vote was larger than the Labour vote, suggesting the Brexit Party, by splitting the Leave vote, may have saved Labour from further losses.

Political Parties

Party systems in the UK Political parties are important not only because of the range of functions they carry out, but also because the relationships between and among them are crucial in structuring the way the political system works in practice. These relationships are called a party system.

Two-party system

83

Spec key term Party system: The number of parties in a political system, and how those parties compete and cooperate.

The traditional view of UK politics is that it is dominated by a two-party system. The epitome of the two-party system existed between 1945 and 1970. During this period, Conservative and Labour Parties consistently won over 90% of the vote and also dominated the House of Commons with over 90% of MPs. However, even during this period, two-partyism was called into question during the 13 years of continuous Conservative rule between 1951 and 1964; this looked more like a dominant party system. Two-party politics was once portrayed as the surest way of reconciling representative government with effective government. Its key advantage is that it makes possible a system of party government, supposedly characterised by stability, choice and accountability. The two major parties are able to offer the electorate a straightforward choice between rival programmes and alternative governments. The two-party system is built on two key foundations: firstly the system is supported by stable party loyalties. During the period of the 1945 to 1970, around 80% of the public identified with either the Conservative or the Labour Party; those allegiances were transmitted through the family with voters’ party identification being strongly linked to the party identification of their parents. The second key foundation was the class-based division within society; with working-class voters identifying with Labour and upper- and middle-class voters identifying with the Conservative Party.

Definition Two-party system: Two parties win most of the votes and seats, and power alternates between the two parties. Dominant party system: Where one party dominates the government and Parliament, with limited chance of any change in the short term.

Two-and-a-half-party system The two-party system started to break down from 1974 onwards, with vote share for the two main parties slipping from 89.4% in 1970 down to 74.9% in February 1974 and continued to average around the mid-seventies until 2015. Despite the lower voter share, the two parties still received over 90% of the seats in the Commons from 1974 to 1992 and 86–88% between 1997 and 2015. The main beneficiary of this change was the Liberal Party, which leapt from 7.5% of the vote and 6 seats to 19.3% of the vote and 14 seats in the February election of 1974. The Liberal’s position as the third party continued throughout the period of 1974 to 2015, during which they secured a considerable percentage of the votes while never really threatening the two-party system in terms of seats. However, the 2010 Election resulted in a hung parliament, and the Liberal Democrats entered into government as part of the Coalition. Since 2015, the vote share and the number of seats won by the Liberal Democrats have collapsed and they have been replaced as the third largest party by the SNP.

Multi-party systems Since 1997, two-partyism in the UK has started to give way to multi-party systems, which operate in different ways at different levels. This has happened for a number of reasons:

»»Devolution has made nationalist parties more prominent, turning them from being ‘minor’

Westminster parties into ‘major’ parties in Scotland and Wales, and, in the case of the SNP at least, giving them the potential to influence the formation of the government at Westminster.

»» The use of proportional electoral systems for newly created bodies and in European Parliamentary elections since 1997 has improved minor and emerging party representation, also underlining the extent to which two-partyism was maintained by first-past-the-post elections.

»»New issues have emerged that cut across traditional party-political battle lines, such as Europe,

the environment and Scottish independence. This has fragmented traditional voting blocs and given impetus to parties such as UKIP and the Brexit party, the Green Party and the SNP.

Definition Multi-party system: Multiple parties are competing for votes and seats, with the likelihood of minority governments or coalition governments being formed.

Component I: UK Politics

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  IS THE UK A TWO-PARTY SYSTEM? In light of the changes that have taken place, this raises the question whether the UK remains a two-party system.



In terms of general elections, the UK remains a two-party system.

»»All the governments formed since 1945 have been led by either a Conservative or Labour Prime Minister.

»»The Conservative and Labour Parties continue to dominate in terms of the percentage of votes (see Figure 3.4) and more emphatically in terms of the number of seats.

»»The two main parties continue to dominate due to their clear advantage in terms of party funding.

»»First-past-the-post favours the main two parties. Figure 3.4 The vote share for the main two parties

30.0%

75.8

82.4

43.6 32.4

42.4

36.9

30.4

30.7

43.2

43.9

36.9

40.0%

37.9

50.0%

37.2

60.0%

46.4

70.0%

40

67.3

80.0%

73.9

75.1

90.0%

80.8

89.50

100.0%

43.1

84

20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

1970

Feb-74

Labour



1979

Tory

1997

2015

2017

2019

Combined Labour and Tory Vote

The evidence shows that a two-party system has not been the case in the UK since 1974 due to the breakdown of strong party identification, class-based voting and the emergence of new political issues that have fragmented the party system.

»» Between 1974 and 2015, the Liberals/Liberal Democrats secured around 20% of votes cast and held a significant number of seats in the House of Commons.

»» Labour was the dominant party in Scotland until the independence debate in 2014, when traditional Labour voters were put off by seeing Labour and Tories campaigning side by side against independence while 35% of Labour supporters voted for independence. In 2010 Labour won 41 of the 59 seats but in 2015 Labour won only one seat, with the SNP picking up 56 of the 59 seats.

»» In two of the four elections between 2010 and 2019, the elections did not deliver a majority government for one of the two main parties.



The two main parties still set the political agenda and dominate the media.

»»The key policy ideas are still generated by the main parties, while the main parties are the only parties that can realistically win power and deliver on their promises.

»»Media coverage remains focused on the main parties, and their leaders in particular. 

Increasingly the political agenda is being shaped by minor and emerging parties.

»» Both the EU Referendum in 2016 and the Scottish Independence Referendum of 2014 emerged from the policy platforms of minor parties.

Political Parties

»» The potential of UKIP and the Brexit Party to take voters from both main parties has seen policy shifts on the EU and immigration by both the Conservatives and Labour.

»» The

Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland (DUP), in return for its support of the Conservative Government of 2017, won additional annual spending commitments for Northern Ireland.



While other elections are important, the key elections take place for Westminster as this is the seat of power in the UK.

»»At Westminster the big two parties continue to dominate, winning 87.3% of the seats in 2019. »»Westminster sets the direction; while the SNP opposes the Conservative Party’s Brexit approach and wants a second referendum, ultimately the government will take the decisions.



Outside of Westminster, the two-party system has fragmented into a multi-party system.

»» The Scottish Parliament was controlled until 2007 by a Labour–Liberal Democrat coalition, but a minority SNP administration was then formed, with a majority SNP government being elected in 2011 and an SNP minority government in 2016.

»» The

Welsh Parliament has had four different types of government: a majority Labour administration, a minority Labour administration, a Labour–Liberal Democrat coalition and a coalition between Labour and Plaid Cymru.

Key Debate Summary: Is the UK a two-party system? FOR

AGAINST

99At general elections, the UK remains a two- 88 Since 1974, the two-party system has been party system in terms of winning power and winning seats.

breaking down, creating a more fragmented system in terms of votes and seats.

99The main parties still dominate the political 88 Increasingly minor and emerging parties agenda, policy making and the media.

are shaping the agenda, forcing the main parties to change their policies.

99Power lies at Westminster, where the main 88 Apart from general elections, the UK is parties dominate.

increasingly a multi-party system with minor and emerging parties winning votes, seats and power.

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  WHAT ARE THE MAIN FACTORS THAT DRIVE PARTY SUCCESS?

Leaders Party leaders are the most important political figures in the UK; for many of the public, they are the recognisable public face of the party. Providing strong and effective leadership is therefore crucial if the leader is to become an electoral asset for the party. A leader that can communicate the party’s message effectively, bring their party with them and offer a clear sense of purpose and direction can ensure that the party is effective when in power or in opposition, and will deliver election victories.



David Cameron was seen as an effective party leader and was more popular than both his own party and the leaders of other parties (see Figure 3.5); this allowed him to deliver the unexpected election victory in 2015, where he was the first sitting Conservative to increase the party’s vote share since 1955.

85

86

Component I: UK Politics



Tony Blair was seen as a strong leader, with good media presence and very tight control over the party’s messaging. He delivered three election victories, reformed Clause IV on nationalisation and saw off four Conservative Party leaders.

Figure 3.5  The popularity of David Cameron

Source: Chart created by Niall McCarthy for Statista using YouGov data. Reproduced under CC-BY-ND 4.0 license.

Tip – It is important to use a range of different examples across time and from different parties to make your argument in essays.



While Cameron, was popular with the public, his relationship with his own party was more difficult. In particular, he struggled to manage the divisions of Europe and his decision to offer a referendum on EU membership was an attempt to manage the divisions in his own party.



Tony Blair, due to his personal leadership style, made some decisions that were highly controversial within his own party, such as entering the Iraq War and introducing tuition fees for higher education. His leadership was increasingly beset by Parliamentary dissent from his party after 2003.

Campaigns Electoral campaigns have become increasingly centralised, focused on the party leaders and expensive. They are seen as critical to getting the party’s supporters out to vote and to convince those who are undecided to vote for the party. In the modern era, campaigns are considered even more important because the electorate has become increasingly likely to switch their votes (see Figure 3.6).



The 2017 election campaign is perhaps the most important case of the campaign changing how people voted. Labour, over the course of the campaign, managed to achieve a 20% swing in the polls, while 40% of those people who actually voted Labour were either undecided or going to vote for another party prior to the campaign.



2017 is the exception, not the rule. The general pattern is that the party that is ahead in the polls when the election is called goes on to win the election, even in 2017. In 2019, the polling gap

Political Parties

Percentage of voters choosing different party from previous election

Figure 3.6  Increasing volatility in UK elections 40

30

20

1966 1970

1974 1979

1987

1992

1997 2001

2010

2015 2019

Source:  Reproduced from the report Explaining Voter Volatility (2019) by the British Election Study.

between the two main parties remained fairly consistent over the course of the election campaign, at around 10%. However, there was clear evidence of a large drop in popular support for both the Liberal Democrats and the Brexit Party over the course of the campaign; this collapse can be attributed to the fact that during elections, parties see Labour and Conservative as the only realistic choice.

Media The media support for a political party and its leadership can be important in shaping perceptions in the wider public (see Chapter 6). The more effective their media presence, the easier it is for parties to project their message to the public. The Labour party under Tony Blair ran a very tight media strategy based around controlling its message, using Blair’s media skills and courting the owners of the print media. With this approach Blair’s New Labour received positive media coverage and saw The Sun switch its allegiance from Conservative to Labour. In more recent times, the ability to have an effective social media presence has become important too, with the Labour social media strategy in 2017 playing a key part in the election result.



Media support, while important, does not guarantee success. On coming to power, Theresa May and her party received positive media coverage. However, despite strong support in the printed media, the party did not win a majority in the 2017 Election.

Photo 3.3 Tony Blair’s media-friendly style on BBC Breakfast news, 2004.

Source: Jeff Overs/Getty Images



Policy The right policies, both in terms of manifesto commitments and in terms of delivery when in office, are important for ensuring the success of political parties.



One of the defining policies of Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Party was ‘Right to buy’, which gave working-class people the chance to buy their council house at a discount in order to own their

87

88

Component I: UK Politics own home and improve their circumstances. This policy was popular and helped the Conservatives to dominate elections during the 1980s.



In 2019, the Conservative Party approach of ‘Get Brexit Done’ against the Labour position of renegotiating a new deal with Europe and then holding a referendum to accept the deal or remain was central to the Conservative Party’s lead in the polls and election victory.



In 1992, despite Labour’s internal policy review and move to a more moderate policy programme, questions remained over the experience and ability of Neil Kinnock to be Prime Minister, doubts that were whipped up by the aggressive approach adopted by the newspapers. Labour made campaign mistakes, particularly a triumphalist rally in Sheffield, which showed that Labour thought it would have a real chance of winning, and may have influenced Conservative supporters to turn out to vote in greater numbers and persuaded undecided voters to turn to the Tories.

Party unity One of the established rules of UK politics is that divided parties appear weak, unable to lead or to deliver on their policy promises. This problem is particularly important where the leadership of a party is openly at war with its members and the party is unable to focus on the key issues of the day.



In 1983 the united Conservative Party delivered a clear victory over a bitterly divided Labour Party, at war with itself over whether to maintain its old Labour principles or modernise.



In 2019, the Conservatives, who had been bitterly divided, came together behind Boris Johnson’s ‘Get Brexit Done’ approach, while the Labour Party was internally divided.



Despite internal divisions over Europe during the whole period from 2010 to 2017, the Conservative Party still managed to emerge as the largest party in the House of Commons in all three elections.

Opposition The nature of the opposition faced by a political party is important, both in terms of winning elections and of delivering on its manifesto when in office.



Tony Blair’s Labour Government during his time in office faced a weak Conservative Party, riven by infighting over Europe and its relationship to Thatcherism, with leaders such as William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith, who were unable to cut through with the wider public.



In 1992, the Labour Party faced a Conservative Party that was divided over Europe, damaged by its introduction of the Poll Tax, and which had recently replaced an increasingly unpopular Margaret Thatcher with the relatively inexperienced John Major. Against expectation, the Conservatives won with a majority of 21 seats.

Wider political context One of the main influences on the success of political parties is events, and how the party responds to those events, particularly when the party is in power.



In 1983, the decision to go to war in the Falklands, which ended in victory, cemented Margaret Thatcher’s media image as the Iron Lady and helped her and the Conservative Party win the 1983 election conclusively.



On Black Wednesday in 1992 and in 2008 with the advent of the global economic crash, the reputations of John Major and Gordon Brown, respectively, and their parties’ images of economic competence were damaged, leading to defeat at the next general election.



While events can derail a party and its leaders, a united party with the right policies and a strong leader can still be successful. Tony Blair’s Labour comfortably won the 2005 election, despite increasing numbers of rebellions from its backbenchers and the choice to go to war in Iraq in 2003.

Political Parties

Source: Richard Baker/Getty Images

Photo 3.4 Black Wednesday, 16 September 1992, when a collapse in the pound sterling forced Britain to withdraw from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism and the UK lost £3.3bn in a single day.

Key Debate Summary: What are the main factors that drive party success? FOR

AGAINST

99Effective leadership can ensure the party is 88 A party leader may appear strong in public, successful when in power or in opposition, and will deliver election victories.

however a difficult relationship to their own party can undermine the chances of success.

99Effective campaigns are needed to get out 88 Generally campaigns in the run up to the vote and deliver electoral success.

99A strong relationship with the media and

good media image are crucial to success.

elections have limited impact on the result.

88 Media support is no guarantee of success, as evidenced by the Conservative party result in 2017.

99The right policies are important for ensuring 88 Even with the right policies, parties can be the success of political parties.

unsuccessful without the right leader or media image.

99United parties are able to lead, appear

88 Despite clear divisions over the EU, the

99A weaker political opponent increases the

88 However in 1992, Labour faced a weak

strong and can deliver on their policy promises. chance of party success.

Conservatives were the largest party in the 2010, 2015 and 2017 elections. Conservative party yet still lost the election.

99The success of political parties depends on 88 Whilst event can shape success, the events and how they respond to events.

importance of a united party, with a strong leader and the right policies remains more important.

89

90

Component I: UK Politics

Chapter Summary ‐‐Political parties fulfil important roles in the UK’s representative democracy. However, questions have been raised about whether there is a crisis in party politics.

‐‐Political parties need money to compete effectively and questions have been raised over whether the state funding of parties is now required.

‐‐Political parties in the UK are broad churches, and the three main parties all contain competing ideological influences. ‐‐The Conservative Party was transformed by the rise of Thatcherism while Labour was transformed under Blair as it responded to the challenge of Thatcherism.

‐‐The relationship between these influences within parties influences what they stand for today and how united they appear. ‐‐The rise of minor and emerging parties in the UK is seen by some to have had a major impact on politics and the party system in the UK.

‐‐The relationships between the various factors that ensure party success in the UK remain hotly contested.

Exam Style Questions Evaluate the view that political parties no longer fulfil their functions in UK democracy (30). zz Evaluate the view that the time has come for state funding for political parties in the UK (30). zz Evaluate the view that the Conservative Party is no longer a Thatcherite party (30). zz Evaluate the view that the Labour Party is still a New Labour Party (30). zz Evaluate the view that the Labour and Conservative Parties are the only parties that matter in the UK (30). zz Evaluate the view that the UK is no longer a two-party system (30). zz Evaluate the view that the success of political parties now depends more on their leaders than anything else (30). zz

Source Question Political parties promote participation by encouraging citizens to join political parties and shape policy. On top of this, they also help to educate the public via a range of activities such as canvassing, public meetings, advertising and poster campaigns and party broadcasts. Representation is also a key function of parties; by responding to the demands of public opinion and turning them into deliverable policy positions they are representing the views of the people. An additional way in which parties enhance democracy is that, in seeking power, they develop programmes which give the electorate a meaningful choice between potential governments – party competition is an essential component of democracy. Another key role of parties is that all senior political careers start by joining a political party – without parties, our political process would not be as effective. Lastly, the operation of government relies on parties as they help to form governments, organise the legislative programme and ensure that it is passed in the legislature. However, the effectiveness of parties in supporting democracy has also been questioned. Voters’ loyalty towards, and identification with, parties has declined. The consequence is that people are less likely to vote and turnout in general elections has fallen sharply since 1997. Also, the effectiveness of parties in ensuring representation has also been questioned. By moving away from representing their traditional groups, the ability of parties to represent interests has been reduced. Also, in many ways, the role of political parties has been replaced by pressure groups because many see them as a more effective way to articulate interests to policy makers, undermining the way parties represent the public. As the major parties have distanced themselves from their traditional ideologies in recent years, they have become less interested in formulating larger goals for society, and generally less interested in ideas; parties have become more eager to follow public opinion than to try to shape it.

Political Parties

Using the source, evaluate the view that political parties in the UK support democracy. In your response you must:

»»Compare and contrast different opinions in the source »»Examine and debate these views in a balanced way »»Analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.

Further Resources Clark, A. (2018) Political Parties in the UK (2nd edn) (London: Red Globe Press). Griffiths, S. and Robert, L. (2018) British Politics (3rd edn) (London: Red Globe Press): Chapter 14: Political Parties and Chapter 15: Ideology.

Visit the companion website to access the Further Resources Booklet to explore a range of useful web links related to: Conservatism and Thatcherism, Labour and the Third Way, party funding and the party system.

91

ELECTIONS 4 AND REFERENDUMS

92

Chapter Preview Elections are representative democracy in action. When voters cast their ballots, they, rather than politicians or government, are taking control. The task of electing representatives can be done in a wide variety of ways, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. In this chapter, we will look at the role elections play in our democracy, as well as the different electoral systems in use in the UK. We will explore the ways in which the different systems work and the consequences in the way they reflect voters’ wishes. We will then analyse the impact of the newer electoral systems and how they have changed the nature of representation in the component nations of the UK. Following the 2019 General Election, the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) published a report on the systemic flaws of the election, entitled ‘Voters Left Voiceless’ because it felt that yet again the electoral system had left many voters unrepresented. The ERS was also critical about the General Elections of 2017 and 2015, referring to the latter as ‘the most disproportionate in UK history’. By the end of this chapter, you will be able to decide if you agree or disagree with their damning Key Questions and Debates indictment of the first-past-the-post electoral system. »» What is the role of elections in UK The issue of referendums has been at the forefront of British democracy and are they effective at politics since 2014. Initially, there was the Scottish Independence fulfilling their democratic functions? referendum in 2014, this was followed by the in/out referendum »» Is the first-past-the-post electoral system on the UK’s membership of the EU in 2016. Both of these fit for purpose in the twenty-first century? referendums rocked the British political system to its core by » » What has been the impact of the new challenging the consensus of the UK and its place in Europe. The electoral systems introduced into the UK outcomes of these referendums have caused immense change since 1997, and does this make the case for the foreseeable future, if not forever. for reform? »» Why have referendums been used, and have they had a positive impact on democracy in the UK?

Specification Checklist 3.1. Different electoral systems

»» First-past-the-post (FPTP), Additional Member System (AMS), Single Transferable Vote (STV) Supplementary Vote (SV). »» The advantages and disadvantages of these different systems. »» Comparison of first-past-the-post (FPTP) to a different electoral system in a devolved parliament/assembly.

3.2. Referendums and how they are used »» How referendums have been used in the UK and their impact on UK political life since 1997. »» The case for and against referendums in a representative democracy.

3.3. Electoral system analysis »» Debates on why different electoral systems are used in the UK. »» The impact of the electoral system on the government or type of government appointed. »» The impact of different systems on party representation and of electoral systems on voter choice. So

ur ce

:O

llie

Mi

llin

gt

on

/G e

tt y

Im

ag

es

93

94

Component I: UK Politics

Elections in the UK Elections are central to the practice of democracy. The UK’s claim to be a democracy is largely based on the nature of its electoral system, and the fact that its elections are based on:

»»Universal adult suffrage »»One person, one vote »»A secret ballot »»Competition between candidates and parties.

Elections are therefore the main link between government and the people, meaning that voting is the most important form of political participation. The opportunities to vote in the UK have, in fact, increased significantly in recent years. The main elections in the UK are:

»»General elections – These are Parliamentary elections, in which all the seats in the House of Commons come up for re-election. They take place every five years according to the Fixed term Parliament Act, but can, in certain circumstances as in 2017 and 2019 occur before.

»»Devolved assembly elections – These are elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh

Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. They are fixed-term elections that take place every four years (first held in 1998 in Northern Ireland and in 1999 in Scotland and Wales).

»»Local elections – These are elections to district, borough and county councils. They include elections to the Greater London Assembly, the London Mayor and mayoral elections also taking place in other local authorities. They are fixed-term elections that take place usually every four or five years.

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  DO ELECTIONS ENHANCE OR HINDER UK DEMOCRACY? Elections fulfil a number of roles in a democracy. They serve to:

»»Form governments and remove unwanted governments »»Ensure representation »»Enable participation and uphold legitimacy »»Educate the electorate. Forming governments



General elections serve to transfer power from one government to the next in a peaceful and stable way.

»»In the UK, governments are usually formed by the leading members of the majority party in

the House of Commons. As the results of general elections are usually clear, governments are generally formed the day after the election, with the leader of the majority party becoming the Prime Minister.

»»Elections in the UK are very effective at removing unwanted governments as can be seen in 1979 and 1997. These were clear “change” elections.



However, elections may not always be successful in forming governments.

»» FPTP has been less successful at enabling a single ‘winning’ party to emerge (discussed on

page 99), as the general elections in May 2010 and June 2017 demonstrated. Governments may therefore be formed through deals negotiated among two or more parties after the election has taken place. These deals may take days (five days in 2010) or, potentially, weeks to negotiate and lead to periods of instability.

Elections and Referendums

95

»» Also,

although FPTP removes unwanted governments, sometimes it removes ‘wanted’ governments. In 1970, more people voted for Heath’s government, but FPTP provided Wilson’s Labour party with more seats. This is also true in 1951.

Representation



Elections are a vital channel of communication between government and the people.

»»They create a link between elected politicians and their constituents. This helps to ensure that constituents’ concerns are properly articulated and addressed.

»»Elections make politicians publicly accountable and ultimately removable. When the public

are dissatisfied with their government, elections are the tool to express this; for example, the dismissal of the Conservative Party from government in 1997.

»»Elections also offer the electorate choice. In the UK, the electorate can choose between many

different parties. For example, in every constituency the electorate would usually have the opportunity to choose between at least four candidates.



However, doubts have also been raised about the effectiveness of elections in ensuring representation.

»» The operation of general elections has come under huge criticism because of FPTP. »» Governments are elected on less than 50% of the vote. In 2019, 229 out of 650 MPs were elected with less than 50% support in their constituencies.

»» Elections in Britain limit choice. Voters have very little say about which candidates are selected to stand in their constituencies and if they live in safe seats their vote can be almost worthless. According to the ERS, of the 32 million votes cast in 2019, only 9.4 million were ‘decisive’ in securing a candidate’s election. Parties are piling up votes in seats without securing real representation.

»» Elections in a representative democracy can lead to lack of trust in the representative process because there is no guarantee that elected representatives will abide by their mandate. For example, the Liberal Democrats fought the 2010 General Election with a promise to abolish tuition fees and then joined a Coalition Government that raised them.

Participation and legitimacy



Elections play a crucial role in enabling participation which in turn makes elections legitimate.

»»Participation is a core feature of democracy and elections encourage participation at various

levels. Participation is promoted by voting at local, general or mayoral elections and also through joining a political party and actively campaigning for it during elections.

»»Elections uphold legitimacy by providing a means through which citizens ‘consent’ to being governed: the act of voting.

»»Legitimacy is maintained by regular, free and fair elections which are held at agreed maximum

intervals in which there is a secret ballot and wide adult franchise. Freedom of speech and association help to ensure that elections are ‘free and fair’.

»»Legitimacy is important because it ensures that citizens recognise that they have an obligation to obey the law and respect their system of government.



However, elections may not always be successful in upholding legitimacy.

»» Low turnout in general elections has cast doubt on the legitimacy of the UK political system. Voter apathy may be a way in which disillusioned citizens are withholding consent.

»» The devolved governments or assemblies and the EU electoral systems, despite using more proportional elections, have failed to advance the levels of turnout.

»» Falling support, since the 1970s, for the two ‘governing’ parties – Labour and the Conservatives –

may indicate declining levels of popular satisfaction with the performance of the UK political system.

Spec Key Term Safe seat: A seat in which the incumbent has a considerable majority over their closest rival and which is largely immune from swings in voting choice. The same political party retains the seat from election to election.

96

Component I: UK Politics

Education



Elections educate the public as one of their key functions.

»»As the different political parties need to explain current issues and why their way of dealing

with them is better than the other parties’, they educate the public on the key political issues of the day.

Photo 4.1  Boris Johnson poses after hammering a ‘Get Brexit Done’ sign into the garden of a supporter, 11 December 2019.

»»New ideas and policies are proposed, explained and discussed during campaigns, and parties inform the electorate about current issues and their views on them.



However, elections can also miseducate the public with half-truths and ‘fake news’.

Source: BEN STANSALL/Getty Images

»» Due to the adversarial nature of politics, parties rarely

acknowledge the positive aspects of opposition policies, so instead they seek to convince the electorate that other parties aren’t telling them the truth.

»» In

the modern age of social media, politicians resort to repetitive soundbites which oversimplify very complicated issues. For example, ‘Get Brexit Done’ was a very snappy election slogan suggesting that Brexit would be achieved by voting Conservative in 2019, whereas the reality was more complicated than this. This undermines the electorate’s faith and trust in politicians.

Key Debate Summary: Do elections enhance or hinder UK democracy? FOR

Tip – This table provides a brief summary of the arguments for and against the role of elections in a democracy, as elaborated in the pages before. Use this table to pair opposing arguments which are key to AO2 analysis. Then decide which side you think has the stronger case – this is AO3. See Chapter 11 for further discussion of the assessment objectives.

AGAINST

99General elections serve to transfer power

88 Elections may not always be successful in

99Elections are a vital channel of

88 Doubts have also been raised about the

99Elections play a crucial role in enabling

88 Elections may not always be successful

from one government to the next in a peaceful and stable way.

communication between government and the people. participation which in turn makes elections legitimate.

forming governments in a stable way.

effectiveness of elections in ensuring representation.

in upholding legitimacy due to FPTP and turnout.

99Elections educate the public as one of their 88 Elections can also miseducate the public key functions.

with half-truths and ‘fake news’.

Electoral systems in the UK Different electoral systems have different political outcomes. It is possible for a party to win an election under one set of rules, but to lose it under another. Similarly, one electoral system may produce a singleparty government, while another would lead to coalition government. Electoral systems therefore have a major impact on political parties, on government, and also on the quality of representation and the effectiveness of democracy. Which electoral system is used makes a difference. For general purposes, the voting systems that are used in the UK can be divided into two broad categories on the basis of how they convert votes into seats: 1. Non-proportional systems – This is when larger parties typically win a higher proportion of seats than the proportion of votes they gain in the election. This increases the chances of a

Elections and Referendums

97

single party gaining a Parliamentary majority and being able to govern on its own. These can then be divided into:

»»Plurality systems – the party or candidate who polls more votes than any other is elected. »»Majority systems – the party or candidate winning more than 50% of the vote (a majority) is elected.

2. Proportional systems – These guarantee a close and reliable relationship between the seats won by parties and the votes they gained in the election.

Spec Key Term

Plurality systems Plurality systems are electoral systems where the winner of an election is the candidate that received the highest number of votes – more than anyone else. The candidate need not win an outright majority to be elected.

First-past-the-post The main non-proportional voting system used in the UK is first-past-the-post (FPTP), sometimes called the single-member simple plurality system. It is undoubtedly the most important electoral system used in the UK, as it is the system that is used for elections to the House of Commons and therefore it serves to form the government. To stand in elections under FPTP a deposit has to be paid and this is returned if 5% of the vote is obtained. All citizens aged 18 or over are allowed to vote.

First-past-thepost (FPTP): The electoral system used in UK general elections where the candidate with the greatest number of votes is elected. The winner is the one with more votes than any other candidate, not necessarily a majority.

FIRST-PAST-THE-POST Used for elections to the House of Commons and in England and Wales for local government.

Features: ÎÎ It is a constituency system. There are 650 single-member Parliamentary constituencies in the UK. The aim of a

FPTP in the UK is for a party is to achieve a majority of seats in order to form a government. ÎÎ Voters select a single candidate and do so by marking the candidate’s name with an ‘X’ on the ballot paper. This

reflects the principle of ‘one person, one vote’. ÎÎ Constituencies are of roughly equal population size, which is ensured by reviews by the Electoral Commission and

the Boundary Commission. ÎÎ Each constituency returns a single candidate. This is often seen as the ‘winner-takes-all’ effect. ÎÎ The winning candidate in a constituency needs only to achieve a plurality of votes (one more than their nearest

rival). The winner is thus the candidate with the most votes in their constituency. This may not be above 50% of votes cast. Hence, it is possible for the winning candidate to have fewer votes than the other candidates combined.

Example: ÎÎ In the example of this constituency from 2019, Mike Freer won despite not winning 50% of votes. There were 229

of 650 MPs who won their constituency on less than 50% of the vote in 2019.

Finchley & Golders Green 2019 Candidate

Party

Votes

%

Mike Freer

Cons

24,162

43.8

Luciana Berger

Lib Dems

17,600

31.9

Ross Houston

Labour

13,347

24.2

Majority Turnout

  6,562 71%

98

Component I: UK Politics

Vote concentration and FPTP The reason for big disproportionality under FPTP is to do with how votes are spread across the country. Looking at these 3 constituencies from 2019

City of London & Westminster

Wimbledon

Knowsley

Party

Votes

%

Party

Votes

%

Party

Votes

%

Conservative

17,049

40

Conservative

20,373

38

Labour

44,374

81

Lib Dem

13,096

31

Lib Dem

19,745

37

Conservative

4,432

8

Labour

11,624

27

Labour

12,543

7

Brexit

3,348

6

Greens

1,262

2

Lib Dems

1,117

2

Over the three seats, the Conservatives won around 42,000 votes and 2 seats, yet Labour only won 1 seat despite winning over 68,000 votes, and the Lib Dems won no seats despite wining nearly 34,000 votes. The key to winning under FPTP is to have a vote concentration which is enough to win you a seat comfortably, but not too comfortably as you pile up too many votes which are meaningless. It is the secret to the SNP’s success in Westminster elections. In 2019, they won 81% of the Scottish seats with 45% of the Scottish vote.

Safe and marginal constituencies/seats A safe seat is one which is seen as secure. In such seats, there is very little chance of the seat changing hands because of the political leanings of the electorate in the constituency concerned and/or the popularity of the incumbent MP. Table 4.1 shows the ten safest seats in the UK in 2019.

Table 4.1  Top 10 largest winning margins Constituency

Spec key term Marginal seat: A seat held with a small majority. Marginal seats are important as they are where the outcomes of elections are decided.

Winning Margin (Votes)

Winning Party

Knowlsey

39,942

Labour

Bethnal Green & Bow

37,524

Labour

Liverpool Riverside

37,043

Labour

Bootle

34,556

Labour

Hackney South & Shoreditch

33,985

Labour

Camberwell & Peckham

33,780

Labour

Hackney North & Stoke Newington

33,188

Labour

East Ham

33,176

Labour

Lewisham Deptford

32,913

Labour

Seaford & North Hykesham

32,565

Conservative

Source: © Electoral Reform Society www.electoral-reform.org.uk. Reproduced with permission. The opposite type of seat is a marginal seat, which is one held with a very small majority. They only require a small swing to change hands and therefore are typically the focus of most election campaigns. The ERS says that, under FPTP, over half of the 650 seats at a general election are considered ‘safe’. Table 4.2 shows the ten most marginal seats in the UK in 2019, with the most marginal being Fermanagh & South Tyrone, with only 57 votes separating the candidate coming first and the candidate coming second.

Elections and Referendums

99

Table 4.2  Top 10 smallest margins of victory Constituency

Margin (Votes)

Winning Party

2nd Placed Party

Fermanagh & South Tyrone

 57

Sinn Fein

Ulster Unionist Party

Bury North

105

Conservative

Labour

Bedford

145

Labour

Conservative

East Dumbartonshire

149

Scottish National Party

Liberal Democrat

Kensington

150

Conservative

Labour

Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross

204

Liberal Democrat

Scottish National Party

Coventry North West

208

Labour

Conservative

Alyn & Deeside

213

Labour

Conservative

Dagenham & Rainham

293

Labour

Conservative

Bolton North East

378

Conservative

Labour

Source: © Electoral Reform Society www.electoral-reform.org.uk. Reproduced with permission.

KEY TOPIC DEBATE: IS FIRST-PAST-THE-POST FIT FOR PURPOSE? The first-past-the-post electoral system is used for Westminster elections. It has come under criticism for alleged faults and defects. It has, however, survived and distinct advantages have been cited in its favour.



First-past-the-post delivers strong, single-party government with a clear electoral mandate.

»»With FPTP, voters get what they vote for: winning parties have the ability to carry out their

manifesto promises. Under proportional representation (PR) policies are decided in postelection deals not endorsed by the electorate.

»»FPTP helps to ensure that governments can govern. This happens because the government of the day enjoys majority control of the House of Commons. Coalition governments, by contrast, are weak and ineffective because they have to seek legislative support from two or more parties.

»» Single-party governments are stable and cohesive, and so are generally able to survive for a full term in office. This is because the government is united by common ideological loyalties and is subject to the same party disciplines. Coalition governments, by contrast, are often weak and unstable.



However, strong government comes at the expense of unrepresentative government.

»» FPTP is unfair particularly because it discriminates in favour of the two main parties. Both Labour and the Conservatives have benefitted from a ‘winners bonus’ under FPTP.

»» FPTP is primarily concerned with the election of individual MPs (as opposed to representing political parties); therefore, it is possible with FPTP for the ‘wrong’ party to win an election. This is what happened in 1951, when the Conservatives achieved a majority but won fewer votes than Labour. In February 1974 the tables were turned, with Labour being the largest party in the Commons with fewer votes than the Conservatives.

»» Critics argue that Parliament should mirror the opinion of the electorate, and that a party should

get seats in proportion to its votes. The distortion between votes cast and seats won under FPTP is too great to go unnoticed. Figure 4.1 shows this distortion for three recent elections.

»» Proportionality underpins the basic democratic principle of political equality. With PR, everyone’s vote has the same value, regardless of the party they support.

Definition Proportional representation (PR): Proportional representation is the idea that seats should be allocated so that they are in proportion to the votes cast.

100 Component I: UK Politics Figure 4.1  Difference between votes cast and seats won in UK general elections in 2015, 2017 and 2019 2019 UK seat share % 2019 UK vote share %

42.3

2015 UK seat share %

Lib Dem

7.4 3.0

8.6

35.7 30.4

36.8

Labour

5.4

40.0

50.8

2015 UK vote share %

3.9

40.3

48.8

2017 UK vote share %

7.4 11.5

32.1

43.6

2017 UK seat share %

Conservative

31.1

56.2

SNP

UKIP

Green

7.9

Brexit

4.7

12.6

3.8

All others

Source: Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

»» Moreover, it is important to challenge the idea that stable government can only come from FPTP. The Additional Member System (AMS) (see page 113) provided stable, single-party government in 2011 in Scotland. Coalitions and minority governments in the devolved assemblies and parliaments can be replaced by institutions, almost always lasting the full term. Similarly, the coalition provided by FPTP in 2010 in Westminster lasted the full five-year term and was very stable.



The close relationship between MPs and constituencies is a vital feature of the current system.

»»MPs have a close relationship with constituents. They meet them regularly at ‘surgeries’, represent their concerns in Parliament and deal with their grievances. This is worth preserving.



Other systems also have good MP-constituency links. FPTP is not unique in this feature.

»» The Additional Member System (AMS) (see page 113) preserves the MP–constituency link because it includes a large FPTP element.

»» The Single Transferable Vote (STV) (see page 118) gives constituents a choice of members to represent them in multi-member constituencies.

»» Supplementary Vote (SV) (see page 110) ensures that those elected are chosen by 50% or more of their constituents.

»» Because under FPTP most MPs are elected on a plurality, not a majority, they are not truly representative of their constituency. Table 4.3 shows the ten smallest vote shares in the 2019 General Election.



First-past-the-post has the effect of keeping out extremist parties by giving one of the larger parties a ‘winners bonus’.

»»In order to win a seat under FPTP candidates need to win a large number of votes in each constituency. This concentration of votes is realistically only achievable by a few parties.

»»A ‘winner’s bonus’ occurs as small shifts in votes between the two main parties lead to dramatic changes in their seats. Parties can win ‘landslide’ victories on the basis of relatively modest electoral support. For example, in 1997, Blair’s New Labour won a landslide of 419 seats – 64% of the total seats based on 44% of the total vote.

»»The 2015 General Election produced a result that was biased in favour of a small party. The

surge in support for the SNP in Scotland meant that, for the first time, the party ended up being over-represented in the House of Commons. Indeed, FPTP treated the SNP more favourably than

Elections and Referendums

Table 4.3  Top 10 Smallest Winning Vote Shares Constituency

Vote share (%)

Winning Party

South Down

32.4

Sinn Fein

Sheffield Hallam

34.7

Labour

South Antrim

35.3

Democratic Unionist Party

Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath

35.3

Scottish National Party

Ynys Mon

35.5

Conservative

East Lothian

36.2

Scottish National Party

East Dunbartonshire

37.1

Scottish National Party

Caithness, Sunderland & Easter Ross

37.2

Liberal Democrat

Hemsworth

37.5

Labour

Barnsley East

37.6

Labour

Source: © Electoral Reform Society www electoral-reform.org.uk. Reproduced with permission.

any other party, including the Conservatives. This is because, even though the SNP received a similar number of votes to the Green Party, SNP voters live in a small area – Scotland, whereas the Green Party’s support is spread throughout the country.



Opponents say it discriminates against almost ALL small parties.

»» The 2015 General Election showed the disproportionality and unfairness of the FPTP system

with seemingly arbitrary links between votes cast and seats won. UKIP received nearly 12% of the vote, 3.8m votes, and received 1 seat; the Liberal Democrats won 8% of the vote, 2.4m votes and 8 seats; the Labour Party won 30% of the vote, 9.3m votes and 232 seats.

»» Parties with geographically evenly distributed support come second or third in elections almost

everywhere, picking up very few or perhaps no seats. For example, in 2015 UKIP came second in 190 seats but won only one. Figure 4.2 shows the number of votes needed by each party to elect an MP in 2019.

Figure 4.2  Votes needed per MP Green 800,000

Brexit 600,000

400,000 Lib Dem

200,000 Alliance SDLP

Labour

Plaid Cymru Conservative

DUP

Sinn Fein

SNP

0

A Flourish chart

Source: Compiled using data from the Electoral Reform Society.

»» Under PR, fewer votes are ‘wasted’, which should strengthen electoral turnout and promote civic engagement.

101

102 Component I: UK Politics



The system provides a clear choice and the two-party format mirrors the natural divide in society, also making governments accountable.

»»FPTP offers voters a clear and simple choice between potential parties of government, each committed to a different policy or ideological agenda.

»»Although the proportion of votes gained by the two main parties has fallen – from over 95% to

a low of 65% in 2010 – they have continued to have a hold on the House of Commons. Even in 2019, 88% of MPs belonged to either the Labour or Conservative Parties.

»»FPTP also has the big advantage of enabling the electorate to get rid of unwanted governments

and make a clear break with the past. This can be seen in 1979 and 1997. Under coalitions, the electorate have a limited say in how the next government is formed; it is decided by the parties in private after the election.



The two-party dominance created by FPTP is hard for minor parties to break, making the party choice on offer an illusion.

»» Two-party politics restricts choice, lacks representation and places too much power in the hands of the executive.

»» It discourages potential supporters of ‘third’ parties from voting for them, because their vote would be ‘wasted’ as it would not affect the outcome of the election.

»» According to analysis by the ERS, 22.6m out of 32m votes didn’t count towards the result in the

2019 General Election. In Figure 4.3 this is shown by the unrepresented votes, which were cast for unsuccessful candidates, and surplus votes, which were not needed to help the winning candidate secure the seat.

Figure 4.3  Votes cast in 2019 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

UK

Wales Decisive votes

Scotland Unrepresented votes

England

Northern Ireland

Surplus votes A Flourish chart

Source: © Electoral Reform Society www.electoral-reform.org.uk. Reproduced with permission.

Elections and Referendums

»» The

problem of wasted votes is all the greater because Labour and the Conservatives traditionally have ‘heartlands’ in which many seats are ‘safe’. The outcome of a general election is therefore determined by what happens in ‘marginal’ seats.

»» In

safe seats, votes are wasted on losing candidates, or on huge majorities; hence, not everybody’s vote is ‘worth’ the same.

»» PR electoral systems distribute political power more widely. Because a wider range of parties are involved in the formulation of policy, decision making becomes a process of consultation, negotiation and compromise. Partnership politics therefore replaces adversarial politics.



Definition Wasted vote: Any vote that is not for an elected candidate or, more broadly, a vote that does not help to elect a candidate.

FPTP is simple, easy to operate and quick to produce a result.

»»It is a tried-and-tested system with a certain amount of public acceptance. All that’s required is an ‘X’ in the relevant box. It is uncomplicated and gives citizens clarity and confidence in use. Other electoral systems appear cumbersome and complex.

»»It is quick to produce a result; there is no delay and elected members and governments are soon in place.

»»PR systems can take some time for the final outcome to be calculated. Newcastle Central was the first constituency to declare a result in 2017. It was declared at 22:59, just 59 minutes after polls closed.



103

However, one could counter the arguments above as being inaccurate or not as significant as opposing arguments.

»» The electorate can cope with listing a numerical choice and preferences. This happens in other

developed nations and there is no evidence that the UK is less educated than our European counterparts, who use a variety of other electoral methods. Northern Ireland uses Single Transferable Vote (STV) for its Assembly elections and this has been a success.

»» Some suggest that the ‘speed’ attribute is overrated. Although speed is valued, accuracy and

fairness are more desirable outcomes. Also, if electronic voting was introduced, other systems would be equally swift.

Key Debate Summary: Is first-past-the-post fit for purpose? FOR

AGAINST

99FPTP delivers strong, single-party

88 Strong government comes at the expense

99The close relationship between MPs and

88 Other systems also have good MP–

99FPTP keeps out extremist parties by giving

88 It discriminates against almost all small

99The two-party format mirrors the natural

88 The two-party dominance is hard for

99FPTP is simple and easy to operate and

88 The argument that FPTP is simple to use

government with a clear electoral mandate. constituencies is vital.

one of the larger parties a ‘winners bonus’. divide in society.

quick to produce a result.

of unrepresentative government.

constituency links. FPTP is not unique in this feature. parties.

minor parties to break, limiting party choice.

is not a good enough reason to keep it. PR systems are also capable of producing results quickly these days.

Tip – Examples of election results and outcomes are essential as they will help to illustrate the point you are making. You must be able to illustrate the points you are making with examples while not bombarding the reader with endless statistics. Think about how you could incorporate these in a way which is easy to read and follow.

S

LECTION E L R A

E

LT SU

KEY STATISTICS Seats contested

650

Turnout

67%

Overall Outcome

2019 GEN E

R

OTHER KEY FACTS 11.5%

47

11.5% of the vote went to parties other than the Conservatives, Labour or Liberal Democrats The Conservatives gained 47 seats and increased their vote share by 3%

Conservative majority government Seats won out of 650

Share of seats won (%)

Votes won

Share of total vote (%)

Conservative

365

56.0

13,900,000

45.0

Labour

203

31.0

10,300,000

32.0

Lib Dem

11

1.7

2,370,000

 7.4

SNP

48

7.4

1,240,000

 3.9

Brexit

0

0

642,000

 2.0

Greens

1

0.15

866,000

 2.7

Plaid Cymru

4

0.6

153,265

 0.5

DUP

8

1.2

244,127

  0.8

Sinn Féin

7

1.0

181,853

  0.6

SDLP

2

0.3

118,737

 0.4

Compared with the results of the 2017 election:

59

1

13

Labour lost 59 seats and decreased their vote share by 8%

82%

The Liberal Democrats lost 1 seat

220

Despite winning only 45% of the Scottish vote, the SNP won 82% (48 of 59) of the seats in Scotland. Following the December 2019 Election, 220 women MPs were elected – 34% of MPs, compared to 32% in 2015, the highest-ever number.

The SNP gained 13 seats

Figure 4.4  Parliament in 2019 60% 55%

56

50% 45% 40% 35%

31

30% 25% 20% 15% 10%

7.4

5% 0%

104

1.7 Cons

Lab

Lib Dems

SNP

0 Brexit

0.15 Green

0.6

1.2

Plaid DUP Cymru

1

0.3

Sinn Fein

SDLP

Figure 4.5  How we voted in 2019 50% 45%

45

40% 35%

32

30% 25% 20% 15% 10%

7.4 3.9

5% 0%

Cons

Lab

Lib Dems

SNP

2

2.7

Brexit

Green

0.5

0.8

Plaid DUP Cymru

0.6

0.4

Sinn SDLP Fein

Figure 4.6  Swing analysis since 2017 Election –%

+% Lib Dem +4.2 Brexit +2.0 Conservative +1.2 Green +1.1 SNP +0.8

-7.9 Labour

105

S

LECTION E L R A

E

LT SU

KEY STATISTICS Seats contested

650

Turnout

67%

Overall Outcome

2017

Conservative majority government Seats won out of 650

Share of seats won (%)

Votes won

Share of total vote (%)

Conservative

318

49.0

13,700,000

37.0

Labour

262

40.0

12,900,000

40.0

Lib Dem

12

1.8

2,370,000

 7.4

SNP

35

5.4

977,568

 3.0

UKIP

0

0

594,068

  1.8

Greens

1

1.5

525,665

  1.6

Plaid Cymru

4

0.6

164,466

 0.5

10

1.5

292,316

 0.9

Sinn Féin

7

1.0

238,915

 0.7

SDLP

0

0

95,419

 0.3

UUP

0

0

83,280

 0.3

GEN E

DUP

R

OTHER KEY FACTS 11%

11% of the vote went to parties other than the Conservatives, Labour or Liberal Democrats

13

The Conservatives lost 13 seats but increased its vote share by 5.5%

30

Labour gained 30 seats and increased its vote share by 10%

4

The Liberal Democrats gained 4 seats

208

The SNP lost 21 seats.

68.7%

21

Following the May 2017 General Election, 32% of MPs were women compared to 29% in 2015. 208 women, the highestever number, were elected. Turnout was 68.7%, a slight rise compared to 66.2% in 2015.

Figure 4.7  Parliament in 2017 55% 50%

49

45% 40%

40

35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10%

5.4

5% 0%

106

1.8 Cons Lab

0

1.5

0.6

1.5

1

Lib SNP UKIP Green Plaid DUP Sinn Dems Fein Cymru

0

0

SDLP UUP

Figure 4.8  How we voted in 2017

55% 50% 45% 40%

37

40

35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10%

7.4

5% 0%

3.0 Cons

Lab

1.8

1.6

0.6

0.9

0.7

Lib SNP UKIP Green Plaid DUP Sinn Dems Fein Cymru

0.3

0.3

SDLP UUP

Figure 4.9  Swing analysis since 2015 election –%

+% LAB +9.5 CON +5.5

-0.5 LD -1.7 SNP -2.1 GRN -10.8 UKIP

107

S

LECTION E L R A

E

LT SU

KEY STATISTICS Seats contested

650

Turnout

66.2%

Overall Outcome

2015

Conservative majority government Seats won out of 650

Share of seats won (%)

Votes won

Share of total vote (%)

Conservative

331

51.0

11,334,226

36.9

Labour

232

36.0

9,347,273

30.4

8

1.2

2415,916

 7.9

SNP

56

8.6

1,454,436

 4.7

UKIP

1

0.15

3,881,099

12.6

Greens

1

0.15

1,157,630

  3.8

Plaid Cymru

3

0.5

181,704

  0.6

DUP

8

1.2

184,260

  0.6

Sinn Féin

4

0.6

176,232

  0.6

SDLP

3

0.5

99,809

 0.3

UUP

2

0.3

114,935

 0.4

Lib Dem

GEN E

R

OTHER KEY FACTS 25%

25% of the vote went to parties other than the Conservatives, Labour or Liberal Democrats – a record.

35

The Conservatives gained 35 seats and lost 11 (a net change of +24)

22

Labour gained 22 seats and lost 48 (a net change of –26)

49

50

95%

The Liberal Democrats lost 49 seats.

56

The SNP gained 50 seats.

208

Despite winning only 50% of the Scottish vote, the SNP won 95% of the seats in Scotland.

66.2%

The Green Party won 1% less votes than the SNP but only achieved 1 seat to the SNP’s 56 seats. Following the May 2015 General Election 29% of MPs were women, compared to 23% in 2010. 191 women, the highestever number, were elected. Turnout was 66.2%, a slight rise compared to 65.1% in 2010.

Figure 4.10  Parliament in 2015 55% 50%

51

45% 40%

36

35% 30% 25% 20% 15%

8.6

10% 5% 0%

108

1.2 Cons

Lab

Lib Dems

SNP

0.15 UKIP

0.15

0.5

1.2

0.6

0.5

Green

Plaid Cymru

DUP

Sinn Fein

SDLP

0.3 UUP

Figure 4.11  How we voted in 2015

55% 50% 45% 40% 35%

36.9 30.4

30% 25% 20%

12.6

15%

7.9

10% 5% 0%

Cons

Lab

Lib Dems

4.7

3.8

SNP

UKIP

Green

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.3

0.4

Plaid Cymru

DUP

Sinn Fein

SDLP

UUP

Figure 4.12  Swing analysis since 2010 election –%

+% UKIP +9.5 SNP +3.1 GRN +2.8 LAB +1.5 CON +0.8

–15.2 LD

109

110 Component I: UK Politics

Majority systems Supplementary vote (SV) The other non-proportional electoral system used in the UK is the supplementary vote (SV). It has been used since 2000 for the election of the London mayor and is now used in all elections for directly elected metro mayors in England, and in elections for Police and Crime Commissioners. Although SV has more proportional outcomes than FPTP, the difference is marginal and, in some circumstances, can be less proportional than FPTP.

SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE Used: All elections for directly elected mayors in England, including the Mayor of London, and in elections for Police and Crime Commissioners.

Features: ÎÎ Single-member constituencies. ÎÎ Electors have two votes: a first-preference vote and a second ‘supplementary’ vote. ÎÎ Winning candidates in the election must gain a minimum of 50% of all votes cast. ÎÎ Votes are counted according to first preference. ÎÎ If no candidate reaches 50% in the first round, the top two candidates remain in the election and all other

candidates drop out, their vote being redistributed on the basis of their second vote. ÎÎ The candidate with the most first-choice and second-choice votes is elected. ÎÎ The system means that voters should consider which candidates will reach the final run-off – and therefore which

way to vote tactically if they want their vote to count.

Spec key term Supplementary vote (SV): An electoral system in which the voter makes two preferential choices. If one candidate obtains over 50% on the first vote then the contest is complete. If no candidate attains this level, only the top two candidates remain. Then the second choices are re-distributed between those two candidates, which results in a winner. This is a majoritarian system.

Advantages:

»»SV is simple to understand and would be easy for voters to use. It’s familiar and constituency boundaries would stay the same. All that would change would be the ballot cards.

»»The need to gain second-preference votes to win in a second round encourages positive campaigning. It also seems to encourage moderate policies.

»»It maintains the traditional links between MPs and their constituents, and those elected would (usually) have the support of a majority of their constituents.

»»Like FPTP, it penalises extremist parties, who are unlikely to gain many first-preference votes. »»Single-party majority government seems to be the norm in countries that use SV. In fact,

electoral outcomes are broadly similar to those achieved under FPTP. SV addresses some of the flaws of FPTP while avoiding the pitfalls associated with proportional representation.

»»SV’s outcomes are commonly more proportional than FPTP’s, albeit marginally so. »»Preferential voting, as employed by SV, usually also allows the systems to elect candidates on the basis of majorities and not pluralities.

Disadvantages:

»»Although fewer votes are ‘wasted’ with SV compared with FPTP, SV does not necessarily ensure that the winning candidate has the support of at least 50% of voters because a proportion of supplementary votes will be for candidates who have dropped out.

Elections and Referendums

»»For a candidate to succeed, they must be the first choice of a substantial number of voters. Therefore if the Liberal Democrats or Greens were everybody’s second choice, it would do them no good.

»»If there are more than two strong candidates, voters must guess which two will make the final round, and if they guess incorrectly, their second-preference vote will be wasted.

»»SV does not produce very proportionate results and would still under-represent small parties. »»Because SV only lets voters express two choices, it is possible for a high number of voters’ first choices to be excluded in round one and for their second choice to not be in round two.

SV as used in the UK

»»SV has been used to elect the Mayor for London, for metropolitan mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners.

»»Despite results tables which suggest that all winners since 2000 have won over 50% of the vote,

in fact the ERS confirms that ‘in almost two decades of SV elections for the Mayor of London, only in 2016 has a mayor won more than 50% of the total ballots.’ The reason is that ‘nontransferable votes’ (votes for anyone other than the two remaining candidates) are excluded. For example, Figure 4.13 shows that in 2012 over 7% of votes were excluded from the second round, meaning that Mayor Johnson won with 47.2% of the vote.

Figure 4.13  2012 London mayoral election Round 1 44

Boris Johnson Ken Livingstone

40.3

Jenny Jones

4.5

Brian Paddick

4.2

Siobhan Benita

3.8

Lawrence Webb

2

Carlos Cortiglia

1.3

0

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Round 2 47.2

Boris Johnson

45

Ken Livingstone

7.3

Non-transferable

0

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

111

112 Component I: UK Politics

Source: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Photo 4.2  Sadiq Khan delivers a speech after being announced as the new Mayor of London, 6 May 2016.

»»Sadiq Khan is the only London Mayor to be elected with over

50% over two rounds, winning 44% of the first preferences compared to Zac Goldsmith’s 35%. After the second round, Khan had won 56.8% of the vote and was elected Mayor (Figure 4.14 and Table 4.4). With the exception of the first election in 2000 when the Independent Ken Livingstone was elected, in every other election, the final two candidates have been from the Labour and Conservative Parties. This suggests that SV discriminates against a third-party candidate.

In 2017, Andy Burnham was elected as Mayor of Greater Manchester with 63% of the vote in the first round so no subsequent round was required. The same was true of Steve Rotheram who was elected as Metro Mayor of Liverpool City Region in 2017 with 59%. In the West Midlands, however, Andy Street (Conservative) and Sion Simons (Labour) fought it out, gaining 42% and 41% respectively in the first round, with Andy

Figure 4.14  2016 London mayoral election: how second votes were cast

Sadiq Khan (Labour Party)

Sian Berry (Green Party) George Galloway (Respect Party) Sophie Walker (WEP) Lee Harris (Cannabis is Safer than Alcohol)

Wasted

Caroline Pidgeon (Liberal Democrats) Ankit Love (One Love Party) David Furness (BNP) Prince Zylinski (Polish Pride) Paul Golding (Britain First) Peter White (UKIP)

Zac Goldsmith (Conservative Party)

A Flourish data Visualisation Source: © Electoral Reform Society www.electoral-reform.org.uk. Reproduced with permission.

Table 4.4 2016 London mayoral election results First Round Second Round % of vote % of vote

Second Round % of vote adjusted

Sadiq Khan

Labour

44.22

65.5

56.8

Zac Goldsmith

Conservative

35.0

34.5

43.2

Sian Berry

Green

5.8

knocked out

Caroline Pidgeon

Liberal Democrat 4.6

knocked out

Peter Whittle

UKIP

knocked out

3.6

Elections and Referendums

113

Street winning in the second round. Second round votes were also required to elect Ben Houchen (Conservative) in the Tees Valley, Tim Bowles (Conservative) in West of England and Dan Jarvis (Labour) in Sheffield. Turnout in these elections averaged a poor 25%. Again, it is worth noting that the candidates that made it through to the final round were from the two main parties. In 2016, there were 36 Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) contests in England, of which 33 were won by either the Conservatives or Labour. This suggests, again, that SV gives an advantage to the two main parties. Average turnout was 27.3%, which was higher than in 2012, influenced perhaps by combining the PCC contests with other elections. For example, ballot box turnout (not including postal votes) was 32.8% in those areas of England with combined local and PCC elections and 20.2% in those places with standalone PCC contests. According to the Electoral Commission, the number of ballots rejected (3.4%) was higher than at any other nationwide electoral event in recent years. In more than one-quarter of cases more than one candidate had been chosen in the first preference column. Additionally, 24% of ballots were rejected at the count of second votes. In over 80% of cases this was because voters had failed to record any such second preference. This is concerning, as electoral systems should enhance democratic representation, not be a barrier to it.

Proportional systems The other two electoral systems used in the UK broadly conform to the principle of proportional representation. These systems are:

»»The Additional Member System (AMS) (see below), which is used for elections to the Scottish

Parliament, the Welsh Parliament and the Greater London Assembly. As such, it is the second most significant electoral system in the UK after FPTP.

»»The Single Transferable Vote (STV) (see page  118), which has been used since 1998 to elect the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is also used for local elections in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Additional Member System (AMS) The Additional Member System (AMS) is used in the devolved regions of Scotland and Wales and for the London Assembly. This system is a hybrid system, which combines the FPTP and the List system (see below). With AMS, the voters have two completely separate votes.

Spec key term Additional member system (AMS): A hybrid electoral system combining two electoral systems. There are two votes, one for a constituency using a simple plurality system, then a second vote is assigned to a party list for an ‘additional’ representative.

THE LIST SYSTEM The standard list system has no constituencies. Each party puts up as many candidates as there are seats in a specific list order. The voters then vote for a party, not a candidate, and seats are allocated according to the percentage of votes received. Therefore, if a party receives 50% of the vote, they win 50% of the seats etc. Candidates are selected from the top of each party’s list, then depending on their percentage of the vote, they will be allocated seats. There is a closed list where the electors have no say in the order of the politicians on the list, whereas an open list is when voters have some say over the order of the politicians. There are also regional lists where the country is divided up into smaller regions allowing for some regional representation.

ADDITIONAL MEMBER SYSTEM (AMS) Used: Scottish Parliament, Welsh Parliament, Greater London Assembly.

Features: ÎÎ It is a ‘mixed’ system, made up of constituency and party-list elements. ÎÎ A proportion of seats are filled by FPTP, using single-member constituencies.

114 Component I: UK Politics ÎÎ The remaining seats are filled using a ‘closed’ party-list system. ÎÎ Electors cast two votes: one for a candidate in a constituency election and the other for a party in a list election. ÎÎ The party-list element is used to ‘top up’ the constituency results. This is done ‘correctively’, using the D’Hondt

method to achieve the most proportional overall outcome.

Advantages:

»»The mixed character of this system balances the need for constituency representation against the need for electoral fairness.

»»Although the system is broadly proportional in terms of its outcomes, it keeps alive the possibility of single-party government.

»»It allows voters to make wider and more considered choices. It also allows voters to express personal support for a candidate, while voting for a different party with their second vote.

»»Each voter has a directly accountable single-constituency representative. »»Every voter has at least one effective vote. »»The list element creates excellent proportionality. Disadvantages:

»» The retention of single-member constituencies reduces the likelihood of high levels of proportionality. »»Constituency representation is less effective than FPTP, because of the larger size of constituencies and because a proportion of representatives have no constituency duties.

»»The system creates confusion by having two classes of representative. Many representatives are accountable to the party leadership rather than the voters.

»»AMS

sometimes gives rise to ‘overhang’ seats, where a party wins more seats via the constituency vote than it is entitled to according to its proportional vote.

»»It can be complicated. People can become confused over exactly what they’re supposed to do with their two votes.

AMS as used in the UK Scotland

»»Figure 4.15 shows how AMS is used in the Scottish Parliament in 2016. »»There are 129 seats in total, and voters have two votes. »»The first vote is used to elect a constituency MSP. Out of 129 seats, 73 are chosen like this. The

remaining 56 are chosen using a closed, regional list system. These additional members are elected from eight regions.

»»The purpose of the additional members is to reduce the unfairness in the way the constituency MSPs are elected.

»»In 2016, the SNP received 59 of its 63 seats from constituency MSPs and only 4 top-up MSPs,

whereas the Conservatives received 7 constituency MSPs and 24 top-up MSPs (Table 4.5). Thus, the top-up MSPs help to ensure that the overall link between the percentage of votes and the percentage of seats is fairer.

Elections and Referendums

115

Figure 4.15  AMS and the Scottish Parliament Constituency Seats

Additional Member Seats

Highlands & Islands North East Scotland Mid Scotland & Fife Central Scotland West Scotland Lothian Glasgow

Greater Glasgow

Shetland

South Scotland

Edinburgh

Aberdeen

Dundee

Scottish National Party 63

Orkney

Conservative 31 Labour Party 24 Green Party 6 Liberal Democrats 5

Table 4.5 Scottish Parliament Elections Results 2016 Scottish Parliament Elections 2016

Constituency

Regions

Combined

Votes

% of votes

Seats (% of seats)

Votes

% of votes

Seats

% of votes

Total (% of seats)

1,059,897

47

59 (81%)

953,587

42

4

45

63 (49%)

Conservative

501,844

22

7 (10%)

524,222

23

24

23

31 (24%)

Labour

514,261

23

3 (4%)

435,919

19

21

21

24 (19%)

Greens

13,172

1

0 (0%)

150,426

7

6

4

6 (5%)

Liberal Democrats

178,238

8

4 (5%)

119,284

5

1

7

5 (4%)

SNP

Total Seats Turnout 56% 4.1m voters

73

56

129

116 Component I: UK Politics Wales As Figure 4.16 shows, in 2016 in Wales there are 40 single-member constituencies which match the 40 Westminster constituencies. The 20 additional members are elected from closed party lists.

Figure 4.16  AMS and the Welsh Parliament Constituency Vote Results

Additional Member Vote Results

»» Electors cast one vote for each aspect. The first vote goes to a preferred constituency candidate. The List vote is cast for a voter’s preferred party, and 4 members are elected from 5 regions. These additional members are drawn from a party list depending on how many, if any, additional seats that party wins.

»»As Table 4.6 shows, in 2016 Labour received 27 of its 29 seats from constituency members of

the Welsh Parliament (MSs – members of the Senedd) and only 2 top-up MSs whereas UKIP received 0 constituency MSs (despite receiving 13% of the vote) and 7 top-up MSs. This brought their total representation to 7/60 MSs, 12% of the total which closely mirrors the 13% of vote received. Thus, the top-up MSs help to ensure that the overall link between the percentage of votes and the percentage of seats is fairer.

Table 4.6 Welsh Parliament Elections Results 2016 Constituency

Regions

Combined

Welsh Parliament Elections 2016 Votes

%

Seats (% of seats)

Votes

%

Seats

% of votes

Seats (% of seats) 

Labour

35

27 70

310,196

32

2

34

29 48

353,866

Plaid Cymru

209,376

21

6 13

211,548

21

6

21

12 20

Conservative

215,597

21

6 15

190,846

19

5

20

11 18

UKIP

127,038

13

00

132,138

13

7

13

7 12

LibDems

78,165

8

13

65,504

7

0

9

12

Total Seats

Turnout 45% 2.25m votes

40

20

60

Elections and Referendums

The Greater London Assembly The Greater London Assembly comprises 25 members, 14 of which are elected directly from the London constituencies using FPTP and the remaining 11 through the list system (shown in Figure 4.17 which shows 2016 results).

Figure 4.17  AMS and the Greater London Authority Constituency Seats

Additional Member Seats

Popular Vote by Constituency Con. Reg. Seats Seats

-40 50 60 70+ Labour

09

03

Conservative

05

03

UKIP

-

02

Green

-

02

Liberal Democrats

-

01

»»Electors cast one vote for each aspect. The first vote goes to the constituency candidate. The List vote is cast for a voter’s preferred party across London as a whole.

»»Additional members are drawn from a party list depending on how many, if any, additional seats that party wins.

»»Table 4.7 shows the election results since its inception in 2000. Table 4.7 GLA Election Results 2000–2016 Party

2000

2004

2008

2012

2016

Labour

9

Cons

9

7

8

12

12

9

11

9

8

Green

3

2

2

2

2

LibDems

4

5

3

2

1

UKIP

0

2

0

0

2

BNP

0

0

1

0

-

Independent Total

0

0

0

0

-

25

25

25

25

25

117

118 Component I: UK Politics

SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE (STV) Used: Northern Ireland Assembly and in Northern Ireland and Scotland for local government Features: ÎÎ There are multimember constituencies. ÎÎ Political parties are able to put up as many candidates as there are seats to fill in each constituency. ÎÎ Electors vote preferentially. ÎÎ Candidates are elected if they achieve a quota of votes. This quota is calculated on the basis of the Droop formula,

as follows:

Quota =

total number of votes cast (number of seats to be filled + 1)

+1

ÎÎ Votes are counted, first, according to first preferences. If any candidate achieves the quota, their additional votes

are counted according to second or subsequent preferences. ÎÎ If this process still leaves some seats unfilled, the candidate with the fewest votes drops out and their votes are

redistributed according to second or subsequent preferences.

Spec key term Single Transferable Vote (STV): This system allows voters to rank their voting preferences in numerical order rather than simply having one voting choice. In order to obtain a seat, a candidate must obtain a quota. After the votes are cast, those with fewer votes than the quota are eliminated and their votes transferred, and those candidates with excess votes above the quota also have their votes transferred.

Single Transferable Vote (STV) The Single Transferable Vote (STV) system is used in the Northern Ireland Assembly election and for Northern Irish and Scottish Local Council elections.

Advantages:

»»The system is capable of achieving highly proportional outcomes. »»The availability of several members means that constituents can choose who to take their grievances to.

»» STV gives voters more choice than any other system, which puts power in the hands of the voters. »»Fewer votes are ‘wasted’ under STV. This means that most voters can identity a representative that they personally helped to elect.

»»There are no safe seats under STV, meaning candidates cannot be complacent and parties must campaign everywhere, and not just in marginal seats.

»»By encouraging candidates to seek first votes, as well as lower-preference votes, the use of negative campaigning is greatly diminished.

»»There is no need for tactical voting. Disadvantages:

»»Strong and stable single-party government is unlikely under STV. »»Multi-member constituencies may be divisive because they encourage competition among members of the same party.

»»In sparsely populated areas, such as in Scotland, STV could lead to huge constituencies where constituents feel very remote from their representatives.

»»The process of counting the results takes longer under STV, meaning that results cannot usually be declared on the same night as the vote took place.

»»A voting system that allows voters to rank candidates is prone to so-called ‘Donkey voting’, where voters vote for candidates in the order they appear on the ballot.

»»In large multi-member constituencies, ballot papers can get rather big and confusing. Many votes were spoilt in Scotland when it was introduced for local government.

Elections and Referendums

STV – a worked example This explains, step by step, how votes are redistributed under STV.

Figure 4.18 How votes are redistributed under STV

»»John has easily reached the quota so is elected. His surplus votes are transferred based on the instructions on the ballots.

Stage 1 John Mary Sally Stephen Paul Helen 0

5,000 10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000 30,000

35,000

40,000 45,000

50,000 55,000

60,000

»»Many of John’s supporters liked his running-mate Mary. She gets enough of the transferred votes to be elected.

Stage 2 John Mary Sally Stephen Paul Helen 0

5,000 10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000 30,000

35,000

40,000 45,000

50,000 55,000

60,000

»»Mary’s surplus votes are transferred but nobody has enough to be elected. Stage 3 John Mary Sally Stephen Paul Helen 0

5,000 10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000 30,000

35,000

40,000 45,000

50,000 55,000

60,000

»»Helen has been eliminated and the votes she won are transferred. Stage 4 John Mary Sally Stephen Paul Helen 0

5,000 10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000 30,000

35,000

40,000 45,000

50,000 55,000

60,000

119

120 Component I: UK Politics

»»Paul is also eliminated. Stage 5 John Mary Sally Stephen Paul Helen 0

5,000 10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000 30,000

35,000

40,000 45,000

50,000 55,000

60,000

»»It’s now impossible for Sally to win, so Stephen wins the last seat. Stage 6 John Mary Sally Stephen Paul Helen 0

5,000 10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000 30,000

35,000

40,000 45,000

50,000 55,000

60,000

Source: © Electoral Reform Society www.electoral-reform.org.uk. Reproduced with permission.

STV as used in the UK Northern Ireland

»»In the Northern Ireland Assembly, Northern Ireland is divided into 18 multi-member consti­ tuencies (the same boundaries as Westminster seats). Each of these multi-member constituencies elects 5 Assembly Members, to make 90 in total.

»»Each party puts forward a list of candidates. They can put forward as many as they like up to 5, putting forward more where they are stronger and fewer where they have less support.

»»Voters cast their votes preferentially. There is no minimum or maximum number of preferences that can be cast; the voter just carries on until they no longer wish to express a preference.

»»A quota is then calculated in each of the 18 regions. If any candidate has enough votes to

reach the quota, they are elected. Any unused portion of each vote (called a ‘surplus’) will be transferred to the voter’s second preference. If there are still unfilled places, then the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and their votes are transferred to voters’ second preferences. Any candidate who now has more than the quota is declared elected.

»»This process continues until the right number of candidates has been elected. It can be seen that

STV has been effective in creating proportional results across Northern Ireland and enabled many different parties to be represented and to sit on the Northern Ireland Executive.

However, one of the issues with STV is complications in marking the ballot paper. According to the Electoral Office of Northern Ireland (EONI), in the 2011 NI assembly elections there were more than 12,000 ballot papers rejected as ‘spoilt’. The Electoral Commission introduced a newstyle ballot paper for the 2016 Assembly election to reduce the number of votes that are being accidentally wasted. In 2016, there was a reduction in spoilt ballots, down to 9,425 – the vast majority due to mis-marked ballot papers. Figures suggest that the number of rejected ballots used under STV is more than twice as high as in the FPTP Westminster election. However, there has been a positive impact on turnout. In 2017 NI Assembly elections, more than 812,000 votes were cast, representing a turnout of 64.8% – the highest level of turnout since the

Elections and Referendums first Assembly election in 1998. And the electoral commission reported that 95% of voters who responded to their survey said that they found it easy to fill in their ballot paper.

Table 4.8 Northern Ireland Assembly election (2017) NI Assembly election 2017

Seats

Votes

NI Executive

Won

% of Seats

First Preference (%)

First Preference votes

Seats

DUP

28

31

28.10

225,413

5

Sinn Féin

27

30

27.90

224,245

4

SDLP

12

14

11.90

95,958

1

UUP

10

11

12.90

103,314

1

Alliance

8

9

9.10

72,717

1

Green (NI)

2

2

2.30

18,527

TUV

1

1

2.60

20,523

People Before Profit

1

1

1.80

14,100

PUP

0

0.70

5,590

NI Conservatives

0

0.30

2,399

Labour Alternative

0

0.30

2,009

UKIP

0

0.20

1,579

CISTA

0

0.20

1,273

Workers’ Party

0

0.20

1,261

Independents

1

1.80

14,407

Party

Total

1

90

803,315

Electorate: 1,254,709 Total Poll: 812,783 Turnout: 64.78% (9.8%) Invalid Votes: 9,468

KEY TOPIC DEBATE: HAS THE IMPACT OF THE NEW ELECTORAL SYSTEMS MADE THE CASE FOR REFORM? The simple fact is that there is no such thing as a ‘best’ electoral system. Each voting system is better at achieving different things: the real question is which of these things is the most important? The electoral reform debate is, at heart, a debate about the desirable nature of government and the principles that underpin ‘good’ government. Is representative government, for instance, more important than effective government? There are no objective answers to these questions, only competing viewpoints. Here we identify the impact of the new systems on UK politics.

Party representation The use of PR since 1999 has allowed wider representation of political parties than FPTP in Westminster allows. Minor parties that are denied representation by FPTP win seats when PR systems are used. This broadens the base of party representation and creates multi-party systems. Proportional electoral systems are much fairer for third parties, as the following examples illustrate:

»» The Green Party has 1 seat in Westminster under FPTP, but has 6 seats in the Scottish Parliament, 2 seats in the Greater London Assembly and 2 in the NI Assembly, which all use systems of PR.

»»The UK Independence Party won 12% of the vote (3.8m) but only 1 seat in the Commons in 2015. Under PR in the European Parliament in 2014, it won 24 seats.

12

121

122 Component I: UK Politics

»»UKIP also failed to win any constituency seats under AMS (allocated using FPTP) in the 2016 Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, and London Assembly. However, it had enough support across Wales and London to win 7 Welsh Assembly seats and 2 London Assembly seats via the list aspect of AMS (a system of PR).

»»In the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections, the SNP won 81% of constituency (FPTP) seats under

AMS with 47% of the vote. But after AMS list seats were allocated, the SNP received 49% of the seats on 45% of the votes, making the final result much more proportionate (see page 000).

»»In the same election, most AMS list seats went to Labour and the Conservatives in order to make the final result more proportionate. After the AMS list seats were allocated, the Conservatives had 24% seats with a vote share of 23%, and Labour won 19% of the seats on a vote share of 21% (see page 115).

»»Similarly, in the 2016 Welsh Assembly election, Labour gained 70% of AMS constituency (FPTP) seats with 35% of the vote but after the AMS list seats were allocated won only 48% of the total seats in the Welsh Assembly with an overall vote of 34% (see page 116).

»»In Northern Ireland, STV creates a multi-party outcome with five of the larger parties all achieving significant representation in the Assembly and therefore being awarded places in a power-sharing executive.

»»The Liberal Democrats, condemned for so long by the systematic biases of FPTP in Westminster,

have had greater representation where other voting systems are used, giving them considerable influence over devolved assemblies.

All these examples suggest that PR has enhanced party representation in devolved bodies. Table 4.9 outlines how Westminster would look if FPTP was replaced by three different types of PR. As shown, all three systems of PR enhance the fairness and accuracy of representation of the parties.

Table 4.9 2019 Alternative projections GB

FPTP

List PR

AMS

STV

Conservative

365

288

284

312

Labour

203

216

188

221

Liberal Democrat

11

70

79

59

Scottish National Party

48

28

26

30

Plaid Cymru

4

4

5

5

Green Party

1

12

38

2

Brexit Party

0

11

12

3

Others (excluding Speaker)

0

3

0

0

632

632

632

632

Total

Source: © Electoral Reform Society www.electoral-reform.org.uk. Reproduced with permission.

Voter choice Majoritarian, proportional and hybrid systems can give voters greater choice. FPTP requires voters to select just a single candidate. Supporters of third parties, which have very little chance of winning, can face a choice between wasting their vote on their preferred party, or tactically voting for whichever main political party they oppose the least.

»»SV is used for mayoral elections across England and Police and Crime Commissioner elections and allows voters to select a first- and second-choice candidate. Thus, many voters can vote for a preferred candidate as their first choice, and then a ‘main party’ candidate as their second preference. Hence, they can both support their preferred candidate, and still influence the result if that candidate is eliminated.

»»AMS also allow voters to vote for different parties in the same election. In 2016, results in

Scotland, Wales and London, showed voters backing a major party in the constituency

Elections and Referendums

123

round, where third parties were unlikely to win, and then a different, perhaps smaller party in their regional vote. The Green Party won 0.6% of the constituency vote in the 2016 Scottish Parliament election, but 6.6% of the regional vote, winning six seats.

»»STV offers a great deal of voter choice, where a preferential voting system allows voters to

differentiate not only between political parties but also between candidates from the same party. As a consequence, STV involves fewer ‘wasted’ votes and offers greater potential to choose winning candidates because of its proportional character.

Type of government The tendency of more proportional voting systems to produce multi-party systems is also reflected in a greater likelihood of coalition governments or minority governments. This has tended to be found where all such electoral systems have been used in the UK. These coalitions have been largely stable and lasted the length of their term.

»»In the case of the Scottish Parliament, the SNP majority government formed in 2011 is an exception, as all administrations before and after were either Labour-Liberal Democrat coalitions or minority SNP government.

»»In the case of the Welsh Parliament, the story has been about Labour-led coalitions with either the Liberal Democrats or Plaid Cymru, or a Labour minority government.

»»Although the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition at Westminster, formed in 2010, resulted

from the use of FPTP, it, in effect, provided a laboratory which enabled the implications of proportional representation to be studied.

»»In the Northern Ireland Assembly, there is a complex process of power sharing intended to

include both Unionist and Nationalist parties. In 2017 there were 5 parties represented in the NI Executive.

The shift from single-party majority government to coalition or minority governments has led to a different style of policy making and to the adoption of different policies. In particular, whereas FPTP (usually) allows governments to push their policies through the House of Commons, other electoral systems have fostered a policy process that emphasises the need for compromise, negotiation and consensus. The following examples demonstrate this:

»»In Scotland, the SNP has been in government alone with a minority twice, and a small majority

once. It has needed to build a consensus with other parties. It managed to pass a resolution for a second independence referendum with support from the Green Party in May 2017.

»»In Wales, Labour has consistently been the strongest party but has frequently been denied the

opportunity to govern alone. Like the SNP in Scotland, Welsh Labour has so far formed only one majority administration.

»»In Northern Ireland, the Good Friday Agreement requires that representatives of the main unionist and nationalist parties are included in the executive. The choice of STV for Assembly elections guarantees that members of the two rival communities are elected, rather than Northern Ireland submitting to single-party domination, a scenario that could risk a return to sectarian violence. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister – nominated by the two largest parties – are equal in status and share governmental responsibilities. The system of government is designed to ensure joint participation by unionists and nationalists or republicans.

»»At Westminster the main parties remain in an adversarial relationship, with one major opposition

party clearly playing the role of an alternative government and smaller parties having much less influence.

»»However, in the case of the 2010–15 Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, the parties negotiated a joint programme of government and put in place an elaborate process to reconcile policy differences between them. This appeared to work successfully for five years.

Spec key term Coalition government: A government that is formed of more than one political party. It is normally accompanied by an agreement over policy options and offices of state. Minority government: A government that enters office but does not have a majority of seats in the legislature (Parliament). This makes passing legislation very difficult.

124 Component I: UK Politics

»»The 2017 confidence and supply agreement was formed after tough negotiations between

Arlene Foster (DUP) and Theresa May (Conservative), the most famous of which was an extra £1bn for Northern Ireland. This was a less ‘friendly’ relationship than the one between the ‘Quad’ of David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander.

Key Debate Summary: Has the impact of the new electoral systems made the case for reform? FOR

AGAINST

99The new systems provide much better representation.

88 FPTP ensures that the party with the most votes wins the election and governs.

99The coalitions/minority governments in the 88 FPTP provides stable, single-party UK devolved assemblies have been stable.

government.

all provide good MP/constituency links.

excellent.

much fairer representation.

parties to get a foothold, FPTP does not.

99The other electoral systems used in the UK 88 MP/constituency links under FPTP are 99Other systems in the UK give smaller parties 88 Other electoral systems can allow extremist 99Other systems give voters the ability to

choose between candidates within a party or to split their vote between a party and a candidate.

88 Other systems are complicated, FPTP is simple and easy to operate.

Referendums in the UK What is a referendum? A referendum is a vote in which the electorate can express a view on a particular issue of public policy. A referendum is therefore a device of direct democracy used in representative democracies. Referendums in the UK are not legally binding (unless Parliament indicates otherwise in the referendum legislation). This means that, legally, Parliament can ignore the results. For example, even though the result of the Brexit referendum was to leave, Parliament could have ignored it because Parliament is sovereign. Up until the 1970s referendums hadn’t been used in the UK. Before Labour came to power in 1997, only four such referendums had been held (see Table 4.10).

Table 4.10  Referendums held in the UK YEAR ISSUE

YES

NO

TURNOUT COMMENT

1973

Should Northern Ireland remain part of the UK?

99%

 1%

58%

Boycotted by the Catholic nationalists.

1975

Should the UK remain in the EEC?

68%

32%

64%

NATIONAL REFERENDUM

1979

Should there be devolution of power to Scotland?

52%

48%

63%

Majority was insufficient as 40% of whole electorate needed to vote yes

1979

Should there be devolution of power to Wales?

20%

80%

58%

A clearly negative result.

Should there be devolution of power to Scotland?

74%

26% 60%

A decisive Yes on both questions.

1997

Scotland also voted in favour of tax-raising powers for the Scottish Parliament?

63%

37%

Elections and Referendums 1997

Should there be devolution of power to Wales?

50%

49%

50%

Indecisive but devolution was adopted

1998

Should the Good Friday Agreement for Northern Ireland be implemented?

71%

29%

81%

Clear consent was needed and achieved

1998

Should London have an elected mayor and assembly?

72%

28%

33%

A decisive result.

2011

Do you want the (Welsh) Assembly to be able to make laws on all matters it has powers for?

64%

36%

35%

Extended the law-making powers of the Welsh Assembly.

2011

Should the House of Commons use the ‘alternative vote’ to elect MPs

32%

68%

42%

NATIONAL REFERENDUM

2014

Should Scotland become an independent country?

45%

55%

85%

Huge turnout and a clear answer

2016

Should the UK remain a member of or leave the EU?

48%

52%

    72.2%

A result, but not sufficiently clear for many for a decision of this magnitude.

Note: Unless otherwise stated, only voters in the affected areas took part in the referendum.

How referendums have been used in the UK Referendums have been held in the UK under several circumstances, which include: 1. To provide legitimacy to major constitutional changes (e.g. devolution of power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). 2. To resolve questions of major constitutional importance (e.g. referendums on Scottish independence). 3. To settle disputes within the governing party (e.g. the 1975 referendum on continuing membership of the EEC and the 2016 Brexit referendum). 4. If there are coalition negotiations, governments may agree to hold a referendum as part of the negotiations (e.g. the AV referendums in 2011). 5. To fulfil pledges made in party manifestoes. In 1997, Labour promised in their manifesto to hold a referendum on instituting the position of London Mayor.

KEY TOPIC DEBATE: SHOULD REFERENDUMS BE USED IN THE UK’S REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY? The use of referendums was historically frowned upon. They were seen as somehow ‘not British’ because they appeared to be in conflict with the principles of Parliamentary democracy and sovereignty. It was argued that referendums diminished Parliament and undermined its legitimacy. However, the Blair era turned those ideas on their head, making referendums part of a revolutionary constitutional reform agenda. Hence, since 1997, referendums have been much more widely used amid a growing acceptance that major changes to the way the UK is governed should be endorsed directly by the public rather than simply being left for Parliament to decide. This may have created a new constitutional convention that major constitutional changes should in future always be put to a referendum.



125

They enable the electorate to decide on specific issues that they might not have had the opportunity to consider at a general election.

»»This ensures that the public’s views and interests are properly and accurately articulated, and not distorted by politicians who claim to ‘represent’ them.

»» Referendums allow people to express their view on a specific issue irrespective of party connection.

126 Component I: UK Politics

»»They also provide the public with a way of expressing their views about important constitutional changes; for example, all the devolved assemblies needed to be approved first via a referendum.



Referendums undermine the authority of Parliament as it may be sidelined by the overuse of referendums.

»» As suggested above, decisions made as a consequence of referendums tie Parliament’s hand

if it wishes subsequently to overturn these decisions. These issues go against a fundamental principle of our constitution: Parliamentary sovereignty (see Chapter 7).

»» Referendums also create confusion in a representative democracy because the electorate elects politicians to make decisions, but the views of politicians may run counter to the wishes of the people as expressed in the referendums. This was exactly the issue caused by the 2016 EU Referendum.

»» Referendums

allow politicians to absolve themselves of responsibility for making difficult decisions. For example, in the EU referendum in 2016, Boris Johnson successfully campaigned to leave but without any plan to follow it through. After Cameron resigned, Johnson didn’t enter the race to become leader and left it to others to resolve the ensuing chaos in the aftermath of the referendum result.



Referendums help to create a more engaged and better educated and informed electorate.

»»They make the population more active between elections, which may lead to increased turnouts. Both the Scottish Independence referendum and the EU referendum had very high turnouts.

»»Members of the public have a stronger incentive to think and act politically when they know they

are going to be asked to make an important decision. It can certainly be seen as a consequence of the EU referendum that British citizens have a much greater understanding of the EU and our relationship with it.

»»The media coverage of the referendum and the materials produced by the various campaigns expose voters to further evidence and arguments to inform their decision.



However, campaigns can also be misleading or oversimplify complicated issues that are better left to elected representatives.

»» Both the Remain and Leave campaigns in the 2016 EU referendum made claims that fact

checkers have found to be extremely misleading, which can make it very difficult for confused voters. Examples are the Leave campaign’s infamous NHS bus claim that ‘We send £350m a week to the EU’ and Cameron’s suggestion that, if the UK left the EU, house prices would plummet, there would be medicine shortages, and a year-long recession with the loss of half a million jobs.

»» Also, the real meaning of voting ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in the 2016 EU referendum or 2014 Scottish Independence referendum was far from clear. Did it mean staying in the single market, customs union or leaving without a deal? In Scotland did independence mean losing or keeping the pound, and did it mean staying in the EU?

»» Also, the electorate may not vote on the referendum issue and may instead use it as a vote on the government. For example, the 2011 AV referendum centred on the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg supported the reforms, rather than the actual merits of AV and FPTP. It was suggested that many voted against Clegg rather than against AV.



Referendums promote participation and give everyone an equal voice.

»»Every vote cast in a referendum is worth the same no matter where you live, unlike in general elections.

»»The 2014 referendum on Scottish independence had 84.5% turnout, suggesting that people participate when they think their voice will be heard.

»»They enhance participation by allowing the public to speak for themselves rather than through the distorted views of representatives.

Elections and Referendums

CASE STUDY 4.1: EU ‘IN/OUT’ REFERENDUM 2016

Source: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

Photo 4.3  Protestors attend antiBrexit rallies across the UK.

Significance

Events In 2014, David Cameron committed his party to holding an ‘in/out’ referendum on EU membership if the Conservatives won the 2015 General Election. He did so against the backdrop of growing Euroscepticism on his backbenches. By promising to hold an EU referendum, Cameron hoped to restore his authority over his party by quelling the rebellion over Europe and to improve the chance of a Conservative victory in 2015 by undermining UKIP. The core calculation was that the referendum would end up endorsing rather than rejecting EU membership. Cameron and his key advisers were confident of a positive outcome from the referendum for two reasons. ÎÎ

Leave in June 2016 showed that the prospect of change can sometimes be more attractive than the comforts of the status quo. By the morning after the Referendum, the UK had voted to leave the EU.

The referendum campaign was expected to be an unequal struggle between, on the one hand, virtually the entire political establishment, including the leaderships of all the major parties, backed by the bulk of business leaders, senior economists and trade union bosses, and on the other hand, UKIP and ‘fringe’ figures in the Conservative Party.

ÎÎ Despite the recognition that the EU was broadly

unloved, there was an expectation that, faced with the prospect of profound and irreversible change, the electorate would ‘stick with the devil they know’. The Leave campaign was bolstered by the recruitment of senior figures such as Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, as well as by Jeremy Corbyn’s unenthusiastic support for Remain. The Leave campaign also had the backing of The Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph. The 52% victory for

Cameron’s EU referendum commitment turned into something increasingly beyond his control. Settling the issue through a referendum rather than Parliament was the only way that growing hostility towards the EU could be articulated as public opinion would have been blocked because of pro-EU majorities in each of the major Westminster parties. For the electorate, the referendum itself was a means of taking back control. There were those who did not feel that a referendum was the best way to resolve this issue. Ken Clarke, the only Conservative Parliamentarian who voted against Cameron’s referendum legislation, argued that the issue of EU membership was far too complex to expect citizens to reach a balanced and evidencebased judgement. It left them prey to misinformation and exaggeration on both sides and increased the chances that the outcome would be determined by other factors. Moreover, to boil the question of EU membership down to a simple choice between Remain and Leave was unhelpful and, in the absence of a plan for Brexit, virtually meaningless. Other areas that were affected by the referendum were Parliament and the UK’s uncodified constitution. Parliamentarians found themselves in an impossible situation after the Referendum. The vast majority had campaigned and voted to remain and now found themselves having to pass legislation to leave the EU. The Article 50 legislation went through smoothly: 498 to 114 in March 2017. However, in the following two-and–a-half years, Parliament was unable to commit itself to fully carrying out the wishes of the electorate despite 84% of MPs being elected in 2017 on manifestoes which committed them to leaving the EU. MPs were clearly frustrated that they were having to enact legislation to which they were fundamentally opposed and believed would bring devastation to the UK. This raised the issue of the role of an MP and competing theories of representation between delegate and Burkean models (discussed in more detail on page 238). The result of the 2019 General Election resolved this issue, with the new Parliament passing the Withdrawal Agreement in January 2020 by 358 votes to 234.

127

128 Component I: UK Politics



Too regular use of referendum might result in voter apathy or fatigue.

»» There is a danger that the public becomes over-burdened with decision making and increasingly indifferent; as a result of this, decisions are made only by those who can be bothered to vote.

»» In 2016 voting in Scotland on the EU referendum was slightly lower than expected for such a pro-EU part of the country: 67% turnout in Scotland compared with 72% nationally – some suggested it was due to voter fatigue.

»» Low turnouts can reduce the legitimacy of referendums. »» They place political decisions in the hands of those who have limited knowledge and experience. »» Referendums tend to simplify and distort political issues, reducing them to questions that have a simple yes/no answer



They can settle long-standing disputes and issues of constitutional interest.

»»The 2011 referendum on AV, which was rejected by 68% of voters, effectively kicked the discussion of replacing FPTP into the long grass for the foreseeable future.

CASE STUDY 4.2: SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM 2014 Events This was the third major referendum to have been held in Scotland, but the first to be held on the issue of independence. A referendum on Scottish devolution had been held in 1979, and successfully in 1997. As support for the Scottish National Party (SNP) subsequently grew, enabling it in 2007 to form a minority administration and then in 2011 to win an overall majority, the SNP shifted its focus from calling for a further referendum to widen the powers of the Scottish Parliament to demanding an independence referendum. This led in 2012 to the Edinburgh Agreement, under which the Scottish and UK Governments agreed to hold an independence referendum two years later. Although David Cameron was, at the time, criticised by some in his own party for being ‘over-fair’ to the SNP Government in these negotiations – agreeing, among other things, that the Scottish Parliament should provide the legislative basis for the referendum, as well as determining its franchise, timing and wording – his judgement, as a Unionist, was eventually proved to be correct, with 55% of the Scottish electorate voting ‘no’ in the eventual referendum.

Significance One of the main political changes has been a realignment of ‘party politics’ into ‘independence politics’. Previously you chose your politics based on a traditional Left/Right spectrum with a minority of Scots voting on the basis of independence from the UK. The referendum appeared to change that. Voters now consider independence to be a key issue. This has led to a surge in support for the SNP in Scotland as the main ‘independence’ party and the Conservatives appeared to be the flag bearer for staying in the UK; or at least this was certainly the case while

Ruth Davidson was leader of the Scottish Conservatives – it is less certain now with Jackson Carlaw as their leader in Scotland and Boris Johnson as the Conservative Prime Minister. For the Labour Party, the realignment has been huge. The consequences were clear for all to see in the 2015 Election. Labour lost 40 of its 41 seats while the SNP won 56 out of the 59 seats available in a radical realignment of party politics in Scotland. This makes it far harder for the Labour Party to be the government in Westminster once again without its Scottish seats. This pattern was reflected in the 2019 Election, with Labour only winning the seat of Edinburgh South in Scotland. Whereas the chance of a second referendum looked slim in 2015, the vote to leave the EU in June 2016 once again threw the Union into uncertainty. Whereas the national figure was famously 52%-48% to Leave, in Scotland it was 62%-38% to Remain, with all 32 local authorities of Scotland having a Remain majority. Sturgeon said Scotland ‘has spoken – and spoken decisively’. In March 2017 Sturgeon won a vote in the Scottish Parliament to formally request from the UK Government the powers to stage a fresh independence vote at around the time Britain leaves the EU, in spring 2019. Theresa May (PM at the time) refused the request. The SNP’s strong showing in the 2019 Election (winning 48 out of 69 Scottish seats at Westminster) led to a further demand by Sturgeon to hold a second independence referendum. Johnson, like May, refused. What is clear is that the future of the Union is uncertain, the first Scottish independence referendum may well not be the last and desire for independence in Scotland seems to be steadily, albeit slowly, growing, particularly with the young.

Elections and Referendums

»»Scotland’s long-desired Parliament of its own was established after the 1997 referendum and would be difficult to remove.



However, sometimes referendum questions can be asked more than once until the ‘right’ answer is received.

»» The 2014 Scottish Independence referendum certainly did not settle the issue, and a second

referendum on the matter is still possible if the SNP win an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament.

»» There were huge clamours for a second referendum to overturn the 2016 EU referendum result almost immediately after the vote.

»» Referendums on creating a Scottish Parliament and Welsh Parliament were both defeated in

1979. However, this did not settle the issue. Referendums were held again in 1997 and this time the devolution plans were approved. But again, this did not settle the issue.

»» Rather than settling disagreements, referendums can be highly divisive, as has been illustrated by the EU and Scottish referendums.



Referendums make government more responsive by forcing them to listen to public opinion between elections

»»As such, they provide a much-needed check on government power, because the government

has less control over their outcome than it usually does over Parliament. Citizens are therefore protected against the danger of over-mighty government. The 2016 EU referendum is, again, a good example of this.



Referendums enable leaders to manipulate the political agenda.

»» The government can choose when to call them and use public resources to back their preferred outcome. The government can control the question, the options on the ballot paper and the threshold for victory. The 2014 Scottish Independence referendum was a yes/no question on independence, even though many Scottish voters wanted a third option for ‘greater devolution’.

»» In the 2016 EU referendum, the Leave campaign argued that the Remain campaign had an unfair advantage because the Government and the full weight of the Civil Service supported it.

»» The Government was also criticised for producing a leaflet on the benefits of staying in the EU using £9m of taxpayer’s money before the referendum in 2016.

Key Debate Summary: Should referendums be used in the UK’s representative democracy? FOR

AGAINST

99Referendums enable the electorate to

88 Referendums undermine the authority of

99Referendums help to create a more

88 Referendum campaigns can be misleading

99Referendums promote participation and

88 Too regular use of referendums might

99Referendums can settle long-standing

88 Sometimes referendums can be asked

99Referendums make government more

88 Referendums can enable leaders to

decide on specific issues which they might not have had the opportunity to consider at a general election. engaged and better educated and informed electorate. give everyone an equal voice.

disputes and issues of constitutional interest.

responsive by forcing them to listen to public opinion between elections.

Parliament as it may be sidelined by the overuse of referendums.

or oversimplify complicated issues that are better left to elected representatives. result in voter apathy or fatigue.

more than once until the ‘right’ answer is received. manipulate the political agenda.

129

130 Component I: UK Politics

Chapter Summary ‐‐FPTP, used for Westminster elections, is deeply disproportionate, but tends to provide single-party government. ‐‐FPTP was unable to provide single-party governments between 2010 and 2019 but was able to once again provide it in the 2019 General Election.

‐‐Systems of PR and the Supplementary Vote are used all around the UK in so-called ‘second tier’ elections. ‐‐These elections have provided results that are much more reflective of the way people have voted. ‐‐They have also resulted in mainly coalition or minority governments which have been, by and large, stable. ‐‐Referendums have been used more widely in the UK since the 1990s. ‐‐The most recent referendums – Scottish Independence and leaving the EU – have severely tested many aspects of the political system, leaving doubts in many minds as to their effectiveness as a tool for resolving contentious, complicated issues.

Exam Style Questions Evaluate the view that the performance of other electoral systems in the UK has made the case for replacing zz FPTP for Westminster elections (30).

Evaluate the view that electoral systems in the UK promote multi-party systems (30). zz Evaluate the view that representative democracy in the UK is undermined by the representation provided by the zz electoral systems used (30).

Evaluate the view that proportional electoral systems have fundamentally affected the political process in the zz UK (30).

Evaluate the view that increased use of referendums has improved democracy in the UK (30). zz Evaluate the view that referendums have more democratic legitimacy than elections in the UK (30). zz

Source Question The use of PR in the UK since 1999 has allowed wider representation of parties than FPTP in Westminster allows. Minor parties that are denied representation by FPTP win seats when PR systems are used. Moreover, proportional systems can give voters greater choice whereas FPTP requires voters to select just a single candidate. Additionally, supporters of third parties, which have very little chance of winning, can face a choice between wasting their vote on their preferred party, or voting for whichever main political party they oppose the least. Finally, proportional voting systems are more likely to produce multi-party systems with a greater likelihood of coalition or minority governments. These governments in Scotland and Wales have been largely stable and lasted the length of their term. Additionally, coalition or minority governments have led to a different style of policy making: whereas FPTP allows governments to push their policies through, other electoral systems have fostered a policy process that emphasises the need for compromise, negotiation and consensus. First-past-the-post delivers strong, single-party government with a clear mandate. It creates stability and strong governments that make coherent decisions, yet it retains the flexibility necessary to adapt to changing circumstances. FPTP also broadly gives voters what they voted for; the party with the most votes has the ability to carry out their manifesto promises. Under proportional representation policies are decided in post-election deals not endorsed by the electorate. The close relationship between MPs and constituencies is a vital feature. MPs meet constituents regularly, represent their concerns in Parliament and deal with their grievances. This is worth preserving. Another advantage of FPTP is that it keeps out extremist parties by giving the largest party a ‘winners bonus’ because their votes are concentrated in constituencies; this is realistically only achievable by the mainstream parties. Lastly, FPTP is simple to operate. It is tried and tested with public acceptance, which gives citizens clarity and confidence in use. FPP is quick to produce a result, there is no delay and governments are soon in place. PR systems can take some time for the final outcome to be calculated.

Elections and Referendums

131

Using the source, evaluate the view that PR should replace FPTP for UK general elections. In your response you must:

»»Compare and contrast different opinions in the source »»Examine and debate these views in a balanced way »»Analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.

Further Resources Bogdanor, V. (2009) The People and the Party System: The Referendum and Electoral Reform in British Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Curtice, J. (2015) ‘A Return to Normality? How the Electoral System Operated’, Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 68, No. 1, Sept., pp. 25–40. Denver, D., Carmen, C. and Johns, R. (2011) Elections and Voters in Britain (London: Red Globe Press). Farrell, D. (2011) Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction (2nd edn) (London: Red Globe Press). Gallagher, M. and Mitchell, P. (eds) (2011) The Politics of Electoral Systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Gallop, N. (2020) ‘The 2019 General Election by Nick Gallop’, Politics Review, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.  Griffiths, S. and Leach, R. (2018) British Politics (3rd edn) (London: Red Globe Press): Chapter 13. Heffernan, R., Hay, C., Russell, M. and Cowley, P. (2016) Developments in British Politics (10th edn) (London: Red Globe Press): Chapter 3. Moran, M. (2015) Politics and Governance in the UK (3rd edn) (London: Red Globe Press): Chapter 16.

Visit the companion website to access the Further Resources Booklet to explore a range of useful web links related to: case studies on UK general elections, literature from The Constitution Society and the House of Commons Library, the Electoral Reform Society and the Electoral Commission.

VOTING BEHAVIOUR

132

5

Chapter Preview Academic interest in the study of voting behaviour grew during the 1950s and 1960s through the belief that politics can be studied scientifically if it focuses on observation and analysis of political behaviour; as a result psephology (the scientific study of voting behaviour) commands a central position in the understanding of voting behaviour. This is because voting provides one of the richest sources of information about the interaction between people and politics. By investigating the patterns and trends of voting behaviour, we are able to learn important lessons about the nature of the political system, and, in particular, the outcome of elections. Therefore, if we want to know what particular elections mean, we must start by looking at the factors that shaped how we choose to vote. Much debate surrounds the issue of voting behaviour. Not only are there rival theories of voting, but the act of voting is also shaped by a shifting variety of long-term and short-term influences. Long-term influences affect electoral outcomes over a number of elections and may even be relevant to all elections. These factors include social class, age, race or ethnicity, gender, region and party loyalty. Short-term influences, by contrast, are specific to particular elections, and so do not allow conclusions to be drawn about voting patterns in general, but instead just for that election. These factors include party policies, the performance and image of parties and the effectiveness of party leaders. This chapter will explore all these areas and see how they have evolved over time.

Key Questions and Debates »» What is voting behaviour and why is it important? »» What are long-term (social) factors and how have they influenced elections? »» What are short-term factors and how have they influenced elections? »» What have been the key factors in general elections held in 1983, 1997, 2010, 2017 and 2019? »» Which factors have been the most important in the UK?

Specification Checklist 4.1. Case studies of three key general elections »» Case studies of three elections (one from the period 1945–92, the 1997 election, and one since 1997), the results and their impact on parties and government. »» The factors that explain the outcomes of these elections, including: – the reasons for and impact of party policies and manifestos techniques used in their election campaigns, and the wider political context of the elections – class-based voting and other factors influencing voting patterns, such as partisanship and voting attachment – gender, age, ethnicity and region as factors in influencing voting behaviour, turnout and trends. »» Analysis of the national voting-behaviour patterns for these elections, revealed by national data sources, and how and why they vary.

So

ur ce

:A

me

rG

ha

zz al/ Ge

tt y

Im

ag

es

133

134 Component I: UK Politics

Voting behaviour in the UK What is voting behaviour? How can we explain the outcome of elections? Why do people support one party rather than another? The study of voting behaviour is important because it helps us to explain the process of political change and not only changes in government, but also in parties’ policies and ideological beliefs. Voting provides one of the richest sources of information about the interaction between people and politics. Voting behaviour allows us to learn about the political system, and, specifically, the outcome of elections which is shaped by a shifting variation of long-term and short-term influences.

»»Long-term influences (social factors) affect electoral outcomes over a number of elections and may even be relevant to all elections.

»»Short-term influences, by contrast, are specific to particular elections, and so do not allow conclusions to be drawn about voting patterns in general.

Long-term factors in voting behaviour (social factors)

Definition Floating voters: Voters with few or no long-term party loyalties, who therefore vote for different parties in different elections.

Voting in the UK has traditionally been explained in terms of long-term social and political factors. This ‘sociological model’ links voting behaviour to group membership. It suggests that electors tend to adopt a voting pattern that reflects the economic and social position of the group, or groups, to which they belong. This model therefore highlights the importance of social alignment, reflecting the various divisions and tensions within society. The most significant of these are social class, gender, ethnicity, religion and region. Social classes have been categorised as in Table 5.1. As such, the sociological model is only concerned with long-term factors. Two explanations have been advanced to explain why such factors affect voting:

»»The first relies on the impact of socialisation, in other words, behaving the way you’ve learnt to behave based on the people around you.

»»The second emphasises rationality, in that people are believed to support the party that is most likely to advance the interests of their group.

Until the 1970s, voting patterns were stable and habitual. Most voters could be classified as ‘core’ voters, with only around one-fifth being so-called floating voters. However, a variety of long-term factors influence voting.

Table 5.1  Social classes in the UK Definition Class alignment: When people associate themselves with a class and firmly believe that they belong to it. Political socialisation: When the way you decide things politically are based on the way you’ve learnt to behave based on the people around you.

Class A

Higher managerial and professional workers

Class B

Middle managers and professionals

Class C1

Clerical workers

Class C2

Skilled manual workers

Class D

Semi-skilled and unskilled workers

Class E

Enemployed, pensioners and people unable to work

Social class Until the 1970s, class was widely seen as the key to understanding voting behaviour in the UK. Peter Pulzer (1967) famously declared: ‘Class is the basis of British party politics; all else is embellishment and detail.’ The stable Conservative–Labour two-party system of the 1945–70 period was largely a reflection of what was called class alignment. This model places a heavy stress on early political socialisation, seeing the family as the principal means through which political loyalties are forged. These are then, in most cases, reinforced by group membership and social experience.

Voting Behaviour Linked to this, a second factor, which explains the relatively stable voting patterns of the 1945–70 period, is that most voters had a clear and enduring identification with a particular party. This was known as partisan alignment. This ‘party identification model’ is based on the idea that people develop a sense of psychological attachment to a political party. Electors are thus seen as people who identify with a party, in the sense of being long-term supporters who regard the party as ‘their’ party. Voting is therefore a commitment to a party, rather than a product of calculation influenced by factors such as policies, personalities, campaigning and media coverage. For example, in 1964–66, 64% of working class or manual voters (classes C2, D and E) voted Labour, while 62% of middle-class or non-manual voters (classes A, B and C1) voted Conservative. However, from the 1970s onwards, the UK has experienced an accelerating process of class dealignment. This does not mean that social class has become irrelevant to voting behaviour, but only that the relationship between class and voting has weakened substantially.

PARTISAN DEALIGNMENT The main consequence of partisan dealignment has been greater electoral volatility. This has been reflected in increased uncertainty about electoral outcomes, as ‘swings’ from one party to another become larger and, perhaps, in the rise of new parties or the decline of old ones. A variety of explanations have been advanced for partisan dealignment: ÎÎ Increased education. The expansion of education in recent decades has encouraged

voters to question traditional, party-based loyalties, and perhaps to take policies and issues more seriously. ÎÎ Impact of the media. Voters have access to wider sources of political information,

particularly through television. They are therefore less dependent on party-supporting newspapers. ÎÎ Ideological change. Shifts in parties’ policies and ideological beliefs since the 1980s

have alienated some of their traditional supporters and appealed to their non-traditional supporters.

Like social class, party loyalty has declined markedly since the 1970s, in this case through a process of partisan dealignment. Figure 5.1 shows just how dramatically this factor has reduced since 1992.

CLASS DEALIGNMENT Among the consequences of class dealignment has been a shift in the policies and ideas of the major two parties (especially Labour) as they have been forced to seek votes from ‘natural’ supporters of other parties. Suggested explanations for class dealignment include the following: ÎÎ Changing class system. The manual workforce has shrunk (from 58% in 1961 to 29%

in 2013), and the ‘traditional’ working class has given way to the ‘new’ working class. ÎÎ Cross-class locations. Social class has become less clear-cut, for instance, through the

decline in trade union membership and the rise in home ownership. ÎÎ Embourgeoisement. Growing affluence has encouraged some working-class voters to

think of themselves as being middle class. Affluent workers may be more concerned about material self-interest.

135

Definition Partisan alignment: When voters have a very strong, long-term connection with a political party and where their support for it is very certain, irrespective of who leads it or policy modifications.

Spec key term Class dealignment: The process by which individuals no longer identify themselves as belonging to a certain class. Partisan dealignment: The process by which individuals no longer identify themselves on a long-term basis as being associated with a certain political party.

136 Component I: UK Politics Figure 5.1  Votes by social class over time 2001

1997

1992

60%

2005

50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

AB

C1

C2

DE

AB

2010

60%

C1

C2

AB

DE

2015

C1

C2

AB

DE

2017

C1

C2

DE

2019

50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

AB

C1

C2

AB

DE

C1

C2

AB

DE

Conservative

C1

C2

DE

AB

C1

C2

DE

Labour

Source: © Ipsos MORI. Reproduced with permission.

»»By 1979, just 51% of all voters supported their ‘natural’ class party, and by 1987 this had fallen to 44%.

»»By 2005, a mere 10% of voters claimed to be ‘very strong’ party identifiers. »»The 2010 General Election witnessed an even weaker link between class and voting, with only 38% of electors being ‘class voters’. In 2015, this rose, but only to 40%.

»»In 2017 the Conservatives performed equally well among ABC1 voters and C2DE voters (44%), marginally better than Labour in both cases.

»»Figure 5.2 shows that in 2019 there was further evidence that class is no longer a key indicator

of how people vote. The Conservatives comfortably outperformed Labour across all social grades. They actually did better among C2DE voters (48%) than they did among ABC1 voters (43%). Labour performed the same among both social grade groups (33%). In 2017, Labour held 72 of the 100 constituencies with the most working-class households; in 2019, this figure fell to 53 and the Conservatives increased their share from 13 to 31.

Figure 5.2  Votes by social grade Conservative AB C1 C2 DE

ABC1 C2DE

Lib Dem

SNP

32

16

4 3

34

12

31 34

Labour

9

4

4

14 8

YouGov Source: Based on data from YouGov.

4

Brexit

All others

42 43 49

3 3

8

33 33

4 3

Green

3

47

4 3

43

3

48

13-16 December 2019

Voting Behaviour

Gender The main gender bias in UK voting has traditionally been a tendency for female voters to support the Conservatives. This became less pronounced under Margaret Thatcher but reasserted itself under John Major. Nevertheless, the advent of Tony Blair and New Labour had a major impact on this gender bias, which is illustrated by Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.3  Gender difference in voting over time % Women voting Labour and % of Men voting Labour 50%

W

M

% Women voting Conservative and % of Men voting Conservative 50%

45%

45%

40%

40%

35%

35%

30%

30%

25%

25%

20%

1974 1979 1983 1987 1992 1997 2001 2005 2010 2015 2017 2019

20%

W

M

1974 1979 1983 1987 1992 1997 2001 2005 2010 2015 2017 2019

Source: © Ipsos MORI. Reproduced with permission.

»»In 1997, Labour was supported by an equal number of women and men (44%), making this

the first general election that Labour would have won with an all-female electorate. This trend continued in 2001 and 2005.

»»In 2015, men were more likely to vote Conservative than women in all age groups except 50+, but the overall difference was only 2%.

»»In 2017, there was only a small gender gap between men and women, with women being equally split between Labour and the Conservatives (43%), and men slightly more likely to have backed the Tories (45% to 39%) (YouGov).

»»In 2019 there was a gender gap, but only among the young. The data points towards a very small gender gap, with the Conservatives on 46% among men and 44% among women, and Labour on 31% among men and 35% among women.

Age There has always been a general tendency for levels of Conservative support to increase with age. Even in 1997 and 2001, the Party led Labour among the over-65s. Some explain this in terms of a tendency for people to become more conservative with age, either because they are financially better-off or because they become more fearful of change. In contrast, Labour has tended to do better among young voters, a trend that increased dramatically after 2015 when Jeremy Corbyn became leader. In 2017, YouGov argued that age was the new dividing line in British politics. This notion is clearly illustrated by Figure 5.4.

»»Age was a major factor in the 2016 EU referendum, with support for Remain falling consistently

with age while support for Leave rose. Whereas 73% of 18–24 voters backed Remain, 60% of 65+ voters favoured Leave.

»»In the 2017 election, Labour had a 47% lead over the Conservatives among 18–19-year-old voters, while the Conservatives had a 50% lead among 70+ voters.

»»In 2019, YouGov confirmed once more that age was still the biggest dividing line in British

politics. Labour still won a majority of younger voters and the Conservatives were miles ahead among the older generations.

137

138 Component I: UK Politics Figure 5.4  Votes by age over time 1992

70%

1997

2001

2005

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

18-24 25-34 34-44 45-54 55-64 65+

18-24 25-34 34-44 45-54 55-64 65+

2010

2015

18-24 25-34 34-44 45-54 55-64 65+

18-24 25-34 34-44 45-54 55-64 65+

70%

18-24 25-34 34-44 45-54 55-64

65+

18-24 25-34 34-44 45-54 55-64 65+

2017

2019

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

18-24 25-34 34-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Conservative

18-24 25-34 34-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Labour

Source: © Ipsos MORI. Reproduced with permission.

Ethnicity Black and ethnic minority (BME) voters have also usually voted Labour. This may be because the Party has been more closely associated with a pro-immigration stance historically, as well as introducing measures to support these communities. It is also the case that most ethnic minority groups experience lower income levels and higher unemployment compared to white groups. Therefore, ethnic minority support for Labour could be linked to social class.

»»In 2015, Labour had a lead of 42% over the Conservatives among voters with a Black African or Caribbean heritage, and an 18% lead among voters with a South Asian heritage, although the Conservatives enjoyed a 13% lead among the much-smaller number of voters from other parts of Asia.

»»In 2017, Labour remained the most popular party among ethnic minority voters, receiving 77%

of ethnic minority votes, with 20% going to the Conservatives and 3% to other parties. Labour did especially well among Muslim voters in 2015 and 2017. In 2015, Labour received 74% of votes from British Muslims – in 2017, this had risen to 87%.

»»According to the Runnymede Trust, one minority group did noticeably increase its support for the Conservatives in both 2015 and 2017 – British Indians, and Hindus in particular. From 30% in 2010, the Conservatives share of the votes of British Indians went up to 40% in 2017.

»» In 2019, Labour performed better than the Conservatives among ethnic minority groups (see

Figure 5.5). Labour had a strong lead among BME voters, although its vote share fell by roughly

Figure 5.5  Votes by ethnicity in 2017 and 2019 Labour keeps strong lead among BME voters

Labour led among BME voters, the Conservatives among white voters

2017 73%

70%

70%

60%

60%

50% 40%

% estimated vote share

% estimated vote share

80%

45% 39%

30% 19%

20% 8%

10% 0%

6%

2% All BME

White

Conservative

Labour

Lib Dem

UKIP

Source: © Ipsos MORI. Reproduced with permission

50%

2019 64%

48%

40% 30%

29% 20%

20%

12%

12%

10% 0%

All BME

White

Conservative

Labour

Lib Dem

Voting Behaviour the same amount among both white and BME groups. Among BME voters, Labour led the Conservatives by 64% to 20%, while among white voters the Conservatives led by 48% to 29%. However, Labour’s vote share had fallen by a similar amount since 2017 among both groups, by 9% and 10% respectively. Also, Labour would have lost much of the Jewish vote due to the antiSemitism crisis in the party, although there are only a few hundred thousand of those.

Region During the 1980s, it became increasingly topical to talk of a ‘North–South divide’ in UK politics, which can be seen in Figure 5.6. Outside London, Labour held only a handful of seats south of a line from the Bristol Channel to the Wash, while Conservative support declined in the north of England and, for a period, the Party held no seats in either Scotland or Wales. However, since the Blair era Labour began to do well in the South too.

Figure 5.6  Party constituency proportion by region Labour Conservative

Liberal SNP

Plaid Cymru Sinn Fein

DUP SDLP

UUP Other

Scotland N Ireland Wales North East North West Yorks/Humber West Midlands East Midlands London Eastern South West South East 1918 23

35 45

64

79

97

2010 2019

General elections Source: Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

»»In 2017, there was a swing to Labour in London and the south (perhaps because these were Remain areas) as well as smaller swings in Wales, the North West and East.

»»In 2019, the Conservatives polled consistently well across England and most of Wales, while

Labour’s strength was concentrated in London and areas around cities in South Wales, the North East and North West. At 32%, Labour’s share of the vote was down around 8% on the 2017 General Election. In 2019 the Conservatives broke new ground, moving into many traditional Labour heartlands.

139

140 Component I: UK Politics

»»Across the UK, Labour’s losses outweighed any gains made by the Conservatives. While the

Conservatives did lose votes in the south of England and Scotland, these were balanced by Conservative gains in the rest of England and Wales, as seen by:

‒‒ The collapse of the Red Wall – safe Labour constituencies across the Midlands and the

north of England fell to the Conservatives. However, Labour’s decline in its red wall has been long term. Between 2005 and 2015, Labour’s vote share fell by 14% in Bolsover, 12% in Sedgefield, 10% in Don Valley, 9% in Bishop Auckland and 8% in Rother Valley. This was not a dramatic overnight shift, but a decline over 20 years.

‒‒ Big gains for the Conservatives in the Midlands and in small and medium-sized towns. ‒‒ Urban versus rural split – Conservatives had only 21 of 73 MPs in London, and 8 MPs from 73 seats in 18 main cities outside London.

‒‒ No Conservative MPs from Bradford, Bristol, Cardiff, Coventry, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Hull, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham or Sheffield.

However, since 2014 another regional difference that has become significant is the component nations of the UK, shown by Figure 5.7.

Figure 5.7  Party representation in Scotland over time 2005

1997

2010

2017

2015

Conservative

Labour

2019

Lib Dem

SNP

Historically, Labour MPs dominated in Scotland. Although 1997 was a high-water mark, prior to this the Labour Party averaged mid-40 seats. The In-Out Scottish independence referendums in 2014 radically realigned politics in Scotland, with the SNP going from 6 seats to 56 between 2010 and 2015, shown in Table 5.2. The Party has maintained its dominance in Scotland ever since. In Wales, there has not been any significant realignment since the creation of the Welsh Parliament, with Labour’s dominance being clear and enduring. However, in 2019 the Conservatives gained

Voting Behaviour

141

Table 5.2  Scottish MPs in Westminster 1997

2005

2010

2015

2017

2019

Labour

56

41

41

1

7

1

Conservative

1

1

1

1

13

6

Liberal Democrat

5

11

11

1

4

4

SNP

1

6

6

56

35

58

six seats and Labour lost six. Overall, Labour’s share of the vote was down to 41% in 2019 from 49% in 2017 (see Figure 5.8).

Figure 5.8  Party representation in Wales in UK general elections 2017

2019

Definition

Labour 28

Labour 22

Conservative 8

Conservative 14

Plaid Cymru 4

Plaid Cymru 4

Black border indicates that seat has changed hands

Short-term factors in voting behaviour As long-term factors became less significant from the 1970s onwards, voters reflected on a number of different factors when considering how to vote. Hence short-term factors have become more important in explaining the outcome of elections, leading to greater electoral volatility. A study by the British Electoral Society showed that nearly half the country (49%) voted for different parties across the three elections from 2010 to 2017. A  variety of short-term factors may be significant in explaining that level of volatility.

Issue voting/Rational choice theory Parties now spend a great deal of time and effort formulating policies that will have wide electoral appeal. Issue voting is linked to the rational choice model of voting. By emphasising the importance of policies, this model stresses the importance of issue voting and suggests that parties can significantly influence their electoral performance by revising or reshaping the policies they advance. In this model, voting is portrayed as a rational act that is undertaken on a strictly individual basis. Individual voters are therefore believed to decide their party preference on the basis of personal self-interest. This is ‘instrumental voting’, in that voting is seen as a means to an end in the sense

Electoral volatility: The degree of change in voting behaviour between elections. It is based on the idea that voters have become more willing to switch between parties as they no longer have a strong connection to any one party. Issue voting: When voters base their decisions on political issues rather than other relevant factors, such as the party leader. Rational choice theory: The idea that individuals make rational choices and achieve outcomes that are aligned with their own best interests.

142 Component I: UK Politics Figure 5.9  How Remain and Leave voters voted at the 2019 General Election % of 29,308 adults who voted at BOTH the EU Referendum and the 2019 General Election The Conservatives managed to win the votes of about three quarters (74%) of Leave voters...

2019 vote

EU ref vote

Con

Leave

Brexit Party Other Green SNP Lib Dem

Remain

Labour

YouGov

...while Labour managed to take only about 49% of Remain voters

that voters behave very much like consumers, the only difference being that instead of choosing between the goods and services on offer, they choose between the policy options available.

»»Having the ‘wrong’ policies can certainly damage a party, as Labour demonstrated in 1983 Spec key term Manifesto: A detailed statement of the actions and programmes that a political party would like to put in place if it is successful in the next election.

when its manifesto contained commitments to extend nationalisation, increase taxation, boost public spending and abolish the nuclear deterrent. Labour’s long road back to ‘electability’ started with a comprehensive policy review, which was initiated after its third successive election defeat in 1987.

»»In 1997, Blair completed this shift with a commitment to maintain the privatisations of the Thatcher era as well as five other pledges:

‒‒ Cut class sizes of under-7s to 30 or under ‒‒ Fast track punishment for persistent young offenders ‒‒ Cut NHS waiting lists ‒‒ Get 250,000 under-25s off benefits ‒‒ No rise in income tax.

»»After 2005, the Conservatives similarly tried to revive their electoral fortunes by revising their

policies to reflect the need for a more compassionate conservatism which was more sympathetic to the poor, and softer on issues such as poverty and public services (see Chapter 3).

Voting Behaviour

143

»»In 2017 (as well as 2019) Brexit was a huge factor, with 55% of Remainers voting Labour and 65% of Leavers voting Conservative.

»»This was also true in 2019, with Johnson’s huge win being associated with his ‘Get Brexit Done’

slogan. Figure 5.9 shows that the Conservatives managed to boost their vote share among Leave voters to nearly three-quarters (74%) while the Labour Party actually reduced its share of Remain voters to just under half (49%). This fall came mainly at the hands of the Liberal Democrats, who increased their vote share among Remain voters to 21%, compared to 12% in 2017.

»»However, issues are not always so significant. In 1992, 2017 and 2019, Labour’s policies were more popular than the Conservatives, but in all three elections, the Conservatives prevailed.

Valence Valence relates to issues where there is common agreement, say economic prosperity, so the issue isn’t whether a party wants to achieve economic prosperity, but rather which party is most likely to deliver it. In other words, voters are deciding which party they trust to deliver a valence issue. The book Affluence, Austerity and Electoral Change in Britain by Whiteley et al. (2013) argues that Britain’s recent general elections have been decided by ‘valence factors’, that is ones where voters choose between parties based on evaluations of their competence rather than making choices based on  competing ideologies or policies. Voters evaluate competence and credibility rather than competing lists of policy options. So, in looking at how people decide who to vote for, it is suggested that policy issues matter much less than ‘valence’ issues. In other words, rather than looking at how closely a party’s policies match their own preferences, people base their judgement on how much they believe a party will deliver. For example, in 2019, many people liked the Labour Party’s manifesto but did not believe that the Party could deliver on those promises, whereas they clearly believed the Conservatives could deliver on theirs. Valence is about perceived competence, not ideology.

Governing competence Linked to valence is the issue of governing competence. The conventional wisdom on elections has long been that ‘governments lose elections; oppositions do not win them’. This suggests that elections are largely decided by the performance of the government of the day, and particularly by its economic performance.

»» The 1997 General Election may well have been as much about losing faith in Major’s Conservative Government as it was about support for Blair’s New Labour.

»»If the 2010 General Election could be regarded as a ‘referendum’ on Labour’s performance, the

party was fatally damaged by the loss of its reputation for economic competence following the global financial crisis and the subsequent sharp recession.

»»In the case of the Conservatives in 2015, it was notable that the claim that their plan was working was sustained by an economic recovery that had started two years earlier.

Leaders In an age of class and party dealignment (see page 135), parties place increasing faith in leaders and leadership to win elections. However, what makes for an effective leader in electoral terms? Successful leaders usually need to demonstrate a number of qualities:

»»Accessibility – leaders must be telegenic, that is, be a good media performer 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’. So how have party leaders in the UK affected the way people have voted?

Spec key term Governing competence: The perceived ability of the governing party in office to manage the affairs of the state well and effectively. It also applies to opposition parties and their potential governing competence.

144 Component I: UK Politics

CASE STUDY 5.1: THE 1983 GENERAL ELECTION Events On 10 June 1983, Margaret Thatcher won a remarkable victory, boosting the Conservative majority from 44 seats to 143 seats, recording the largest Parliamentary landslide since Clement Attlee’s in 1945.

Significance The election was remarkable because it was fought against a backdrop of unemployment standing at over 3 million, having more than doubled since 1979. Just two years before the election, opinion polls had rated Thatcher as the most unpopular Prime Minister of modern times. Furthermore, the election was significant because Thatcher’s landslide was gained despite the fact that the Conservative vote of 42.4% was 1.5% below its 1979 level. In 1983, the newly formed SDP–Liberal Alliance won only 23 seats. Their 25% share of the vote cut deep into Labour territory, helping to reduce the party’s support to 28%, Labour’s worst electoral performance since 1918. There is no doubt that by splitting the progressive vote, they helped the Conservatives towards their landslide win.

What long-term factors shaped the outcome of the election? Class Class was clearly a relevant factor in 1983, with ABC1 voters voting 55% Conservative and only 16% Labour. At the same time, 37% of the C2DE voted Conservative and only 22% for Labour. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the most significant factor of the 1983 election across class, age and gender was the surge of support for the third party, the Alliance of the Liberals and the newly formed Social Democratic Party (SDP). Age In 1983, the Conservatives maintained their popularity across all age groups. It may come as a surprise to followers of elections since the turn of the millennium that the Conservatives won 40% of the vote and over across all age categories, with their highest percentage coming from the 55+ age group.

It is notable that the areas hardest and longest hit by the recession, namely the industrial parts of northern England and Scotland, were not areas of traditional Conservative strength, so any loss of support for them there did not affect their ability to win a landslide majority. Despite winning half a million votes less than in 1979, their majority increased from 43 to 143.

What short-term factors shaped the outcome of the election? Leadership Labour’s dismal performance is often placed in the hands of their leader, the veteran left-winger Michael Foot, who oversaw the party’s leftward shift. This led to the SDP breakaway and damaged Labour’s image by associating it with splits and divisions. Policies Labour’s 1983 election manifesto, which committed the party to wider nationalisation, an increase in government spending and withdrawal from the EEC, was famously described by a former Labour cabinet minister as ‘the longest suicide note in history’. These policies encouraged the Party to focus its electoral appeal on the diminishing ranks of the ‘traditional’ working class rather than on the expanding middle class. Media Since the Falklands War, the press had built a ‘Maggie’ personality cult that prepared the way for the highly personalised 1983 election campaign. Their support was unswerving. Labour was undermined by the resolutely unsympathetic portrayal of Foot in the pro-Conservative tabloid press. Issues The electoral revival of Thatcher and the Conservatives is commonly seen as a consequence of the 1982 Falklands War with the ‘Falklands factor’ boosting Thatcher’s satisfaction rating to the highest it would ever achieve (59%). Perhaps of greater significance was the UK economy returning to growth in 1982, particularly in the South of England.

Region In 1983, the Conservatives made further gains in London and the South while losing seats in Scotland.

Source: All statistics derived from Ipsos MORI.

Voting Behaviour

»»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. Nevertheless, it is difficult to argue that Blair had become an electoral liability as neither of his main rivals in 2005 were able to establish a lead over him, particularly on the issue of competence. In fact, Blair enjoyed a healthy 15% lead over other party leaders when respondents were asked to choose who would make the best Prime Minister. Although in 1979, ‘Sunny Jim’ Callaghan was significantly ahead of Margaret Thatcher in the polls, he went on to lose that year’s election.

»»The importance of leaders was greatly enhanced in 2010 by the introduction of 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, who received an increase in his personal approval rating, this did not transform into more seats in the election. Ultimately there was only modest evidence that ‘Cleggmania’ shifted anyone’s opinion, even though it may have had a marginal impact on turnout. Of greater significance in terms of explaining the outcome in 2010 was the poor personal standing of Gordon Brown, who consistently lagged far behind David 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 and was haunted by an awkward photo of him eating a bacon sandwich. The Huffington Post later wrote an article, ‘How A Bacon Sandwich Derailed Ed Miliband’s UK Political Career’. He also suffered embarrassment by what became known as ‘The Edstone’, which was a stone tablet bearing his pledges for the 2015 General Election.

»»The 2017 Election challenged many accepted rules – none more so than the rules on leadership.

Until the election, Corbyn was considered a disastrous leader and May a safe, reliable pair of hands. She certainly appeared to have two of the three criteria – trust and strength – although she was lacking in ‘relaxed likeability’. However, Corbyn enthused young voters with his authentic and relaxed style, whereas May’s wooden style and awkwardness turned many voters off.

»» In 2019, leadership was an issue for both parties, with neither Johnson nor Corbyn being universally

liked or respected. Corbyn had lost the likeability appeal that had served him well in 2017, whereas Johnson was distrusted by many and this was not helped by his avoiding of reporters or dodging set-piece TV interviews. Nonetheless, Figure 5.10 from Lord Ashcroft Polls showed that 49% of all voters said Boris Johnson would make the best Prime Minister, with only 31% naming Jeremy Corbyn and 20% saying they didn’t know, leading Johnson towards an 80-seat majority.

Figure 5.10  Who would make the best Prime Minister in 2019

Boris Johnson

Jeremy Corbyn All 31%

49% 95%

0% 3% 19% 8% 19%

75%

76% 26% 51% 28% 4%

Lord Ashcroft Polls

145

Definition Electoral asset: A leader who is very popular, possibly more popular than their party, and is a key reason why people would vote for the party. Electoral liability: A leader who is unpopular, and a reason why people wouldn’t vote for the party.

146 Component I: UK Politics

CASE STUDY 5.2: THE 1997 GENERAL ELECTION

Source: Jeff Overs/Getty Images

Photo 5.2  Tony Blair arriving in Downing Street after his election victory, 1997.

Events The 1997 General Election resulted in a landslide Labour victory, winning 418 seats and a majority of 178, the largest since the 1930s. Labour’s 1997 election success was the Party’s first since 1974, and it brought to an end 18 years in opposition.

Significance It is argued that governments lose elections, oppositions do not win them. Thus the poor state of the Conservatives, rather than the transformation of Labour, can be seen as a key reason for the outcome of the election. Conservative misfortunes began in 1992 when the UK was forced out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism, damaging the party’s reputation for economic competence. Despite an economic recovery, with unemployment falling steadily, the Conservatives lost 178 seats with a 10% swing to Labour. Additionally, Major’s government was dogged throughout the 1990s by splits over Europe, which made Major appear weak and the party divided, as well as mired in ‘sleaze’. They had been in power for a long time and were vulnerable to the most powerful of all electoral slogans: ‘Time for a change’.

What long-term factors shaped the outcome of the election? Class Class can be seen as an important factor as 41% of ABs voted Conservative and only 31% voted Labour. Additionally, 50% of C2s voted Labour and 59% of DEs, compared with 27% and 21% for the Conservatives. However, the Labour share of the AB

vote increased by 12% and Conservatives went down by 15%, suggesting greater evidence of class and partisan dealignment. Gender Although approximately 45% of men and women voted Labour, there was a larger swing to Labour amongst women (10%). It is suggested that women were impressed with Blair’s commitment to public services. Age Age was a factor in this election, primarily amongst voters aged 25–44, although 18–24- and 45–54-yearolds weren’t too far behind, with the Conservatives losing 16% of the 45–54 age bracket. In all these age groups, the Labour Party increased its share of the vote by 10%. Region To little surprise, in 1997, Labour dominated in Scotland, the North, North West, Yorkshire and Wales. However, what was surprising was that Labour did very well in the South, particularly in London and the South East. Its vote share increased by a minimum of 5 points across every region in the UK.

What short-term factors shaped the outcome of the election? Policies Having rebranded as New Labour, the party abandoned left-wing policies and began a modernisation process, adopting a centrist programme aimed at attracting support from the middle classes. This started as soon as Blair was elected leader in 1994, with the rewriting of Clause IV of the party’s constitution. A policy review involved abandoning support for nationalisation and for trade unions, maintaining Conservative tax rates, while adopting Blair’s mantra of being ’tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’, while Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson wooed the business community. In order to show there was no hidden left-wing agenda, Blair produced a pledge card with Labour’s five most important commitments to the electorate. Media Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson were both close to Neil Kinnock and experienced first-hand, the unfair media press coverage he received. They were

Voting Behaviour determined that Blair would not suffer in the same way. Under Blair, Labour launched a ‘charm offensive’ and assiduously cultivated the Murdoch press, flying to Australia to meet with Murdoch, and gained the endorsement of The Sun in the 1997 with its famous headline on election day, ‘The Sun backs Blair’! Leadership Labour radically altered its image to win in 1997. In the late 1990s, Blair was perceived as the perfect person to lead the ‘Cool Britannia’ era and represented a break with the out-of-date Tories. At 43 years of age he was considerably younger than Prime Ministers were expected to be and had a young family who moved into Downing Street with him. He was an exceptional communicator, and his nonideological approach to politics appealed to many, helping him relate to the public.

(where two Conservative MPs were paid to ask questions in Parliament, which is against the rules), as well as a series of sex scandals. Perhaps the enduring memory of the campaign was former BBC war correspondent Martin Bell challenging Conservative MP Neil Hamilton (one of the MPs alleged to have received cash in return for asking questions) in 1997 for the seat in Tatton as an antisleaze candidate, which Bell went on to win. As one had come to expect, the Labour campaign was very slick and effective. Unsurprisingly, the campaign was presidential in style. For example, campaign literature that was disseminated both nationally and locally had Blair’s picture on it. Alistair Campbell, one of the first of a new generation of exceptionally powerful ‘spin doctors’ was determined to control ‘the message’ from the centre and ensured no slip-ups during the six-week campaign.

Campaign The Conservative campaign was run against a backdrop of corruption; both for Cash for Questions

Source: All statistics derived from Ipsos MORI.

Party image Associated with a party’s policies and the appeal of its leader is the image that a party has in the minds of voters. This will include how united a party is.

»»For instance, Labour undoubtedly had an ‘image problem’ in the 1980s, still being seen as a party closely linked to the unions.

»»During the 1990s, the Conservative Party’s splits over Europe deepened as John Major’s

Cabinet rebelled against him. It also developed a reputation as the ‘nasty party’ (a description used in 2002 by the-then Conservative chairman, Theresa May). The party was seen to be associated with a ‘get rich quick’ ethos and appeared to show little sympathy for the weak or disadvantaged.

»»In contrast, by the end of the 1990s, Labour had worked hard to change its image. It was

under Blair and New Labour that the party’s image was transformed. The party was also totally united behind Blair, having been told to shave ‘old fashioned’ moustaches, dress smartly and carry pagers so they could be updated instantly with the party’s view on an issue. It’s interesting to note that changing a party’s image requires policy changes as well as the right leader, something that is often ignored.

»»After Cameron became Conservative leader in December 2005, his strategy was largely devoted to ‘detoxifying’ the party’s image. This involved a stress on achieving a more inclusive appeal aimed at the young, women and ethnic minority voters. Such image rebranding contributed significantly to the 5% swing from Labour to the Conservatives in 2010.

»»At the beginning of 2017, polls suggested that the ‘strong and stable’ image of May’s party

was just what the country wanted as she led polls by up to 20%. The party conveyed the image that they were best placed to steer the country through the Brexit process. However, that image crumbled during the election campaign and the reality was a stubborn leader with weak policies and no positive plans for the future. The Labour Party under Corbyn was positive and passionate and had a forward-looking but feasible manifesto, which enthused large swathes of young voters with their modern image.

147

148 Component I: UK Politics

»»In 2019, both parties’ image was weak. Neither leader was particularly liked or trusted and their

manifestoes were either very vague and brief (Conservative) or hugely ambitious and lacking in credibility (Labour). In this period, the overriding issue was Brexit and party image was based on their position on that particular issue. Labour’s image was poor, mainly because it didn’t appear to have a strong and clear position, whereas the Conservative image, as the party who would ‘get Brexit done’, won the day in the end. Both Parties were fundamentally split, with the Conservative rift being, certainly in public, much greater and deeper than Labour’s.

CASE STUDY 5.3: THE 2010 GENERAL ELECTION Events The general election on 6 May 2010 resulted in the first ‘hung’ Parliament in the UK since February 1974. Under David Cameron, The Conservatives emerged as the largest party, winning 306 seats but crucially fell 20 seats short of a Parliamentary majority. Five days after the election, a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition was formed with Cameron becoming Prime Minister. This was the UK’s first peacetime coalition government since the 1930s.

Significance In 2010, an unloved government encountered an unknown and as yet untrusted opposition. Cameron’s party had been attacking the Labour Government over its reckless spending which had left the UK poorly prepared for the global financial crisis when it hit.

What long-term factors shaped the outcome of the election? Class In 2010, AB and C1 voted Conservative over Labour by a margin of more than 10 points. This was also true of C2 voters but with a margin of 8 points. It was only amongst DE voters that Labour did well and beat the Conservatives by 9 points. Gender There was no clear gender gap in voting in 2010. 38% of men voted Conservative, with 28% voting Labour and 36% of women voted Conservative compared to 31% Labour. This may have been because Cameron appealed to both men and women across the board more than Brown did. Age Age did not seem to be an overly significant factor in shaping the election in 2010. The Conservatives did better than Labour in all but the 18–24 age bracket,

but even then, it was only 30% Conservative to 31% Labour. They did best in the over-65 bracket, polling 44% of the vote. Labour polled steadily around 30% across all age groups. Region Scotland stayed with Labour, England swung to the Conservatives and London, with a Conservative Mayor, swung to Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Ethnicity Ethnicity was a clear issue in 2010 with 60% of nonwhite members of the public voting Labour compared to 16% voting Conservative. White voters were more evenly split with 38% voting Conservative and 28% voting Labour.

What short-term factors shaped the outcome of the election? Leadership Having enjoyed a brief honeymoon in the approval ratings after replacing Tony Blair in 2007, Brown’s popularity declined steadily, particularly following ill-conceived talk of a possible snap election in the autumn of 2007. Widely perceived as weak and dithering, Brown’s personal popularity fell to a historic low and never properly recovered despite his assured response to the 2007–09 global financial crisis. In contrast, for most of the period after Cameron became Conservative leader in December 2005 and initiated a process of party ‘modernisation’, polls had indicated that a Conservative majority was the most likely outcome of the next election. Policies The financial crisis ensured that the economy would be the most high-profile issue of the 2010 election, and that Labour’s reputation for competent economic management had been fatally undermined. The advance of the Conservative ‘modernisation project’

Voting Behaviour appeared to have faltered as doubts surfaced about their ability to govern competently and in the interests of ordinary voters. These doubts were linked to a shift to the right in economic policy that had begun in 2007 and meant that the Conservatives fought the 2010 election on a commitment to introduce severe spending cuts. This left the party open to the allegation that it would precipitate a ‘double-dip’ recession. Media The papers were broadly supportive of the modernised Conservative Party under Cameron’s leadership. Like Blair, Cameron was an assured media performer and, despite the ‘old Etonian’ label, came across as a decent person. On the other hand, Brown, who had fought for the causes of social justice for most of his life, was not liked or trusted because he was a poor media performer.

Campaign The 2010 campaign will be remembered for two reasons. Firstly, the leadership debates propelled Nick Clegg into the limelight, with Gordon Brown commenting ‘I agree with Nick’ so often that it was trending on Twitter for many days after. The second event was Brown’s ill-fated encounter with Gillian Duffy, a Labour supporter in Rochdale. After the encounter, when Brown thought his microphone was turned off, he referred to her as a ‘bigoted woman’. Shortly after, in a radio interview, he was shown the footage while live on air and had to respond instantly. The images of the events of the day haunted Brown for the rest of the campaign.

Source: All statistics derived from Ipsos MORI.

Campaigns Traditionally it is accepted that election campaigns tend to reinforce voters’ views rather than change them. Campaigns tend to focus attention on all the factors addressed above; leaders, policies, image and trust are all brought to a climax on election day. If you felt negatively towards a party on these issues before a campaign, the chances are that view is not going to change significantly. Not uncommonly, party strength on polling day is not much different from what it was at the start of the election campaign.

»»In 1992, the seemingly ‘grey’ incumbent PM John Major was brought to life during the campaign, famously eschewing high-tech campaign strategies by standing on a soapbox to talk to voters all across the country. It was surprisingly effective and secured him a majority.

»»The 2010 Conservative campaign sought to damage Labour’s image by associating it with ‘excessive’ spending, and for wasting money when the economy was booming rather than keeping reserves for when the inevitable downturn occurred. The 2008–9 financial crisis was therefore portrayed as ‘Labour’s debt crisis’, an allegation that Labour failed to counter effectively.

»»The 2017 campaign broke all the rules and challenged traditional assumptions about election

»»If

2017 re-wrote many rules of campaigning, 2019 overturned them. Labour understandably used similar strategies that had been successful in 2017, such as an extensive manifesto filled with popular policies, a very high-profile social media campaign, and Corbyn appearing on many TV sofas and rallies packed with enthusiastic supporters. Johnson, on the other hand, dodged national events and was absent from key TV

Source: Barcroft Media/Getty Images

campaigns. Corbyn began the campaign 20 points behind May and by the end of it had increased Labour’s vote share by 10%. It was suggested Photo 5.1  Jeremy Corbyn addressing that Corbyn’s ability to enthuse young people with huge a rally in Telford, Shropshire, 2017. rallies as well as via an excellent social media campaign was key to his success. Despite being the largest party, May was fatally wounded by her poor campaign and losing the Government’s majority.

149

150 Component I: UK Politics

CASE STUDY 5.4: THE 2017 GENERAL ELECTION Events The 2017 General Election broke many conventions of general elections. Most significantly, it challenged the assumption that campaigns do not change voters’ minds. Theresa May called the election while she was 20 points ahead in the polls, with Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, as the Conservatives’ biggest electoral liability. Despite winning 2 million more votes than in 2015, May lost her Party’s majority and Labour gained 10% of the vote share, with Corbyn being hailed as the Party’s biggest asset. Having agreed a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP, May stumbled on as a minority government.

Significance The two years since the last election had seen the country’s decision to leave the EU, and Cameron’s small majority in Parliament was not considered sufficient to get Spec key term Brexit through Parliament. May Mandate: The called the election on the basis successful party that there was a need for ‘strong following an election claims it and stable’ government while has the authority negotiating Brexit. The country had to implement its been divided in the year since the manifesto promises referendum and May wanted her and also general permission to govern own mandate to govern and lead as new issues arise. the country.

What long-term factors shaped the outcome of the election? Class The 2017 election showed further evidence of class and partisan dealignment as this was Labour’s best score amongst ABC1s and the Conservatives’ best score amongst C2DEs since 1979. Although the Conservatives maintained a 6-point lead amongst ABC1s, Labour increased its vote share amongst this group by 12 points since 2015. Similarly, while Labour had a 4-point lead amongst C2DEs, and increased its vote share amongst this group, this was eclipsed by the 12-point increase for the Conservatives. Ethnicity Ethnicity became even more of a significant factor in this election. Labour’s lead amongst BME voters increased to 54 points (a swing of 6 points). Labour’s vote share increased even more amongst white voters, but the Conservative share also rose

amongst this group. Turnout amongst BMEs also increased 6 points since 2015. Age Age was even more of a dividing factor in 2017 than in 2015. All the swing to Labour was amongst under44s with the highest of all amongst 25–34s, while there was a swing to the Conservatives amongst over-55s. This was the biggest age gap we had seen in elections going back to the 1970s. Amongst 18–24-year-olds, Labour increased its vote share much more amongst women than men. Education Education showed a clear divide in the way people vote. The Conservatives had a large 17-point lead amongst those with no qualifications and a smaller 7-point lead amongst those educated to below degree level. However, Labour had a 15-point lead amongst graduates.

What short-term factors shaped the outcome of the election? Campaign It seems clear that the campaign changed the course of this election. May began strongly, but after coming under attack for the Social Care policy and following two terrorist attacks, her previous role as Home Secretary in which she implemented cuts to the police budget, thrust her into the limelight in a negative way. She came across as wooden and unnatural when she appeared for interviews, but also came under heavy fire when she didn’t appear. All in all, it is widely accepted that May threw away a 20-point lead during the course of the campaign. Leadership Before the election, May was seen as a calm, sensible ‘safe pair of hands’, just what was needed during Brexit negotiations, with Corbyn widely considered to be an unsuitable leader. However, Corbyn campaigned magnificently, looking comfortable and highly energised in front of large rallies of devoted supporters chanting ‘Oh Jeremy Corbyn’. Media This was seen as the social media election, and one that Labour won hands down. Labour spent more than the Conservatives on social media, appearing

Voting Behaviour positive, exciting and hopeful, using humorous memes and videos very effectively. On election day, the Party spent a lot on promoting the #forthemany hashtag.

151

lead amongst 2016 Leave voters. Labour led the Conservatives by 54% to 26% amongst Remainers; the Conservatives beat Labour by 65% to 24% amongst Leavers.

Issues Brexit was clearly the key issue in this election. Unsurprisingly, Labour had a lead amongst 2016 Remain voters and the Conservatives had a

Source: All statistics derived from Ipsos MORI.

debates and interviews, and was clinically targeting key seats with his ‘Get Brexit Done’ message. Opinion polls seemed to suggest a closing of the gap in the run-up to election day, and many thought Corbyn had been successful in stopping Boris getting a large majority. As we now know, they were wrong. Journalists who spend a lot of time on social media platforms such as Twitter were feeling the surge of support for Corbyn and mistook it for the country at large. The surprise 80-seat majority for the Conservatives appeared to provide further evidence of the gap between the political elite and the country as a whole.

Turnout The sharp decline in electoral turnout in 2001 and 2005 (the lowest two turnouts in any general election since 1918) stimulated anxiety about the state of political participation in the UK and led to growing debate about how democracy could be ‘renewed’. Although turnout increased in 2017 to 69%, it still remained below the level of the 1950s and 1960s. Partisan dealignment (see page 135) may undoubtedly be reflected in growing voter disillusion and apathy, as declining party identification means that people may be less concerned about the outcome of elections. Another suggestion as identified by JK Galbraith is the idea of ‘hapathy’, that people are content with their circumstances, which are not under threat, and therefore don’t see a need to vote. Nevertheless, partisanship started to decline in the 1970s, long before turnout levels began to cause alarm. There is no proven theory that adequately explains the declining turnout in 2001, 2005 and (albeit to a lesser extent) in 2010 and 2015. The answer may lie in the immediate political circumstances of these general elections.

»»For example, declining turnout could be due to the simple fact that there was little in 2001 and

2005 to encourage people to vote. In particular, a less-than-popular government faced an even more unpopular opposition, with the parties offering potential voters little choice in terms of policies or ideas.

»»In 2010, an unpopular Prime Minister leading a government widely accused of economic failure,

confronted an opposition that had only partially ‘detoxified’ its image and whose austerity package alarmed important sections of the electorate. 2015 showed a slight increase in turnout up to 66%

»»In 2017 there was an increase in turnout to 69%, suggesting that when the public feel strongly about an issue or are enthused by a leader and/or party, they vote. This jump in turnout is illustrated by Figure 5.11, which shows an increase in turnout within the youngest two age brackets.

»»In 2019, turnout dropped down to 67% despite a huge issue at stake: the future of Brexit. However, this was balanced by mistrust of both leaders. Corbyn was seen as an unsuitable leader in many ways, not helped by the allegations of anti-Semitism that had dogged the Labour Party, and Johnson was deeply mistrusted by many for alleged duplicitous behaviour during the Brexit referendum campaign and beyond. In addition, Jo Swinson led a disastrous campaign for the Liberal Democrats, which made it difficult for Remainers to feel comfortable voting for them.

Spec key term Disillusion and apathy: A process of disengagement with politics and political activity. Having no confidence in politics and politicians being able to solve issues and make a difference is manifested in low turnout at elections and poor awareness of contemporary events.

152 Component I: UK Politics

CASE STUDY 5.5: THE 2019 GENERAL ELECTION Events In another surprising result, the 2019 election resulted in incumbent Prime Minister Boris Johnson winning an 80-seat majority, the largest his party had received since the 1980s.

Significance In December 2019, the country went to the polls for the third time in five years. Johnson took over from May as Prime Minister in July 2019, determined to ‘get Brexit done’, but had been thwarted by Parliament. His ill-fated decision to prorogue Parliament, which was overturned by the Supreme Court, made him even more determined to seek an election. However, the Fixed Term Parliament Act required the consent of Parliament to call an early general election, which he finally achieved in November. Against the backdrop of ever-closing poll ratings as the campaign went on, political pundits were shocked when Johnson won an 80-seat majority.

What long-term factors shaped the outcome of the election? Class Class and party dealignment continued, with the Conservatives even further ahead in social classes C2DE than in 2017, while Labour lost votes amongst all social classes. Region The Conservatives’ breaching of Labour’s ‘red wall’ was the headline of the election. The ‘red wall’ stretches from the borders of north Wales to northeast England and Yorkshire, and down into the north Midlands. The Conservatives won 33 of the 63 seats in this area, with Blyth Valley electing a Conservative for the first time in its 69-year history. Age Age continued to be a key dividing line and had increased even further since 2017. Labour had a 43-point lead amongst voters aged 18–24, but the Conservatives had a 47-point lead amongst those aged 65+. The biggest change was amongst 35–54-year-olds, which saw a 7-point swing to the Conservatives. Ethnicity As in previous years, Labour had a strong lead amongst BME voters, although its vote share fell by roughly the same amount amongst both white and BME groups. Amongst BME voters, Labour led the Conservatives

by 64% to 20%, while amongst white voters the Conservatives led by 48% to 29%.

What short-term factors shaped the outcome of the election? Campaign The Conservative campaign, led by Dominic Cummings, was tightly controlled with the ‘Get Brexit Done’ message at its heart. The campaign also focused on the idea of ‘the people versus the establishment’, with Johnson railing against Parliament and the Supreme Court ruling as examples of the establishment ignoring the will of the people. Despite a number of flash points – hiding in a fridge to avoid reporters, dodging the Andrew Neil interview and snatching a reporter’s phone to avoid looking at a photo of a child waiting in a casualty corridor – Johnson’s message won through. Leadership A YouGov poll of former Labour supporters showed that 35% turned their back on Labour because of Corbyn while only 19% cited Brexit. While he was still popular with his devoted supporters, Corbyn’s image had been tarnished due to weak leadership over Brexit and the allegations of anti-Semitism. While Johnson was not universally liked or trusted, his leadership and political message were strong. Media 2017 showed the power of social media, but 2019 made us think again. Regular consumers of social media platforms were left with the feeling that by 12 December 2019 Corbyn might well steal the election. The result came as a stark reminder that one’s social media feed is not representative of the country as a whole. The Conservatives used focus groups and polling to target swing voters and spent heavily on Facebook activity during the last week of the campaign, targeting marginal seats specifically. Issues Like 2017, this election was about ‘Getting Brexit Done’. Johnson was relentless in pushing this slogan throughout the campaign and appeared to read the British voters better than the other parties. Unsurprisingly therefore, the Conservatives had a clear lead amongst Leave voters with a 73% to 15% lead over Labour. However, Remain voters were more split with just under half (48%) voting Labour, 21% voting Liberal Democrat and 20% voting for the Conservatives. Source: All statistics derived from Ipsos MORI.

Voting Behaviour

153

Figure 5.11  Turnout by age over time

Source: © Ipsos MORI. Reproduced with permission.

If such assessments are accurate, then the responsibility for increasing turnout appears to lie with the major parties themselves, and specifically with their capacity to regain public trust and credibility.

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  ARE SOCIAL FACTORS THE MOST IMPORTANT IN DETERMINING THE OUTCOME OF GENERAL ELECTIONS? When looking at factors that affect the way we vote, social factors refer to class, age, gender, ethnicity and region. These are also known as long-term factors. Other factors which can affect voting behaviour at general elections are party leaders, issues, governing competence, and the media, which are known as short-term factors.



While it may no longer be true that ‘class is the basis of British party politics; all else is embellishment and detail’, class can still be considered a hugely significant factor in determining the way and whether people vote.

»»While this has broken down somewhat due to class and partisan dealignment, it is still possible

to predict voting behaviour based on class. For example, in 2017, Labour held 72 of the 100 constituencies with the most working-class households,

»»The fact that so many seats are considered ‘safe’ in UK general elections has a lot to do with the importance of class and other social factors; for example, all five constituencies in Liverpool are strong Labour seats with approximately 70% of the vote.



Social class has lost its significance as the key social factor in determining elections.

»» In

the past, class and party alignment were very apparent. Working-class people would generally vote for the Labour Party and middle-class people tended to vote Conservative. For example, in the 1960s around two-thirds of the Conservative vote was made up of middle-class voters and a similar proportion of working-class voters voted for Labour. This figure has steadily declined since then however, and by 2019 the Conservatives did better among working-class voters (48%) than they did among middle-class voters (43%).

»» Equally, in relation to safe seats, the Conservatives dramatically increased their share of safe seats in working-class areas from 13 to 31 showing the link has weakened even further.

Tip – Remember, knowing about three elections is an essential part of the specification. You will need to use this data to compare and contrast change over time as part of any essay you answer on voting behaviour.

154 Component I: UK Politics

»» Moreover, it can be argued that the reason for the breakdown in class voting in 2017 and 2019

was actually the rise of issue-based voting – Brexit. Many working-class areas had voted Remain in the 2016 Referendum. They voted Conservative because of a shift in their priorities: Brexit was more important than class.

»» The preponderance of Labour MPs in Liverpool may equally be because of the age profile, the

percentage of ethnic minority voters, and in response to negative representations of the city in the press: no one buys The Sun newspaper because of a 1989 article on the Hillsborough disaster, as well as PM Johnson’s comments about the city in a 2004 article in the Spectator.



Another social factor that has been a key determinant of voting is age, and this has been increasing in importance recently.

»»There has been a clear link in recent elections, showing that older voters vote Conservative and younger voters vote Labour.

»»This was very evident in the 2017 election where 66% of 18–24-year-olds voted for Labour whereas the Conservatives won votes from 69% of voters aged 70+. Figure 5.11 (page 151) also shows the importance of age in the 2017 election because turnout shot up dramatically in the 18–24 age group.

»»YouGov argued that ‘age was one of the most significant factors in the general election’. 

However, age may not be as significant as suggested.

»» In 2019, Labour’s vote share among the 18–24 age bracket dropped nearly 10 points to 56, and

the age at which a voter was more likely to have voted Conservative than Labour was 39, down from 47 in 2017. Also, in 2019 in the 35–54 age group Labour’s vote share fell by 11 points while the Conservatives gained 3 points.

»» Moreover, age could be a function of other short-term factors. Labour’s appeal to the young

dramatically increased with the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader, suggesting that it is leadership that is the significant factor. Younger people were attracted to his authentic appeal and unspun personality, someone who wanted to do politics differently, to be up-front about his beliefs which he was unwilling to change to court popularity, and who was also more likely to keep his promises.



Another important social factor affecting voting behaviour is ethnicity.

Source: Nicola Tree/Getty Images

Photo 5.3  Labour candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn, Tulip Siddiq, launches her election campaign on 6 May 2017, alongside Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan.

»»Ethnic

minorities have voted for the Labour Party because it seems to be relatively closely associated with more progressive equality legislation and support for immigration. Although ethnic minorities only make up 5% of the votes in the UK there are developing trends in how they vote.

»»In 1997 82% of black voters voted Labour compared with 12% who voted for the Conservatives. Similarly, the majority of Asian voters (66%) voted for the Labour Party and only 22% voted for the Conservatives.

»»Again in 2019, not being white was the main demographic

predictor of not voting Conservative. A Conservative candidate was only half as likely to secure the vote of an ethnic minority voter as of a white voter. Another way of understanding the importance of ethnicity in 2019 is that 1 in 5 Labour votes came from ethnic minority voters, whereas only 1 in 20 was for the Conservatives.

Voting Behaviour



155

However, in reality ethnic minorities are not a single homogenous group and when distinguishing between different ethnic minorities, a more nuanced picture is evident.

»» One minority group did noticeably increase its support for the Conservatives in both 2017 and 2015 – British Indians, and Hindus in particular. From 30% in 2010, the Conservatives’ share of the votes of British Indians went up to 40% in 2017.

»» In 2019 this minority group was particularly unhappy with Corbyn’s stance on Kashmir. The

group, British Hindu and Indian Votes Matter (BHIVM), mobilised hundreds of volunteers to campaign against Labour and believe they may have influenced up to 80 seats. In Harrow East, Bob Blackman outperformed colleagues across London by winning an increased majority on a 5% swing to the Conservatives. There was also a dramatic 15% swing to the Conservatives in Leicester East – a constituency where 6 out of 10 voters are of Indian origin.

»» Moreover, in 2019 Labour would have lost most of the Jewish vote (only 6% of Jews voted

Labour according to ConservativeHome), although with the Jewish population accounting for approximately 250,000 in the UK, this is unlikely to explain the loss of more than a couple of seats.

»» Additionally, once again, it could be argued that ethnic voting is a function of the short-term

factor of issues and policies. Ethnic voters may vote Labour because they have better policies towards immigration or more progressive equality legislation. In 2005, a substantial minority of Muslim voters switched their vote from Labour to the Liberal Democrats due to the Iraq War. This suggests that if a party changes its policies or campaigns strongly for an issue, they would be more appealing to an ethnic minority. On the other hand, if a party has policies or attitudes which negatively affect a minority group, e.g. Windrush Scandal, stop and search, Islamophobia or anti-Semitism, they will lose votes among this group.



Another social factor that is of significance is region.

»»Since the 1980s, there has been a clear ‘North–South divide’: with the exception of London, Labour held only a handful of seats in the south, and Conservative support was very low in the north of England and in Scotland and Wales.

»»Additionally, Labour was the party of the urban cities, Scotland and Welsh mining towns, with Conservatives dominating the rural and suburban areas.



However, since the 1980s, regional changes have begun to occur.

»» In the Blair era, Labour began to do well in the South too, particularly in London and the South East, with their vote share increasing by 5 points across every region in the UK.

»» In 2017 Labour did well in London and the South as well as swings in Wales, the North West and East.

»» In 2019 the Conservatives broke new ground, moving into many traditional Labour heartlands,

breaching Labour’s so-called ‘red wall’. Across the UK, Labour’s losses outweighed any gains made by the Conservatives. While the Conservatives did lose votes in the south of England and Scotland, these were balanced by gains in the rest of England and Wales.

»» Additionally, it could be argued that patterns of regional voting have as much to do with short-

term factors as long-term, social factors. It could be that the policy changes and leadership of Blair were the reasons for his appeal widening to different areas in the UK. In 2017 and 2019 the issue of Brexit was a key factor in the changing pattern of votes. Additionally, the leadership of Corbyn was a positive factor in 2017 and a negative one in 2019. Thus, it can be suggested that regions are not an important social factor, as in reality, region differences are affected by short-term factors like leadership and policy.

Tip – Note that this answer is addressing two different aspects in its critique. First, it is addressing why social factors may not be so significant and then it is giving an alternative short-term factor as a reason which may explain the change in voting pattern.

156 Component I: UK Politics

Key Debate Summary: Are social factors the most important in determining the outcome of general elections? FOR

AGAINST

99Class can still be considered a hugely

88 Social class has lost its significance

99Another social factor that has been a key

88 However, age may not be as significant

99Another important social factor affecting

88 However, different ethnic minorities vote in

99Another important social factor is region.

88 However, regional voting has been quite

significant factor in determining the way people vote. It is still possible to predict voting behaviour based on class.

determinant of voting is age and this has been increasing in importance recently.

voting behaviour is ethnicity. Ethnic minorities tend to have voted for the Labour Party.

There has been a clear ‘North–South divide’ with Labour being successful in the North, Scotland and Wales, and Conservatives being popular in rural England and suburbs.

as the key social factor in determining elections. Labour has increased its vote in middle-class areas and Conservatives have increased their vote in working-class areas. as suggested because it could be that young people vote Labour because of their policies or leader, for example. different ways. Also, they may vote Labour because it is more closely associated with progressive equality legislation and support for immigration. variable in the last few decades and it is suggested that regional voting is based on party policy.

Voting Behaviour

157

Chapter Summary ‐‐Understanding the way people vote is very important for political parties as well as psephologists (those who study elections and trends in voting).

‐‐There are two key indicators of voting: long-term and short-term factors. ‐‐Long-term factors are also known as social factors. These include class, age, gender and ethnicity. These factors were considered the most significant determinants of voting behaviour, particularly class, from the middle of the last century.

‐‐Short-term factors, those which change from election to election, became much more significant towards the end of the twentieth century and as a consequence have made elections more difficult to predict.

‐‐Elections between 2010 and 2019 have been the most volatile in recent history.

Exam Style Questions Evaluate the view that social factors are the most significant factors in determining voting behaviour (30). zz Evaluate the view that class is the most significant factor in determining voting behaviour (30). zz Evaluate the view that volatility in UK general elections arises because of the breakdown in class voting (30). zz Evaluate the view that elections in the UK are no longer stable and predictable (30). zz

Source Question Source 1 Class is a hugely significant factor in determining the way and whether people vote. It is still possible to predict voting behaviour based on class: in 2017, Labour held 72 of the 100 constituencies with the most working-class households. More recently, another social factor has become hugely significant and that is age. In recent elections, older voters have voted Conservative and younger voters have voted Labour. YouGov argued after 2017 and 2019 that ‘age was one of the most significant factors in the general election’. Another important social factor is ethnicity. Ethnic minorities have voted Labour as they are seen to be more supportive of a BME agenda. In 2019, not being white was the main predictor of not voting Conservative with 1 in 5 Labour votes coming from ethnic minority voters, whereas only 1 in 20 was for the Conservatives. Lastly, since the 1980s, there has been a clear ‘North–South divide’ with the exception of London, Labour not doing well in the south, and Conservative support low in the north of England, Scotland and Wales.

Source 2 Social class has lost significance as the key social factor. This link between class and party voting has steadily declined and by 2019 the Conservatives did better among working-class voters than they did among middle-class voters. Age may also not be as significant as suggested. In 2019, Labour’s vote share among the 18–24 age bracket dropped by nearly 10 points and the age at which a voter was more likely to have voted Conservative also reduced by 9 years. The rise in age as a factor may have been that young people were attracted by the appeal of the unconventional leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. Moreover, the idea that all minorities vote Labour is also inaccurate; British Indians and Hindus increased their support for Conservatives in 2017 and 2015 by 10%. Lastly, regional voting has also been reducing since the 1980s. Nowhere was this clearer than in 2019 and Conservatives’ breaching of Labour’s ‘red wall’.

Using the source, evaluate the view that social factors are the most important factors in determining the outcome of general elections. In your response you must:

»»Compare and contrast different opinions in the source »»Examine and debate these views in a balanced way »»Analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.

158 Component I: UK Politics

Further Resources Curtice, J. (2017) ‘2017 General Election – return of the two-party system?’, Politics Review, Vol. 27, No. 2, September (London: Hodder Education). Whiteley, P., Clarke, H.D. and Sanders, D. (2013) Affluence, Austerity and Electoral Change in Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Visit the companion website to access the Further Resources Booklet to explore a range of useful web links related to: YouGov and Ipsos MORI statistics on voting behaviour in the past decade, online newspaper articles on topics such as party leader portrayal in the media, a BBC Panorama documentary on the general election of 2017 and much more.

THE MEDIA

160

6

Chapter Preview During day-to-day life most people are not working in government or politics nor do they engage directly with politicians. The majority rely on the mass media to access the political information they need to form their own opinions, while politicians rely on the media as the main tool of communication between government and the people. Because the mass media provides most people with the images, ideas and information to understand politics, this raises the question of who owns and controls the media. If ownership is concentrated in the hands of the few, then they may wish to use this power to push their own political agenda. Even if power is concentrated, the power and influence of the media to change voting behaviour is seen by some to be limited as voters are not simply empty vessels waiting to be filled by whatever messages the media send their way. It may be that the power and influence of the media is more in shaping the political debate to reflect the interests of the powerful and privileged in society: the rich over the poor, businesses over workers, the able over the disabled, male over female, the older over the young and white over ethnic minorities. Since 2000, the nature of the media has radically transformed in the UK, with the traditional media of newspaper and television being challenged. The arrival of digital TV has seen an explosion in the number of channels available while internet and mobile technology has brought about the emergence of online platforms, including social media, as a key source of news. The increased competition alongside 24/7 up-to-date news and opinion has changed the way that news is produced and consumed. New technology has the chance to democratise the media by giving a voice to the powerless and those previously excluded by the press and TV. It means that there is now a far greater choice and variety of media news sources available to the public than ever before. The flip side to this is the threat to democracy from fake news, where false stories are deliberately made to look like authentic news and are spread online to influence political attitudes. Increased competition has also seen media outlets scrambling for readers and viewers, leading, according to some, to the dumbing down of politics, which has been linked to the growth of disillusionment and apathy.

Key Questions and Debates »» How has the nature of the media changed in the UK? »» What is the importance and relevance of opinion polls to UK democracy? »» What is the extent of the influence of the media on politics and what impact does political bias play in our politics? »» How effective is the media in supporting democratic politics and representing the public interest?

Specification Checklist 4.2. The influence of the media »» The assessment of the role and impact of the media on politics – both during and between key general elections, including the importance and relevance of opinion polls, media bias and persuasion.

2.4. UK political parties in context »» Various factors that affect party success – explanations of why political parties have succeeded or failed, including debates on the influence of the media.

So

ur ce

: iS to

ck

.co

m/ mi

cro

ge

n

161

162 Component I: UK Politics

The changing nature of the media Traditional media: Any form of mass communication that existed before the digital age and includes television, radio, newspapers and magazines. New media: The forms of mass communication that use digital technologies such as the internet. Social media: Forms of communication that allow people to create and share content and to build networks and communities online.

What is the media? The media comprises those societal institutions that are concerned with the production and distribution of all forms of knowledge, information and entertainment. The traditional media includes the broadcast media (television and radio) and the print media (newspapers and magazines), which has been challenged and transformed by the arrival of the new media, which includes a vast array of online platforms, including social media.

How has the nature of the media evolved? The media has been recognised as politically significant since the advent of mass literacy and the popular press in the late nineteenth century. Until the post-war period, the print media was the most important way that the public could access the news, current affairs or views that helped explain the world they lived in. Newspapers are privately owned, free from government control and able to clearly express their partisan views by supporting a particular political party or taking a clear position on an issue of public importance. This gives rise to the criticism that a small number of press barons (newspaper owners) could exercise very real influence on public affairs. After the Second World War, the press faced competition in the form of the broadcast media with the birth of television. The key difference here was that the broadcast media was expected to be impartial by considering a broad perspective and ensuring that a range of views was appropriately reflected. This means that the broadcast media, unlike the press, cannot support a particular party or express a view on current affairs or matters of public policy. Since 2000, the acceleration of technological change has transformed the media, with a vast array of television channels, the 24-hour news cycle, the internet with its abundance of sources for news and information (many of which are free) and social media such as Twitter and Facebook. This is changing the way that the public is accessing the news (see Figure 6.1). In particular, the focus falls on the importance of television as the key source of political news and information in competition with online news sources, the rising importance of social media and the continued decline in the readership of the print media.

Figure 6.1  Sources of news from 2013 to 2019 100 90 80

Percentage

Definition

70 60 50 40

TV

30

Print

20

Online (inc social media)

10 0

Social media 2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Source: Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2019. Reproduced under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License.

By its nature, much of politics, policy making and public consultation is lengthy, dull and not a natural fit with an increasingly diverse and highly competitive media world which has to produce stories 24 hours a day. The competition in the media leads to a disproportionate focus on negative stories, in particular about the private lives of politicians and the worst elements of party politics, in the drive for more consumers. Critics argue that this has cheapened political communication

The Media and trivialised politics rather than providing the analysis and reporting that will inform the public about political news. It raises the question of whether such media communication is creating an increasingly negative attitude toward both politicians and political institutions in the UK, leading to apathy and disillusionment, and ultimately lower voter turnout.

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  ARE TRADITIONAL MEDIA SOURCES NOW BECOMING INCREASINGLY IRRELEVANT?

The print media The traditional print media has been struggling in the UK, with the decline in the circulation of printed papers leading to a collapse in revenue (see Figure 6.2). The overall readership of the print media declined from 21.9 million in 2010 to 10.4 million in 2018; an overall fall of 52.5%. Within that fall, The Sun and the Daily Mail remain the two best-selling daily newspapers while roughly 1 in 4 newspaper readers uses daily free sheets, like the Metro and Evening Standard, which can be picked up at train and bus stations.

Figure 6.2 Average newspaper circulation 25

21.9%

Readership (millions)

20

15

10

10.4

10.3

10.1

5.5

5

4.9

0 Total newspaper market

National daily titles 2010

National Sunday titles

2018

Source: News Consumption in the UK: 2019 Report © Ofcom. The consequences for the industry have been clear. For example, the Independent newspaper ceased all print editions to become online only in 2016, while 238 local newspapers shut between 2005 and 2017. While this seems to signal a real decline for the print media, the average daily readership for newspapers in the UK shows that papers still have considerable reach. The market (see Table 6.1) remains dominated by a small number of daily papers (with linked Sunday titles) and in many ways the range of newspaper choice is closely linked to the British class system:

»»The readership of The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph and Financial Times is mostly drawn from the higher socioeconomic classes.

»»The Mail and Express draw their readership from across all the groups. »»The Sun, Daily Mirror and Daily Star draw most of their readership from the working classes. »»58% of those over 65 used printed newspapers as a source of news, while this figure dropped to 20% for those in the 16 to 24 age category. This does not make for good news for the printed press in the long term and suggests that a decline in readership will be a permanent feature of the future of the industry.

163

164 Component I: UK Politics Table 6.1  Monthly circulation figures for major daily papers Daily Papers

Total circulation, February Year-on-year change (%) 2020

Metro Free

1,419,614

0

The Sun

1,206,595

–11

Daily Mail

1,134,184

–4

Evening Standard Free

787,447

–8

Daily Mirror

441,934

–10

The Times

359,960

–11

Daily Express

289,679

–8

Daily Star

274,808

–15

I

215,932

–7

Financial Times

155,009

–10

The Guardian

126,879

–5

Daily Record

103,222

–12

Source: Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC).Newspapers also have a reach that is differentiated by voter groups. According to the OFCOM survey in 2019:

»»In terms of class, 41% of ABC1 class categories access printed papers as a source of news, while this figure dropped to 34% for those in the C2DE class groupings (see Chapter 5, Table 5.1 for categories of social class in the UK). This is particularly important given the higher levels of voter turnout in the over-65s and in the ABC1 categories.

Issues facing the print media It is not simply the case that the decline in readership of printed newspapers means the end of the print industry. Rather, it means its transformation:

»»The major newspapers have all adapted and moved online, operating with different financial

models: The Times operates a paywall model where you need to subscribe, The Guardian looks to its readers for financial contributions, while most papers, like The Sun and Daily Mail, use a free content model and look to recoup their money from advertisers. Many papers have seen a large growth in online readership (see Figure 6.3), and so in some ways can be seen to have extended their reach and potential influence. These websites are set up in direct competition to broadcasters’ websites like the BBC, and online-only publications.

»»Newspapers have also developed a close relationship with social media, with papers feeding

off stories in social media and social media feeding off stories in the mainstream press. Many journalists and papers have strong online presences, using social media to post stories as they happen and to get people to click through to their paper’s online site.

The other big issue facing the print media is declining trust, which has been particularly problematic since 2011. During the Coalition Government between 2010 and 2015, a long-running scandal about the use of private detectives by newspapers and their possible illegal activities to acquire news stories exploded. In 2011, The Guardian reported that the News of the World had hacked the mobile phone of the murdered teenager Millie Dowler. This led Cameron to call an inquiry under Lord Leveson into the culture, ethics and practices of the press due to the public revulsion at what had happened. The Leveson Report was published in 2012, and called for stronger regulation of the press by a new independent body backed by legislation. This new body has not been set up. It was argued by the print media to be too close to state control of the press so the print media instead operates a system of self-regulation.

The Media

Visit the companion website for a case study on phone hacking and the Leveson Inquiry.

Finally, the Cairncross Review: A Sustainable Future for Journalism (2019) found that the print media still plays a central role in the generation of news. Newspapers play a key role in financing original journalism, accounting for as much as broadcasting and online media put together. This has allowed the print media to reveal a huge number of public interest stories such as the Windrush Scandal and the MP’s expenses scandal. The print media is still shaping the new agenda because broadcast media and social media are much more likely to carry stories that first appeared in the press rather than the other way round.

Figure 6.3 2017 monthly reads Monthly online reads (millions) 0

5

10

15

20

The Sun

35

29.6

The Guardian Evening Standard & The Independent (ESI) The Telegraph

23.9 23.9 21.3

The Mirror

15.9

The Express The Times

30

30.2

The Mail Online

The Star

25

12.7 6.6 4.2

Source: Based on data from NRS.

Broadcast media The broadcast media includes both television and radio, with television remaining a key source of news for the British public as well as helping people to understand the political issues of the day. The broadcast media began in the UK as a state-sponsored service funded by a licence fee paid for by viewers and listeners. The BBC (the British Broadcasting Corporation) was set up to operate at arm’s length from the government so it could be seen as free of political interference. Under the BBC’s Charter, it is expected to sustain citizenship and civil society, which obliges the BBC to give ‘information about, and increase understanding of, the world through accurate and impartial news’ and ‘to promote understanding of the UK political system’. Although the BBC monopoly was broken in the 1950s, there was only a slow increase in the number of commercial channels and radio stations, and these commercial stations had a statutory obligation to provide balanced political coverage, monitored by an independent authority. Since 2017, the BBC and all commercial stations are monitored by OFCOM (The Office of Communications), which is an independent regulator for communication services. During the early years of television, the very small number of channels meant that most British families got their news at the same time and in the same way by watching or listening to the news together. In this way, a sense of national political culture was created and it was hard to avoid the news because it was not possible to switch over to another channel when it was on. Since the 2000s and the explosion of different channels and stations to choose from and the different ways

165

166 Component I: UK Politics to access the news – TV, radio, phone, laptop, desktop and tablet – everyone can watch or listen to what they want. This means that people who are apathetic about politics can avoid political news and programming entirely, reducing the levels of political engagement and voter turnout in the UK. Despite the huge increase in channels and stations, the broadcast media remains dominated by a small handful of broadcasters. The OFCOM review in 2019 (see Figure 6.4) of those adults who used television as a source of news found that:

»»The BBC, ITV and its variants (STV in Scotland, ITV Wales and UTV in Northern Ireland) and Sky News were by far the most significant players.

»»Within this small band of stations, the BBC remains by far the most popular broadcaster with 76% using BBC One for news. Within that, 55% of adults in the UK watch the BBC One News each week; however, this figure is down from 65% in 2010.

Figure 6.4 TV channels used as a source of news in 2019 80% 76%

70% 60% 50%

53%

40% 30%

31%

30% 23%

20%

15%

10%

13% 6%

0% BBC One

ITV

BBC News Channel

Sky News

Channel 4

BBC2 Channel 5

CNN

3%

2%

Al Jazeera

Russia Today

Source: News Consumption in the UK: 2019 Report © Ofcom While it appears that the BBC is losing viewers to competition from online sources, the BBC has transferred online and is the most used website and app in the UK for news, exceeding the number of monthly reads of either The Sun or the Daily Mail. In the 2019 election campaign, the role of the BBC website was very clear, accounting for 28% of all time spent on news sites during the campaign, while the Mail Online made up 21% (see Figure 6.5). This suggests the BBC has become a news platform across multiple media channels.

Figure 6.5 Time spent on online news sites in the 2019 election 2% 2% 2%

2%

BBC News

10%

Mail Online 28%

All local sites Guardian Mirror

5%

Sun

5%

MSN News Sky News

6%

Telegraph 7%

21% 10%

Express Independent All other news sites

Source: Reuters Institute Digital News Project 2020. Reproduced under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License.

The Media Television remains important, with over 70% of people accessing it as a source of news. The reach of television is different across different audiences, according to the OFCOM News Consumption in the UK: 2019 report:

»»94% of those over 65 use television as a news source compared to only 50% of those aged between 16 and 24.

»»Television use is relatively consistent across different socio-economic groups; however, only

65% of minority ethnic adults compared to 77% of white adults use television to access the news.

»»Replacing television, the internet is now the most used platform for news consumption among those aged 16–24 and those from a minority ethnic background.

Broadcast media and election campaigns The importance of the broadcast media explains why the overwhelming focus of national election campaigns is on television coverage. Manifestoes are launched, policy statements are made and meetings and rallies are held. Leading politicians give frequent interviews and visit factories, hospitals and schools across the UK to raise their public profile. They do this not only to hear from members of the public but, crucially, in the hope of gaining television exposure, with speeches that are tailored and events timed and carefully staged for this purpose. The soundbite takes centre stage, with short, clear and memorable phrases, such as ‘Get Brexit Done’ and ‘Strong and Stable’ taking the place of meaningful communication and answering the question. The fixation on the private lives of politicians, the confrontational interview approaches adopted by TV journalists and the constant repetition of soundbites irrespective of the question contribute very little to educating and informing the public. This ‘dumbing down’ of politics has encouraged a general distrust of politicians and the political process, increasing disillusionment and apathy. One of the key effects of the dominance of television in election campaigns is the growth of celebrity politics, with media coverage focusing far more on party leaders rather than their parties. Television has undoubtedly altered the style of election campaigning, helping, in the process, to elevate personality and image over policies and ideas. The result is that electoral success, such as the Tory victory in 2019, is claimed as a personal mandate for the party leader and used to increase the power of the Prime Minister over their Cabinet, party and Parliament.

Social media Since 2013, social media has risen quickly in its importance as a source of news in the UK. The rise of social media is a challenge to the BBC and the dominance of media communication by a small number of key players. It promotes communication between large numbers of people, opening up debate and allowing for the voices of all groups, especially those excluded from the mainstream media, to be heard. One of the most important aspects of social media is not how much it is used, but how it is used. Most social media still users get the greatest proportion of their news from the main news organisations in the UK. Users click on article or video links from the main broadcast media websites or newspaper websites, with the BBC being the most followed news organisation in the UK on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat. Social media provides instant news by making any member of the public a reporter of an event as it happens, but the more detailed explanations of these events are still provided by the print and broadcast media. This suggests that social media is not really changing who the British public get their news from, just how they go about accessing it. There are some interesting indicators to observe in how different demographic groups use social media (see Table 6.2).

»»Facebook is the clear leader in terms of the most popular place to access the news, although Instagram and Twitter are becoming increasingly important.

»»With the exception of Facebook, people from the 16–24 age group and the minority ethnic background group are more likely to use social media sites to access the news.

167

168 Component I: UK Politics Table 6.2 How different demographic groups use social media Total population (%)

Age (%)

Social grouping (%)

Ethnic grouping (%)

16–24

65+

ABC1

C2DE

Minority ethnic

White

Facebook

73

65

62

71

75

64

75

Twitter

33

43

26

37

29

41

31

WhatsApp 30

31

10

32

27

48

25

Instagram

28

50

8

29

26

46

23

Snapchat

17

44

2

16

18

28

13

Source: News Consumption in the UK: 2019 Report © Ofcom. Tip – This information can be used when writing about the voting behaviour of different demographic groups.

Definition Fake news: The intentional creation and sharing of false information that aims to deceive or mislead. This information is then frequently spread on purpose or inadvertently.

»»The popularity of social media among young people provides a helpful means of encouraging them to register to vote. For example, in 2017 over 1.5m people under 35 registered to vote in the month from the date the election was called, and much of this was put down to online campaigns encouraging voter registration.

Problems associated with social media Critics argue that information that is deliberately manipulated and intended to deceive and mislead people (fake news) can spread quickly and more widely through the use of social media and be used to influence the results of elections and referendums.

»»The rising concern in the spread of fake news included allegations about its impact on the EU Referendum 2016 and the 2017 General Election:

--In the 2016 Brexit Referendum, the Remain camp argued that there were misleading claims made by Leave campaigners over Turkey joining the EU.

--In the 2017 election, The Sun argued there were misleading claims made by Labour campaigners about the Tories planning to privatise the NHS.

»»This led the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Committee in the House of Commons to launch a formal investigation in 2017 and it reported back in February 2019.

»»The DCMS Committee concluded that: ‘Democracy is at risk from the malicious and relentless

targeting of citizens with disinformation and personalised “dark adverts” from unidentifiable sources, delivered through the major social media platforms we use every day.’

Tip – Look to highlight the differences between the different types of media but also reference how the lines between social media and the more traditional print and broadcast media have become blurred.

»»The

technology giants can generate profiles of voters based on their preferences, and campaigning organisations can buy advertising that uses those profiles to match the message to the right people at the right time in a campaign. Dark adverts are usually targeted to appeal to the prejudices and fears of voters, and the lack of regulation of social media added to the lack of transparency over who was spending what, to target whom and how, means that much of this part of politics is shrouded in a fog. This issue was turbocharged by the 2018 scandal where it came to light that Cambridge Analytica (a British political consulting firm) harvested personal information from Facebook without authorisation in early 2014 to build a system that could profile individual US voters in order to target them with personalised political advertisements. AIQ, a Canadian analytics firm, worked on digital advertising on behalf of the Vote Leave campaign in the 2016 Referendum, bringing this issue into the context of the UK. when it was issued with an enforcement notice by the Information Commissioners Office in the UK under data protection law.

The Media

169

Key Debate Summary: Are traditional media sources now becoming increasingly irrelevant? FOR

99Print media is in decline in the UK with readership continuing to fall.

AGAINST

88 Print media is still dominated by a small

number of papers with a wide readership while print media has transformed its business model to move online to maintain its readership.

99Print media has limited reach with younger 88 Print media has much wider reach with voters and voters from the C2DE class groupings.

older voters and voters from the ABC1 class categories, who have higher levels of voter turnout.

99The explosion in the number of channels

88 Broadcast media remains the most

99Broadcast media is being challenged

88 Much of the broadcast media has moved

and ways of accessing broadcast media means it is easier for people to avoid political news and people can get their news from a wider variety of sources. by online media including social media, especially with younger voters and ethnic minority voters.

99Since 2013, the influence of social media

has risen rapidly, especially with younger voters.

important source of political information for the UK public and continues to be dominated by a small number of stations.

online and the BBC is the most used site for UK news, maintaining its position of dominance.

88 The influence of social media is exaggerated; it is just changing how the public accesses the news not who it gets its news from.

Opinion polls What are opinion polls? Opinion polls are an attempt, through sampling, to test either the opinions of the public on a certain issue or their voting intentions, with the key opinion polls in UK politics focusing on voting intentions in general elections. The key types of polling used in the UK are:

»»Voting intention polls to gauge how people intend to vote at any one time. »»Policy issue polls that assess people’s views on issues that might relate to social policy or politics, such as views on the NHS, fox hunting or Brexit.

»»Private polls that are commissioned by political parties, individuals and companies, where the results are only selectively released to the public, if at all.

»»Exit polls which are conducted as voters leave the polling station. Exit polls show greater levels of accuracy than other types of polling.

Recently, exit polling has enjoyed a higher level of accuracy than the pre-election voting intention polls. The main difference between an exit poll and standard voting intention polls is that exit polls do not aim to measure how many people will vote for each party but rather aim to show how many seats each party will win. Exit polls showed that David Cameron would win a majority in 2015, that Theresa May would lose her majority in 2017 and that Boris Johnson would win with a large majority in 2019. With this in mind, the next section will focus on voting intention polls, private polls and policy issue polls.

Definition Opinion polls: Provide a snapshot of opinion on a certain issue at a particular time and show how opinion on that issue has changed over time. Voting intention polls: Measure which party a person might vote for in an election or which way they might vote in a referendum. Policy issue polls: Measure people’s views on a political or social issue. Private polls: These are done on behalf of particular organisations and individuals where the results are released in part to the public, if released at all. Exit polls: These are carried out as voters leave the polling station.

170 Component I: UK Politics

How do opinion polls work?

»»Trained interviewers ask questions of people chosen at random from the population being measured.

»»Responses are given, and interpretations are made based on the results. »»Polling companies, such as Ipsos MORI, YouGov and ComRes, aim to develop reliable techniques that filter out any bias in order to give results that are as accurate as possible.

»»This involves sampling a large number of people, who are broadly representative of the social make-up of the population as a whole.

The importance of a reliable method was shown in 2015. An independent inquiry established by the British Polling Council found that polling companies spoke to too many likely Labour voters and not enough Conservative voters (specifically because they did not interview enough older people). This helped explain why between 2010 and 2015 polls had consistently overestimated the Labour vote and underestimated the Tory vote. This led polling companies to predict a hung parliament rather than the Conservative majority the election actually delivered. Opinion polls are generally presented with a +/–3% margin for accuracy and this should be taken into account when reading the results. In 2016, when David Cameron called the EU Referendum, the 18 previous polls had shown that Remain had an average 3.4 percentage point lead over Leave. When the result came in, Leave had won the referendum by 3.8 percentage points, showing that the opinion polls were broadly within the margin of error, yet still got the result wrong.

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  DO OPINION POLLS HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON UK DEMOCRACY? There are a number of key benefits to opinion polls in a democracy, built around increasing the quality of political communication within society. Opinion polls are particularly important because voting in elections is such an imperfect way of measuring public opinion. A vote for a party is seen as giving support for the party’s manifesto, yet most voters are unaware of the fine print in the manifesto. A good example here would be the Poll Tax, which was a flat-rate tax set by local authorities to be paid by every adult to replace local rates, a tax calculated on the rental value of your house. It was included in the 1987 Tory manifesto, but when the policy was introduced, it was deeply unpopular and faced a huge backlash. A vote for a party can hardly be seen as agreeing to the whole manifesto (for example, a voter might agree with the tax policy but not the environmental policy). Opinion polls plug this gap by providing an additional way of measuring the views of the public in order to keep parties on their toes by reminding them about what voters care about and think. There are five key benefits of opinion polls to democracy:



Political parties and governments use these opinion polls to help inform their decision-making process because they provide a sense of the mood and thoughts of the population, without holding an election or referendum. As a result, governments can introduce or amend legislation and make decisions that they feel a large number of the public will support. Opinion polls allow political parties to design manifestoes and policies that are in tune with public opinion.

»» The 2017 Labour manifesto chimed with policy issue polls that showed that the public backed

renationalising the railways, freezing the retirement age and building thousands of council houses.

»»The 2019 Tory manifesto chimed with policy issue polls with its focus of ‘Get Brexit Done’ and increased spending pledges on the police, NHS and education.



Opinion polls can encourage political participation and inform public debate. Where the media reports a close contest, as in 2017, this is more likely to encourage voters to turn out.

»»The voting intention polls were reported by the media as being close in 2010, 2015 and 2017, and all these elections showed an increase in turnout on the previous election.



Opinion polling gives people who do not usually have access to the media an opportunity to be heard instead of letting only politicians, parties or media companies speak on their behalf. This is particularly important where the public’s view may be out of step with the views of the political classes.

The Media

»»Between 2016 and 2019, the political parties in the UK frequently found themselves out of step with the public over Brexit in policy issue polls.



The public, media and politicians all get access to accurate measures of public attitudes and voting intentions. It stops the government from misrepresenting public opinion and gives credible sources to opposition parties, the public and the media to challenge the government. Newspapers and pressure groups often commission polls as part of their wider investigations into ongoing political issues.

»»In 2012, the Coalition Government was forced to reverse a 3p rise in tax on fuel in response to pressure from motoring groups, industry leaders and backbench MPs that was backed up by private polling figures.

»»In 2017, Theresa May was forced to reverse her policy to make elderly people pay more for their social care, nicknamed the ‘Dementia Tax’ by Labour, after her lead in the voting intention polls halved in a few days.



Political leaders can use polls to trace their level of electoral support between elections both for themselves and their party as well as understanding the impact of major events on public opinion.

»»The polling on the Covid-19 crisis has enabled the party leaders to see the impact of their handling of the situation on perceptions of their leadership and their parties.

The drawbacks of opinion polls in democracy There are a number of major issues for opinion polls within democracy, which can all be tied to the issue of accuracy of voting intention polls in gauging public opinion and predicting the outcome of elections and referendums. This is not really a question of how statistically accurate polls are because the general accuracy of polling from 1942 onwards across countries has remained stable and this is an issue more for pollsters than the general public. The real issue is the failure to predict the right result. In three of the last eight UK elections (1992, 2015, 2017), the polls have predicted the result incorrectly, as well as incorrectly predicting the result of the EU referendum. The impacts can be analysed in the following ways:



The impact on parties. If voting intention polls help political leaders and parties make decisions, then incorrect polling can lead to getting those decisions wrong. It is also the case the political leaders and parties need to be responsive to policy issue polls, but also need to lead by making and winning arguments.

»» When Theresa May made the decision on 17 April 2017 to call an election, the average

Conservative lead over Labour in the polls was 17%. The final result was a 2.4% lead, with the Conservatives losing their majority in the Commons. Had the polls been accurate, would the Prime Minister have called an early election?

»» Would David Cameron have included the promise of a Referendum in his 2015 manifesto had it

not been for the polls predicting another hung parliament (given that another Coalition with the Liberal Democrats would have made a referendum impossible)?

»» In 1978, the Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan, saw private polls that showed Labour would not perform well enough in marginal seats to secure a majority so he put the election off until 1979, where he suffered a comprehensive defeat to Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives.

»» In 2012, the Chancellor, George Osborne, U-turned on a number of measures in his budget,

including VAT on hot foods (the ‘pasty tax’), VAT on static caravans, his plan to cap tax relief on charitable donations and the fuel tax rise, rather than making a strong case for his actions. This came to be known as the ‘Omnishambles’ Budget making the government look incoherent.



The impact on the media. The media becomes obsessed with voting intention polls, and reporting focuses on a ‘horse race style’ commentary on who is winning the race rather than focusing on interrogating the issues and the policies that would educate and inform the public. If the polls are wrong, this leads to the whole media narrative becoming shaped by inaccurate information.

171

172 Component I: UK Politics

»» A study by Cardiff University showed that in the last week of the 2015 election campaign, 22.7% of all media coverage was devoted to the potential winners and losers in the election, reducing the space for policy- and issue-based discussion.



The impact on the voter. Whether polls influence voting behaviour is a contested question. Some have argued that there is a ‘bandwagon’ effect, where information from polls can influence people to alter their view to come into line with the majority, and the ‘underdog’ effect, which will cause some people to adopt a minority view out of sympathy, but there is limited evidence to support either impact. It is also suggested that polling can lead to tactical voting, where voters use the polls to make a decision on who to vote for. This is widely rejected by polling companies, although it may have some local relevance in a constituency where the race is particularly close. The last impact is that where polling shows a close race, this is likely to lead to higher turnout, while polls that predict an easy victory for one party might reduce turnout.

Source: Peter Macdiarmid /Getty Images.

Photo 6.1 2015 Conservative campaign poster showing Labour leader, Ed Miliband, in the pocket of SNP leader, Alex Salmond.

»» The voting intention polls predicted a landslide victory

for Labour in 2001, the election with the lowest turnout for over 80 years.



The impact on elections and referendums. The most important problem that faces opinion polls is that once they are published, they end up influencing the very facts (i.e. elections and referendums) that they are supposed to measure. This has led countries such as France, Spain and Italy to ban all opinion polling in the period before an election.

»» The Report of the Inquiry into the 2015 British general

election opinion polls, commissioned by the British Polling Council and Market Research Society, stated that ‘the expectation of a hung parliament in the final days and weeks of the campaign was so strong and widely held that the sense of shock and disbelief was palpable when the result of the exit poll was announced’.

»» This expectation will have impacted on the campaign strategies of the parties, the line taken

by the media and the attitudes of the public. ‘Politicians and peers suggested that the polling inaccuracies had affected the outcome of the election, speculating that Labour might have done better had the polls been accurate’.

»» The polling inaccuracies led the Tories to lead with a campaign that played on the fears of Labour taking power with the support of the SNP as a coalition government (see Photo 6.1: 2015 Conservative campaign poster). This may well have triggered middle class voters in England to turn out and vote Tory in larger numbers than expected.

Key Debate Summary: Do opinion polls have a positive impact on UK democracy? FOR

AGAINST

99Opinion polls provide a key channel for

88 Inaccurate polling can lead to political

99Polling can inform public debate and

88 Where polling reflects a clear victory for one

political communication, informing political parties about public opinion. facilitate voter engagement, especially when reported across the media.

parties making the wrong decisions.

side this can have a negative impact on voter turnout, while the resulting ‘horse race style’ media coverage shapes the narrative rather than focusing on issues and policies.

The Media

173

99Polls provide an accurate measure of public 88 Confidence in polls has been undermined attitudes and voting intentions.

99Opinion polls can help the media,

opposition parties, campaigning groups and backbenchers hold the government to account over unpopular policies and decisions.

by recent failures to predict the right result, while polls can be seen to shape politics rather than measure it.

88 While it is important that the government

is responsive to opinion, the role of the political party in power is to make and win arguments not to just slavishly follow the polls.

The media and elections The influence of the media Claims that the media have affected, perhaps decisively, the outcome of elections have come not least from the media themselves. Two days after the 1992 general election, for example, The Sun trumpeted ‘It’s the Sun wot won it’. Despite the exaggeration involved in this claim and the lack of evidence to support it, it is difficult to deny that modern election campaigns are, in a very real sense, media campaigns. Only a tiny proportion of voters attend the election rallies or meet leaders or even Parliamentary candidates in the flesh during an election campaign. Instead, what most people know about the parties competing in an election, and the leading figures within those parties, they find out from television, newspapers or (to a lesser but growing extent) social media. The role of the media is also impacted by the increasing number of floating voters, who might be more open to media influence, and the apathetic voter, who is now able to entirely avoid the media’s coverage of the political news.

Tip – The influence of the media can be compared and contrasted to the role that long-term (social) and shortterm factors play in influencing voting behaviour.

Nevertheless, the central myth in discussions about the media’s influence on voting and elections is that they have a direct, one-way impact on voters. In this highly simplistic view of media influence, voters are seen as empty vessels waiting to be filled by whatever messages the media send their way. In practice, voters not only already have attitudes and beliefs of various kinds shaped by social factors but are also subject to a range of other influences, including those of their family, their friends, work colleagues and so on. It is widely argued that these pre-established attitudes and beliefs (from wherever they may have come) act as a filter, or perceptual screen, that allows media messages to be interpreted in different ways, and, for that matter, to be accepted or rejected. A committed Conservative is unlikely to change their vote by reading the Guardian and a left-winger will not adjust their attitudes by reading the Daily Express; indeed it is likely to only serve to reinforce their existing views. However, media influence is a complex process, and it is important to acknowledge that it is extremely difficult to isolate the effects of a single factor on voting behaviour, let alone the role the media plays in its entirety (be it the media in general or particular aspects e.g. television, the press, and social media). Nonetheless, it is important not to dismiss the notion of media influence altogether.

Media bias It is clear that politicians feel that the media has real influence over the voting behaviour of the public. This is exactly why political parties spend so much time and effort either befriending parts of the media or attacking them for their bias. In order to understand how bias may be at work, it is worth thinking about the different ways that bias can be exhibited.

What is bias? Open bias is explicit and deliberately promoted. Most newspapers in the UK are absolutely clear about their political bias in favour of a particular party or policy. For example, The Sun newspaper clearly backed Boris Johnson and the Conservatives in 2019 and Brexit in the 2016 Referendum.

Definition Open bias: This type of bias is obvious, as it is not hidden, and is clear for people to see.

Source: DANIEL SORABJI/AFP/Getty Images

174 Component I: UK Politics Photo 6.2 The Sun newspaper backed the Leave campaign in the EU Referendum.

Definition Hidden bias: Is not clearly obvious, but veiled behind rationalised arguments and neutrality.

Hidden bias is bias that is hidden behind the mask of neutrality and allegations of hidden bias are often aimed at the broadcast media. This type of bias is seen as more problematic due to the reach of the broadcast media and the obligation to demonstrate political balance. There are three main ways that hidden bias is perceived to be apparent. Firstly, despite the need for balance, smaller parties and minority groups often argue that they are not given a fair hearing in the broadcast media:

»» According

to Loughborough University, in 2017, 67.1 percent of all politicians’ appearances on TV were Conservative or Labour. Secondly, individual programmes or broadcasters are also perceived by some to exhibit bias:

»»Under Boris Johnson in 2019, the Conservatives began boycotting the Today programme on Radio 4 over its alleged anti-Tory bias.

»»Labour complained about the BBC’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg’s coverage of the Party and Jeremy Corbyn, and the BBC found she had inaccurately represented Jeremy Corbyn’s views on shoot-to-kill policies in the aftermath of the Paris attacks in 2015.

»»In May 2020, the BBC publicly stated that Emily Maitlis’ opening statement on Newsnight

regarding the actions of the Chief Adviser to the Prime Minister, Dominic Cummings, during lockdown in 2020, did not meet the standards of impartiality.

Finally, the media is perceived to be part of the establishment and reflects the powerful interests in society: employers not employees, middle class not working class, white not ethnic minority and men not women. The framing of political issues, where the media selects only certain stories and frames them in a particular way, helps shape what the public can think about, rather than just telling them what to think.

»»It has been argued that the 2010 and 2015 elections were framed in terms of austerity:

debt was dangerous, Britain was broke and that there was no alternative to spending cuts. The narrative that the UK had maxed out its credit card under Labour during the global financial crisis of 2007–9 became the prism through which events, parties and policies were interpreted.

»»During the course of the EU Referendum, and subsequent Brexit debate, many Leavers

argued that there was an establishment pro-EU bias in the BBC’s coverage by promoting more Remain voices on their news output. This led to the debates being interpreted through the problems Brexit would cause and the splits in the Tory party.

Print media and bias Newspapers are absolutely clear about their bias and political parties encourage that bias where it works in their favour. Back in 1995, there were extensive efforts by the Labour Party and Tony Blair to develop a close relationship with Rupert Murdoch, the owner of The Sun and the News of the World, and later Tony Blair became godfather to one of Murdoch’s children. Blair clearly felt that The Sun and News of the World, with their large readerships, could promote his leadership of the Labour Party and bring them electoral success. The problem of newspaper bias is exacerbated by the nature of media ownership, with much of the press now concentrated in the hands of a few press barons. In 2018, just three companies (News UK, DMGT plc and Reach plc) dominated 83% of the national newspaper market, while if you take print and online readers into account, just five companies dominate over 80% of the UK market. This concentration has been increased with further consolidation in 2019 and 2020 (see the changes in ownership in Table 6.3). This gives huge power to the owners, such as Rupert Murdoch of News UK, to shape the media agenda and influence public opinion. It is also

The Media

175

noticeable that a much larger slice of the print media supports the Conservative Party (63.95% of market share in 2018) than the Labour Party (21.40% of market share in 2018). If the print media really matter, this makes it more difficult for Labour to get public opinion on its side and to win elections.

Table 6.3  Media ownership, market share and political bias

News brand

Daily readership 2018

Market share 2018

Party support Print news brands/ 2017 Election sites

Ownership, 2020

Sun

7,162,000

20.20%

Conservative

Sun; Sun on Sunday

News UK Daily Mail Group Trust plc

Daily Mail

6,461,000

18.22%

Conservative

Daily Mail; Mail on Sunday

Guardian

4,049,000

11.42%

Labour

Guardian; Observer

Guardian News and Media

Metro

3,597,000

10.14%

None

Metro

Daily Mail Group Trust plc

Daily Mirror

3,539,000

9.98%

Labour

Daily Mirror; Sunday Mirror; Sunday People

Reach Plc Telegraph Media Group Ltd

Daily Telegraph

3,348,000

9.44%

Conservative

Daily Telegraph; Sunday Telegraph

Evening Standard

2,412,000

6.80%

Conservative

Evening Standard

Evgeny Lebvedev Purchased by Reach plc in 2018

Daily Express

1,654,000

4.66%

Conservative

Daily Express; Sunday Express

Times

1,642,000

4.63%

Conservative

The Times; Sunday Times

News UK Purchased by Reach plc in 2018 Purchased by Daily Mail Group Trust plc in 2019

Daily Star

1,006,000

2.84%

None

Daily Star; Daily Star Sunday

i

593,000

1.67%

None

i

Broadcast media and bias Unlike the press, the broadcast media, which is consumed on a vast scale, is regulated by OFCOM with the aim of ensuring that balance is shown between political parties, and impartiality is maintained in reporting the news. This lack of bias is further reinforced by the journalists working in the broadcast media, who feel neutrality is the central principle of their professionalism. Yet, political parties in modern times are constantly alleging bias in the behaviour of the broadcast media. The Left have attacked the BBC for its pro-employers and anti-workers stance while the Right see the BBC as a liberal institution opposed to conservative values.

Social media and bias Social media has very weak regulation and next to no usable regulation of online advertising. This means that many stories shared on social media exhibit clear bias and may also stray across into misinformation or fake news with limited consequences. The algorithms that select news stories for your news feed are based on your previous browsing history, meaning that it is likely that individuals will be fed a diet of news stories that confirm their existing political views. More damagingly, the lack of regulation and transparency around political advertising means it is unclear exactly who is being targeted by advertising, with what message and with whose funding.

176 Component I: UK Politics

CASE STUDY 6.1: THE SUN AND ITS IMPACT ON PUBLIC OPINION

Source: Keystone/Getty Images.

Photo 6.3  Rupert Murdoch (left) leaving the International Press Corporation in September 1969 after talks on the future of The Sun newspaper.

Key events ÎÎ In 2019, The Sun was the newspaper with the

widest monthly reach when you add together its print and digital media. ÎÎ It is also the source of the most famous claim

about the influence of the media on politics, with the 1992 headline ‘It’s The Sun wot won it’. ÎÎ Back in 1969, Rupert Murdoch purchased the

paper, which was left-leaning before moving vociferously behind Margaret Thatcher and the Conservatives in 1979. ÎÎ In 1992, with Labour leading in the polls, The Sun

was aggressive and relentless in its opposition against Labour and their leader, Neil Kinnock. ÎÎ At the next election in 1997, The Sun transferred

its support to Tony Blair and Labour, and backed them for all three of their election victories. ÎÎ By 2010, The Sun had switched its allegiance

back to the Tories and backed them during the 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019 elections as well as supporting Brexit during the EU Referendum.

Significance This track record of backing the winner in elections since 1979 as well as the EU Referendum raises the question of how much influence newspapers can exert on the political attitudes and voting behaviour of its readers. Clearly, The Sun firmly believes it plays a key role, as it expressed in its 1992 headline, but newspapers are bound to exaggerate the importance of their political views to their readers. So what exactly is their impact?

Firstly, it is possible that over a long period of time newspapers are able to shape the view of their readership about a leader or a political party. For example, The Sun ran lengthy, ruthless campaigns against Neil Kinnock up to 1992 and Ed Miliband up to 2015 as well as Jeremy Corbyn up to 2019. Yet in 2017, Labour and Corbyn managed to wipe out the Tory majority, with 30% of The Sun readers voting Labour according to YouGov, despite the paper’s portrayal of the Labour leader as useless, a ‘terrorist’s friend’ and a ‘Marxist extremist’. The result led to suggestions that the traditional media influence was weakening due to the rise of social media. In 2017, Corbyn had been Labour leader for less than two years. By the 2019 election, he had been in office for four years and the Labour vote collapsed. This could have been recognition of the ability of The Sun and the print media to shape political views over a longer period of time. However, many would argue that it was as much to do with the ongoing divisions in the Labour Party, its anti-Semitism crisis and the Party’s Brexit positioning as it was to do with the role of the press. Secondly, a study by Paul Whitefield on the readership of The Sun between 1992 and 1997 revealed that the paper’s shift to supporting Labour did not persuade large numbers of its readers to actually vote for Labour, but it did seem to reduce their intention to vote Conservative. In 1992, around one-fifth of The Sun’s readers did not vote and this increased to just less than one-third by 1997. The ability to mobilise voters to turn out or stay home can clearly shape the results of elections. Thirdly, it can be argued that since Rupert Murdoch acquired The Sun, the paper was good at identifying which way the winds of public opinion were blowing. Some argue that The Sun’s choice to support a particular political party or party leader – such as Blair and Labour in 1997 – or certain policies – such as Thatcher’s policies on council housing, the Falklands War and confronting the unions – is because they were already popular with their readership, rather than they were popular because The Sun supported them. According to this view, in 2009, when The Sun switched its allegiance to David Cameron and the Tories, they were following many of their readers who had already made that leap. This corresponds to the argument that papers need to reflect their readers’ views rather than attempt to change them in order to maintain their readership.

The Media

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  DOES THE UK MEDIA HAVE REAL INFLUENCE OVER PUBLIC OPINION AND VOTING BEHAVIOUR? Broadcast media and influence



The broadcast media is seen to be incredibly influential as it is a key source of political information and news for the British public. Despite changes in technology, the broadcast media remains dominated by a small number of very influential media outlets, such as the BBC and ITV, with large audiences.

»»Political parties tailor their policy announcements, statements and public visits to get maximum

visibility in the news cycle especially during campaigns. Speeches and policies are boiled down into memorable soundbites in order to become the headline or key video clip at the top of the news shows.

»»The influence of the broadcast media also means that both looking and sounding good on TV

is crucial for modern political leaders. Michael Foot, the Labour leader in 1983, was a brilliant public speaker but uncomfortable on TV and so his credibility was damaged, while both Blair’s and Cameron’s easy style was key to their success.

»»Trust in broadcast media journalists remains high in comparison to the print media, suggesting a far higher level of influence (see Figure 6.6).

»»The broadcast media has adapted to the arrival of online media by moving online, with the BBC as the most used source for online news in the 2019 UK Election.

»»The framing of news stories in the broadcast media, including which stories are selected, which

are omitted, who they choose as commentators and how they choose to construct the narrative gives them real influence. The broadcast media shaped the 2019 election as ‘the Brexit election’, effectively shaping what the public should be thinking about in casting their vote rather than who to cast their vote for.



The power of the broadcast media to influence politics is limited.

»» It is constrained by its obligation to impartiality, its professional standards built on neutrality

and its monitoring by OFCOM. This appears to limit the ability of the broadcast media to shape how people vote.

»» Trust in the broadcast media has declined in general. For example, in YouGov polling, BBC journalists were trusted by 81% and ITV journalists by 82% in 2003 but that figure has fallen significantly since then, further limiting its influence (see Figure 6.6). This decline is driven in part by the increasing belief among viewers and listeners that the broadcast media demonstrates bias in its output.

Figure 6.6  Media trust No, trust in the media has not collapsed because of coronavirus How much do you trust the following to tell the truth? % who said “a great deal” or “a fair amount” 1–2 Dec 2019 50 47 44 48

10–11 Mar 2020

45 41 43 41

34

3–5 Apr 2020

26–27 Apr 2020

40 39 38 14 14 16 13

BBC News journalists

ITV News journalists

Source: Based on data from YouGov.

Journalists on “upmarket” newspapers

Journalists on “mid–market” newspapers

7

8 11 7

Journalists on red–top tabloid newspapers

177

178 Component I: UK Politics

»» The broadcast media’s influence has been challenged by the emergence of online media,

including social media. In particular, among younger voters and minority ethnic voters, social media is becoming more important, allowing them to access news stories from their friends and family who they trust more than journalists.

»» The broadcast media has a tendency to follow the stories created in the printed media, rather than funding original journalism.

Print media and influence



Unlike television, the press is nakedly partisan; national newspapers usually take an explicit stance on which party, or which leader, their readers should vote for, and, in the case of the tabloid press in particular, sometimes expressing these views in strong terms.

»»The print media believes in its own power to shape elections and public opinion. The Sun has

backed the party that has won the most seats in all elections since 1979. The shaping of views of party leaders is particularly important: the repeated media attacks over a long period of time on leaders such as Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock, Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn impacted voting behaviour. The strenuous efforts on the part of Tony Blair in particular to court the Murdoch press in the run up to the 1997 election, backed up by the abandonment of many of Labour’s traditional policies, reflects how much importance Labour placed on the print media.

»»Political parties and party leaders look to recruit journalists to serve as their directors of

communications in order to manage relations with the press: Tony Blair recruited Alastair Campbell, a former political editor of the Daily Mirror while David Cameron followed suit, recruiting Andy Coulson, a former editor of the News of the World. In 2015, Jeremy Corbyn appointed ex-Guardian journalist, Seamus Milne, while Boris Johnson appointed another exjournalist in Lee Cain in 2019.

»» The print media still has extensive reach, in particular with the ABC1 voters and over-65s who are

the most likely to turn out in elections. The existence of an essentially pro-Conservative press in the UK does matter, in that it makes Labour’s path to power steeper and more challenging than that of the Conservatives, unless, that is, the Labour Party adopts broadly Conservative policies. This, in turn, is a reflection of the impact of newspaper ownership, and of ‘press barons’ in particular.

»»It is not just that the print media might influence voters. It is more that the printed press sets the

agenda; where the newspapers lead on issues, far more trusted broadcasters follow. Research from Loughborough University found that issues which dominated the press also led the television news. A good example would be the joint Daily Mirror and Guardian investigation into whether Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s chief adviser, broke the Covid-19 lockdown rules in 2020, which became the lead story across social media and the broadcast media.

»»The print media has moved online successfully, with many print journalists using social media to direct people to stories in the papers they work for. The MailOnline, The Guardian, the Mirror and the Sun were in the top 5 most visited sites during the 2019 Election campaign.



While the print media exhibits clear bias, this does not mean that it has real influence.

»» The print media’s impact is largely restricted to amplifying or reinforcing pre-existing sympathies or preferences, and rarely extends to generating new preferences or changing established ones.

»» Newspapers are more likely to follow the opinion of their readers rather than shape it, as

newspapers need to keep their readership; making the Daily Mail a left-wing paper would see its readership numbers collapse.

»» The readership of the print media is in serious decline. In particular younger voters and workingclass voters are increasingly turning their backs on the print media.

»» The print media is widely distrusted, in particular the journalism in the tabloid papers such as the Mirror or The Sun limiting its influence.

The Media

179

»» Despite newspapers dominating online news in the 2019 campaign, alongside the BBC, the Reuters Institute for the study of Journalism in Oxford found that on average people only spent 16 minutes per week looking at the news online.

»» The

heavily Conservative-weighted print media was scathing in its sensationalist and aggressive coverage of Corbyn during the 2017 Election, yet the Labour Party outperformed all expectations and the Conservative Party lost its majority. This was put down to the waning influence of the print media and the rise in importance of social media.

Social media and influence



Social media is growing in importance, challenging the dominance of the small number of broadcast and print media outlets that traditionally dominate the production of news.

»»Social media is becoming particularly important for younger generations and ethnic minority voters as a source of news. Social media gives people access to news stories and opinion shared by trusted sources, such as friends and family.

»»The political parties increasingly view social media as an influential medium for communicating with voters. In 2017, campaigners in the UK spent nearly half (43%) of their total advertising budget on online advertising, compared to less than 1% (0.35%) of their total advertising budget in 2011.

»»The 2017 Election was seen as an expression of the new power of social media because Labour

was able to counteract negative mainstream media coverage by talking directly to voters during the campaign. Labour was able to create better quality content, especially video content, and get much higher levels of engagement than other parties. Labour strategists believed that if they could present Corbyn directly to people free from media bias, people would see him in a different light. Secondly the content aimed to promote their policies, such as on university tuition fees, to counter the negative print media stories.

»»In 2019, the Conservative Party’s strategy was far more effective, even though many perceived Labour to win the social media war. The Conservative Party targeted voters in marginal seats with tailored adverts about how Labour would increase the cost of petrol, put up heating bills and hike up inheritance tax. They also targeted Labour MPs in pro-Leave constituencies, showing how many times they had voted against Brexit.



There is limited evidence that social media has really challenged the dominance of broadcast and print media in shaping politics and elections.

»» Social media’s reach is increasing; however, social media is used for far more than just news and politics. In the 2019 campaign, the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism in Oxford reported that approximately 3% of all users’ online time was spent on the news.

»» Social media news is changing how people access the news but not how it is generated. Much

social media posting brings people back to the online sites on the main broadcast and print media players. In the 2019 Election, the BBC, MailOnline, Guardian, Mirror and Sun accounted for 66% of online news consumption.

»» The 2019 Election reflected a return to normal service after the 2017 Election. The Conservative

social media campaign was more effective and so Labour, despite seeming to win the social media war, was unable to counter the negative impression created by the print media and was heavily beaten in the election.

»» Research seems to show the existence of a ‘filter bubble’ effect in UK politics, where social

media users are more likely to engage with people and media sources that share their political beliefs. This is exacerbated by the idea that social media platforms use algorithms that feed us with stories which are tailored to our views. In this way, social media may reinforce views rather than change them.

Definition Filter bubble: Happens as web companies aim to make their services more tailored to our individual tastes, meaning people do not get exposed to ideas that challenge or broaden their world view.

180 Component I: UK Politics Tip – By making clear comparisons across a range of elections, parties and leaders you can develop a higher level of analysis.

Key Debate Summary: Does the media have real influence over public opinion and voting behaviour? FOR

99Political parties and political leaders

clearly feel that the media is important as they spend much of their time courting or attacking parts of the media.

AGAINST

88 The media portrayal of politics does not

have a one-way impact on voters. Voters interpret the media through their own attitudes and beliefs formed often through social factors.

99Modern election campaigns are very much 88 The lack of trust in the modern media, the media campaigns, with the media seeming to play a more crucial role due to electoral volatility.

lack of time most people spend engaging with the news and the ability of apathetic voters to avoid the news undermines the power of the media.

99The broadcast media has the largest reach, 88 The broadcast media is restricted by is the most trusted and plays a crucial role in framing political debate.

impartiality, falling levels of trust and is more likely to follow news stories generated in the print media.

99The print media has concentrated

88 There is a serious decline in the readership

99Social media has grown in importance in

88 Social media is clearly changing how

ownership, is openly partisan, has a wide readership in print and online, with stories generated by papers tending to dominate the broadcast media and social media. accessing the news and political information; this is reflected by the political parties spending far more on their online campaigns.

of the print media, widespread distrust of print journalism, and papers tend to reflect not change the views of their readers.

the news is accessed but not how it is generated. Social media tends to act as an echo chambers rather than an influencer.

The media and democracy The media is seen as vital to the workings of the democratic system in the UK. It enables free speech and wide-ranging public debate, and offers a wide range of viewpoints and opinions; this is crucial because this education function enables the public to participate in local and national society. At the same time, the media plays a key public interest role by reporting on the activities of the powerful and the workings of the state at all levels. This can involve reporting on the day-today activities of local councils and magistrates courts, as well as holding those in the government and Parliament accountable for their actions.

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  DOES THE MEDIA ENHANCE DEMOCRACY? Print media and democracy



The UK has a free print media, which is privately owned and can operate free from government interference. The national newspapers have a wide reach both in print and online, which allows them to describe world, national and local events, bring to life political issues and politics generally, hold power accountable, challenge authority, investigate and provide a forum for public debate.

»»In May 2009, the Daily Telegraph broke the MPs’ expenses scandal story, a public interest

investigation that highlighted the misuse of taxpayers’ money which led to some politicians going to jail and to Parliamentary reform.

The Media

»»In 2017, The Guardian exposed the Windrush Scandal, revealing the Home Office’s hostile

environment policy that led to blameless British residents, who came to the UK legally from the Caribbean between 1948 and 1973, being wrongly deprived access to public services, threatened with deportation and in some cases deported. Around 50,000 of the 550,000 people who came did not have the relevant documentation to prove their citizenship, as most arrived as children on their parents’ passports and never applied for a passport.

»» Local papers help keep local authorities in check, making them more efficient by investigating and

reporting on local spending and by acting as a watchdog. Local papers also help maintain local levels of democratic engagement by exposing local issues and highlighting local elections. The Hackney Gazette’s Hidden Homeless series brought the housing crisis into the public eye in 2017 in Hackney.



Ownership of the print media is highly concentrated in the hands of a few press barons with too much power to influence public opinion and election outcomes. Given that many of the stories that start in the main press spread onto social media and broadcast media, this concentrates power and undermines the idea of political equality.

»» The dominance of a Conservative print media in setting the agenda arguably makes the job of

winning elections far harder for the Labour Party, while it excludes from coverage the minor parties.

»» There is an accusation that the print media has dumbed down politics by concentrating more on the private lives and scandals of politicians than on their policies or ideas.

»» The role of the press as a watchdog has been called into question. The Leveson Inquiry into the press found that the relationship between the press and politicians was unhealthy for democracy, leading to a lack of trust in the print media and the political process.

»» The decline of local press has left a hole in local democracy. Between 2005 and 2017, 238 local

newspapers closed down. The collapse may partially help explain why the views of Grenfell Tower residents on the Grenfell Action Group blog about the safety of their building were not picked up by local media outlets prior to the Grenfell fire in 2017.

Broadcast media and democracy



The partisan nature of the print media is balanced by the impartial nature of the broadcast media, which is regulated by OFCOM. The broadcast media reaches the widest audience, playing a key role in educating and informing the public while creating space for all parties and different viewpoints.

»»During elections in particular, the broadcast media plays the role of educating the public about

how the electoral process works. In the 2019 Election campaign, Loughborough University found that 31% of the airtime was devoted to electoral processes with the next most prominent issue as Brexit at 18%. The BBC, in particular, is committed by its own charter ‘to promote understanding of the UK political system’.

»»Broadcast media remains the most trusted and used of all media sources for most groups in society, especially the BBC when you take into account its TV, radio and internet presence.

»»Live TV debates during elections were introduced in 2010, and they have appeared in a range of

different formats during elections since then. The first televised debate in 2010 between Gordon Brown (Labour), Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrats) and David Cameron (Conservatives) attracted 10.3 million views, so played an important educating role.



The nature of the broadcast media and the increasing competition for viewers has changed the way politics is presented in ways that have been detrimental to democracy.

»» The need to make news coverage more popular has led to the dumbing down of the news,

where it is told through celebrity politics and a series of soundbites rather than more in-depth discussions.

»» At the same time, with so many channels to choose from, those apathetic about politics can simply avoid all political news, while young people in particular are turning away from the TV news.

181

182 Component I: UK Politics

Source: Ken McKay/ITV/Getty Images.

Photo 6.4 The first televised leaders’ debate was held in 2010, attracting 10.3 million viewers.

»» The

increasing use of hostile questioning techniques by interviewers encourages the view that politicians are not to be trusted, lowering public trust in politicians, parties and political institutions and leading to apathy and disillusionment.

»»This problem is matched by politicians simply refusing to

engage with any broadcast media they feel is biased, as the Conservative Government did with Channel 4 news in 2020, depriving the viewers of the Government’s view. Even when interviewed, many politicians retreat to the safety of a soundbite rather than engaging with the question in a way that informs.

Social media and democracy



The arrival of social media has hugely increased plurality in the media, as there are now many different sources of news, accessible in many different ways and controlled by such a range of people that the public can be well informed and take a full part in democracy.

»»Social media can lead to communication between large numbers of people, opening up political

debate and providing a space for the voices of all groups, especially those excluded from the mainstream media, to be heard. This acts as a counterbalance to the concentrated ownership and power of the print and broadcast media.

»»Where readership of the print media and viewing of the broadcast media has declined, especially

among the younger population, social media has become the source for political news. Social media has become a key tool for voter registration drives, with young people encouraging other young people to engage with the democratic process.

»»Social media can create participation in democracy because individuals can follow politicians on social media, interact with them and other political stories by commenting, and wider audience participation can be encouraged by retweeting, liking or signing online petitions. This allows for a far greater level of participation and the ability to hold politicians to account.



The power of the social media to create a new form of democratic participation and to give a voice to the powerless has not really come to pass.

»» Social media has created a space for trolling, or online abuse, particularly of women and ethnic minorities and remains a major issue that needs tackling.

»» ‘Filter bubbles’ mean that people only select to follow the news and politicians that they already

agree with and, more worrying, the algorithms of the social media platforms only feed people news that meets their pre-existing preferences. This lack of an alternative means that people are more vulnerable to fake news.

»» Social media allows for fake news to be spread and spread more quickly, in part because the news can be created by anyone without the fact checking that is part of print or broadcast journalism.

»» Dark adverts that can micro-target specific groups with tailored messages, without any real transparency about the origin or the funding, are a potential threat to democracy.

The Media

Key Debate Summary: Does the media enhance democracy? FOR

99The print media is free, privately owned

and not regulated by the government so it can hold the government to account and work in the public interest.

AGAINST

88 The print media is not diverse enough, with too much power in too few hands leading to a view that they work in the interests of their owners not the public.

99The broadcast media is impartial, balances 88 The broadcast media is reducing politics out the bias in the print media and reaches the widest audience, providing political information and a space for debate.

99Social media provides a much more

diverse media, open to all that encourages participation and gives a voice to the voiceless.

to a celebrity contest and soundbites while also contributing to falling trust in politicians and the media

88 Social media has provided a space for trolling, fake news and dark adverts undermining democracy.

183

184 Component I: UK Politics

Chapter Summary ‐‐Changes in technology have meant that the media has undergone a period of rapid change in the twenty-first century. ‐‐Newspaper readership may have declined but newspapers have moved online and utilised the power of social media. The print media is influential, partisan and ownership is concentrated in very few hands.

‐‐The broadcast media is very influential due to its wide reach, is impartial and is the most trusted media source. ‐‐Social media is emerging as an important part of the media landscape although its influence is perhaps less than it is perceived to be.

‐‐Opinion polls can increase the level of political communication in society but the accuracy and role of opinion polls has come under criticism.

‐‐The power of the media remains highly contentious, with some arguing that it has little influence on political views and voting behaviour while others viewing it as important.

‐‐ The media plays an important role in democracy in enabling debate, encouraging participation and holding those in power to account.

‐‐However the media has been accused of dumbing down politics with the focus on celebrity politics and soundbites, creating greater levels of distrust, apathy and disillusionment.

Exam Style Questions Evaluate the view that the media supports democracy in the UK (30). zz Evaluate the view that the media has real influence over elections in the UK (30). zz Evaluate the view that bias in the UK media has a real impact on public opinion in the UK (30). zz Evaluate the view that opinion polls make a positive contribution to democracy in the UK (30). zz Evaluate the view that the print media remains more influential than broadcast or social media in UK elections (30). zz

Source Question Source One TV is seen to be incredibly influential as it is a key source of political information and news for the British public. Despite changes in technology, TV remains dominated by the BBC and ITV with large audiences. Unlike television, the print media is nakedly partisan; national newspapers usually take an explicit stance on which party, or which leader, their readers should vote for, and, in the case of the tabloid press in particular, sometimes expresses these views in strong terms. Lastly, social media is growing in importance, challenging the dominance of the small number of broadcast and print media outlets that traditionally dominate the production of news. It is particularly important for younger generations and ethnic minority voters as a source of news.

Source Two The power of TV to influence politics is limited as it is constrained by its obligation to impartiality. This limits its ability to shape how people vote. Also, trust in the TV has declined in general because of the increasing belief among viewers and listeners that it is biased. Just because newspapers are biased, this doesn’t mean they have real influence. Newspapers’ impact is largely restricted to amplifying or reinforcing pre-existing sympathies or preferences, they are more likely to follow the opinion of their readers than to shape it. The readership of newspapers is in serious decline; in particular, younger voters and working class voters are increasingly turning their backs on the print media. Finally, there is limited evidence that social media has really challenged the dominance of broadcast and print media in shaping politics and elections. Much social media posting brings people back to the online sites on the main broadcast and print media players. In the 2019 Election, the BBC, MailOnline, Guardian, Mirror and Sun accounted for 66% of online news consumption.

The Media

185

Using the source, evaluate the view that the UK media has too much influence over the way the public votes. In your response you must:

»»Compare and contrast different opinions in the source »»Examine and debate these views in a balanced way »»Analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.

Further Resources Griffiths, S. and Leach, R. (2018) British Politics (3rd edn) (London: Red Globe Press): Chapter 17: The media. Heffernan, R., Hay, C., Russell, M. and Cowley, P. (eds) (2016) Politics and the News Media: Messages and Messengers (London: Red Globe Press): Chapter 10. Leveson, Lord Justice (2012) The Leveson Inquiry: An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press: Executive Summary (November). Moran, M. (2017) Politics and Governance in the UK (3rd edn) (Palgrave): Chapter 15: How political communication happens. Street, J. (2010) Mass Media, Politics and Democracy (2nd edn) (London: Red Globe Press).

Visit the companion website to access the Further Resources Booklet to explore a range of useful web links related to: the Leveson inquiry, OFCOM data and reports on news consumption, the rise of fake news, the relationship between the media and austerity and more.

THE CONSTITUTION

186

7

Chapter Preview Constitutions exist for one crucial reason: we cannot trust the government or, for that matter, anyone who has power over us. Constitutions are a solution to the problem of power. As power tends to corrupt, we need to be protected from those in government. Without a constitution, the government could simply do whatever it wanted. This may mean oppressing minorities, violating freedom or even tyrannising the masses. Therefore, constitutions are vital to politics. In the UK, we have an unusual, even unique, ‘uncodified’ constitution which is a collection of rules and conventions steeped in ancient traditions and customs. Since the late 1990s, there has been an upsurge in constitutional reform that is changing forever the way in which the country is governed.

Key Questions and Debates

One of the biggest changes has been that, instead of all the main decisions being made at the centre, they are now made at different levels through the introduction of devolution. The creation, since 1997, of a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Parliament and a Northern Ireland Assembly has drawn power ‘downwards’. To a greater or lesser degree, domestic affairs in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are now decided by devolved bodies, rather than by the Westminster Parliament in London. This development has also stimulated controversy.

»» Is the UK constitution still fit for purpose? (see page 203 to examine whether the UK constitution should be codified).

»» What are the features of constitutions? »» What are the sources of the UK’s constitution?

»» How have constitutional reforms since 1997 changed the UK? »» How does devolution work in the UK? »» Has devolution been a success?

Specification Checklist 1.1.  The nature and sources of the UK constitution, including: »» An overview of the development of the constitution through key historical documents: Magna Carta (1215); Bill of Rights (1689); Act of Settlement (1701); Acts of Union (1707); Parliament Acts (1911 and 1949); The European Communities Act (1972) »» The nature of the UK constitution: unentrenched, uncodified and unitary, and the ‘twin pillars’ of Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law »» The five main sources of the UK constitution: statute law; common law; conventions; authoritative works and treaties (including European Union law).

1.2.  How the constitution has changed since 1997. »» Under Labour 1997–2010: House of Lords reforms, electoral reform; devolution; the Human Rights Act 1998; and the Supreme Court. »» Under the Coalition 2010–15: Fixed Term Parliaments; further devolution to Wales. »» Any major reforms undertaken by governments since 2015, including further devolution to Scotland (in the context of the Scottish Referendum).

1.3. The role and powers of devolved bodies in the UK, and the impact of this devolution on the UK. »» Devolution in England. »» Scottish Parliament and Government. »» Welsh Assembly and Government. »» Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive.

1.4.  Debates on further reform. »» An overview of the extent to which the individual reforms since 1997 listed in section 1.2 should be taken further. »» The extent to which devolution should be extended in England. »» Whether the UK constitution should be changed to be entrenched and codified, including a bill of rights. Sou r Chr ce: iSt isH o epb ck.com urn /

187

188 Component II: UK Politics Spec key term Constitution: The set of political principles by which a state or organisation is governed, especially in relation to the rights of the people it governs. Codified constitution: A constitution in which key constitutional provisions are collected together within a single legal document. Entrenched: Something that is firmly established and difficult or unlikely to change.

Definition Judiciable: Capable of being decided by legal principles or by a court of justice.

Spec key term Uncodified constitution: A constitution that is made up of rules that are found in a variety of sources, in the absence of a single legal document. Statute law: Laws that have been decided and approved by Parliament. Parliamentary sovereignty: Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK, and can create, amend any law which cannot be overruled by courts.

What is a constitution? A constitution establishes a framework of rules which are meant to constrain government power. Typically, constitutions seek to:

»»Establish the duties, powers, limits and functions of government »»Regulate the relationships between the institutions »»Define the relationship between the state and the individual. Types of constitution Constitutions may be classified in three main ways: 1. As codified or uncodified constitutions 2. As unitary or federal constitutions 3. As entrenched or unentrenched constitutions.

Codified constitutions A codified constitution is one that is based on a single document. This document lays down the core principles of the system of government. It outlines the duties, powers and functions of government and may also include a statement of citizens’ rights in a bill of rights. Most liberal democratic states possess codified constitutions.

Codified constitutions have three key features: 1. The document is authoritative. It constitutes ‘higher’ law – indeed, the highest law of the land. This gives rise to a two-tier legal system, in which the constitution stands above statute law made by the legislature. 2. The provisions of the constitution are entrenched. Essentially, they are difficult to amend or abolish. The procedure for making and changing the constitution is more complex or difficult than for making ordinary laws. 3. It is judiciable. This means that all political bodies are subject to the authority of the courts, and in particular a constitutional court.

Uncodified constitutions Uncodified constitutions are rare. Only three liberal democracies (the UK, Israel and New Zealand) have uncodified constitutions.

Uncodified constitutions have three defining features: 1. The constitution is not authoritative. Constitutional laws enjoy the same status as ordinary laws. States that have uncodified constitutions therefore have single-tier legal systems with no higher law. 2. They are not entrenched. The constitution can be changed by passing a statute law. This is reflected in the UK in the principle of parliamentary sovereignty (see page 300), through which Parliament can make, unmake and amend any law it wishes, including laws that affect the constitution. 3. Uncodified constitutions are not judiciable. In the absence of higher law, judges do not have a legal standard (enshrined in a written constitution) against which they can declare laws bodies as ‘unconstitutional’.

Unitary and federal constitutions Constitutions have also been classified in terms of the structure they underpin. The most widely used such classification is between unitary and federal constitutions.

The Constitution

»»Unitary constitutions establish the constitutional supremacy of central government over local

bodies. They do this by entrusting sovereignty in the national legislature, meaning that it can create or abolish, strengthen or weaken all other institutions. In the UK, this is Parliament. Devolved assemblies and local authorities do not, therefore, enjoy a share of sovereignty.

»»Federal constitutions divide powers between two levels of government. Both central government and regional government possess a range of powers that the other cannot encroach on. Many argue that as devolution has deepened, the UK’s constitution has acquired a ‘quasi-federal’ character.

Entrenched and unentrenched constitutions An alternative form of classification is based on the ease with which the constitution can be changed. On the face of it, codified constitutions are relatively inflexible and rigid, because their provisions are in some way entrenched in higher law. By the same token, uncodified ones appear to be flexible and adaptable, because laws of constitutional significance can be changed through the ordinary legislative process. However, there is no necessary relationship between codified constitutions and rigidity, or uncodified ones and flexibility. Codified constitutions can exhibit a surprising degree of flexibility, whereas some aspects of the UK’s uncodified constitution have remained remarkably resistant to change, and are ingrained in our system. These include the principles of Parliamentary sovereignty and the constitutional monarchy.

The UK’s constitution The UK’s constitution is uncodified, unitary and unentrenched. It is less easy to comprehend than, for example, the US constitution which is available to buy and read from any bookstore in the US. To understand the UK’s enigmatic constitution takes some effort and then the key question is, does it do its job? In order to review this question, we need to examine three issues:

»»The sources of the constitution »»The principles of the constitution »»The strengths and weaknesses of the UK’s constitution. Sources of the UK constitution

The UK constitution is best thought of as a part-written and uncodified constitution. This reflects the fact that, although there is no single, authoritative constitutional document in the UK, most of the rules of the constitution are written down and many of them have a legal status. The rules and principles of the constitution, however, can be found in a variety of places. In contrast to a codified constitution, this makes the UK constitution seem confusing. The most important sources of the UK constitution are: 1. Statute law 2. Common law 3. Conventions 4. Works of constitutional authority.

1. Statute law Statute law is law made by Parliament. Not all statute laws are of constitutional significance however, only the ones that affect the powers and responsibilities of government or the rights and freedoms of citizens. Statute law, though, is the single most important source of the constitution. Parliamentary sovereignty implies that statutes outrank all other sources of the constitution. If a statute conflicts with a convention or a common law, the statute will always prevail. In addition,

189

Spec key term Unitary constitution: A constitution that concentrates sovereign power in a single body. Federal constitution:  A constitution that is based on the principle of shared sovereignty, in that there are two relatively autonomous levels of government: national and regional. Devolution: The decentralisation of governmental power. Examples of devolution are the powers granted to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Greater London and Local Authorities.

Definition Quasi-federal: A division of powers between central and regional government that has some of the features of federalism without possessing a formal federal structure. Rigid constitution: A constitution which stands above the other laws of the country and contains specific legal obstacles to be overcome before it may be amended, Flexible constitution: A constitution that may be amended by the ordinary process of legislation and is therefore relatively easy to amend.

190 Component II: UK Politics Spec key term Unentrenched: Something not firmly ingrained that will therefore be easier to adapt or change according to circumstances.

more and more constitutional rules have come to have a legal basis, both as new constitutional statutes have been enacted and, sometimes, as conventions and common laws are turned into statutes. The Milestones timeline shows some of the key statute laws that have allowed our system to evolve. Examples of some recent constitutionally significant statute laws include:

»»Scotland Act 1998 (established the Scottish Parliament) and Government of Wales Act 1998 (established Welsh Assembly)

»» Human Rights Act 1998 (translated the European Convention on Human Rights into statute law)

MILESTONES... The development of the UK’s constitutional settlement 1215

Magna Carta – The ‘Great Charter of Freedoms’, imposed by rebellious barons on King John of England. In Magna Carta, the first systematic attempt was made to distinguish between monarchy and tyranny, based on the requirement that the king should rule justly and in accordance with a body of defined law and custom. Among the rights it established was the writ of habeas corpus, which allows people to appeal against imprisonment without trial.

1649–60

Commonwealth – The period of English republican government between the execution of Charles I and the Restoration, when Charles II returned to England. From 1653 to his death in 1658, Oliver Cromwell ruled as the Lord Protector, refusing the offer of the crown.

1688

Glorious Revolution – Arguably the key moment in Britain’s constitutional history. It provided the basis for the principle of parliamentary sovereignty by which monarchs William and Mary agreed to be a constitutional monarchy; they accepted that they ruled within constraints established by Parliament. This event laid the grounds for the later spread of democracy in the UK.

1689

Bill of Rights – Firmly established the principles of frequent parliaments, free elections and Parliamentary Privilege. It also includes: no right of taxation without Parliament’s agreement, freedom from government interference, the right of petition and just treatment of people by courts. The main principles of the Bill of Rights are still in force today.

1701

Act of Settlement – This settled the succession to the English and Irish crowns, and also disqualified anyone who became a Roman Catholic, or married one, from inheriting the throne (the disqualification was removed in 2011).

1707

Acts of Union – The Union with Scotland Act 1706 and the Union with England Act 1707 provided for the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain as a single state with a single legislature. Scotland and England had previously been separate states but, since 1603, with the same monarch.

1911 and 1949

Parliament Acts – These Acts formally consigned the House of Lords a subordinate role to that of the House of Commons, by stipulating that the Lords can delay a non-money bill for no more than two sessions (reduced to one session in 1949), and that money bills become law one month after leaving the Commons, without the need for Lords’ approval.

1972

European Communities Act – This Act approved and authorised the UK’s membership of the European Community, which commenced at the beginning of 1973 and meant that EC/EU law became a source of the constitution.

1997– 2001

New Labour reforms – The first Blair Labour Government introduced a major programme of constitutional reform. Its reforms included devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (1998), the creation of the Greater London Authority (1999), reduced the number of hereditary peers in the Lords (2000), and the introduction of the Human Rights Act (see page 49) and the Freedom of Information Act (2000).

2018

EU Withdrawal Act – The formal repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and other provisions in connection with the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. It is the law that legally enforced the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

The Constitution

191

»»House of Lords Act 1999 (reduced the number of hereditary peers sitting in the House of Lords to 92)

»»Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (provided for a Supreme Court to take over the role of the Law Lords)

»»Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (introduced the principle of fixed-term elections for the Westminster Parliament).

2. Common law Common law is a body of law created by judicial rulings established over time. This has occurred through the use of precedent, where judgements in earlier, similar cases are recorded and are taken to be binding on later cases. Therefore, while statute law is made by politicians, common law (or ‘case law’ as it is sometimes known) is sometimes seen as ‘judge-made’ law. Common law therefore exists where there is no statute law. Murder is perhaps the best example of common law – it has been so well established and defined by judges over time that there is no need for Parliament to create a statute law. Common law also occurs where statute laws may be vague or contradictory. An example of this was explored in the 1991 case R v R. Prior to this case, forced sexual activity within a marriage was not considered illegal, and a husband could enforce ‘conjugal rights’ on his wife without committing rape based on the belief that a wife had provided ongoing consent through the contract of marriage. However, the R v R case changed the law because the courts ruled that, even within a marriage, any non-consensual sexual activity is rape. Law Lords ruled that for modern times, marriage is a partnership of equals. Common law is therefore used to ensure that the law is constantly evolving to meet changing social attitudes.

Spec key term Common law: The legal system in England that has developed over a period of time from old customs and court decisions, rather than laws made by politicians. Convention: Unwritten understanding about how something should be done which, although not legally enforceable, is almost universally observed, like a custom or tradition.

3. Conventions Conventions are customs or traditions that have endured throughout history. They are a major means by which the constitution adapts to changing circumstances and are essential to its working. Many aspects of the UK political system that one might fairly assume to be legal documents are in fact conventions. For example, it is merely a convention that a government resigns if it loses a general election, yet despite this, it has never been an issue in modern politics. So why are conventions upheld? The answer is that they are upheld by practical political circumstances; not keeping them would result in consequences. The convention that Royal Assent is always granted is upheld by the monarch’s desire not to challenge the ‘democratic will’ of Parliament, an act that would bring the future of the monarchy into question. Examples of major constitutional conventions include:

»»The powers of the Royal Prerogative are exercised by the Prime Minister, not by the monarch. These powers include the power to appoint, and sack ministers, to dissolve Parliament, and to ratify international treaties.

»»Individual ministerial responsibility (see page 270). This broadly defines the relationship between ministers and their departments, and it defines grounds on which ministers should resign.

4. Works of constitutional authority One of the peculiarities of the UK constitution is the need to consult works by authors who are considered to be authorities on constitutional issues. These works help to define what is constitutionally ‘correct’; although they are written, they are not legally enforceable. They are needed for two reasons:

»»There are many gaps and confusions in the UK’s uncodified constitution, with uncertainty about how rules and principles should be applied in practice.

»»These authoritative works carry out the job of interpretation – saying what the constitution actually means.

Definition Royal Assent: The monarch’s approval of legislation passed by Parliament.

Spec key term Treaty: A written agreement between two or more countries formally approved and signed by their leaders. Authoritative works: Books written by constitutional experts explaining how a political system is run. They are not legally binding but are taken as significant guides to how the constitution works.

192 Component II: UK Politics Nevertheless, because they lack legal authority, these constitutional works are only consulted and followed if they are considered to be relevant and their authors respected. Their status is therefore often subject to debate. Key works of constitutional authority include:

»»Walter

Bagehot’s The English Constitution (1867). Bagehot distinguished between the ‘dignified’ parts of the constitution (the monarchy and the Lords), from the ‘efficient’ parts of the constitution (the Cabinet and the Commons).

Spec key term The rule of law: the principle that law should ‘rule’ in the sense that it applies to all conduct or behaviour and covers both private citizens and public officials.

»»A.V. Dicey’s An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885). This defines the ‘twin pillars’ of the constitution: Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law.

»»Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament (1844). This

provides the most authoritative account of the practices, procedures and rules of Parliament and was used by Speaker Bercow during the Brexit crisis in Parliament (see page 230).

Relationship between the sources It is clear that statute law takes precedence over all other sources. For example, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 overrode the Lascelles Convention which dealt with the circumstances in which the monarch could refuse the Prime Minister a dissolution of Parliament. It can override common law because Parliament can simply pass a new law which clarifies the situation or deals with the contradiction if it doesn’t like the way the judiciary has resolved the issue.

Principles of the constitution Constitutions put rules into a framework of principles. The UK constitution may not have a written document, but it does have a set of core principles. Most important of these are:

»»Parliamentary sovereignty »»Constitutional monarchy »»The rule of law »»Parliamentary government.

Parliamentary sovereignty Sovereignty defines the location of supreme constitutional power. In the UK, sovereignty is located in Parliament (see page 300 for further discussion of Parliamentary sovereignty). Parliamentary sovereignty is a form of legal sovereignty: it means that Parliament has the ability to make, unmake or remove any law it wishes. Parliamentary sovereignty is, without doubt, the most important principle in the UK constitution.

Constitutional monarchy Although the monarchy lost its absolute power long ago, it remains a constitutionally significant body in the UK. According to Bagehot, the ‘dignified’ institutions still play a vital role, specifically to serve as a symbol of political unity above party politics. According to Bagehot, the monarch has the right:

»»To be informed »»To be consulted »»To warn »»To encourage.

The rule of law The rule of law shows that in the absence of higher law, government is still subject to legal checks and constraints. Government, in short, is not ‘above’ the law (see page 285 for a detailed discussion).

The Constitution

193

Parliamentary government Parliamentary government exists when there is a fusion of the legislative and executive branches, with the leader of the largest party becoming Prime Minister (see Chapter 8 for a detailed explanation).

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  IS THE UK CONSTITUTION FIT FOR PURPOSE?



Flexibility – One of the chief strengths of the UK constitution is that it is flexible and easy to change.

»»This occurs because of statute law. Quite simply, it is easier and quicker to introduce an Act of

Definition Executive: The branch of government that is responsible for the implementation of laws and policies made by Parliament.

Parliament than to amend the US Constitution. Flexibility arises because the UK constitution is not entrenched.

»»The advantage of the UK’s constitution is that it remains relevant and up to date. This occurs

because it can adapt and respond to changing circumstances. The introduction of devolution was, for instance, a response to rising nationalism in Scotland and Wales.



Uncertainty – Critics of the UK constitution point out that it is sometimes difficult to know what the constitution says.

»» Being flexible is not a positive trait in a constitution. Constitutions need to be clear and relatively rigid as their job is to tell governments what they can and can’t do.

»» Confusion surrounds many constitutional rules because, quite simply, they are not clear. This applies particularly to the constitution’s unwritten elements, like conventions



Democratic rule – In the UK’s uncodified constitution, supreme constitutional authority rests, ultimately, in the elected House of Commons. Changes to the constitution therefore often come about because of democratic pressure.

»»The UK’s long period of democratic rule is often seen as evidence of the strength of its constitutional system. The reason why the constitution has a democratic flavour is because of the importance of Parliamentary sovereignty.

»»For instance, the powers of the House of Lords were reduced through the Parliament Acts, because of a growing belief that an unelected second chamber should no longer have the right to block the policies of elected governments.



Centralisation – Although the UK is a democracy, it has an over-centralised system of government with ineffective checks and balances which undermines its democratic aspects.

»» One of the key features of liberal democracy is that government power is limited. However, UK government is characterised more by the concentration of power and an over-mighty executive.

»» Despite the constitutional reforms introduced since 1997 having dispersed government power,

many argue that they do not enable Government to be effectively checked; one of the key jobs of a constitution.



History and tradition – The UK’s constitution has evolved over time, which is a key strength as it does not result in old-fashioned ideas being entrenched within the constitution.

»»A problem with codified systems is that they codify the rights that were relevant at the time into a document that is supposed to endure.

»»A key strength of the UK’s uncodified constitution is that the UK constitution has developed and

grown over time, giving it an ‘organic’ character. This is an argument most commonly associated with conservative thinkers.



Weak protection of rights – The organic nature of the UK’s constitution provides weak protection for individual rights and civil liberties.

»» Due to its evolutionary nature, apart from the fear of not being re-elected, there is nothing that forces the government to respect individual freedom and basic rights.

Synoptic link The concept of whether constitutions should be codified or uncodified is directly linked to the core political ideas of Conservatism and Liberalism.

194 Component II: UK Politics

»» The passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 has improved rights protection. However, it stops well short of being an entrenched bill of rights because its provisions could be set aside by Parliament, as has occurred, for instance, over terrorism legislation (see Chapter 2).



Effective government – Supporters of the UK constitution often argue that it helps to make UK governments stronger and more effective. This occurs for two reasons:

»»Given the absence of a ‘written’ constitution, government decisions that are backed by statute law are sovereign and cannot be struck down.

»»This allows UK governments to take strong and decisive action. This is best reflected in radical

governments such as Attlee’s of 1945–51, which set up the NHS and nationalised a wide range of industries, and the Thatcher Governments of 1979–90, which introduced privatisation and deregulated the economy.

 Tip – When writing an essay, use the paired debates above to decide which way you are going to argue your point and make sure you include your AO3 evaluation throughout your answer. See Chapter 11: Exam Focus for more information on how to do this.

Elective dictatorship – The most serious and challenging criticism of the UK constitution is that, in practice, it gives rise to the problem of ‘elective dictatorship’. (see page 235).

»» It draws attention to the fact that, once elected, UK governments can more or less act as they

please until they come up for re-election. This is because sovereign power is vested in the hands of Parliament and Parliament is routinely controlled, even dominated, by the government of the day.

»» In concentrating power in the hands of the executive, it allows the government of the day to shape and reshape the constitution however it wishes. This creates the impression that, in effect, the UK does not have a constitution.

Key Debate Summary: Is the UK constitution fit for purpose? FOR

AGAINST

99One of the chief strengths of the UK

88 Uncertainty – critics of the UK constitution

99Democratic rule – In the UK supreme

88 Although the UK is a democracy, the

constitution is that it is flexible and easy to change. constitutional authority rests in the elected House of Commons. Changes often come about because of democratic pressure.

point out that it is sometimes difficult to know what the constitution says. UK has an over-centralised system of government with weak or ineffective checks and balances.

99Effective government – the UK constitution 88 The most serious and challenging criticism helps to make UK governments stronger and more effective.

99The benefit of an organic constitution is

that constitutional rules and principles have been ‘tested by time’ and shown to work.

of the UK constitution is that, in practice, it gives rise to the problem of ‘elective dictatorship’.

88 The UK constitution provides weak

protection for individual rights and civil liberties.

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS IN THE UK IMPROVED THE UK POLITICAL SYSTEM?

Constitutional reform under Blair and Brown During their 18 years in opposition (1979–97) Labour developed sympathy for constitutional reform and their 1997 manifesto committed the party to a bold and far-reaching programme of constitutional reform. The Blair Government was, without doubt, the most radical reforming

The Constitution

195

government on constitutional matters of any elected in the twentieth century, with a slate of major constitutional reforms aiming to modernise, democratise and decentralise

1. Devolution (see pages 204–14 for details) Devolution gave a stronger and more independent political voice to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Previously, they had been represented primarily through Parliament, where English MPs always outnumbered their MPs.



Positives:

»»The

devolved bodies have allowed the governments to become closer to the citizens they represent, making politicians more accountable to the electorate, and ensuring their representatives are concerned with their issues.

»»Devolution makes government much more region sensitive: the new institutions deliver different

Synoptic link Devolution of power is a synoptic link to the Component 1 core idea topic of Liberalism.

policies to those produced by Westminster.



Negatives:

»» Devolution has threatened the stability of the UK. After the SNP won an overall majority in the

2016 Scottish Parliament elections a referendum was held in 2014. While it was a ‘no’ vote, the genie was out of the bottle and IndyRef2 was deemed more likely after the UK as a whole, but not Scotland, voted to leave the EU in 2016.

»» It has created regional unfairness, with different groups benefiting in the different regions. Does it go far enough?

»»Devolution has left the West Lothian Question unresolved. While Scotland has representatives who may vote on English matters, the reverse is not true. This has been improved but not resolved by English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) (see page 200).

»»The devolved bodies remain subordinate to a sovereign Parliament and can theoretically be abolished; the Northern Ireland Assembly has been prorogued three times.

Definition West Lothian Question: The perceived imbalance between the voting rights in the House of Commons of MPs from Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland constituencies and those of MPs from English constituencies following devolution.

2.  Electoral reform (see Chapter 4 for details) Different electoral systems were introduced for the devolved bodies. This improved the representation of small parties and prevented electoral distortion.



Positives:

»»The introduction of different types of electoral systems to first-past-the-post has been successful and helps ensure that the number of seats more closely mirrors the number of votes.

»»The use of AMS in Scotland & Wales has given many smaller parties and independents their first seats.



Negatives:

»» »» An unfortunate effect of the use of the top-up element in elections in Scotland and Wales is Participation has been disappointing. The use of PR has not resulted in a rush to polling stations. tension between the constituency and list members

Does it go far enough?

»»There has still been no introduction of PR in the Westminster elections. 3. Referendums (see Chapter 4 for details) Since 1997 it has become common practice to use referendums to consult the public on constitutional changes.

Synoptic link Electoral reform as a constitutional reform is a clear synoptic link to the Component One topic of Elections.

196 Component II: UK Politics



Positives:

»»Referendums

have enabled representative democracy to be supplemented by a stronger element of direct democracy and brought other benefits such as improved political education.

»»They have allowed voters to confer legitimacy on major constitutional changes, for example devolution or the introduction of new ideas such as directly elected mayors.

 Synoptic link Referendums as a constitutional reform is a clear synoptic link to the Component One topic of referendums.

Negatives:

»» As the Brexit referendum showed, they undermine Parliamentary sovereignty. »» They create divisions in society, as was seen by the Scottish referendum. »» Some decisions should not be put to a public vote as they are too complicated. Does it go far enough?

»»Referendums can only be initiated by Parliament, not the people. 4. Human Rights Act of 1998 (see Chapter 2 for details) The Human Rights Act introduced the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into British law. The introduction of the HRA in 1998 gave UK citizens positive rights in UK law for the first time.



Positives:

»»Citizens now have a list of their rights, which has created a culture of rights awareness. »»This helps make clear the power of the executive and stops them from abusing the civil liberties of the electorate.

»»Role of the judiciary in protecting rights has increased as they now have the ability to declare laws incompatible.



Negatives:

»» These rights are not new but the HRA has created a more litigious culture in the UK. »» It gives rights to the ‘wrong’ people. Suspected terrorists like Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada used the Human Rights Act to successfully delay deportation.

»» Judges are not elected so it is undemocratic to have them holding a democratic institution to account.

Does it go far enough?

»»The Human Rights Act has not been entrenched in UK law and can be abolished at any time.

Synoptic link

Cameron was only stopped from doing so by the coalition agreement in 2010. The 2019 manifesto contained a pledge to update it to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government.

The Human Rights Act and Freedom of Information Act as constitutional reforms are a clear synoptic link to the Component One topic of Rights.

»»Judges cannot ‘strike down’ legislation, rather they can only ‘declare it incompatible’ with the Human Rights Act. The Government has to be willing to change it.

»»Due to the UK having no higher law, our rights are not entrenched. Governments continue to

enjoy the power to amend, make or revoke any law it wishes. The Prevention of Terrorism Act demonstrated the weakness of the HRA.

5. The Freedom of Information Act (FoI) (see page 50) The FoI was introduced in order to create a more open government, so that individuals or groups can request papers to understand how and why decisions are made by the people elected to govern on their behalf.



Positives:

»»The Freedom of Information Act gives citizens the ‘right to know’ information regarding how decisions were made, and who made decisions.

The Constitution

»»It allows the public to access files from any governmental body or agency. The law states that

any person can request information from a public body and has a right to have that information given to them.



Negatives:

»» It has restricted the ordinary act of governing by making ministers concerned over emails they write and minutes of meetings that are recorded.

»» It has led to ministers using covert or unofficial methods to communicate controversial ideas. Does it go far enough?

»»The government has the ability to reject requests if it can demonstrate that they are not in the interest of the public or national security.

»»The information commissioner can’t compel the government or other public bodies to release information.

»»The Act is full of exemptions. Many argue it has not gone far enough with many requests being refused for a broad range of excuses including cost, inadequate information, inability to locate information etc.

6. House of Lords reform The Lords was reformed in 1911 Parliament Act and 1949 Parliament Act, which asserted the supremacy of the Commons and restricted the Lords’ law-making power. In 1999 The House of Lords Act was implemented. This meant that all but 92 hereditary peers were removed.



Positives:

»»The Lords remains free of electoral limits and so may offer impartial advice on legislation. »»As a consequence of reform, the Lords has been much more assertive in holding Government to account as it considers its legitimacy to have been renewed.

»»Its composition sometimes more accurately reflects the popular vote than the Commons. »»If the chamber was fully elected, it might expect more political powers which would cause gridlock



Negatives:

»» The removal of hereditary peers has not reduced the size of the chamber in the long term, there are now over 800 peers sitting in the House of Lords.

»» As the Lords are now mainly appointed, this gives even more power to a Prime Minister Does it go far enough?

»»It remains wholly unelected, with no public accountability. »»An elected Lords would aid in preventing ‘elective dictatorships’, particularly as elected Lords could claim a democratic mandate in contesting legislation.

7.  Judicial reform – The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (see page 282) This Act created a clearer separation of powers at the heart of the UK system of Government. The role of Lord Chancellor was split into three distinct roles and the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) also ensured independence in the appointment of judges. Finally, and most wellknown, the creation of the Supreme Court by removing the Law Lords from the House of Lords in 2009 ensured a total separation of the judiciary from the two other branches of government.



Positives:

»»The newly independent judges are far more willing to be a check on the legislature and executive. »»There is better (although still limited) representation of women and minority groups via the JAC.

197

198 Component II: UK Politics



Negatives:

»» The position of Lord Chancellor has existed for centuries and should not have been reformed in such an ill-thought-out way.

Does it go far enough?

»»The Supreme Court is merely a geographical move from one building to another. It does not replicate the powers of the Supreme Court of the USA, it is not Supreme.

»»The Supreme Court Justices are the highest Appeal Court in the land, but as Parliament is sovereign, they have no powers to restrict the government.

Constitutional reform under the Coalition 2010–15 1. Fixed-term Parliaments The Fixed-term Parliaments Act meant that Parliaments will last for five years, removing the Prime Minister’s prerogative power to call an election as they wish within a five-year limit. The only exception to this is if the government loses a vote of confidence in the Commons or if two-thirds of MPs vote for an early election.



Positives:

»»It removes the ability of the Prime Minister to manipulate a general election date for personal gains.



Negatives:

»» Five years is too long and has led to a ‘zombie’ Parliament. The last year before the election in 2015 left Parliament with very little to do but wait for the election campaign to begin.

Does it go far enough?

»»The calling of the 2017 ‘snap election’ and the 2019 Election showed the Act does not sufficiently limit a Prime Minister’s power.

»»The

2019 Conservative manifesto committed the party to getting rid of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, as ‘it has led to paralysis at a time the country needed decisive action’.

2. Wright Reforms to the House of Commons The Wright Committee was a Select Committee of the UK Parliament. It reported in 2009 and its recommendations were accepted in full. The general idea was that backbenchers should have more power to choose and schedule their own activities. In May 2010, the incoming Coalition Government agreed to bring forward the Wright Committee’s recommendations in full. As a result, since 2010: a) Chairs of most select committees are directly elected by the House. b) Members of departmental and similar committees are elected by the House. c) Backbench business is scheduled by the newly created Backbench Business Committee (BbBC). d) An effective e-petitions system was introduced. If an e-petition achieves over 100,000 signatures is can be considered by the BbBC to be debated in the House.



Positives:

»»Select committees have been revitalised, with many highly effective chairs being more prepared to challenge the government (see Chapter 8, page 238).

»»The e-petition process has become a huge success and is used widely (see Chapter 2). Does it go far enough?

»»Not all select committees can chose their own chair, as was seen in 2020 with the Liaison Committee

»»Backbench committee debates do not compel the government to act. They are merely an opportunity for MPs to express their views.

The Constitution

3.  Further Welsh and Scottish devolution In 2011 the Coalition Government increased power to the Welsh Assembly following the 63% ‘yes’ vote in a referendum. It gave the Welsh Assembly primary law-making powers over devolved areas, and in 2014 the Assembly gained tax-raising powers. The Scottish Parliament received more powers under the 2012 Scotland Act. As a consequence of the 2014 Independence referendum, the Scotland Act was passed in 2016. The Scottish Parliament gained legislative powers on a range of new areas and it additionally gained new powers on tax.

4.  Police and Crime Commissioners Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC) replaced police authorities in an attempt to ensure that local police meet the needs of their communities. They are in control of how an area is policed, the police budget and the amount of Council Tax charged for the police. The first elections took place in 2012.





Positives:

»»It creates democratic accountability at the top of the police authority. Negatives:

»» It can lead to decisions made with re-election in mind, not best policing practices. »» There is a problem with low voter turnout, in some cases, below 15%. Does it go far enough?

»»It can create conflicts between PCCs and chief constables. The roles need to be more carefully defined.

5.  Recall of MPs The Recall of MPs Act 2015 introduced a process whereby an MP can lose their seat if there is a successful request to recall them. An MP can be recalled if they have been:

»»convicted of an offence and received a custodial sentence; »»barred from the House of Commons for 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days; or »»convicted of providing false or misleading information for allowance claims

under the

Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.

Petitions are triggered by MPs; members of the public cannot initiate a petition. The Recall petition is open for signing for eight weeks. If at the end of that period at least 10% of eligible electors in the constituency had signed the petition, the seat would be declared vacant and a by-election would follow. The Member who was recalled can stand in the by-election. Recall has been used three times so far in the UK. 1. North Antrim – The first recall petition was triggered in July 2018 after the Commons agreed to suspend Ian Paisley, the MP for North Antrim, for 30 Parliamentary ‘sitting days’. The petition did not attract the required number of signatures to recall Mr Paisley, so he remained an MP. 2. Peterborough – The second recall was triggered in March 2019. Fiona Onasanya was subject to a recall process because she had been convicted with a three-month prison sentence for perverting the course of justice. The Peterborough petition was opened and was successful. A by-election was held and the Labour Party retained the seat with Lisa Forbes elected. This was the first time the recall process had been used to oust an MP. 3. Brecon and Radnorshire petition – In March 2019, Chris Davies, the MP for Brecon and Radnorshire, pleaded guilty to charges brought under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. His conviction met the third condition for the triggering of a recall petition. A by-election was held, and the Conservative Party’s candidate Chris Davies lost the seat to the Liberal Democrats’ Jane Dodds.

199

200 Component II: UK Politics



Positives:

»»Recall ensures that MPs stay aware of their obligations to their constituents throughout their five-year term.



Negatives:

»» Recall can be manipulated and used for party political ends. Does it go far enough?

»»Genuine recall would be started by the electorate. Recall in the UK can only occur if MPs give their permission.

Constitutional reforms passed by the Conservative Government 2015–2017 1. English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) English Votes for English Laws is a process in the Commons to provide MPs representing English constituencies (or England and Wales) the opportunity to veto legislation that applies only in England (or England and Wales). This means that legislation affected by the procedures must receive the backing of both English (or English and Welsh) and UK-wide MPs.



Positives:

»»It attempts to deal with the West Lothian Question whereby Scottish MPs have a say on England-only laws and not vice versa.



Negatives

»» It is unnecessarily complicated. As Figure 7.1 shows EVEL introduces up to eight additional legislative stages during the initial passage of a bill through the Commons.

»» EVEL creates ‘two classes of MP’, with only some MPs given the right to veto some legislative provisions. The SNP claims it makes its MPs at Westminster ‘second class’ citizens.

Figure 7.1  English votes for English laws FIRST READING Bill is introduced, no debate

SPEAKER CERTIFICATION

SECOND READING Speaker decides whether English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) applies to Bill General debate on Bill

COMMITTEE STAGE Line by line examination of Bill

REPORT STAGE Further changes can be made to the amended Bill

COMMITTEE

SPEAKER CERTIFICATION Speaker reviews Bill

LEGISLATIVE GRAND COMMITTEE Agrees or withholds a consent motion

RECONSIDERATION Any matters in despute can be resolved

SPEAKER CERTIFICATION Speaker reviews Bill

Consent withheld

THIRD READING Final chance to debate Bill Consent motion (s) agreed

Consent motion (s) agreed

Bill goes to House of Lords for consideration

Consent withheld

LEGISLATIVE GRAND COMMITTEE Agrees or withholds consent or removes disputed clauses from Bill HOUSE OF COMMONS

CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS Double majority vote needed for any EVEL amendments

Bill returns to House of Commons Clauses removed if no agreement

CONSEQUENTIAL CONSIDERATION Necessary minor changes are made to Bill

SPEAKER CERTIFICATION Speaker decides whether EVEL applies to House of Lords amendments

ROYAL ASSENT Bill becomes an Act of Parliament

Source: Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

The Constitution Does it go far enough?

»»

EVEL has so far failed to give English MPs a ‘voice’ because it is designed in such a convoluted way. In January 2016 constitutional history was made in the Commons when the Housing and Planning bill was passed using EVEL. MPs from the other nations of the UK were able to debate during this stage but not vote on motions judged by the Speaker to apply only to England (or to England and Wales).

2.  Metro mayors The idea of directly elected mayors has been around since the London Mayor was created in 1998. However, they had been overwhelmingly rejected by cities in the early 2000s and there was a lukewarm response during the 2010–2015 Coalition from 12 cities with only three taking up the offer of their own directly elected mayor. Despite this, May’s Government persevered and metropolitan mayors were elected in Greater Manchester, Liverpool, West Midlands, Tees Valley, West of England, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough and Sheffield. Positives:

»»It gives one person overall responsibility for an area which they can fight for and plan strategically. »»It seeks to give representation to English regions. Negatives:

»» They are elected on a very small percentage of the vote, around 20% turnout. Does it go far enough?

»»Some suggest that an English Parliament is the best way to give representation to the areas of England.

Constitutional reforms passed by the Conservative Government 2019 onwards 1. Brexit In January 2020, the UK formally left the EU. There is no doubt that Brexit is of profound constitutional significance, much of which may take years to unfold. Most obviously, EU law no longer takes precedence over UK law. However, the Brexit process brought up many other constitutional considerations:

»»Should referendums be used to decide major constitutional issues? »»Do Prime Ministers have the right to opt out of treaties according to their Royal Prerogative powers?

»»Should the Supreme Court involve itself in highly political affairs? »»Should the House of Commons seek to take over the role of government when the governing party is divided?

Key Debate Summary: Have constitutional reforms in the UK improved the UK political system?  

Far enough



  Too far

  Not far enough

Devolution

It has allowed the government Devolution has threatened the to become closer to the people. stability of the UK.

Devolution has left the West Lothian Question unresolved.

Electoral reform

It helps ensure that the allocation of seats more closely mirrors how the people cast their votes.

There is still no introduction of PR in the Westminster elections.

Participation has been a disappointment.

201

202 Component II: UK Politics

 

Far enough



  Too far

  Not far enough

Referendums

They have enabled representative democracy to be supplemented by a stronger element of direct democracy.

Human Rights Act

Citizens now have a list of their These rights are not new but rights, this will create a culture of rights awareness, making the the HRA has created a more litigious culture in the UK. government think twice before passing legislation.

Freedom of Information

FoI gives citizens the ’right to know’ information regarding how decisions were made, and who made decisions.

It has restricted the ordinary act of governing by making ministers concerned over emails they write and minutes of meetings that are recorded.

Lords reform

As a consequence of reform, the Lords has been much more assertive in holding governments to account.

Despite removal of many hereditary peers, the Lords is too large.

Judicial reform

The newly independent judges are far more willing to be a check on the legislature and executive.

The position of Lord Chancellor has existed for centuries and should not have been reformed in such an ill-thought-out way.

The Supreme Court is merely a geographical move from one building to another. It does not replicate the powers of the Supreme Court of the USA, it is not Supreme.

Fixed-term Parliament

It removes the ability of the Prime Minister to manipulate a general election date.

Five-year terms are too long.

The calling of the 2017 ‘snap election’ and the 2019 Election showed the Act does not sufficiently limit a PM’s power.

Wright Reforms

Select committees have been revitalised with many highly effective chairs being more prepared to challenge the government.

N/A

Backbench committee debates do not compel the government to act. They are merely an opportunity for MPs to express their views.

PCC

It creates accountability at the top of the police authority.

It can lead to decisions made with re-election in mind.

It can create conflicts between PCCs and chief constables which need better defining.

Recall

Recall ensures that MPs stay aware of their obligations to their constituents throughout their five-year term.

Recall can be manipulated and used for party political ends.

Genuine recall should be started by the electorate. Recall in the UK can only occur if MPs give their permission.

EVEL

It attempts to deal with the West Lothian Question.

EVEL creates ‘two classes of MP’, with only some MPs given the right to veto some legislative provisions.

EVEL has so far failed to give English MPs a ‘voice’ as it is designed in such a convoluted way.

Metro mayors

It gives one person overall responsibility for an area.

They are elected on a very small percentage of the vote.

An English Parliament is the best way to give England representation.

Some decisions should not be put to a public vote as they are too complicated.

Referendums can only be initiated by Parliament, not the people.

The Human Rights Act has not been entrenched in UK law and can be abolished at any time.

It has some major exceptions; all that is needed now to refuse a request is for ministers to argue it would cause ‘prejudice’. The House remains wholly unelected, with no public accountability.

The Constitution

Further constitutional reforms Despite all the constitutional reforms passed by Governments since 1997, there are still a few debates that are unresolved. One of the key issues is whether or not the UK would benefit from a codified constitution. Another is whether the House of Lords should be elected.

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  SHOULD THE UK CONSTITUTION BE CODIFIED?



Clear rules. Because key constitutional rules are collected together in a single document, they are more clearly defined than in an uncodified constitution. This creates less confusion about the meaning of constitutional rules and greater certainty that they can be enforced.



Rigidity. Codified constitutions tend to be more rigid than uncodified ones because higher law is more difficult to change than statute law. The constitution could therefore easily become outdated and fail to respond to an ever-changing political environment.



Limited government. A codified constitution would cut government down to size. It would provide a solution to the problem of elective dictatorship by ending Parliamentary sovereignty. Higher law would also safeguard the constitution from interference by the government of the day.



Unnecessary. Codified constitutions may not be the most effective way of limiting government power. Improving democracy or strengthening checks and balances may be better ways of preventing over-mighty government, making a written constitution unnecessary



Neutral interpretation. A codified constitution would be ‘policed’ by senior judges. This would ensure that the provisions of the constitution are properly upheld by other public bodies. Also, because judges are ‘above’ politics, they would act as neutral and impartial constitutional arbiters.



Judicial tyranny. Judges are not the best people to police the constitution because they are unelected and socially unrepresentative. A codified constitution could be interpreted in a way that is not subject to public accountability. It may also reflect the preferences and values of senior judges.



Protecting rights. Individual liberty would be more securely protected by a codified constitution because it would define the relationship between the state and the citizens, possibly through a bill of rights. Rights would therefore be more clearly defined, and they would be easier to enforce.



Legalistic. Codified constitutions are legal documents, created by people at one point in time. They will codify a set of rights that were deemed important at that time. If they are vague enough to incorporate change over time, they will be no better than an uncodified constitution. They will need to be interpreted by lawyers and judges who will have their own biases. The US Bill of Rights has not stopped discrimination against black people for two centuries.



Education and citizenship. A codified constitution has educational value in that it highlights the central values and overall goals of the political system. This would strengthen citizenship by creating a clearer sense of political identity, which may be particularly important in an increasingly multicultural society.



Political bias. Constitutional documents, including codified constitutions, are inevitably biased because they enforce one set of values or rights in preference to others. So, instead of educating, they can reinforce a prejudice or bias; they can never be ‘above’ politics.

203

204 Component II: UK Politics

Key Debate Summary: Should the UK constitution be codified? FOR

AGAINST

99Key constitutional rules are collected

88 Codified constitutions are more rigid and

99A codified constitution would limit

88 Improving democracy or strengthening

together in a single document, they are more clearly defined. government power.

could therefore easily become outdated.

checks and balances may be better ways of preventing over-mighty governments.

99A codified constitution would be ‘policed’ by 88 Judges are not the best people to police the senior judges.

constitution because they are unelected.

99Individual liberty would be more securely

88 They would codify a set of rights that were

99A codified constitution has educational

88 Constitutional documents, including

protected by a codified constitution.

value in that it highlights the central values and overall goals of the political system.

deemed important at that time.

codified constitutions, are inevitably biased because they enforce one set of values or rights in preference to others.

Visit the companion website for a bonus debate about whether the House of Lords should be reformed.

Devolution Devolution is the transfer of power from central government to lower regional institutions. The term is derived from the Latin verb meaning ‘to roll down’.

Definition Sovereignty: The principle of absolute and unlimited power, implying either supreme legal authority (legal sovereignty) or unchallengeable political power (political sovereignty) (see p. 300).

Devolution differs from federalism in that, although they may look the same, devolved bodies have no share in sovereignty. Their responsibilities and powers are determined by the central sovereign authority, which can, in theory at least, abolish them. Devolution nevertheless comes in different forms:

»»Administrative devolution allows regional institutions to implement policies decided elsewhere. »»Legislative devolution operates through elected regional assemblies that are invested with policy-making responsibilities and, usually, have some tax-raising powers.

Devolution in the UK Devolution has been the most significant change to the UK’s constitutional arrangements since 1997. The UK is made up of four component nations, as is shown in Figure 7.2. Devolution in the UK has largely been a response to the emergence of Scottish and Welsh nationalism. The two nationalist parties, Plaid Cymru (‘Party of Wales’) and the Scottish National Party (SNP), grew in significance during the 1970s and unsuccessful attempts were made to introduce assemblies in Scotland and Wales in 1978 and 1979, respectively. Support for devolution waned until the 1990s, when there was resurgence after over a decade of Conservative Government in Westminster despite no support for the Conservatives in Scotland or Wales. Labour had wanted to reintroduce plans for devolution since the time of John Smith, who became leader in 1992, and worked with other parties and civic groups to set up a framework for Scottish devolution. Plans for Welsh devolution were drawn up, largely to complement Scottish proposals, and Labour’s election in 1997 provided the basis for these plans to be implemented. The first elections for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Parliament were held in 1999, following successful referendums. The Northern Ireland Assembly came into existence in 1998 as a consequence of the Belfast Agreement (also known as the Good Friday Agreement).

The Constitution

205

Figure 7.2  The four nations of the United Kingdom

SCOTLAND

NORTHERN IRELAND REPUBLIC OF IRELAND

WALES

ENGLAND

Although highly controversial in its initial stage – the Conservatives strongly opposed it – devolution has quickly become a popular and established feature of UK politics, and one that all major UK parties now support. The UK has a novel form of devolution, in that it operates in quite different ways in different parts of the UK. This is what is called asymmetrical devolution. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland therefore each have different systems of devolution.

Table 7.1  Powers of the devolved institutions Scottish Parliament

Welsh Parliament

Agriculture, forestry and fishing Education Environment Health Housing Local government Justice Fire service Economic development Transport Tax varying powers Tourism, culture heritage and sport

Table 7.2  Powers reserved to Westminster The constitution Foreign affairs Defence and national security Immigration The economy International trade and financial markets

NI Assembly

Definition Asymmetrical devolution: A form of devolution that operates differently in different regions, with no common pattern of devolved powers and responsibilities within the state.

206 Component II: UK Politics Definition Primary legislative power: The ability to make law on matters which have been devolved from Westminster.

Devolution in Scotland The Scottish Parliament is an example of legislative devolution. It has primary legislative powers in most fields of domestic policy and tax-varying powers (the ability to raise or lower income tax). As Table 7.3 shows, devolution is best described as a ‘process and not an event’. Since the initial 1998 Scotland Act, there have been two additional Acts (in 2012 and 2016), increasing the scope and amount of power conferred on the Scottish Parliament and government. The increased range of powers has mirrored the rise in the popularity of the SNP in Scottish (and Westminster) Parliamentary elections, with increased powers offered to appease the growing thirst for independence.

Table 7.3  How devolution has evolved in Scotland 1997

Referendum supports the idea of a Scottish Parliament (74% voted Yes) with tax raising powers (63% voted Yes).

1998

The Scotland Act 1998 establishes a Scottish Parliament and executive with devolved primary legislative powers in some areas, in a reserved power model and income tax-varying power, ± 3p.

1999

First Scottish Parliamentary Election – Labour is the largest party with 56 out of 129 seats. They form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

1999

Primary legislative powers in a number of areas are given to the new Scottish parliament which is officially opened by The Queen.

2001

UK General Election – SNP wins 5 and Labour 56 of the 59 Scottish seats.

2003

Second Scottish Parliamentary Election – Labour’s representation slips to 50 seats, but a second coalition with the Liberal Democrats is formed.

2004

The first debate is held in the new Scottish Parliament building at Holyrood following the announcement of an inquiry into the cost over-run and the delays in the construction of the Scottish Parliament project in 2003.

2005

UK General Election – SNP receives 5 and Labour 41 of the 59 Scottish seats.

2007

Third Scottish Parliamentary Election – a small revolution with the SNP becoming the largest party, winning 47 seats, followed by Labour with 46.

2009

The Calman Commission calls for the Scottish parliament’s accountability to be improved by giving it more responsibility over the raising of tax revenues.

2010

UK General Election – SNP receives 6 and Labour 41 out of 59 Scottish seats.

2011

Fourth Scottish Parliamentary Election – SNP wins an overall majority with a 12% swing. New First Minister Alex Salmond says he intends to introduce a referendum proposing independence for Scotland.

2012

The Scotland Act 2012 implements the recommendations of the Calman Commission, giving an extension of tax powers including increasing tax-varying power to ±10p and devolution of some additional taxes.

2014

Scottish Independence Referendum – vote to stay in the UK is 55% to 45% on 85% turnout

2014

Smith Commission, which was set up after the 2014 referendum, recommends devolving more powers to the Scottish Parliament.

2015

UK General Election – SNP gains 56 and Labour 1 of the 59 seats in Scotland, a shock result.

2016

The Scotland Act 2016 extends more powers to the Scottish Parliament and government including more powers over taxation. It also recognises the Scottish Parliament and government as a permanent constitutional arrangement, which cannot be abolished without a referendum.

2016

Fifth Scottish Parliamentary Election – SNP loses 6 seats and their majority, Labour loses 13 seats, and Conservatives, under Ruth Davison, win 31 seats, more than doubling their quantity.

2016

EU referendum; UK votes to leave – 52/48%, but Scotland votes to stay 62/38%. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon says IndyRef2 is now back on the cards

2017

UK General Election – SNP loses 21, down to 35 of the 59 seats with a resurgent Scottish Conservative Party under Ruth Davidson

2019

UK General Election – SNP gains back many seats, 48, of the 59 Scottish seats

Key:  UK General elections, Scottish Parliamentary Elections, Referendums, Acts of Parliament

The Constitution

207

CASE STUDY 7.1: THE SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM Events On 18 September 2014, a referendum was held on Scottish independence, based on the question: ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’ The referendum campaign pitted the majority Scottish National Party Government at Holyrood, together with other proindependence parties (the Scottish Greens and the Scottish Socialist Party), against the Labour opposition and the Conservative–Liberal Democrat Coalition Government at Westminster. The referendum result was a victory for the No camp, with 55% of Scots opting to remain in the UK versus 45% voting Yes. The turnout of 85% was the highest recorded for any referendum or election held in the UK under conditions of universal suffrage. This was also the first time that the electoral franchise was extended to 16- and 17-year-olds.

Significance The Scottish Independence Referendum set off a constitutional chain reaction that affected not only Scotland but also England. This happened as, with polls indicating a possible Yes victory just days before the referendum, the leaders of the main UK political parties (David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband) rushed to Scotland. They jointly vowed to deliver additional powers to the Scottish Parliament and to uphold the Barnett formula (under which Scotland is disproportionately well-funded) if the Scots rejected independence. This

promise was duly carried out in March 2016, when the Scottish Parliament unanimously approved the new arrangements for Scottish devolution, sometimes dubbed ‘devo-max’. The referendum’s implications for England became apparent on the morning after the referendum when Cameron raised the issue of ‘English votes for English laws’. By suggesting the exclusion of Scottish MPs from voting in the Westminster Parliament on issues confined to England, this supposedly gave England a distinctive voice within the UK’s system of devolved governance. The referendum also did huge damage to the Labour Party in Scotland and a realignment took place. In the 2015 General Election, a year after the referendum, Labour went from 41 seats to 1 in Scotland and the SNP from 6 to 56. This trend has continued. The 2014 referendum appeared to have settled the issue of Scottish independence, at least for the foreseeable future. Not only was the 10% No victory clear-cut, but the further powers granted to the Scottish Parliament were also likely to undermine pressure for independence. What is more, SNP leaders were concerned that a second referendum defeat could effectively destroy the independence movement. However, the issue of Scottish independence was abruptly returned to the political agenda as a result of the 2016 EU Referendum. With 62% of Scottish voters backing Remain, the SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon raised the possibility of a second independence referendum as perhaps the only means of respecting the wishes of Scottish voters in the context of Brexit, and came out in favour of IndyRef2 in March 2017.

Definition

Devolution in Wales The Welsh Assembly was, in origin, an example of administrative devolution, in that it had no control over taxation and only secondary legislative powers. However, following a referendum in March 2011, the Welsh Assembly gained primary legislative powers in all 20 areas for which it is responsible. The story of devolution in Wales is, in some ways, even more about a ‘process not an event’, as in 1997 Welsh people were fairly ambivalent about devolution, yet the years following the referendum have seen the Welsh enjoying their experience of self-rule rather more than one may have predicted in 1997. Yet it would be a mistake to think that Wales is following the Scottish model. In many ways, they couldn’t be more different. As Table 7.4 shows, one key way that nationalism in Wales is different to Scotland can be understood by comparing the fortunes of the SNP with Plaid Cymru. Plaid Cymru has not seen any real change in its fortunes and Labour has been consistently able to hold on to around half the seats in the Senedd. This may be because nationalism in Wales takes a more cultural rather than political approach. The issue of independence has not really taken hold in Wales – not yet, at least.

Reserved power model: Those matters not specifi­ cally set out in statute as reserved to Westminster are assumed to be devolved. Secondary legislative power: The ability to vary some laws passed by the Houses of Parliament, creating dependency on Westminster legislation.

208 Component II: UK Politics Table 7.4  How devolution has evolved in Wales 1997

Referendum supports the idea of a Welsh Parliament (50.1% voted Yes).

1998

The Government of Wales Act establishes a Welsh Parliament and Executive with administrative powers in a range of areas.

1999

First Welsh Parliament Election – Labour is the largest party with 28 out of 60 seats. It forms a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Plaid Cymru receives 17 seats.

2001

UK General Election – Labour wins 34 and Plaid Cymru wins 4 of the 40 Welsh seats.

2003

Second Welsh Parliament Election – Labour is the largest party with 30 seats. It forms a single-party government. Plaid Cymru receives 12 seats.

2005

UK General Election – Labour wins 29 and Plaid Cymru wins 3 of the Welsh seats.

2006

The Government of Wales Act grants the Welsh Parliament primary legislative powers in a limited range of areas. It also separates the executive from the legislature and instates another referendum in 2011 to decide if more powers should be granted to the Welsh Parliament.

2007

Third Welsh Parliament Election – Labour is the largest party with 26 seats. It forms a coalition with Plaid Cymru which receives 15 seats.

2010

UK General Election – Labour wins 26 and Plaid Cymru wins 3 of the Welsh seats.

2011

Fourth Welsh Parliament Election – Labour is the largest party with 30 seats. It forms a single-party government. Plaid Cymru receives 11 seats.

2011

Second Welsh Referendum where 64% voted in favour of more primary legislative powers for the Welsh Parliament.

2014

The Wales Act devolves more power to Wales including control of some taxes and changing the name of the Assembly to a Parliament, signifying its increasing powers.

2015

UK General Election – Labour wins 25 and Plaid Cymru wins 3 of the 40 Welsh seats.

2016

Fifth Welsh Parliament Election – Labour is the largest party with 29 seats. It forms a single-party government. Plaid Cymru receives 12 seats.

2017

The Wales Act gives the Assembly new income-tax-varying powers of ±10p as well as more primary legislative powers. It also recognises the Welsh Parliament and Government as a permanent constitutional arrangement, which cannot be abolished without a referendum.

2017

UK General Election – Labour wins 28 and Plaid Cymru wins 4 of the 40 Welsh seats.

2019

UK General Election – Labour wins 22 and Plaid Cymru wins 4 of the 40 Welsh seats.

2020

The Welsh Assembly is now formally known as the Welsh Parliament or the Senedd Cymru.

Key:  UK General elections, Welsh Parliamentary Elections, Referendums, Acts of Parliament

Source: Barcroft Media/Getty Images

Photo 7.1 British Prime Minister Tony Blair (R), US Senator George Mitchell (C) and Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern (L) smiling on 10 April 1998, after they signed an historic agreement for peace in Northern Ireland, ending a 30-year conflict.

Devolution in Northern Ireland Between the 1970s and 1990s, Northern Ireland endured a bloody conflict known as ‘the Troubles’ which left nearly 4,000 people dead and thousands more injured. At the heart of the Troubles was the division between the majority unionist community, who identify as British and want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom, and the minority nationalist community who want Northern Ireland to be reunited with the Irish Republic. Devolution in Northern Ireland is tightly linked to the Northern Ireland peace process and specifically to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. The Good Friday agreement resulted in power-sharing governments being formed in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The division of powers between the Northern Ireland Assembly and Westminster is different to Scotland and Wales, with powers divided into three categories:

»»Transferred – issues on which the Assembly has full legislative powers.

The Constitution

209

»»Reserved – which can be transferred with cross-community consent. »»Excepted – which cannot be transferred without primary legislation from Westminster. The Good Friday Agreement also enshrines in law the requirement for a power-sharing agreement between the largest unionist and largest nationalist parties. However, this has not been without its difficulties and, as Table 7.5 shows, devolution has been suspended and reinstated several times since 1998. Devolution was suspended in 2002 because the two largest parties were unable to sustain agreement, and although David Trimble from the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) was appointed First Minister in 1998, with his Deputy Seamus Mallon from the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), it was suspended in 2002 and not returned till 2007. Following an election in May

Table 7.5  How devolution has evolved in Northern Ireland 1993

Downing Street Declaration – PM Major and Irish Taoiseach Reynolds agree that any party that renounces violence can take part in talks on the future of Northern Ireland.

1994

The Irish Republican Army (IRA) and loyalist groups announce a ceasefire.

1998

The Good Friday Agreement – a restored Northern Ireland Assembly in Stormont, including a role for the Republic of Ireland in discussions of Northern Ireland.

1998

Referendum on the Good Friday Agreement with 71% backing the Agreement.

1998

First NI Assembly election – Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) is the largest party with 28, closely followed by the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) on 24, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) receives 20 seats, closely followed by Sinn Féin (Republican) on 18.

1998

29 people killed when dissident republicans exploded a car bomb in Omagh.

2001

UK General Election – UUP win 6, DUP 5, Sinn Féin 4 and the SDLP 3 of the 18 NI seats.

2002

Northern Ireland Assembly suspended, and its powers returned to the UK government in Westminster.

2003

Second NI Assembly election – DUP is now the largest party with 30, closely followed by the UUP on 27, Sinn Féin increase their seats to 24 followed by SDLP on 18.

2005

IRA declares its armed struggle is over.

2005

UK General Election – UUP win only 1, DUP up to 9, Sinn Féin 5 and the SDLP 3 of the NI seats.

2006

IRA decommissions its weapons.

2007

Assembly is given back power and the British Army officially ends its operations in Northern Ireland.

2007

Third NI Assembly election – DUP is the largest party with 36, followed by Sinn Féin on 28, UUP receives 18 seats closely followed by SDLP on 16.

2007

DUP leader Ian Paisley and Sinn Féin’s Martin McGuiness become NI First and Deputy First Minister.

2010

UK General Election – UUP wins no seats, DUP 8, Sinn Féin 5 and SDLP 3 of the 18 NI seats.

2011

Fourth NI Assembly election – DUP is the largest party with 38 seats, followed by Sinn Féin on 29, UUP receives 16 seats closely followed by SDLP on 14.

2015

UK General Election – UUP up to 2, DUP 8, Sinn Féin 4 and the SDLP 3 of the NI seats.

2016

Fifth NI Assembly election – DUP is the largest party with 38, followed by Sinn Féin on 28, UUP receives 16 seats closely followed by SDLP on 12.

2017

The deal between the main parties in Northern Ireland collapses.

2017

UK General Election – UUP wins no seats, DUP 10, Sinn Féin up to 7 and the SDLP none of the NI seats.

2017

As a result of the 2017 General Election, the DUP enters into a confidence & supply agreement with the Conservative Government.

2017

Sixth NI Assembly Election is fought with new boundaries, and seats reduced from 108 to 90. DUP is the largest party with 28 seats, closely followed by Sinn Féin at 27. SDLP are on 12 closely followed by UUP on 10.

2019

UK General Election – UUP again win no seats, DUP down to 8, Sinn Féin stays at 7 and SDLP up to 2 of the 18 NI seats

2020

Power sharing resumed in Northern Ireland, with the DUP’s Arlene Foster elected First Minister and Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill elected Deputy First Minister.

Key:  UK General elections, NI Assembly Elections, Referendums, Acts of Parliament

210 Component II: UK Politics

Source: AFP/Getty Images

Photo 7.2 Ian Paisley, from the hardline DUP, shared power with Martin McGuiness, from Sinn Féin.

Definition Unionists: Those who want to remain part of the UK – some of them were also called Loyalists (as they were loyal to the British crown). Unionists are mostly Protestant. Nationalists: Those who want Northern Ireland to be independent from the UK and join the Republic of Ireland – some of them were also called Republicans (as they wanted Northern Ireland to join the Republic of Ireland). Nationalists are mostly Catholic.

2007, the NI Executive comprising the DUP, Sinn Féin, UUP and SDLP was finally able to take office. The First Minister, Ian Paisley from the hard-line DUP shared power with Deputy First Minister Martin McGuiness, from Sinn Féin. It is impossible to understate the enormity of this and it is the symbol of what devolution in Northern Ireland achieved. Not only did these former sworn political enemies managed to work together, in fact they struck up a deep friendship and seemed to enjoy each other’s company so much that they were dubbed the ‘chuckle brothers’. After Paisley’s death in 2014, McGuiness said, ‘Despite our differences, I found him to be a charismatic and powerful personality. He always treated me and those who worked with me with respect and courtesy. The peace process and I have lost a friend.’ This tribute would have been inconceivable 10 years earlier.

Devolution in Northern Ireland brought about through the Good Friday Agreement was able to bring an end to the Troubles and has allowed Northern Ireland’s two communities to pursue their contrasting aspirations without violence.

Policy differences in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland One of the key reasons for devolution is to create local solutions to local problems. Public policy in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has diverged from the rest of the UK as a result of devolution, leading to concern about the overall unity of the United Kingdom. Some significant changes have undoubtedly taken place, such as:

»»The abolition of tuition fees for university students in Scotland in 2008. »»The reintroduction of free long-term care for the elderly in 2002 in Scotland. »»Scotland and Wales keeping the Educational Maintenance Allowance for young people staying on at school.

»»In Wales (2007), Northern Ireland (2010) and Scotland (2011) prescriptions became free. »»Local government elections have been changed, with the use of single transferable vote (STV) in Scotland and Wales.

»»Scotland and Wales have reduced the voting age for Scottish and Welsh Parliamentary elections from 18 to 16.

»»In 2006, Scotland passed a law banning smoking in public spaces, which was followed almost immediately by Wales and Northern Ireland. The ban was introduced in England in 2007.

»»Scotland abolished the ‘bedroom tax’. »»In 2015, Wales changed to an ‘opt-out’ system for organ donations. The UK Government changed the law in England to start an ‘opt-out’ system from 2020.

»»The introduction of a minimum unit price for alcohol in Scotland was linked to the desire to tackle harmful levels of alcohol consumption in 2018.

»»Health expenditure of about £11 billion constitutes about one-third of all the Scottish budget and results in a 10% higher per capita spend in Scotland compared to England.

»»Spending on social services in Scotland is 25% higher per capita than elsewhere in UK. However, arguably one of the most remarkable feature of policy making in Scotland under devolution has been how limited the changes have been. Devolution was supposed to free Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from the dead hand of decision making at a UK level, but the reality has been much more modest than the rhetoric of political leaders.

Devolution in England Instead of introducing an English Parliament, which was not supported by any major party, devolution in England has taken the form of directly elected mayors in parts of England (and the Mayor of London) who only have only executive powers. This is a form of administrative devolution.

The Constitution

211

The powers of the metro mayors vary but they include developing an economic growth strategy and making policy on housing, skills and transport. Mayors have responsibilities and powers across the city regions, unlike existing city mayors or local council leaders, who only make decisions for their local area. There are now nearly 17 million people in England with metro mayors who have significant executive powers and funding available to them to make strategic decisions across whole city regions. As the timeline of devolution in England shows, devolution in England is in its infancy. Early attempts by the Blair Government to introduce mayors were thwarted and were again rejected by the public under the coalition. However, in 2017, metro mayors with wider regional reach seemed to catch a mood and were successfully introduced across England.

Table 7.6  How devolution has evolved in England 1997

Referendum on a Mayor of London and Assembly approved

1998

Blair Government sets up nine Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), with the aim that these could be transformed into elected regional assemblies.

2004

A strong ‘no’ vote in the 2004 referendum on the establishment of an assembly for the North East of England effectively blocked any further progress in this direction by demonstrating little public support for English regional government.

2012

The Coalition offered mayors to twelve cities via referenda. Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield, Wakefield, Coventry, Leeds and Bradford, voted ‘no’; only three – Leicester, Liverpool and Bristol – took up the offer.

2017

Metro mayors elected in Greater Manchester (Labour), Liverpool City Region (Labour), the West Midlands (Tory), Tees Valley (Tory), West of England (Tory), and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough (Tory).

2018

Sheffield City Region elects Labour MP Dan Jarvis as its mayor in 2018.

Key:  Mayoral Elections, Referendums

CASE STUDY 7.2: DEVOLUTION AND COVID-19 Events At the beginning of 2020 the world was hit by a virus – Covid-19 – which began in China and quickly spread to Europe. As cases and deaths began to soar, the four nations of the UK had to consider their response to the global pandemic. Towards the end of March 2020, all parts of the UK went into lockdown, but this was only because the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly agreed to back the Coronavirus Act passed by Westminster. This agreement was necessary because the UK government was only responsible for lockdown restrictions in England, as health is a devolved matter. This meant that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were responsible for their own policies in relation to public health and remained responsible for introducing and lifting restrictions.

Significance The Covid-19 pandemic brought the issue of devolution to light in a way not seen previously

across all four nations. It highlighted quite clearly that the dispersal of power across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland over the last 20 years really did matter. More than ever, the decisions taken at Holyrood, the Senedd and Stormont were highly relevant to people’s lives. Devolution was no longer simply a political debate, it affected everyone. Initially, decisions between the four nations were taken in step. However, as the UK moved out of lockdown in Spring 2020, the four nations took their own approach to lifting restrictions:

Meeting up with people In May 2020, people living in England could take ‘unlimited amounts of outdoor exercise’ with one nonhousehold member. However, in Scotland, while people were allowed to go outside more than once a day to exercise, this had to take place close to home, and did not allow people to mix with other households or to sunbathe in a park, as in England. In Northern Ireland groups of up to six people who did not share a household

212 Component II: UK Politics were allowed to meet outdoors while maintaining social distancing, whereas in Wales people living in two separate households in the same local area could meet outdoors, with no limit on numbers.

row with Burnham showed another dimension to devolution, with locally elected mayors flexing their muscles over the UK government, and gaining local support in the process.

However, one area where there was a nationally As further easing continued throughout the summer, coordinated policy was with regard to financial the rules of meeting up in England continued to be support. This area is not devolved and the policy very different from the rules in Scotland, Wales and included a furlough scheme and support for the selfNorthern Ireland. However, as summer ended, and employed. All announcements made by Chancellor with cases beginning to rise, all Rishi Sunak applied to all four nations of the UK, four nations introduced variations Definition and all spending announcements for England also on a ‘rule of 6’ in September 2020. The Barnett applied to the devolved governments via The Barnett In England the six included anyone formula: The formula. of any age, but in Scotland, there devolved was a limit of two households and administrations in There can be no doubt that the pandemic brought Scotland, Wales children under 12 were not included. the realities of devolution to the forefront of people’s and Northern Wales also introduced the ‘rule of minds across all four nations. There have been Ireland receive 6’, not including any children aged implications for the Scottish independence debate grants from the under 11. In Northern Ireland a UK government too. While Nicola Sturgeon was considered to have six-person rule was also introduced that fund most of handled the pandemic much better than Boris but with a two household limit, with their spending. The Johnson in England, the harsh economic reality Barnett formula children under 12 exempt. of the economic support Scotland was given by calculates the block Westminster also reminded many Scots of the With fear of a second lockdown grant aiming to give each country the economic consequences of independence. during the autumn of 2020, stricter same pounds-perrules were introduced, but again, person funding. different rules were imposed Figure 7.3 Covid-19 rules announced across the four nations. These are on 22 September 2020 outlined in Figure 7.3. As cases began to rise throughout the autumn, Johnson announced a local tier system for England, but different tier systems were announced in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, showing, once again, the effects of devolution. Throughout the winter, the different nations of the UK applied their different tiers to different regions. Even the ‘collective’ agreement among the UK’s nations to apply Christmas Covid rules for five days over Christmas was undermined as each of the Governments imposed different, stricter rules. A further challenge to the power of the UK government over England came in October 2020 when the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, challenged the attempt by the UK Government to put Manchester into Tier three (the highest restriction level) without adequate financial support. The

Rules and guidance on meeting up England

Scotland

Wales

Six from multiple households

Up to six aged 12+ form two households

Up to 30 outdoors

How many people outdoors?

No household limit for groups of six aged 12 to 18

Six from two households in a private garden Up to 15 people in public spaces

1m ‘plus’

2m apart (less in some premises)

2m apart – age 11+ only (less in some premises)

2m apart

Six from multiple households

No social visits to private homes

Four households can form one ‘extended household’ maximum of six aged 11+ together at one time

No social visits to private homes

At what distance?

Indoors

Northern Ireland

Up to six aged 12+ from two households at other venues

Up to 15 people at other venues

The Constitution

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  HAS DEVOLUTION BEEN A SUCCESS?





Devolution has brought democracy closer to the people.

»»Decisions about local services and economies are made closer to the people. »»There is policy divergence between the regions. Devolution has dramatically increased the desire for Scottish independence.

»» The referendum in 2014 has not resolved the issue despite a 55% to 45% vote in favour of retaining the union.

»» This was further exacerbated by the different regional votes in the EU referendum. 

Devolved assemblies are very popular and there are no main parties suggesting devolution should be overturned.

»»Since legislation in 2016 and 2017, devolved assemblies in Scotland and Wales could only be overturned by a referendum.



Asymmetric devolution – the differing powers of the different institutions is confusing.

»» It has moved at different speeds for each region and each region has different powers, which makes the whole process imbalanced and uncertain.



Devolution has secured a peaceful environment in Northern Ireland for over 20 years – a huge achievement.

»»Devolution has achieved the unthinkable: republicans and unionists working together to secure a peaceful long-term environment in Northern Ireland.



However, the Northern Ireland government has been suspended and the province ruled from Westminster many times.

»» Irreconcilable disagreement between the two sides has led to many years of direct rule from Westminster since 1998.



Metro mayors have led to greater regional identity in England.



Interest in metro mayors is low.



Welsh interest in devolution has increased since the very narrow referendum vote, as has the demand for greater powers for their Parliament.

»»Metropolitan mayors oversee nearly 17m people in England. »»They are able to make strategic decisions across whole city regions. »» Voter turnout averaged 29% for the metro mayor elections.

»»Despite only around 25% of eligible voters voting in favour of setting up a Welsh Assembly

in 1997, the Welsh Assembly has been a great success and the Welsh has voted for greater powers. As a result it is now called the Welsh Parliament.



England has been short-changed in terms of devolution

»» Despite the fact that 83% of the population of the UK lives in England, there is no English assembly, just metropolitan mayors, and a Mayor for London

»» EVEL, introduced, in part to resolve the West Lothian Question, is too complicated and an unsatisfactory solution.

213

214 Component II: UK Politics

Key Debate Summary: Has devolution been a success? FOR

AGAINST

99Devolution has brought democracy closer

88 Devolution has dramatically increased the

99Devolved assemblies are very popular.

88 The differing powers of the different

99Devolution has secured peace in Northern

88 The Northern Ireland government has been

99Metro mayors have led to greater regional

88 Interest in metro mayors is low.

to the people.

Ireland.

identity in England.

desire for Scottish independence. institutions is confusing

suspended and rule from Westminster imposed many times.

99Welsh interest in devolution has increased. 88 England has been short-changed in terms of devolution.

The Constitution

215

Chapter Summary ‐‐The role of a constitution is to organise a political system and keep all players in check. ‐‐The UK’s constitution is uncodified and made up of a number of sources which work together. ‐‐There is a debate as to whether the UK constitution works effectively. ‐‐Since 1997 there has been a plethora of constitutional changes which have transformed the UK’s political system, some more than others.

‐‐Devolution has had a transformative effect on almost all parts of the UK.

Exam Style Questions Evaluate the view that the UK constitution is no longer fit for purpose (30). zz Evaluate the view that the UK constitution should now be codified (30). zz Evaluate the view that reforms to the UK’s constitution have not gone far enough (30). zz Evaluate the view that the House of Lords should be replaced by a fully elected house (30). zz Evaluate the view that devolution in the UK has been a total success (30). zz

Source Question Constitutional reforms since 1997



Far enough



Too far

Not far enough

These rights are not new but The HRA has not been the HRA has created a more entrenched in UK law and can be abolished at any time litigious culture in the UK

Human Rights Act (HRA)

Citizens now have a list of their rights

Fixed Term Parliament

It removes the ability of the PM to manipulate the date of a general election

Five-year terms are too long

The calling of the 2017 ‘snap election’ and the 2019 election show the Act does not work

Recall

Recall ensures that MPs stay aware of their obligations to their constituents throughout their five-year term

Recall can be manipulated and used for party political ends

Genuine recall can only be started by the electorate. Recall in the UK can only occur if MPs give their permission.

Metro mayors

It gives one person overall responsibility for an area

They are elected on a very small percentage of the vote

An English Parliament is the best way to give England representation

Codified constitution

A codified constitution would clarify the key principles of the UK’s constitution

We would lose the flexibility of our unmodified constitution which has worked well for hundreds of years

A codified constitution would not be effective unless the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty was abolished at the same time

Elected second chamber

A key principle of democracy is that all law makers should be elected by the people

The Lords works well and is highly effective in its many roles

Electing the second chamber would not be enough, we would need to give it more powers.

216 Component II: UK Politics Using the source, evaluate the view that constitutional reform in the UK has gone far enough (30). In your response you must:

»»Compare and contrast different opinions in the source »»Examine and debate these views in a balanced way »»Analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.

Further Resources Barnett, H. (2002) Britain Unwrapped: Government and Constitution Explained (London: Penguin). Bogdanor, V. (2011) The Coalition and the Constitution (Oxford: Hart Publishing). Brazier, R. (2008) Constitutional Reform: Reshaping the British Political System (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Griffiths, S. and Leach, R. (2018) British Politics (3rd edn) (London: Red Globe Press): Chapters 5 and 11. Heffernan, R., Hay, C., Russell, M. and Cowley, P. (2016) Developments in British Politics (10th edn) (London: Red Globe Press): Chapters 1 and 13. King, A. (2001) Does the United Kingdom Still Have a Constitution? (London: Sweet & Maxwell). Moran, M. () Politics and Governance in the UK (3rd edn)(London: Red Globe Press): Chapters 3, 8, and 9.

Visit the companion website to access the Further Resources Booklet to explore a range of useful web links related to: The Good Friday Agreement, 10 things we found out when the Freedom of Information Act was introduced, further insight into devolution in the UK and more.

PARLIAMENT

218

8

Chapter Preview Parliament is considered to be the ‘debating chamber of the nation’, but Parliament is much more than a place where people talk. Parliament is the UK’s supreme law-making body, and it is the key institution within its ‘parliamentary’ system of government. This means that the government does not operate separately from Parliament, but rather it governs in and through Parliament. Yet, the decline of Parliament has been a recurrent theme in the UK, dating back to the nineteenth century. Parliament, it seems, has lost power to many bodies – parties, the executive, lobbyists and pressure groups of various kinds, the mass media, a ‘federal’ EU, and so on. For some, Parliament has simply become an irrelevance, a sideshow to the real business of running the country. But this image is an unbalanced one. Parliament does make a difference, but a key question is: does it make enough difference? A weak Parliament has implications for the effectiveness of democracy, the accountability of government, the quality of public policy – the list goes on. Although Parliament has changed significantly Key Questions and Debates in recent years, there is continued and growing pressure for more »» What is Parliament and how is it different radical change. How effective is Parliament? And how could it be from government? made more effective? »» How is the House of Lords different from the House of Commons? »» What are the main functions of Parliament? »» How does Parliament scrutinise the executive?

Specification Checklist

»» Which is more effective: the Commons or the Lords?

2.1 The structure and role of the House of Commons and House of Lords »» The selection of members of the House of Commons and House of Lords, including the different types of peers.

»» The main functions of the House of Commons and House of Lords and the extent to which these functions are fulfilled.

2.2 The comparative powers of the House of Commons and House of Lords »» The exclusive powers of the House of Commons. »» The main powers of the House of Lords. »» Debates about the relative power of the two houses.

2.3  The legislative process »» The different stages a bill must go through to become law. »» The interaction between the Commons and the Lords during the legislative process, including the Salisbury Convention.

2.4  The ways in which Parliament interacts with the executive »» The role and significance of backbenchers in both Houses, including the importance of Parliamentary privilege. »» The work of select committees. »» The role and significance of the opposition. »» The purpose and nature of ministerial question time, including Prime Minister’s Questions. So

urc

e: i

Sto c

k.c

om

/vw ala

kte

219

220 Component II: UK Politics

Spec key term Parliament: The British legislature made up of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the monarch.

Definition Legislature: The law-making body in a country or state. In the UK, this is Parliament. Executive: The branch of government that is responsible for the implementation of laws and policies made by Parliament.

What is Parliament and how is it different from government? Although Parliament is often treated as a single institution, it is in fact composed of three parts:

»»The House of Commons »»The House of Lords »»The monarchy

In order to fully understand how Parliament works, it is essential to understand the difference between Parliament – the UK’s legislature and the government – the UK’s executive. The function of most legislatures is to consider and pass legislation, hold the government to account and represent the people who elected them. The role of the executive – the UK government – is to propose laws to parliament and to run the country. This will be explored in much greater detail in the following chapter. However, the UK system is a parliamentary system which means the legislature and executive are fused together, not separated.

Parliamentary government A parliamentary system is one in which government governs in and through parliament. It is based on a fusion of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government, which are, therefore, overlapping and interlocking institutions (see Figure 8.1). This goes against the separation of powers.

Figure 8.1 The fusion of power in the UK system

Fusion of powers: Where the executive and legislative branches of government are joined or overlapping. The term was first used by the British constitutional expert Walter Bagehot.

Legislature (Parliament)

Separation of powers: Where the three branches of state are separate, independent bodies.

Spec key term House of Commons: The primary chamber of the UK legislature, directly elected by voters.

Executive (Government)

Judiciary

The chief features of parliamentary government are as follows:

»»There is a fusion of powers of the executive and the legislative branches. »»Governments are formed as a result of Parliamentary elections, based on the strength of party representation in the House of Commons. There are no separate, direct elections for a Prime Minister.

»»The personnel of government must come from Parliament, typically from the largest party in the Commons.

Parliament

»»Government is responsible to Parliament, in that can only continue to govern if it retains the confidence of the Commons and can be removed through defeat on a vote of confidence. This is also known as confidence and supply.

»»Government has a collective ‘face’ and is based on the principle of cabinet government (see page 253) rather than personal leadership.

»»The Prime Minister is head of the government but not head of state; these two roles are strictly separate.

The House of Commons The composition of the Commons is easy to explain because all Members of Parliament (MPs) need to win an election to take their seat. The composition of the Commons is as follows:

»»The Commons consists of 650 MPs. This number is not fixed but only varies when changes are made to constituencies by the Boundary Commission.

»»Each MP is elected by a single-member Parliamentary constituency using the ‘first-past-thepost’ voting system (see page 97).

»»MPs are almost always representatives of a party and are subject to a system of party discipline.

»»Most MPs are backbenchers while the minority, who are members of the government or shadow

221

Definition Vote of confidence: A motion in the Commons with the wording: ‘That this House has no confidence in HM Government’. If the vote is lost, a government may have to step down and if a new government can’t be formed, a general election called. Head of state: The leading representative of a state, who personally embodies the state’s power and authority.

cabinet, are categorised as frontbenchers.

Spec key term

Source: UniversalImagesGroup/ Getty Images

Photo 8.1 Commons Chamber, Palace of Westminster, London.

Key roles in the House of Commons The role of MPs

»»MPs represent their constituencies and deal with the grievances of individual constituents. »»They are expected to scrutinise the government. »»MPs are also expected to debate legislation and the great issues of the day. »»In general terms, MPs legitimise legislation and represent popular consent.

Confidence and supply: The right to remove the government and to grant or withhold funding. Also used to describe a type of informal coalition agreement where the minority partner agrees to provide this in exchange for policy concessions.

Synoptic link The debate between a separation of powers versus a fusion is much discussed within the core political idea of liberalism. This link can be made to earn important synoptic marks in Component 2 essays.

222 Component II: UK Politics Spec key term

Figure 8.2 Who’s who in the House of Commons?

Backbencher: An MP who does not hold a ministerial or ‘shadow’ ministerial post; so-called because they tend to sit on the back benches.

Prime Minister Cabinet

Junior Ministers

Government Part of Parliament

Definition

Government Backbenchers

Frontbenchers: An MP who holds a ministerial or ‘shadow’ ministerial post, and who usually sits on the front benches.

Synoptic link Many of the issues listed on the role of an MP are linked back to the Component One topic of Democracy.

Spec key term Opposition: The MPs and Lords who are not member of the governing party or parties.

Shadow Cabinet

Opposition Backbenchers

The role of backbenchers Most MPs are backbenchers, MPs who are not:

»»Cabinet ministers »»Members of the Government »»Members of the Shadow Cabinet.

It is important to distinguish between the slightly differing roles of backbenchers from the governing party and those from the opposition. Government backbenchers are not expected to criticise the government too strongly even when the interests of their constituency are an issue. Opposition backbenchers are expected to play a prominent part in opposing the government as well as looking after the interests of their constituency. The main opportunities for backbenchers to represent their constituents in the Commons are as follows:

»»Questioning ministers »»Participating in debates »»Voting on legislation »»Participating in public bill and select committees. The role of the Official Opposition The Official Opposition has two main functions:

1. It opposes and criticises the policies of the government 2. In doing so, it presents itself to the electorate as an alternative government. Even though the government dominates the Commons, the Official Opposition is an integral part of it. It is organised on broadly similar lines to the government with a Shadow Cabinet and Whips. The Official Opposition has certain privileges in Parliament. For instance, the leader of the Official Opposition is called upon every Wednesday to question the Prime Minister and has more questions than anyone else. Official Opposition MPs are on all committees in the Commons and are given 20 days a year to raise issues for debate. In practice, the Official Opposition criticises the government in order to keep it on its toes and to present itself as an alternative to the government.

Parliament

223

The role of the whips All parties have a group of officials known as whips who are responsible for ensuring that the work of the Parliamentary party runs as smoothly as possible. They have a number of roles, for example:

»»They work with their opposition whip to arrange the business of the House and send out memos of business to be considered in the following week.

»»They are responsible for ‘pairing’ MPs who wish to be absent from the House. »»They ensure that the party leader is aware of the feelings of MPs on issues and legislation going through Parliament and vice versa.

»»They have many incentives and sanctions available and can make the life of an MP difficult if they are unwilling to ‘toe the party line’.

»»At times of minority and coalition government, the job of whips is considerably harder because

power lies with the backbenchers rather than the government. This is because it only takes a small handful of backbenchers to rebel for the government to lose a vote. Whips have to work hard to ensure that all backbenchers vote with their party.

»»Occasionally, an MP or group of MPs may refuse to comply with the whip’s instructions, which

can result in MPs being disciplined or the ultimate sanction: the whip is withdrawn (expulsion from the Parliamentary party). For example, in September 2019, the Conservative Party withdrew the whip from 21 of its MPs who had not supported the Government’s position on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. The Chief Whip, Mark Spencer, informed the rebel MPs that they were no longer entitled to sit as Conservative MPs.

The Speaker is the chair of the Commons and plays a very important part in its proceedings. The Speaker is an MP and is elected to the role by their fellow MPs. Although they are members of a particular political party, they are expected to act with absolute impartiality once they become Speaker. Normally their constituency is not contested at election time. The Speaker takes no active part in debates in the Commons. The duties of the Speaker include:

»»Calling upon MPs to speak in debates. »»Ensuring that parties receive their fair share of debating time. »»Disciplining MPs when they break the rules and procedures of the House. »»Announcing the results of votes in the House. »»Casting the deciding vote in the event of a tie (convention dictates that this is usually to uphold the government).

Pairing: An arrangement between two MPs of opposing parties to not vote in a particular division, enabling an MP to be absent without affecting the result of the vote, as they effectively cancel each other out. Toe the party line: To support and vote with your party even if you disagree with it.

Photo 8.2 John Bercow served as Speaker of the House of Commons from 2009 to 2019.

Source: Jeff Spicer/Getty Images

The role of the Speaker

Definition

The House of Lords The composition of the House of Lords is both complex and controversial. It is complex because there are four kinds of peers, or Lords. It is controversial because none of these peers are elected. The current membership stems from the House of Lords Act 1999, which removed most (but not all) of the previously dominant hereditary peers, and from the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act (see page 282), which removed the Law Lords from the House of Lords and set up a Supreme Court, which came into existence in 2009.

Spec key term House of Lords: The second chamber of the UK legislature, not directly elected by voters.

224 Component II: UK Politics

CASE STUDY 8.1: CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING RECENT SPEAKERS Events Traditionally, the Speaker of the Commons has been an uncontroversial figure, but that changed with Michael Martin in 2000 and then John Bercow in 2009.

Significance In May 2009, the Speaker of the Commons, Michael Martin, and PM Gordon Brown sought to defuse a row over MP expenses by announcing plans to curb MPs’ self-governance. Martin got caught up in the expenses scandal by appearing to seek to cover up MP’s wrongdoings rather than punishing them. As the expenses scandal was exposed with ensuing public outrage, he became the first ever Speaker to be forced to resign. John Bercow was then elected as a reforming Speaker. He has been credited with helping to modernise Parliament, including relaxing the Commons dress code and allowing pregnant and unwell MPs to vote by proxy. He also helped oversee the introduction of a new grievance procedure for allegations of harassment and bullying. Although a Conservative, he was very much on the left of the Party and disliked by many in it, more so than by members of the Labour Party. Despite this, Speaker Bercow went on to be a champion of backbenchers’ rights, and one way he did this was by reinstating urgent questions into the Commons (see page 236). However, the latter years of his Speakership are noteworthy for two reasons.

1. Brexit It is probably reasonable to say that Bercow will be remembered for the role he played in the Parliamentary debates over Brexit. (See the companion website for a bonus case on Parliament and the Brexit process.) His critics claimed that he abused his position as a not-sosecret Remainer in a bid to frustrate Brexit. However, his supporters said that he was a champion of the rights of backbenchers to stand up to the government: ÎÎ In 2017 he told students at Reading University

that he had voted Remain in the EU referendum, saying that he thought it was ‘better to stay in the European Union’ than ‘thinking you can act effectively on your own’. This led to accusations that he was no longer impartial.

ÎÎ He stopped Theresa May holding a third ‘meaningful

vote’ on her Brexit deal – a decision that forced her to effectively abandon the agreement she had spent months negotiating and hastened her demise. ÎÎ On several occasions he allowed backbenchers to

take control of the Commons timetable to block a no-deal Brexit. ÎÎ He ruled against Boris Johnson in 2019, forcing the

Prime Minister to pass his Brexit legislation first before trying to hold an election. ÎÎ Arguably, one of his most controversial decisions

was to allow backbenchers to amend a motion (allegedly against the advice of his clerks) to force ministers to publish their Brexit strategy much earlier than they had wanted. In January 2019, the Speaker told the Commons: ‘If we were guided only by precedent, nothing in our procedures would ever change. Things do change.’

2. Bullying Despite the fact that in 2017 Speaker Bercow had introduced a new grievance procedure for allegations of harassment and bullying, he himself had been dogged by a number of allegations of bullying in his final few years as Speaker – all of which he denied. ÎÎ Several Commons clerks came forward to allege

that he verbally harassed them on a number of occasions, so severely in one case that an employee was reportedly left with post-traumatic stress disorder. ÎÎ Despite the grievance procedures he introduced,

there was no formal inquiry into allegations of bullying against Bercow after the Commons Standards Committee blocked a probe. ÎÎ His former private secretary, Angus Sinclair, told

Newsnight in 2019 that Bercow tried to physically intimidate him. The Speaker was also alleged to have bullied former private secretary, Kate Emms. ÎÎ Bercow is said to have called then-Leader of the

Commons Andrea Leadsom ‘useless’ and a ‘stupid woman’ in the chamber. While some MPs lamented Bercow’s retirement in 2019, others were delighted to see the back of one of the most divisive Speakers in modern history. PM Johnson refused to grant him a peerage which is the norm for retired Speakers

Parliament

225

The House of Lords consists of the following:

»»Life peers. Life peers are entitled to sit in the Lords for their own lifetimes. They are nominated

by the Prime Minister. Life peers now dominate the work of the Lords. They account for the overwhelming majority of peers (see Table 8.1).

»»People’s peers. Since 2000, a number of so-called ‘people’s peers’ have been appointed on the basis of individual recommendations made to the Lords Appointments Commission. By the end of 2018, 70 had been appointed, although their lack of resemblance to ‘ordinary’ citizens has been a source of criticism.

»»Hereditary peers. These peers hold inherited titles which carry the right to sit in the Lords. Once there were over 700 hereditary peers, but since 1999 only a maximum 92 are permitted to sit. These 92 are elected by other members of the House.

»»Lords Spiritual. These are the 26 bishops and archbishops of the Church of England. They are collectively referred to as the ‘Lords Spiritual’. They are appointed by the Prime Minister on the basis of recommendations made by the Church of England.

The monarchy The role of the monarch is mostly ceremonial and symbolic. As the head of state, the monarch symbolises the authority of the Crown. In Walter Bagehot’s formulation, the monarchy is a ‘dignified’ rather than an ‘effective’ institution. The monarch is associated with Parliament in a number of ways:

»»Appointing a government. The monarch ‘chooses’ the Prime Minister, but in practice, the monarch has little choice over this matter because the leader of the largest party in the Commons is the only person who can command the confidence of Parliament.

Type

Party breakdown

Social represen­ tation

Table 8.1 The composition of the Commons and the Lords House of Commons (2021)

House of Lords (2021)

650 MPs in total

801 Lords in total

430 Men

576 Men

220 Women

225 Women

65 Ethnic minorities

48 Ethnic minorities

45 LGBT 200 Labour

180 Labour

365 Conservative

263 Conservative

11 Liberal Democrat

87 Liberal Democrat

47 SNP

184 Crossbenchers

9 DUP

26 Bishops

19 Others

61 Others

650 MPs

86 Hereditary peers 690 Life peers 26 Archbishops/Bishops

Synoptic link The issue of the elected nature of the Commons versus the unelected Lords is a fundamental issue of legitimacy and democracy which are issues raised in the Component One topic of Democracy and Elections.

226 Component II: UK Politics

»»Opening and dismissing Parliament. The monarch opens Parliament through the State Opening

at the beginning of the Parliamentary year. At the request of the Prime Minister, the monarch ‘dissolves’ Parliament in order to allow for a general election to be held.

»»The Queen’s speech. This is a speech that is delivered at the beginning of each Parliamentary session and informs Parliament of the government’s legislative programme. It is written by the Prime Minister’s office, but delivered by the monarch.

»»The Royal Assent. This is the final stage of the legislative process, when the monarch signs a bill to officially make it an Act. However, this is a mere formality as, by convention, monarchs never refuse to grant Royal Assent.

Spec key term Select committee: Committees responsible for scrutinising the work of government departments. There are also other select committees that take on a wider remit.

Definition Money bill: A bill that contains significant financial measures, as determined by the Speaker of the Commons.

Spec key term Salisbury Convention: The convention whereby the Lords does not delay or block legislation that was included in a government’s manifesto.

Definition Crossbenchers: Members of the Lords who are not affiliated to any party and have no party loyalty.

The comparative powers of the House of Commons and House of Lords The powers of the House of Commons The Commons is politically and legally the dominant chamber of Parliament. This applies to such an extent that the Commons is sometimes taken to be synonymous with Parliament itself. However, a distinction should be made between the formal powers of the House, enshrined in law and constitutional theory, and its political significance. The key powers of the House of Commons include:

»»Supreme legislative power. In theory, the Commons can make, unmake and amend any law it

wishes, with the Lords only being able to delay these laws. The legal sovereignty of Parliament is thus exercised in practice by the Commons.

»»The power to approve the government’s budget and any ‘money bills’. »»Departmental select committees (see page 238) only exist in the Commons. The Lords have select committees but these are not focused on scrutinising government departments.

»»The power to question government ministers and the Prime Minister. Only the Commons can do this.

»»The power to represent the people and be held accountable. »»The key role of legitimation of government and its legislation. »»The power to remove the government of the day. A government that is defeated in the Commons

on a matter of confidence is obliged to resign and, according to the terms of the Fixed term Parliament Act, if no alternative government can be formed within 14 days, a general election will be held.

The powers of the House of Lords The Lords’ legislative powers are set out in the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. The Lords have the following powers:

»»The Lords can delay bills passed by the Commons for up to one year. »»The Lords cannot delay money bills. »»The Salisbury convention suggests that the Lords cannot defeat measures that are outlined in the government’s election manifesto.

»»The

Lords are more independent with less loyalty to parties, with approximately onequarter being crossbenchers. Lords tend to be less loyal because they have either joined as crossbenchers or because they are not seeking party approval.

Parliament

227

Source: KIRSTY WIGGLESWOIRTH/ AFP/Getty Images

Photo 8.3  The House of Lords chamber in session at the Houses of Parliament in London.

»»The Lords have Question Time and every government department has a spokesperson who must respond to questions.

»»Legislative committees in the Lords include peers who are experts in a particular field. For

example, Lord Walton was a former president of the British Medical Association and Baroness Lawrence is a campaigner for the awareness and reform of institutionalised racism.

»»The Lords have the time and independence to debate important issues at leisure. They also debate controversial ethical issues such as genetic engineering.

»»On

rare occasions, Lords can provide the government with ministers, for example Lord Mandelson was in Gordon Brown’s Cabinet

»»The Lords possess some concurrent veto powers that cannot be overridden by the Commons. These can only be used with the consent of both Houses of Parliament. They include:

• The extension of the life of a Parliament (delays to general elections) • The sacking of senior judges • The introduction of secondary or delegated legislation.

Synoptic link The issue at the heart of the Salisbury Convention is legitimacy: the mandate and democracy which can be linked back to the Component One topics of Democracy and Elections.

The legislative process In order for legislation to pass, it must be approved by both chambers (unless the 1949 Parliament Act is invoked, which would mean a delay of one year). Most of the time, the Lords accepts bills passed by the Commons, maybe sometimes making some minor procedural changes. However, occasionally the interaction between the Commons and the Lords during the legislative process involves a lot of back and forth. This is known as parliamentary ‘ping pong’. When a legislative bill has passed through the third reading in both Houses it is returned to the first House (where it started) for any amendments made by the second House to be considered. If the Commons makes amendments to the bill, the Lords must consider them and either agree or disagree to the amendments or make alternative proposals. If the Lords disagree with any amendments by the Commons, or make alternative proposals, then the bill is sent back to the Commons.

Spec key term Legislative bills: Proposed laws passing through Parliament.

228 Component II: UK Politics Figure 8.2 The stages a legislative bill goes through to become law

House of Commons

House of Lords

Bill starting in the Commons

Bill starting in the Lords First reading Second reading Committee stage Report stage Third reading

First reading Second reading Committee stage Report stage Third reading

Bill moves to the Lords

Bill moves to the Commons

First reading Second reading Committee stage Report stage Third reading

First reading Second reading Committee stage Report stage Third reading PingPong

Royal Assent

Source: Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

HOW LAWS ARE PASSED: ÎÎ Preparatory stages. Before bills are passed, their provisions may have been outlined in a White Paper or a Green Paper. ÎÎ First reading. The bill is introduced to Parliament through the formal reading of its title and (usually) the setting of

a date for its second reading. There is no debate or vote at this stage. ÎÎ Second reading. This is the first substantive stage. It involves a full debate that considers the principles (rather

than the details) of the bill, followed by a vote. It is the first stage at which the bill can be defeated. ÎÎ Committee stage. This is when the details of the bill are considered line by line. It is carried out by a public bill

committee (formerly known as a standing committee), consisting of about 18 MPs, but it may be considered by a committee of the whole House. Most amendments are made at this stage, and new provisions can be included. ÎÎ Report stage. This is when the committee reports back to the full House of Commons on any changes made

during the committee stage. The Commons may amend or reverse changes at the report stage. ÎÎ Third reading. This replicates the second reading in that it is a debate of the full chamber, enabling the House to

take an overview of the bill in its amended state, followed by a vote. No amendments may be made at this stage, and it is very unusual for bills to be defeated at the third reading. ÎÎ The ‘other place’. Major bills are considered first by the Commons, but other bills may start in the Lords. Once

passed by one chamber, the bill goes through essentially the same process in what is referred to as the ‘other place’, before finally going to the monarch for the Royal Assent.

Parliament Bills may go back and forth between the Houses until they reach agreement on the exact wording of the bill – this is known as ‘ping pong’. When the exact wording has been agreed by the Commons and the Lords, the bill is ready for Royal Assent. Once a bill receives Royal Assent it is made an Act of Parliament (the proposals in the bill become law). In exceptional cases, when the two Houses do not reach agreement, the bill falls. If certain conditions are met, the Commons can use the Parliament Acts to pass the bill, without the consent of the Lords, in the following session, after a year’s delay.

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  IS PARLIAMENT EFFECTIVE IN FULFILLING ITS FUNCTIONS?

229

Definition Ping pong: The colloquial term for the process by which legislation goes back and forth between the Commons and Lords to find common ground.

The key functions of parliament are: 1. Legislation 2. Representation 3. Recruiting and maintaining the government 4. Legitimacy 5. Scrutiny.

1. Legislative function Parliament is the supreme legislature in the UK in that it can make and unmake any law it wishes, as expressed in the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty (see page 300). The role of Parliament is to consider the laws the government wishes to pass and, after debating and scrutinising them thoroughly, it is generally expected to pass them. Parliament is not restricted by a codified constitution, and no other law-making body can challenge Parliament’s authority. Devolved parliaments, local authorities and ministers can only make laws because Parliament allows them to. However, the bulk of Parliament’s time is spent considering the government’s legislative programme. Party control of the Commons means that government bills are rarely defeated, and most amendments affect the details of legislation, not its major principles. It is more accurate to say that legislation is passed through Parliament rather than by Parliament. Lastly, the Lords play a subordinate role in the legislative process. It is essentially a ‘revising chamber’; most of its time is spent ‘cleaning up’ bills that were not adequately scrutinised in the Commons. Only a small number of bills, known as private member’s bills, are initiated by backbenchers, and these are usually only successful if they have government support. In 2009, The National Autistic Society’s ‘I Exist’ Campaign worked successfully to persuade MPs to back Cheryl Gillian’s Autism Act.

The effectiveness of Parliament’s legislative function The way to examine Parliament’s effectiveness is to see when it has challenged government legislation and when it has allowed a government to pass legislation virtually unchallenged. It is also worth noting that it is not just defeating government bills that matters; the threat of defeating government bills is also important because it can force the government to compromise and introduce amendments to win support from backbenchers.



Effective

»»In 2005, backbench MPs defeated Blair’s plans to extend the detention of terrorist suspects to 90 days. This was his first ever Commons defeat since 1997.

Definition Private member’s bill: A bill that is proposed by an MP who is not a member of the government, usually through an annual ballot.

Tip – Parliament being effective in its legislative function DOESN’T mean passing all the legislation the government would want without scrutiny. In fact, this would mean Parliament was being ineffective in its legislative function.

230 Component II: UK Politics

»»In 2015, Cameron’s Government suffered a defeat in the Commons on the rules surrounding the EU referendum. It also lost a vote to reform Sunday Trading Laws in England.

»»Under the coalition, the 2010–2015 Parliament was the most rebellious in the post-war era.

Coalition MPs rebelled in 35% of votes. The largest Liberal Democrat rebellion was, unsurprisingly given their pre-election promises, on tuition fees, with 21 out of 57 Liberal Democrat MPs voting against raising the fees.

Definition Minority government: A government that does not have overall majority support in the Assembly or Parliament; minority governments are usually formed by single parties that are unable, or unwilling, to form coalitions.

Tip – It’s worth considering whether Parliament, during the May Government, was being highly effective or whether it tipped from being constructive to being obstructive. If so, this may suggest that Parliament was not fulfilling its legislative function effectively.

»»Theresa May’s minority government had a ‘working majority’ of just 13. This put the Commons

in the unusual position of having a lot of influence over legislation. Defeats were a regular event, occurring a record 28 times in just over 2 years. In January 2019, May suffered the heaviest Parliamentary defeat of any British Prime Minister in the democratic era after MPs rejected her Brexit deal by a resounding majority of 230 (202–432) with 118 Conservative MPs voting against their party (another record).

»»When Boris Johnson took over from May in July 2019, his Government was defeated 12 times in the Commons, including on its very first division, making Johnson the first Prime Minister this happened to since 1894. His Government did not win a single vote until six weeks after its first sitting.

»»Unsurprisingly, after the 2019 General Election, Johnson’s second Government, with a majority

of over 80 in the Commons, had significantly fewer defeats. However, as 2020 progressed, the Government was forced into a number of U-turns on air bridges for foreign travel during the Covid-19 crisis and to exclude Huawei from involvement in the 5G network, for example. In addition, it was forced to amend both the internal market bill and the emergency Covid-19 legislation, giving Parliament a say in both cases. In late 2019, Conservative backbenchers forced the government to abandon its planning reforms for new houses as they had received many complaints from their constituents. All these came as a consequence of threatened rebellions by Conservative backbenchers.

»»The Lords has become more defiant since reform in 1999, improving the quality of laws

passed. Since the 1999 reforms removed most of the hereditary peers, and ensured a fairer balance between the parties, the chamber has appeared more confident in challenging the government.

- In the 2017–2019 Parliamentary session there were 69 defeats inflicted by the Lords. - In the 2016–2017 Parliamentary session there were 38 defeats inflicted by the Lords. - In the 2013–14 session, the Lords considered 62 bills, and made 1,686 amendments.

»»When May’s Government was able to get legislation passed by the Commons, it was often then

defeated in the Lords. For example, the Lords defeated the Government 15 times in a very short period in 2018 over the EU Withdrawal Bill.

»»Johnson’s majority government lost three votes in the Lords over its Brexit legislation in 2020. It also suffered any government’s biggest defeat since 1999 over the Internal Market Bill. In December 2020, the Lords forced the Government into a u-turn to ensure greater protection for the devolved parliaments.



Ineffective

»» Usually, however, governments enjoy majority control of the Commons and are rarely defeated. This undermines the effectiveness of Parliament. For example, Blair did not lose a vote in the Commons from 1997 to 2005.

» » The Conservative/Liberal Democratic coalition was actually only defeated seven times

in the Commons in five years, which is quite low considering it was not a single-party government.

»» The Brown Government (2007–2010) was only defeated three times in the Commons.

Parliament

»» The Lords’ effectiveness is restricted by the Parliament Acts which means they can only delay bills, and their amendments can often be overturned. The Lords made several amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (2012) but these were easily overturned because the Parliament Act (1911) gives the Commons ‘financial privilege’, and the Lords cannot block ‘money bills’ that authorise expenditure or taxation. The Lords also made three key amendments to the Transparency of Lobbying Act (2014), but the Commons overturned all three.

»» Boris Johnson’s 2020 defeats by the Lords were reversed in the Commons where he held an 80-seat majority.

2. Representative function Representation of the people is one of the essential functions of Parliament. It is a key role of MPs to represent their constituencies, individual constituents and various causes or campaigns. MPs occasionally use Parliamentary privilege to represent issues which they feel are not being addressed sufficiently in other ways. In 2018, former Cabinet minister Peter Hain used Parliamentary privilege to name Sir Philip Green as the businessman at the centre of the #MeToo allegations of sexual harassment and racial abuse after Green had obtained a legal injunction to stop his name entering the public domain. After facing criticism, Hain said he will ‘neither retract nor apologise for standing up for human rights’. The idea of representation in Parliament can be understood in three ways:

Is Parliament democratically representative? Based on the notion of legitimacy, this concept of representation focuses on whether those in the legislature can claim a genuine mandate from the people.



Each MP in the Commons represents an area in the UK as they are elected by a geographical constituency. They clearly have legitimacy.



MPs raise the grievances of their constituents. It is important that the people have a means by which their dissatisfaction with government can be expressed peacefully and democratically.



The first-past-the-post electoral system undermines the effectiveness of representation in the Commons by distorting the representation of parties so MPs are often elected by less than half their constituents. (see page 97).



Because the Lords is unelected, it carries out a limited representative role and weakens the democratic responsiveness of Parliament.

Does Parliament reflect the people it represents? This idea emphasises the importance of a representative body reflecting people’s social characteristics and the groups to which they belong, also known as ‘descriptive representation’. It is primarily concerned with improving the representation of people in society who have been historically under-represented – women, ethnic minorities and so on. The social backgrounds of MPs elected in 2019 are shown in Table 8.2. Supporters of descriptive representation believe that this will result in political bodies making better decisions because the views and interests of previously under-represented groups will be effectively represented.



In 2019, the most diverse Parliament ever was elected, with 220 women, 65 ethnic minority and 45 LGBTQ+ MPs elected.



White, middle-class men still dominate Parliament with 430/650 MPs being men. Former Labour MP, Laura Pidcock, was elected the MP for North West Durham in the 2017 snap election. In her maiden speech she announced that ‘the place reeks of the establishment and of power’. She also argued: ‘The clothes, the language and the obsession with hierarchies, control and domination are symbolic of the system at large’.



Only approximately 6% of the Lords come from a minority ethnic background.

231

Synoptic link Large majorities held by governments in the Commons are often a consequence of the first-past-thepost election system and so can be linked to the Elections chapter.

Spec key term Parliamentary privilege: The right of MPs or Lords to make certain statements within Parliament without being subject to outside influence, including the law.

232 Component II: UK Politics Table 8.2 The social backgrounds of MPs • Social class. MPs are predominantly middle class. Over four-fifths have a professional or business background, with the main professions being politics (23%), business (22%) and finance (15%). The manual working class is significantly under-represented, even in the Labour Party (10%). • Gender. Women continue to be under-represented in the Commons, but there has been substantial progress since the 1980s, when their numbers stood at only just over 3% of MPs. The 2019 Election saw the largest-ever number of women MPs, at 220 (34% of the total). • Ethnicity. Ethnic minorities remain under-represented. However, 2019 saw the highest number of non-white MPs being elected, at 65, or 10% of the whole, up from 52 in 2017. • Age. MPs are predominantly middle-aged: 60% of them are aged between 40 and 59, with the average age in 2019 being 51. • Education. MPs are better educated than most UK citizens. Over two-thirds are graduates with 21% being Oxbridge-educated and a further one-third went to an elite Russell Group university. Also, 27% of MPs attended private schools, four times more than the population as a whole. Four in five of these are Conservative MPs. • Sexuality. There are 46 LGBTQ+ MPs (7%), which is higher than the official statistics in the UK (around 2%).

Who should MPs represent? There are three different theories of representation when it comes to British MPs:

Definition Delegate: A person who is chosen to act for another on the basis of clear guidance or instructions; delegates do not think for themselves.

1. The trustee model of representation. MPs decide what they think is best for constituents, and constituents trust them to do so. A representative may be a trustee, in the sense that they act on behalf of others, using their supposedly superior knowledge, better education or greater experience. It is often referred to as ‘Burkean representation’, as its classic expression is found in the speech that the Conservative philosopher and historian Edmund Burke (1729–97) gave to the electors of Bristol in 1774. He declared: ‘Your representative owes you, not his industry alone, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.’ Until the 1950s, it was widely held that MPs should think for themselves, using their own judgement, on the grounds that ordinary voters did not know their own best interests. 2. The delegate model of representation. MPs are essentially the ‘messenger’ of their constituents. In this sense, they act as a delegate conveying the views of others, without expressing their own views or opinions. Historically, the concept of delegation has rarely been applied to MPs. 3. The doctrine of the mandate. In winning an election, a party gains a mandate to carry out the policies contained in its manifesto. This doctrine implies that it is political parties, not individual MPs, that fulfil Parliament’s representative function. Such thinking provides a clear justification for party unity and party discipline. This is the most influential theory of representation in modern UK politics. In UK politics, we can see evidence of these different theories:

»»General elections in the UK tend to be focused on parties. Voters often don’t know the name of candidates, voting instead for the party they prefer. This gives credence to the idea of the doctrine of the mandate theory.

»»Social media has been an effective way for constituents to express their concerns directly to their

MP. They can contact MPs on Twitter, encouraging them to act as delegates. This occurred with gay marriage legislation in 2013, and air strikes on Syria in 2016 when a campaign on Twitter led to many MPs reconsidering their vote. In December 2020, a government U-turn on increasing housing targets by relaxing planning laws was reversed after backbench Conservative MP’s felt pressure from their constituents.

Parliament

233

»»Under the Coalition, Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs supported policies that weren’t in their manifesto or went against their manifesto. This went against the doctrine of the mandate.

Synoptic link

their conscience, supporting the trustee model. In 2013, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill passed, but 136 Conservative MPs voted against the Bill and 40 abstained.

The Representative function of Parliament section links to the Democracy topic, the Parties topic and the Elections topic.

»»Free votes on issues allow MPs to have more ability to listen to the views of constituents or

»»The introduction of the Backbench Business Committee in 2010 (see page 239) helped MPs to

raise local concerns. The Committee meets weekly on Tuesdays to hear from backbench MPs who would like to put forward a particular issue for debate in the Commons.

CASE STUDY 8.2: BREXIT AND REPRESENTATION Events More than any other recent issue, Brexit has challenged the three theories of representation for British MPs. For the Conservatives, many MPs had campaigned and voted to remain in the EU, but after the Referendum, felt unable to support either Theresa May’s or Boris Johnson’s approach to Brexit. Many Labour MPs had supported remaining in the EU during the Referendum campaign but represented constituencies which had voted heavily to leave. Additionally, the Labour Party supported remaining in the EU during the Referendum.

Significance Lisa Nandy, who came third in the Labour leadership election in 2020, was one MP who had campaigned and voted to remain in the EU. However, her Wigan constituency had voted 63–37% to leave the EU. After the Referendum, she chose to support the wishes of her constituents and supported legislation to leave the EU and rejected the call for a second referendum which many in Labour supported. Although she lost 15% of her vote in 2019 (and the Brexit party gained 13%), she was re-elected with a 47% vote share.

Laura Pidcock was elected as MP for North West Durham in 2017, and was a rising star in the Labour Party. She consistently voted against Brexit against the wishes of her constituency, which voted 55–45% to leave the EU, and subsequently lost her seat in 2019 to Conservative Richard Holden. In 2019, former attorney-general and key anti-Brexit player, Dominic Grieve, lost his Beaconsfield seat (which had voted 50.99–49.01 to Remain) which he had represented for 22 years. Grieve was one of 21 Conservative MPs who, in September 2019, had the party whip withdrawn over their opposition to a no-deal Brexit. He lost to the official Conservative candidate, Joy Morrissey, who was elected with 56% of the vote to Grieve’s 29%. Anna Soubry would certainly fall under the category of a Remain MP who struggled to come to terms with the Referendum result. Despite voting to trigger Article 50 in February 2017, she subsequently became a key supporter of the People’s Vote movement, which campaigned for a second referendum. By 2019, she had resigned the Conservative whip and joined the newly formed Independent Group for Change. However, she lost her Broxtowe seat (which had voted 52.5–47.5 to Leave) to the official Conservative candidate.

3. The function of recruiting and maintaining the government In the UK, all ministers from the Prime Minister downwards must be either MPs or peers. Before they become frontbenchers, they learn the job on the back benches. In addition, a key but often insufficiently explained function of the Commons is the maintenance of the government. This means that governments can only continue with the support of Parliament. The following roles show how effectively Parliament carries out this function.



By participating in debates, asking Parliamentary questions and sitting on committees, ministers of the future learn their trade.

234 Component II: UK Politics

»»They gain an understanding of how government works and how policy is developed. Thatcher, Major, Brown and May all started on the back benches and held important government jobs before becoming Prime Minister.

»»By needing to maintain the support of Parliament, governments must listen to their backbench MPs.

»»Ultimately, the government must maintain the support of the Commons otherwise it risks losing a vote of confidence. For example, in 1979, the Labour Government led by Jim Callaghan lost a vote of confidence on the floor of the Commons and was forced to call a general election, which they went on to lose.

However:



Ministers are recruited from a limited pool of talent: mainly the MPs of the largest party in the Commons. Because MPs are entering the Commons at a younger age than in the last century, fewer ministers have experience of careers outside of politics.

»» Parliamentarians may acquire speech-making skills and learn how to deliver sound bites, but they do not gain the bureaucratic or management skills to run a government department.

»» While it is true that governments need the support of their backbenchers, the reality is that governments with large majorities are able to dictate to their MPs rather than abide by their wishes.

»» While it has a majority in the Commons, the government is extremely unlikely to lose a vote of confidence. Theresa May faced a confidence vote the day after she lost her Brexit Withdrawal agreement by 432 votes to 202, yet she won the confidence vote by 325 to 306.

4. Legitimacy function Another function of Parliament is to promote legitimacy. Governments must govern through Parliament and in doing so, their actions are more likely to be seen as ‘rightful’ and therefore more likely to be obeyed.



Parliament is essentially a representative assembly for the public. When it approves a measure, it is as if the public has approved it.

»»Parliament gives the consent of the people to laws that they are expected to obey. Without this consent, laws would lack authority.

»»Parliament is legally sovereign so all laws that have been passed by Parliament have full legal authority.

However:



Being unelected, the Lords has no democratic legitimacy.

»» Prime Ministers, especially those with large majorities, use parliament as a ‘rubber-stamp’ for their legislation, not allowing sufficient time or encouraging Parliament to scrutinise legislation sufficiently. Tony Blair, with majorities in three figures, rarely attended the Commons except for his weekly grilling in Prime Ministers Questions (see page 236).

»» Respect for Parliament has been undermined by scandals involving, for example, ‘cash for questions’ (MPs being paid for asking Parliamentary questions) and ‘cash for peerages’.

Parliament

235

Key Debate Summary: Is Parliament effective in fulfilling its functions? For analysis of the scrutiny function, see table on page 000.

FOR

AGAINST

99Parliament is effective in carrying out its

88 Parliament is only effective in encouraging

99The Lords are also effective at getting

88 The Lords are not able to veto legislation,

legislative function. Since 2010 especially, Parliament has pushed governments to make changes to legislation. governments to rethink because it is more independent than the Commons

governments to rethink legislation when governments have small (or no) majorities.

only delay.

99The 2019 Parliament was the most diverse 88 Even though it was the most diverse, ever.

Parliament still remains seriously unrepresentative.

99All MPs represent a part of the UK and are 88 Many MPs are not elected by 50% of answerable to their constituents.

their constituents, undermining their representative nature.

Definition

99The Commons are effective at maintaining 88 Partisanship takes priority in the Commons.

Scrutiny: Examining something in a close or detailed way.

99Legitimising the work of the government

Responsible government: A government that is answerable or accountable to an elected assembly and, through it, to the people.

the government as long it has the support of the chamber.

is one of parliament’s main constitutional purposes.

Only one government has lost a vote of confidence. Parties prefer to change their leader mid-term rather than face a general election.

88 The legitimacy of parliament is undermined by the role the Lords play in legislation.

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  IS PARLIAMENT EFFECTIVE IN SCRUTINISING THE EXECUTIVE? Parliament does not govern; its role is to check the government. Therefore, many argue that Parliament’s most important function is to ‘call the government to account’, which enables ministers to explain their actions and justify their policies. It does this through its scrutiny function. This is the key to ensuring a responsible government. Parliamentary oversight is reinforced by ministers being both individually and collectively responsible (see page 270). Scrutiny involves Parliament checking how government is operating and whether it’s acting in the public interest. Government must present all decisions and policies to Parliament. Government ministers have considerable power; therefore, Parliament scrutinises the use of this power in an attempt to prevent ‘elective dictatorship’. The term ‘elective dictatorship’ is a phrase popularised by Lord Hailsham, in 1976. His main concern was that ‘the sovereignty of Parliament has become the sovereignty of the Commons, and the sovereignty of the Commons has increasingly become the sovereignty of the government.’ He argued that in a Parliamentary system the legislature can be dominated by the executive and due to the strength of the whip system, government bills are rarely defeated in the Commons. This was especially true under the Thatcher and Blair Governments which both enjoyed very large majorities, and both Prime Ministers were accused of running elective dictatorships. There are a number of ways that Parliament can scrutinise the executive.

Spec key term Elective Dictatorship: A government that dominates Parliament, usually due to a large majority, and therefore has few limits on its power.

236 Component II: UK Politics

Questioning (i) Prime Minister’s and Minister’s Questions. All ministers, including the Prime Minister, must come to parliament to answer questions in the Commons. Probably the bestknown form of scrutiny in the Commons is Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), which takes place each Wednesday. Traditionally, PMQs are dominated by clashes between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, who is able to ask a number of supplementary questions. Question Time also extends to other ministers, forcing them to answer questions from MPs live in the chamber (each department features in a fourweek daily cycle Monday –Thursday). (ii) Urgent questions. If an urgent matter arises, MPs may apply to ask an urgent question. If the Speaker is satisfied that the question is urgent, the request is granted and the relevant government minister must come to the chamber to explain what the government is doing. As shown by Figure 8.3, there has been a huge increase in the number of urgent questions in the past decade. According to the Institute for Government, urgent questions have provided far more frequent opportunities for backbenchers to raise matters of importance and receive a timely response. During the 2007–08 Parliamentary session, only four urgent questions were asked, whereas MPs asked 307 urgent questions during the 2017–19 session, covering a diverse range of topics. The greater willingness of the former Speaker Bercow to grant urgent questions is likely to have been the most significant driver of the increase.

Figure 8.3 Number of urgent questions asked by session 350 300 250 200 150 100 50

19

98 19 -99 99 20 -00 00 20 -01 01 20 -02 02 20 -03 03 20 04 04 20 -05 05 20 -06 06 20 -07 07 20 -08 08 20 -09 09 20 -10 10 20 -12 12 20 -13 13 20 -14 14 20 -15 15 20 -16 16 20 -17 17 -1 9 20 20 19 19 -2 0

0

Source: Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

(iii) Written questions and letters. Much information is provided to MPs and peers in answers to written questions, and ministers must respond to letters they receive from MPs and peers. (iv) Humble address. This archaic procedure has been used to table motions, and among other things to call for papers from departments. The motion can be debated, amended and voted on. Humble addresses are understood to be binding on the Commons. Labour used the procedure in 2017 to force the release of Universal Credit studies and in 2018 to force the government to publish some secret Brexit files.



The principal aim of Question Time is to secure the accountability of the government to backbenchers. Ministers must therefore keep up to date with the workings of their department.

»»For example, in 2018 Amber Rudd was summoned back to Parliament after twice appearing

to give MPs false information about the Government’s use of deportation targets. Rudd was subsequently forced to resign as Home Secretary.

Parliament



237

PMQs gives a platform to the Leader of the Opposition to challenge the PM in a head-to-head style.

»»Many opposition leaders have been highly effective at this, making a name for themselves and

raising their visibility with the electorate. David Cameron at his first ever PMQs as opposition leader in 2005 quipped to PM Blair, ‘I want to talk about the future, he was the future once.’

»»In 2017, Jeremy Corbyn used PMQs to effectively overturn a premium rate number used for Universal Credits.



Many Prime Ministers have subsequently stated that the part of their week they dreaded the most was PMQs.

»»This suggests that for all Prime Ministers, PMQs are a significant check on them.



MPs engage in the worst of playground bullying behaviour to intimidate or humiliate their opposite numbers.

»» There has been clucking, barking and roaring at PMQs. When Cameron joked that Ed Miliband was ‘Alex Salmond’s poodle’ in 2015, Tory MPs made barking noises.

»» Former Speaker John Bercow once told off Labour MP Ian Lucas for letting out a ‘lion’s roar’.



PMQs is coordinated by Downing Street. Pre-prepared questions are handed out to backbenchers, allowing the Prime Minister to reel off pre-prepared statements boasting about the government’s record.

»» Conservative MP Andrew Percy once disclosed an email sent by Downing Street to backbench Tories suggesting a set of questions about how well the government’s ‘long-term economic plan’ was going.



It encourages backbenchers to ingratiate themselves to the leader.

»» Many MPs agree to ask a planted question in the Commons and reel out statistics about how the

government’s policies are benefiting their constituents. This, in turn, enables the Prime Minister to boast about how they have helped not only those constituents, but every single person in the country.

Committees



Public bill committees. Public bill committees are established purely to consider a particular bill after it has successfully completed its second reading. The role of these committees is to debate and consider amendments. The committee considers each bill clause by clause, and may amend it to close loopholes, remove obstacles to successful implementation and respond to concerns from relevant stakeholders.

»»Public bill committees can receive written evidence from outside organisations or the public and can also take oral evidence from interested parties as part of their deliberation. The government has a majority on public bill committees, making it likely that they will get their way on how the bill looks by the end of this stage. According to the think tank, the Democratic Audit, in 2015 over 99% of ministerial amendments moved at the committee or report stages succeed. It also argued that two-thirds of all MPs on bill committees brought some form of relevant experience or expertise. Also, ministers will often have fruitful meetings with committee members throughout the committee stage, which often bring informal changes to government bills.



Public Bill Committees were strengthened in 2007, improving the scrutiny of legislation.



Business is done less formally than on the floor of the house, and because it doesn’t attract a great deal of media attention, the work is done in a less partisan environment.



Around three-fifths of bill committee members have relevant specialist expertise and some committee sessions achieve impressive levels of deliberative quality.

Spec key term Public bill committees: Committees responsible for looking at bills in detail.

238 Component II: UK Politics



They are far less independent than select committees because their membership is still dominated by party whips.



Scrutiny of legislation via whipped bill committees are ritualistic, ineffective and normally of very little value. Government whips dominate proceedings, with the committee majority accepting only government amendments.



Bill committees have been widely seen as ineffective in securing effective scrutiny. A tiny minority of amendments from the committee stage are from the opposition.

»»Departmental select committees. Select committees scrutinise government departments. Each

select committee shadows the work of a government department. They carry out inquiries and write reports, and can question ministers and civil servants and ask to see government papers, known as the power to send for ‘persons, papers and records’.

Definition Wright reforms: A number of reforms made to the workings of the Commons in 2010 which strengthened the power of backbenchers to hold the government to account.

The Wright reforms of 2010 made seemingly small changes to how chairs and members of most select committees were chosen. However, although appearing small, these changes had very large and had positive consequences for the way select committees work. As a consequence of the Wright Reforms the executive no longer controls the membership of most select committees, which means select committees are able to act more independently and scrutinise departments effectively. After his failed Conservative Party leadership bid in 2019, Jeremy Hunt took on the chair of the Health Committee. As a former Health Secretary, he brought a high degree of gravitas to the role and when the Covid-19 crisis broke in 2020, he was very well placed to hold the Johnson Government to account over a wide range of public concerns. In July 2020, the Government nominated five MPs to the Intelligence and Security Committee and sought to have Chris Grayling installed as Chair. However, the Committee went against the Government’s advice and chose Julian Lewis as Chair instead. An unhappy No. 10 then removed the whip from Lewis, to much anger from backbenchers from all parties.

»»Liaison Committee. The Liaison Committee brings together all 35 chairs of Commons select committees to question the Prime Minister, and is an important aspect of Parliamentary scrutiny.

Introduced in 2002, this Committee allows for twice-yearly appearances of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is thus subject to scrutiny by some of the most senior, experienced and expert backbenchers in the Commons. In his book Prime Ministers in Power, Bennister argues that the Liaison Committee is ideally suited to conduct scrutiny of the Prime Minister, as it comprises the chairs of the departmental select committees, giving each considerable legitimacy, independence, and expertise. In May 2020, during the Covid-19 crisis, the Liaison Committee had its first session with PM Johnson. It questioned him on the Government’s handling of the crisis and on his controversial aide, Dominic Cummings. Earlier that month, the Liaison Committee had been surrounded in controversy as the Government attempted, and succeeded, at appointing Sir Bernard Jenkins as its Chair. Traditionally, all members of the Liaison Committee are chairs of other select committees, but the Liaison Committee is not covered by the Wright Reforms which requires most select committees to be able to elect their own chair.



Since the Wright Reforms, committee members tend to be independently minded, so feel freer to be critical.



Select committee chairs are now paid a significant salary increment and attract a good deal of media attention, as do their reports.



»»As a result, the role has grown in importance. »»The support staff for chairs and committee members has also increased.

Because MPs tend to stay in the same committee for the duration of a Parliamentary term, select committee members build up worthwhile expertise in an area.

Parliament

»»This gives them greater confidence to have an interrogative style of questioning, and as witnesses have no notice of questions, they are able to get some significant answers to their questions.

»»It was Yvette Cooper’s questioning of the then-Home Secretary, Amber Rudd in 2018 which led to ‘serious concern’ over the accuracy of her previous statements, which ultimately resulted in her resignation.



Select committee reports receive a good deal of publicity, especially when they are critical.

»»The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chair is always a senior opposition figure and plays a significant role in assessing whether the UK taxpayer is getting good value for money. Margaret Hodge was one of the first ‘new’ chairs and during the course of 2013 she and the PAC held Amazon, Starbucks and Google to account for the limited tax they paid in the UK.

»»In 2016, the Health Committee recommended a 20% tax on sugary drinks in an effort to discourage people from drinking them. In the same year, and quite unexpectedly, Chancellor George Osborne introduced a sugar tax.

»»The Brexit committee under Hillary Benn pressed the case for more clarity and more certainty in the May Government’s Brexit plans. When May’s plan was comprehensively rejected by the Commons, the Committee called for Parliament to be given the chance to hold a series of indicative votes as quickly as possible to find out what there might be support for as an alternative to the Prime Minister’s deal.



Select committees have no enforcement powers.



Ministers have a huge amount of research support whereas committee members have comparatively little research support.



Select committees only work effectively when they operate in a bipartisan manner, with MPs from different sides of the committee endorsing the same report.

»» Thus, the government is not obliged to act upon the recommendations of select committees.

»» This

is difficult to ensure because, even though whips no longer control membership of committees, they would be aware of all their deliberations.



They often review problems after they have occurred.

Debating Debates are another way for Parliament to hold the government to account. Bills are debated judiciously in their second reading on the floor of the Commons and the Lords. An MP may also apply to the Speaker for an emergency debate when a matter needs to be discussed urgently. Between July 2017 and September 2019, 24 emergency debates were allowed by Speaker Bercow. Adjournment debates are an opportunity for an individual backbench MP to raise an issue and receive a response from the relevant minister. In the past, one area where it was felt Parliament was lacking was in allowing backbenchers more time to debate matters of their own choosing. This was remedied by the Wright Reforms which created the Backbench Business Committee (BbBC). The Committee is responsible for deciding, on behalf of backbenchers, the business before the House for approximately one day each week. The Committee is allocated 35 days per Parliamentary session. Backbenchers can add any debate they wish to a list and the committee chooses which ones to debate. Hence, the BBBC gives backbenchers an opportunity to request debates of their choosing. In addition, any e-petition on Parliament’s website which gathers over 100,000 signatures is automatically added to the list for consideration. Examples of debates held via the BBBC are those on refusing President Trump a visa to the UK, going to war in Syria, going to war in Iraq, the London riots and the phone hacking scandal.

239

240 Component II: UK Politics



Since the advent of the Backbench Business Committee, backbenchers in the Commons have had a great deal more time to discuss the key issues of the day.

»»For example, a debate about the use of wild animals in circuses in 2011 led to the government bringing forward a policy which became law in 2019.



The link to e-petitions has given the public a say in what’s discussed, creating greater connections between MPs and the public.

 

Emergency debates have been used more often and effectively since 2010. Prime Ministers have become reluctant to initiate military action without Parliament debating the matter first.

»» In 2014, Cameron recalled Parliament from its summer recess to debate a motion on using air strikes against ISIS in Iraq. This motion was successful.

»» In 2015, Parliament was again given the opportunity to debate the issue of air strikes in Syria. MPs voted to approve air strikes in Syria after a 10-hour debate in the Commons.



The debates initiated by the Backbench Business Committee are merely motions for discussion; the outcome of MP’s votes does not compel a government to act.

»» For example, in 2016 after 1.6m people signed an e-petition, Parliament debated whether

President Trump should be given a visa to visit the UK, but in itself it is was not enough to change government policy.



While there is slightly more time for genuine debate, the whips control and curtail the independence of MPs.



Prime Ministers are not obliged to consult Parliament before military action.

»» Theresa May did not consult Parliament in 2018 over the UK joining air strikes against Syria, saying it was ‘legally and morally right’ and ‘it was my responsibility as PM to make these decisions’.

The official opposition The second largest party in the Commons is designated as ‘Her Majesty’s loyal opposition’. It is given privileges in debates, at Question Times and in the management of Parliamentary business to help it carry out its role of opposing the government of the day. On ‘opposition days’, opposition parties choose the subject for debate and use these days as opportunities to criticise and embarrass the government However, the ability of the opposition to scrutinise the executive is often affected by factors beyond its control, such as the size and unity of the governing party and the length of time the government has been in office. However, oppositions can still influence the popularity and power of a government in certain circumstances.



The Blair opposition 1994-97 was very effective in highlighting weakness in the Major Government, as well as presenting itself as a good alternative government-in-waiting.



The Cameron opposition 2005–2010 managed to underline divisions in the final years of the Blair premiership, as well as throughout the Brown one.



However, a government with a large majority can ignore their opposition, as Blair did between 1997 and 2005.



Even if the government has a weak or no majority, a poor opposition leader may not be able to make the most of their position.

»» For example, Corbyn was widely criticised for being ineffective, even with a government in chaos.

Parliament

241

Key Debate Summary: Is Parliament effective in scrutinising the executive? FOR

AGAINST

99PMQs and urgent questions are effective

88 PMQs encourages the worst of MP’s

99Public bill committees can now call on the

88 Public bill committees are controlled by

99Select committees are much more

88 Select committees have no enforcement

ways of scrutinising the executive, albeit in different ways. expertise of people outside Parliament as well as the greater expertise of their members.

independent and effective now. They attract well-known politicians as their chairs.

behaviour in the Commons.

the whips and are therefore ineffective at challenging the government.

powers and have limited research support compared to the departments they are checking.

99Since the Wright Reforms, backbench MPs 88 While they can debate more issues, these have more control over Parliamentary business in order to debate issues of their choosing.

debates have no impact on government policy.

in Parliament which enables them to effectively scrutinise the government.

if can be very difficult for the opposition to hold it to account effectively.

99The opposition is given a privileged position 88 Ultimately, if the government has a majority,

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  IS THE HOUSE OF LORDS AS EFFECTIVE AS THE COMMONS IN FULFILLING ITS FUNCTIONS?

Legislative function 

Party discipline in the Lords is weaker than in the Commons, so it is more independent. Because approximately one-quarter of Lords are crossbenchers, peers are more able to express their own views. Moreover, since the removal of most hereditary peers in 1999, the Lords have been more willing to challenge the government. For example, the Lords rebelled against the government requiring them to have a rethink:

»»In December 2020 the Lords forced the Government to U-turn over the internal markets bill to protect the rights of the devolved parliaments.

»»EU Withdrawal Bill – In 2018 the government lost 14 of the 16 divisions on amendments to the Bill in the Lords.

»»Asylum for children – In 2016 the Lords rebelled over the Dubs Amendment, which sought to compel the government to accept its ‘fair share’ of children from Syria

»»Tax credits – The Lords voted to delay tax credit cuts in 2015 and to compensate those affected in full.

»»NHS reform – The Health and Social Care Bill in 2012 introduced a big shake-up to the NHS. Peers defeated the government, by a margin of four votes.

»»Welfare reform (2012) – The Lords inflicted three defeats on proposed benefits cuts and plans to means-test payments for disabled people. It was denounced by Lord Patel, a crossbencher

Synoptic link It is often suggested that the 1999 Lords reform reinvigorated the Lords as they felt more legitimate. This links to the Democracy topic.

242 Component II: UK Politics and former president of the Royal College of Obstetricians, as an immoral attack on the sick, the vulnerable and the poor.

»»Legal aid – In March 2013, the government suffered a defeat in the Lords over its plans to cut the legal aid budget by £350m.

»»Forest privatisation – The Public Bodies Bill of 2010 originally had provisions to allow the sale of

land managed by the Forestry Commission, which was dubbed by the media as ‘privatising our forests’. Lords from both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats took up this fight. In February 2011 Caroline Spelman, told MPs the government had ‘got this one wrong’ and announced that the Government would remove the forestry clauses from the Public Bodies Bill.



The legal restraints on the Lords remain, as demonstrated by the Commons overturning various Lords amendments to legislation.  The Parliament Act 1949 makes the Lords less powerful than the Commons because it prevents them from vetoing legislation and only allows them to delay for a year.

»» All defeats by the Lords on both the EU Withdrawal Bill and the Article 50 Bill were overturned in the Commons.

»» The Dubs amendment was overturned in the Commons in January 2020. »» The Health and Social Care bill 2012 proceeded with most of its content intact since most of the Lords’ amendments were overturned in the Commons.

»» The Lords returned the Welfare Reform Bill to the Commons with seven amendments for consideration; all amendments were defeated by the Commons.

»» Despite the legal aid bill suffering 14 defeats in the Lords, only a few of the most contentious amendments were accepted by the Coalition Government. Most were rejected on the grounds that the bill was primarily a financial measure on which the Commons could overrule the Lords’ objections.



The Salisbury Convention means the House of Lords doesn’t oppose measures in the manifesto of the elected government.

Scrutiny 

The government majority in the Commons means the government is rarely checked effectively, but because the government doesn’t have a majority in the Lords, scrutiny is much more effective.



The Lords are more independent and so issues may be looked at in a non-partisan manner, especially by crossbench peers. Because Lords are there for life, whips have limited power over them.



The Lords have more time to debate than the Commons so there is the opportunity for more detailed discussion of many issues. The Lords has a system of select committees.

»»These do not mirror government departments as in the Commons but are set up to look at particular issues. There are permanent committees on the economy and on science and technology which reinforces the Lords’ ability to specialise in certain areas.

»»The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee ‘reports whether the provisions of any bill inappropriately delegate legislative power’, i.e. whether legislation gives powers to ministers which cannot easily be scrutinised by Parliament in the future

Parliament

243

»»The Constitution Committee examines the constitutional implications of public bills coming before the House and keeps under review the operation of the constitution and constitutional aspects of devolution. The membership of the Committee draws on the expertise in the Lords. The Committee also undertakes investigative inquiries into wider constitutional issues.



The Lords are less effective in scrutinising the government.

»» PMQs and MQs (see page 236) allow the Commons to directly scrutinise government by making it accountable for its actions; this direct scrutiny is not possible in the Lords.



The Commons select committees (see page 237) have grown in influence and authority since being reformed in 2010. The lack of departmental select committees in the Lords limits their ability to scrutinise effectively.

»» Since 2010 select committee chairs have been elected by backbenchers, not whips. Members

of these committees tend to serve for the full Parliamentary term, meaning that they develop significant expertise in their area. The expertise provided by the Lords is now matched by these committees.

»» Also, the Commons have the Liaison Committee (see page 238), which questions and checks the Prime Minister, something the Lords cannot do.

Representation 

While the Lords cannot claim democratic legitimacy, as an unelected house, they may be more willing to represent people and issues that an elected house may be less inclined to.

»»For example, asylum and protection of human rights issues are not as electorally popular as other issues.



The Lords represents areas of expertise outside of politics – in areas such as medicine, law, business, the arts, science, sports, education, the armed forces, diplomacy and public service – which is lacking in the Commons.

»»Baroness Altman speaks on behalf on pensioners as the former Director General of Saga and

Baroness Bakewell as an investigative journalist and broadcaster, brings this specialism to the Lords. Lord Adebowale was chief executive of the drugs charity Turning Point, and Baroness Lawrence specialises on institutional racism.

»»The zoologist John Krebs chairs the Lords’ Science and Technology Committee, Lord Patel is a former president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Lord Walton was a former president of the British Medical Association.



While the upper chamber is unelected and not representative of public choice, it is sometimes claimed that the Lords does a better job at addressing representational deficits. The appointment system helps to directly address imbalances.



The Commons is elected, allowing MPs to represent their constituents.

»» It can do this collectively by speaking against something happening in their area which will have a negative effect on their constituents.

»» It can also represent them individually via adjournment debates, raising issues at PMQs or MQs or raising it privately with a member of the government.



The structure of the Lords works against increases in women’s membership. Hereditary peerages automatically pass to the first-born son, and the House has reserved places for bishops – a position for which the first female was only chosen in 2014 – who make up 14% of the Lords.

Synoptic link The Lords’ focus on rights protection can be linked to the Rights topic in Democracy.

244 Component II: UK Politics

Key Debate Summary: Is the House of Lords as effective as the Commons in fulfilling its functions? FOR

AGAINST

99Party discipline in the Lords is weaker than 88 The limit to the legal powers of the Lords, i.e. in the Commons, so it is more independent and much more able to challenge the government on their legislative agenda.

99As there is no government majority in the Lords, the Lords are often more able to scrutinise the government.

it can only delay laws, means that it cannot effectively hold the government to account.

88 The Lords have no direct ability to

challenge the Prime Minister or government departments, unlike in the Commons.

99The Lords are able to represent the people 88 Because they are unelected, the Lords via the expertise on offer, as well as representing more vulnerable members of society.

cannot hope to fulfil a representative function as effectively as the Commons.

Visit the companion website for a bonus case study on Parliament and the Brexit process.

Parliament

245

Chapter Summary ‐‐The role of Parliament and the Government are fundamentally different. ‐‐Within Parliament the two chambers of the Commons and Lords have very different compositions. ‐‐Parliament has a number of functions and is more effective at some than others. ‐‐There are a number of ways Parliament scrutinises the executive, some are more effective than others. ‐‐Within the chambers of Parliament, the Commons and the Lords have different ways of holding the government to account.

Exam Style Questions Evaluate the view that Parliament now carries out its functions effectively (30). zz Evaluate the view that Parliament is the most powerful of all the branches (30). zz Evaluate the view that the power of Parliament has been radically enhanced by constitutional reforms since zz 1997 (30).

Evaluate the view that power has now fundamentally shifted from the government to Parliament (30). zz Evaluate the view that backbenchers are now highly effective in holding the government to account (30). zz Evaluate the view that the House of Lords now performs a meaningful role in the UK system of government (30). zz Evaluate the view that the power exerted by the Lords is now too great for an unelected body (30). zz

Source Question It has been argued that, since 1999, the Lords has become much more effective than the Commons. The Lords is more independent than the Commons because approximately one-quarter of the Lords are crossbenchers, so peers are more able to express their own views and have been more willing to challenge the government. Because they are there for life, the whips have limited power over them. Also, as the government doesn’t have a majority in Lords, scrutiny is much more effective. Lastly, although unelected, they are more willing to represent people and investigate issues that an elected house may be less inclined to do, and they also represent areas of expertise outside of politics which is lacking in the Commons. However, the Lords is legally less powerful because the Parliament Act 1949 prevents them from dismissing legislation and only allows them to delay for a year. Also, the Salisbury Convention means the House of Lords mustn’t oppose measures in the manifesto of the elected government. The Lords are also less effective in scrutinising the government because direct scrutiny of government ministers is not possible in the Lords. Moreover, the lack of departmental select committees in the Lords limits their ability to scrutinise effectively. Lastly, as the Lords is an unelected house, its legitimacy is undermined and subsequently its power. The Commons is elected and therefore has a democratic mandate. Lastly, the Lords works against increases in women’s membership as the 92 hereditary peerages automatically pass to the first-born son.

Using the source, evaluate the view that the House of Lords is as effective as the Commons in fulfilling its functions (30). In your response you must:

»»Compare and contrast different opinions in the source »»Examine and debate these views in a balanced way »»Analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.

246 Component II: UK Politics

Further Resources Bennister, M. (2012) Prime Ministers in Power (London: Palgrave Macmillan). Griffiths, S. and Leach, R. (2018) British Politics (3rd edn) (London: Red Globe Press): Chapter 6. Heffernan, R., Hay, C., Russell, M., Cowley, P. (eds) (2016) Developments in British Politics (10th edn) (London: Red Globe Press): Chapter 6. Moran, M. (2015) Politics and Governance in the UK (3rd edn) (London: Red Globe Press): Chapter 7. Thompson, L. (2015) Making British Law: Committees in Action (London: Palgrave Macmillan): Chapter 1: The role and function of bill committees.

Visit the companion website to access the Further Resources Booklet to explore a range of useful web links related to: how various leaders fared at their first PMQs, whether the Common’s committee systems effectively scrutinise government policy making and more.

THE PRIME 9 MINISTER AND EXECUTIVE

248

Chapter Preview The executive is the powerhouse of government. It is the part of government that provides political leadership, makes decisions and enforces those decisions. This is why it is so important to ensure that executive power is carefully checked or constrained, as the executive needs to be held accountable for its actions. Without checks and adjustments, government might become a tyranny against the people. However, attention also falls on who has power within the Key Questions and Debates executive. Who exactly wields executive power? »» What is the executive? Prime Ministers are certainly the best-known figures in politics. »» What is the role of the Prime Minister, When we vote, our main thought is generally who will be the the Cabinet, junior ministers and civil Prime Minister. When major events happen, it is the Prime servants? Minister who speaks for the government or on behalf of the »» Where does power lie within the nation. The impression is that the Prime Minister, in effect, ‘runs executive? the country’. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister does not govern alone. In fact, at least in theory, the UK executive is collective rather than personal.

»» What makes a Prime Minister powerful? »» How important are the conventions of ministerial responsibility?

Specification Checklist 3.1.  The structure, role, and powers of the Executive. »» Its structure, including Prime Minister, the Cabinet, junior ministers and government departments. »» Its main roles, including proposing legislation, proposing a budget, and making policy decisions within laws and budget. »» The main powers of the Executive, including Royal Prerogative powers, initiation of legislation and secondary legislative power.

3.2.  The concept of ministerial responsibility. »» The concept of individual ministerial responsibility. »» The concept of collective ministerial responsibility.

3.3.  The Prime Minister and the Cabinet. 3.3.1. The power of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. »» The factors governing the Prime Minister’s selection of ministers. »» The factors that affect the relationship between the Cabinet and the Prime Minister, and the ways they have changed and the balance of power between the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.

3.3.2. The powers of the Prime Minster and the Cabinet to dictate events and determine policy. »» Students must study the influence of one Prime Minister from 1945 to 1997 and one post-1997 Prime Minister. »» Students may choose any pre-1997 and any post-1997 Prime Minister, provided that they study them in an equivalent level of detail, covering both events and policy, with examples that illustrate both control and a lack of control. So

urc

e:

ov ers

na

p/G

ett

yI

ma

ge

s

249

250 Component II: UK Politics

What is the executive? Spec key term Executive: The branch of government that is responsible for the implementation of laws and policies made by Parliament.

The executive is responsible for executing or implementing government policy. It is the chief source of political leadership and, most importantly, controls the policy process. In short, the role of the executive is to ‘govern’. There are two parts to the executive:

»» The political executive, also known as ‘the government’. This is composed of elected ministers and its job is to take overall responsibility for the direction and coordination of government policy.

»»The official executive, or bureaucracy. This is composed of a small elite of senior civil servants and its job is to provide policy advice and to implement government policy.

This chapter will focus on the political executive, known as ‘the government’.

Definition Bureaucracy: The administrative machinery of government. It literally means ‘rule by officials’.

The structure of the executive The structure of the executive is shown in Figure 9.1.

Figure 9.1  The structure of the executive The Prime Minister is Head of the Executive

The Cabinet are typically heads of the departments that make up the Government. They are also know as Secretaries of State.

Government ministers work in a specific department, under the Cabinet Minister

They are made up of Ministers of State and Parlimentary Under-Secretaries of State

Civil servants are appointed government officials. They provide ministers with policy advice and implement policy. They are permanent, neutral and anonymous.

The Prime Minister The Prime Minister is the single most important figure in the UK political system. They are usually the leader of the party which has majority control of the House of Commons and they are the UK’s chief executive. Due to the UK’s uncodified constitution, the role of the Prime Minister has been shaped more by practical circumstances than the allocation of formal responsibilities. The traditional view of the role of the Prime Minister was summed up by Walter Bagehot (1867) as ‘primus inter pares’, or ‘first among equals’. However, this traditional formulation has ceased to be accurate. It fails to capture the full range and significance of the role of the modern Prime Minister. The key aspects of the modern role of the Prime Minister are:

The Prime Minister and Executive

251

»»Forming a government. Prime Ministers appoint all other members of the government. This

power to ‘hire and fire’ is known as patronage and extends to the Cabinet and other ministers, and gives the Prime Minister substantial control over the careers of their party’s MPs.

»»Directing government policy. The Prime Minister sets the overall direction of government policy

and defines its strategic goals. In doing so, they can interfere in any aspect of policy, although economic policy and foreign policy tend to be the major concerns of most Prime Ministers.

»»Managing the Cabinet system. The Prime Minister chairs Cabinet meetings, determines their number and their length, and also sets up and staffs Cabinet committees.

»»Organising government. Prime Ministers are responsible for the structure and organisation of

government. This involves setting up, reorganising and abolishing government departments, as well as being responsible for the Civil Service.

»»Controlling Parliament. As leader of the largest party in the Commons, the Prime Minister

effectively controls it and through it, Parliament. Prime Ministers may make use of their control of Parliament to introduce secondary legislation which enables laws to be amended by government ministers without requiring the authority of Parliament.

»»Providing national leadership. The Prime Minister’s authority is largely based on being elected

by the people, and the link between the Prime Minister and the people has been strengthened by the media’s relentless focus on the office. National leadership is most important at times of national crisis, war or in response to major events.

Definition Patronage: The power to appoint and dismiss members of the government and other significant appointments. Cabinet committees: Groups of ministers that can take decisions that are binding and are designed to reduce the burden on the full Cabinet by allowing smaller groups of ministers to take decisions on specific policy areas.

The Cabinet The Cabinet is a committee of the leading members of the government. It comprises approximately twenty formal members (although a larger number may be allowed to attend), most of whom are secretaries of state responsible for running Whitehall departments. Within the Cabinet there are the four Great Offices of State, which alongside the Prime Minister are the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary. This may also mean that these ministers form an inner circle of ministers who are consulted more frequently by the Prime Minister, known as an inner cabinet.

Government ministers and their advisers A minister is a person appointed to perform a government function. Whereas Cabinet ministers are responsible for the work of their whole department, ministers are responsible for an area within their department. For example, Gavin Williamson is a Cabinet minister and serving as the Secretary of State for Education (2020). He is responsible for the whole Education department, whereas Nick Gibb is the minister responsible for Schools. The role of both is to formulate policy and coordinate the work of their departments.

Spec key term Secondary legislation: Powers given to the executive by Parliament to make changes to the law within certain specific rules. Cabinet: The group of leading ministers which is empowered to make official government policy.

All ministers are supported by civil servants:

»»Civil servants are permanent post-holders in the government. They remain in post as ministers and governments come and go.

»»Civil servants are bound by the principle of neutrality. In other words they are expected to be loyal and supportive of any minister and any government, whatever their political views.

»»Finally, they are anonymous, meaning that they are ‘nameless’ in the sense that they work in the background to support the public figure - the Minister.

Ministers are also supported by Special Advisers, known as ‘Spads’.

»»Unlike a civil servant, Spads will only stay in a government department as long as the minister they serve does.

»»Spads give party political advice and support to their minister in a way that it would be

inappropriate for the Civil Service to provide. They can be policy experts, recruited for their

Definition Inner cabinet: A loose and informal group of policy advisers consulted by the Prime Minister outside the formal Cabinet, including senior ministers, officials and special advisers.

252 Component II: UK Politics Spec key term Minister: An MP or member of the House of Lords appointed to a position in the government, usually exercising specific responsibilities in a department. Government department: A part of the executive, usually with specific responsibility over an area such as education, health or defence.

Definition ‘Big Beasts’: Important and senior figures in the party who are well known and respected both within the party and by the public.

expertise in a particular field, or media advisers who present their minister’s views and influence how policy is communicated to the public. These media advisors are also known as ‘spin doctors’.

»»While few could name a top civil servant of Tony Blair, Theresa May or Boris Johnson, many know the name of their top Spad, namely, Alistair Campbell, Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy, and Dominic Cummings.

Factors taken into account when appointing ministers Convention dictates that Prime Ministers are free to select anyone they wish to the Cabinet. However, there are various factors that they have to take into account.

»»Often, Prime Ministers choose people who are close allies. They may have been long-time close friends, joined Parliament at the same time, or supported each other’s careers through Parliament.

oo Gordon Brown and Tony Blair became close as they were both elected to Parliament in 1983 and shared an office.

oo Similarly, George Osborne and David Cameron had been friends since university and built up their relationship from then.

»»‘Big Beasts’ are usually difficult to leave out from the Cabinet. Big Beasts have a significant

power base within the party – among backbenchers, ministerial colleagues inside and outside the Cabinet, as well as in the party more widely. Therefore, Prime Minsters might feel compelled to appoint them.

oo Theresa May included Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson in her Cabinet because of their established power within the Conservative Party.

»»Without a doubt, Prime Ministers appoint MPs to their Cabinet who have displayed exceptional ability.

oo David Miliband was a young member of Blair’s cabinet in 2006, his nickname was ‘Brain’, indicating his exceptional ability.

oo Gordon Brown ennobled Lord Mandelson in 2008 in order to bring him into his Cabinet because he needed his media communication skills.

oo Rishi Sunak was a surprise replacement for Sajid Javid, having only entered Parliament in 2015. The impact of Covid-19 on the country showed his exceptional ability in handling an unprecedented economic crisis.

»»Prime Ministers are wise to balance the ‘wings’ of their party in their Cabinet to ensure effective party management.

oo Cameron had to juggle the complicated issue of covering both wings of each party in his Coalition.

oo May also had to do this post referendum, ensuring Leavers and Remainers were balanced in her Cabinet.

oo It’s worth noting that after winning an 80-seat majority in December 2019, Johnson did not feel the need to balance his Cabinet in this way.

»»Surprisingly, Prime Ministers often include their rivals in their Cabinet in order to ‘silence’ them by making them subject to collective responsibility.

oo Johnson included Sajid Javid and Jacob Rees-Mogg in his Cabinet in July 2019 despite both having a considerable following in the Party.

»»They might wish to have a socially balanced cabinet.

oo Cameron promoted two women to his Cabinet in October 2011 because he was trying to increase his popularity among women voters.

oo May made sure she appointed women to top jobs, e.g. Amber Rudd as Home Secretary.

The Prime Minister and Executive

oo Johnson’s Cabinet included four people from ethnic minorities, including Sajid Javid as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Priti Patel as Home Secretary.

Visit the companion website to access a bonus case study on Theresa May and her 2016 Cabinet reshuffle.

Who has power in the executive? Debate about the location of executive power has been one of the recurrent themes of UK politics. Different views have been fashionable at different times, but the question has remained the same – who runs the country? It would be a mistake, however, to treat these contrasting models of executive power as simply ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ because none of these models fully explains who has power in all cases and in all circumstances. Each of the models, nevertheless, captures some ‘truth’ about this thorny issue. The main theories of executive power are:

»»Cabinet government »»Prime-ministerial government »»Presidentialism. Cabinet government

This ‘traditional’ view of the UK executive emphasises that power is collective and not personal, and as such is located in the Cabinet rather than the Prime Minister. Moreover, within the Cabinet, all ministers are equal. Each of them has the capacity to influence government policy and shape the direction in which the government is going. The theory of Cabinet government is underpinned by the convention of collective responsibility, in which all ministers are expected to publicly support decisions made by the Cabinet, or resign from the government. This helps to ensure Cabinet unity, in the sense that disagreement or dissent is only ever expressed within the secrecy of the Cabinet room and never in public. However, Cabinet government in its formal sense is clearly outdated. Nonetheless, it provides a reminder that, despite the growth in Prime Ministerial power, no Prime Minister can survive if they lose the support of their Cabinet.

Prime Ministerial government The belief that Cabinet government had been replaced by Prime Ministerial government was first made by Richard Crossman (1963) in a new introduction to Bagehot’s English Constitution. The post-war epoch has seen the final transformation of Cabinet Government into Prime Ministerial Government. The key feature of this view is that it is the Prime Minister, and not the Cabinet, who dominates both the executive and Parliament. They make major government decisions and exert influence over all policy areas. The move towards the Prime Ministerial government model highlights the undoubted growth in Prime Ministerial power, acknowledging that the Cabinet is no longer the key policy-making body, but, rather, a source of advice and support for the Prime Minister.

Presidentialism Since the 1990s, some commentators have drawn attention to what they have seen as the growth of presidentialism in the UK (Foley, The Rise of the British Presidency 1993, 2001). This suggests that UK Prime Ministers increasingly resemble presidents, with Prime Ministers such as Wilson, Thatcher and Blair usually being seen as key examples. To a large extent, this view overlaps with the Prime Ministerial government model. Most importantly, both views emphasise the dominance of the Prime Minister over the Cabinet.

253

254 Component II: UK Politics Evidence of growing presidentialism in UK politics includes the following:

Definition

»»Growth of ‘spatial leadership’. This is the tendency of Prime Ministers to distance themselves

Cabinet office: Responsible for supporting the Prime Minister and ensuring the effective running of government. It is composed of various units which take the lead in certain critical policy areas and coordinate the delivery of government policy.

from their parties by presenting themselves as ‘outsiders’ or developing a personal ideological stance (for example, ‘Thatcherism’ or ‘Blairism’).

»»Tendency towards ‘populist outreach’. This is the tendency of Prime Ministers to try to ‘reach

out’ directly to the public by claiming to articulate their deepest hopes and fears. There is a growing tendency for the Prime Minister to speak for the nation in major events (for example, Johnson during the Covid pandemic).

»»Personalised

election campaigns. The mass media increasingly portrays elections as personalised battles between the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition. Party leaders thus become the ‘brand image’ of their parties or government, meaning that personality and image have become major determinants of political success or failure.

»»Personal mandates. This is the trend for Prime Ministers to claim a mandate on the basis of

their electoral success. Prime Ministers have therefore become the ideological consciences of their party or government, their chief source of conviction and policy direction.

Sofa government: An informal decision-making style within government, stemming from the idea that politicians would be sat on sofas discussing potential policy ideas. This term was coined to describe Blair’s style of government.

»»Wider

use of special advisers. Prime Ministers increasingly rely on hand-picked political advisers rather than on Cabinets, ministers and senior civil servants. These advisers often have a personal loyalty to the Prime Minister rather than to the party or government. Alastair Campbell, during the Blair years, was known as the real Deputy Prime Minister.

»»Strengthened Cabinet Office. The size and administrative resources available to the Cabinet office have grown, turning it into a small-scale Prime Minister’s department responsible for coordinating the rest of Whitehall.

Many commentators argued that Tony Blair became presidential. This was especially true after 9/11. Also, he was accused of surrounding himself with his ‘cronies’ and special advisers and not consulting his Cabinet. Cabinet meetings were short and advisory, with decisions being made elsewhere. This is known as a sofa government. Tony Blair was also accused of downsizing the importance of Parliament because, except for once a week at PMQs, he rarely attended.

Tip – It is important to be able to discuss the relevance of presidentialism in relation to Prime Ministerial power in UK politics.

Nevertheless, such trends suggest that UK Prime Ministers increasingly resemble presidents, not that they have become presidents. Quite simply, Prime Ministers cannot become presidents because the UK has a system of Parliamentary government rather than presidential government (see page 220).

Spec key term

»»Similarly, despite the growth of personalised election campaigning in the UK, Prime Ministers

Presidential government: The tendency for political leaders to act increasingly like executive presidents, through the rise of personalised leadership.

»»The UK does not have a constitutional separation of powers between the legislature and executive, as characterises the US system.

»»US presidents do not share executive power with their cabinets.

Rather, the US cabinet is a strictly subordinate body, a mere ‘sounding board’ and a source of advice for the president. continue to be appointed as a result of Parliamentary elections, not by a separate electoral process, as occurs in the USA.

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  HOW IMPORTANT IS THE CABINET? The importance of Cabinet can be seen in the key functions it fulfils and their limits.



The Cabinet meets for less time than in the past and tends to be merely a ‘rubber stamp’ for policy made elsewhere.

»» The growth of special advisers has meant that Cabinet acts as little more than a ‘rubber stamp’.

Prime Ministers now have considerable sources of their own advice which makes them less reliant on their Cabinet. Recent Prime Ministers have had a Policy Unit at No. 10 and a range of special advisers who report directly to them.

The Prime Minister and Executive



255

However, the Cabinet still gives authority to government policy.

»»Even though meaningful debate and the formulation of policy decisions effectively takes place

elsewhere, these decisions must be brought to and approved by the Cabinet in order to become official government policy.



A Prime Minister may manipulate the outcome of policy discussion through bilateral meetings with ministers (sofa government) and bypass the Cabinet (see Figure 9.2).

»» Blair was particularly keen on this. Cameron also liked a degree of informality, but his experience

of coalition government meant he had to formalise meetings and decisions. Prime Ministerial domination has marginalised Cabinet.



In some circumstances the Cabinet still makes key decisions.



Prime Ministers control the workings of Cabinet.

»»For example, Cabinet members decided to hold a snap election in 2017. »» The Prime Minister effectively shapes the Cabinet’s agenda and chairs Cabinet meetings, giving them the ability to structure Cabinet debate and to sum up Cabinet conclusions and maintain control over Cabinet discussions.

»» Moreover, the doctrine of collective responsibility gives the Prime Minister power to silence dissenters in Cabinet (see page 271).



Some Cabinet ministers are very powerful in their own right, making the Cabinet as a whole more important.

»»These ‘Big Beasts’ have important power bases in the party. They provide a balance to the overarching power of modern-day Prime Ministers and are hard to silence. Their sacking or resignation can erode the Prime Minister’s authority.

»»Gordon Brown under Blair was hugely important and influential and in 2020, Rishi Sunak was the most popular Conservative politician with the public and backbenchers.



A Prime Minister with a united Cabinet behind them is enormously powerful.

»» The Prime Minister’s ability to dominate the Cabinet usually results in a Cabinet which is ideologically united behind them.



Prime Ministers are ultimately only as powerful as their Cabinet allows them to be.

»»No Prime Minister can survive, long term, without broad Cabinet support. The Cabinet can overrule or even remove a Prime Minister, as happened to Thatcher, Blair and May.

»»Even Cameron, with a very small majority, needed to keep his Cabinet on side. 

The Prime Minister has significant powers of patronage.

»» The

Prime Minister appoints, promotes, demotes and sacks all members of the Cabinet. This enables Prime Ministers to choose Cabinet members who are either personally loyal or ideologically sympathetic to them.

»» Patronage powers also promote loyalty in Cabinet members as a Prime Minister can make or break their political careers.



However, Prime Ministers need to be careful how they use their patronage powers.

»»A poor reshuffle can lead to disharmony in the party. »»For example, May was unable to reshuffle her Cabinet as she wished, Jeremy Hunt refused to accept her offer to move from the Health Department



Prime Ministers use smaller groups of Cabinet ministers, called cabinet committees in normal times and at times of emergencies.

»» Prime Ministers decide the number and nature of cabinet committees, which enables them to control the proposals and recommendations that cabinet committees make to the full Cabinet, effectively predetermining Cabinet outcomes.

Definition Bilateral meeting: A meeting between the Prime Minister and one other Cabinet minister to discuss and sometimes decide policy.

256 Component II: UK Politics Figure 9.2  How decisions are made in the executive

The Cabinet A cabinet government is where decisions are made in consultation with the whole cabinet.

Cabinet Committee

Bi/Tri Lateral Meetings

A prime ministerial government is where decisions are made by the PM, usually by passing the cabinet.

“Sofa government”



= the PM

= PM’s close allies in cabinet

= other cabinet ministers

= civil servants and special advisors

The Cabinet is involved with the management of emergencies or crises.

»»This happens via COBRA (Cabinet Office Briefing Room A).The Cabinet will convene immediately to address the emergency and decide how to deal with the problem. Examples include: the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London, the attack on Parliament in 2017, the credit crunch, the 2011 England riots and the Covid-19 pandemic.

Key Debate Summary: How important is the Cabinet? FOR

AGAINST

99Cabinet needs to approve all policies.

88 Cabinet is a rubber stamp for decisions

99Some key decisions are still made by

88 Prime Ministers can manipulate Cabinet by

99Big Beasts are hard to silence.

88 The Prime Minister controls the workings of

99No Prime Minister can survive without the

88 A dominant Prime Minister is usually

99Patronage powers must be handled

88 The Prime Minister has significant powers

99Cabinet is involved in management of

88 Prime Ministers use cabinet committees

Cabinet.

support of their Cabinet.

carefully to maintain authority. emergencies.

made elsewhere.

the use of bilateral meetings.

Cabinet and can use collective ministerial responsibility (CMR) effectively. deferred to by their Cabinet. of patronage.

to control outcomes in normal times and emergencies.

The Prime Minister and Executive

257

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  ARE PRIME MINISTERS STILL AS POWERFUL AS THEY ONCE WERE? The formal powers of the Prime Minister are relatively modest, and are derived from the Royal prerogative. Royal prerogative powers are powers exercised ‘on behalf’ of the monarch by the Prime Minister. They do not require the permission of Parliament. Such prerogative powers have existed over a long period of time and are therefore traditional in nature. Prerogative powers allow the Prime Minister to:

»»Appoint ministers and other senior figures »»Dissolve and recall Parliament (although this has been significantly reduced by the introduction of fixed-term Parliaments)

»»Sign treaties »»Grant honours »»Declare war and command the armed forces »»Annex and yield territory »»Control the workings of the Civil Service.

Spec key term Royal prerogative: A set of powers and privileges belonging to the monarch but normally exercised by the Prime Minister or Cabinet, such as the granting of honours or legal pardons.

However, this list of formal powers does not capture the full significance of the post of the Prime Minister. Prime Ministers are much more important than their ‘constitutional’ role suggests.

The powers of the Prime Minister and their limits All Prime Ministers have many powers at their disposal, however, as Figure 9.3 shows, those powers come with limits. The key resources available to the Prime Minister are:

»»The power of patronage »»The ability to manage the Cabinet »»Leadership of the party »»Institutional support.

Patronage and other prerogative powers The key power of the Prime Minister is the power of patronage. This strengthens the Prime Minister in two important ways:



The Prime Minister can ensure the appointment and promotion of loyal supporters and politicians who share their ideological preferences. By the same token, rivals or critics can be kept out of the government.



The fact that the Prime Minister controls their political careers ensures that both ministers and the majority of backbenchers (would-be ministers) remain loyal and supportive. Photo 9.1 Rishi Sunak

arrives at the Treasury following Boris Johnson’s government reshuffle in February 2020.

»»Thatcher consolidated her position after 1983 by transforming her

»»Cameron’s major reshuffle came in July 2014, when five Cabinet ministers were sacked and a further three were either promoted or demoted.

»»The May ‘shuffle’ of summer 2016 told colleagues that she was

not afraid to be ruthless. (For a detailed account of Theresa May’s use of the power of patronage, see page 000.)

»»The

biggest story of Johnson’s February 2020 reshuffle was Chancellor Sajid Javid who refused to get rid of his special advisers. He was replaced by Rishi Sunak.

Source: NurPhoto/Getty Images

Cabinet from one dominated by ‘wets’ (One Nation Conservatives) to one in which all the key economic posts were in the hand of ‘drys’ (Thatcherites).

258 Component II: UK Politics

CASE STUDY 9.1: THATCHER AS PRIME MINISTER Photo 9.2 US President Ronald Reagan and UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, 1981.

improving economy and the Labour Party in freefall all helped to produce a massive majority of 144 seats in the 1983 Election.

Source: Bettmann/Getty Images

After the Falklands

In January 1979, PM James Callaghan said ‘there are times once every 30 years when there is a sea-change in politics . . . There is a shift in what the public wants and what it approves of, I suspect there is now a sea change and it is for Mrs Thatcher’. Callaghan’s prophecy couldn’t have been more accurate. It can be argued that the current era of modern British politics started in May 1979 with Thatcher’s first general election win. Thatcher won the Conservative leadership election in 1975 by accident, according to journalist Hugo Young. The assumption was that Thatcher would do enough to force Edward Heath out and then allow Willie Whitelaw to win in the second round. But the momentum of her first-round lead carried her to a clear victory in the second ballot. In other words, the Party never intended to elect a radical right-wing ideologue as its leader. She won the 1979 General Election with a majority of 43 but was not hugely popular at first. Nonetheless, she was determined to turn the economy around with her monetarist economic policies.

Uncertain early years as Prime Minister Thatcher’s first years were difficult. Unemployment rose to over 3 million and there were riots in cities all across England. Thatcher, with her friend and Cabinet minister Geoffrey Howe, continued to pursue monetarist policies. Famously at the 1980 Conservative Conference she said, ‘you turn if you want to . . . the lady’s not for turning’. Eventually, the economy started to recover but in April 1982 an event occurred that was to change her premiership forever: Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. The ensuing conflict was driven by Thatcher, and the eventual recapturing of the islands helped to create the image of the ‘Iron Lady’. The jingoism that followed, fuelled by the right-wing, helped to create the image of Britain being great again. The Falklands victory, the ever-

Thatcher now seemed all-powerful and was able to move forward in her agenda of changing post-war Britain forever. The term ‘Thatcherism’ was coined to mean that the state should have as little involvement in the lives of its citizens as possible. State-owned companies such as British Telecom, British Airways, British Gas would be privatised. There would be the sale of council houses to their tenants and taxation for individuals would be dramatically reduced. Thatcherism was loosely based on the philosophy of monetarism but it was quickly adapted to reflect her personality. Thatcher’s second term was the high point of her premiership when her grip on the nation seemed all encompassing. The miners’ strike which was started and finished within a year when the ‘enemy within’, as she referred to striking miners, eventually returned to work. This reinforced her image as the Iron Lady. In 1984, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) bombed the Grand Hotel in Brighton where the Conservative Party Conference was based. Five people died in the attack and Thatcher had been sleeping in one of the hotel rooms. She could have lost her life but the fact that she was able to deliver her speech the next day said much for her own personal courage. Throughout her time in office the troubles in Northern Ireland were at a high, with little or no progress being made. The conflict often appeared very much a personal one between Thatcher and the IRA with her becoming more resolute in response to each attack. The reputation of the Iron lady increasingly helped to feed the image of Thatcher as a world leader. She enjoyed the world stage and in President Reagan she found an ideological ally who shared not just her economic vision but also her hatred of communism. She certainly recognised, at a very early stage, the reforming potential of Mikhail Gorbachev. Many would argue that Thatcher played a role that far outweighed the global importance of the UK in helping to defeat communism and the breakup of eastern Europe. With a reduced, but still large, majority, Thatcher won what was to be her last general election in 1987. She had begun to believe she was impenetrable and surrounded herself with likeminded people who also believed in her invincibility. She became increasingly agitated with once-loyal colleagues such as Geoffrey Howe and Nigel Lawson.

The Prime Minister and Executive

The decline Her political antennae, which had been so in tune with those she represented earlier in the decade, now seemed to have diminished. Nothing better illustrated this than her introduction of the Poll Tax to replace the local rates tax system. The Poll Tax alienated many in her Party and many Party supporters, but their objections fell on deaf ears. Her combative style led to increasing policy and personality difficulties with her Cabinet ministers, who were becoming exasperated at her style of leadership. This was illustrated by both the policy and presentational disagreements over Europe and the forerunner to the Exchange Rate Mechanism, leading to the resignations of both Howe and Lawson.

The Conservative Party is ruthless and concerned primarily with winning elections, so even after elevenand-a-half years and three general election wins, the Parliamentary party had decided they had had enough. Thatcher was challenged for the leadership by Michael Heseltine, who had long wanted the top job. While she beat him on the first ballot, it was not convincing enough to prevent a second ballot. Cabinet colleagues went to see her, one by one, to convince her she had little chance of an eventual win and that it would be better to resign with honour. So, Thatcher was unceremoniously forced out of Downing Street. Margaret Thatcher died in 2013 but, in death as in her life, her legacy continues to divide the nation.

Limits to the Prime Minister’s power of patronage



However, the power of patronage has its limits. In hiring and firing ministers, Prime Ministers must take account of the following considerations:

»» Party unity requires an ideological and political balance within the Cabinet. A Prime Minister needs to ensure that the major wings in their party feel they are being represented.

»» Prime Ministers need to pick the top talent from their party if they want to be successful. »» Prime Ministers should seek a social balance in their Cabinet, ensuring representation of women, minorities and the LGBTQ community.

»» ‘Big Beasts’ may be less dangerous inside government (where they are subject to collective responsibility) than outside.

The ability to manage their cabinet



259

Prime Ministers have considerable scope for managing and controlling the Cabinet and the wider cabinet system. It means that they can effectively determine the role of the Cabinet.

»»Among other things, Prime Ministers: ‒‒ Chair Cabinet meetings, manage their agendas and discussions, and sum up decisions. This enables them to head off potential disagreement.

‒‒ Convene Cabinet meetings and decide how often they will be called and how long they will last.

»»Decide the number and nature of Cabinet committees, sub-committees and ministerial groups, and appoint their members and chairs.

»»Collective responsibility gags dissenters and brings awkward ministers into line. It means the Prime Minister can lead a government with a united front.

»»During the Coalition, 2010–2015 there were formal and informal meetings of the ‘Quad’,

consisting of Prime Minister David Cameron, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander. As key leaders of both the Conservative and Liberal Democrats, they met to discuss and agree policy that was acceptable to both parties. This informal style of Cabinet management was nevertheless swiftly abandoned when May became Prime Minister in 2016.

»»During the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, it was alleged that Johnson made most decisions with his ‘quad’ of ministers: Dominic Raab, Matt Hancock, Rishi Sunak and Michael Gove.

260 Component II: UK Politics Photo 9.3 The Quad: George Osborne (Back R), Nick Clegg (Front R), Danny Alexander (Front L) and David Cameron (Back L).

Limits to the Prime Minister’s power over their Cabinet



However, the Prime Minister’s ability to manage and control the Cabinet has its limits.

Source: AFP/Getty Images

»» Most importantly, the Cabinet’s support for the Prime Minister is conditional on the Prime Minister being popular and successful.

»» Cabinet

resignations, particularly the resignation of senior figures, can damage political support for the Prime Minister.

»» Some

issues demand inclusion on the Cabinet agenda, and strong disagreements can lead to embarrassing Cabinet resignations.

»» The Coalition Cabinet held meetings much more regularly than under previous governments, with meetings taking place every Tuesday for up to 2 hours.

Synoptic link

Leadership over the party



The need to unite their party behind them links to the idea of party unity which is linked to the component One topic of Political Parties. Parties are made up of different wings, or factions and the ability to understand the different factions in your party and work with them is a key part of a Prime Minister’s job.

Party leadership underpins all other aspects of Prime Ministerial power. It sets the Prime Minister apart from all other ministers and gives them control across the wider governmental system.

»»The Prime Minister has considerable power as the leader of the majority party in the Commons.

The bigger the majority, the greater the power of the Prime Minister. It allows them to control Parliament through commanding a disciplined majority in the House of Commons.

‒‒ Despite some substantial backbench revolts, Blair did not suffer a single Commons defeat between 1997 and 2005 as he had a three-figure majority.

»»Party members recognise that the party’s fortunes are closely linked to the Prime Minister’s

personal standing. This tends to discourage party splits and public criticism of the Prime Minister.

‒‒ After he won the 2019 election with an 80-seat majority, Johnson’s party quickly supported his EU Withdrawal Agreement legislation, despite refusing to do so for May for the two years she tried to get it through Parliament.

»»The Prime Minister and other government ministers are also MPs and are able to sit and vote in Parliament. This gives the government a head start in support for its legislation because it is unlikely that members of the government will oppose government bills as they will lose their government position.

Limits to the PM’s power over their party



However, the benefits that flow from party leadership are limited in a number of ways.

»» As the party leader, the Prime Minister is meant to deliver electoral success. If the government

becomes unpopular, and especially if the Prime Minister is viewed as an electoral liability, party loyalty can evaporate quickly.

‒‒ Despite seeming invincible in January 2020, poor handling of the Covid-19 pandemic throughout 2020 led to Johnson’s popularity plummeting and his majority seeming much more fragile than it should.

»» Prime Ministers with small majorities will be limited by Parliament because backbench rebellions can destabilise their position. They need to ensure party unity to get things done.

‒‒ Cameron’s tiny majority in 2015 meant that he had to make a number of adjustments in order to keep both wings of his party happy. However, he lost a key vote on Sunday trading in 2016 because some of his party were against the idea.

The Prime Minister and Executive

261

CASE STUDY 9.2: BLAIR AS PRIME MINISTER

Source: Adrian Dennis/AFP/ Getty Images

Photo 9.4 British Prime Minister Tony Blair poses for a photo with troops at Shaiba Logistics Base in Basra, Iraq in December 2004.

Blair came to power in 1997 as the first Labour Prime Minister in 20 years. But he didn’t just come to power; he won a landslide majority of 419 out of 650 seats. This meant that, not only was he secure as Prime Minister for one term but as majorities like that don’t get overturned in one election, he would likely be in power for two terms.

The powerful years As would have been expected, Blair’s first years in office were defined by a long honeymoon period, marked by his response to the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, his slick handling of the media and effective responses to opposition leader, William Hague. His popularity was high and his party was in check. With a huge majority, and high personal ratings, he kept his Cabinet at arm’s length, preferring the advice of his close and trusted advisers, Mandelson, Campbell and Powell. He preferred informal conversations where he could persuade people round to his way of thinking (sofa government). Despite possessing charisma that would enable him to gain the support of most people who worked alongside him, the key relationship of the Government – with his Chancellor, Gordon Brown – was one fraught with difficulties. Brown believed that he and Blair had agreed a pact in 1994, after the sudden death of then-leader, John Smith that Blair would step down after one term. When it became clear that Blair had no plans to do so, denying any such pact ever existed, relations between the men broke down. Brown retreated to the Treasury and played power games with Blair, refusing to tell him details of the budget, while refusing funding for any projects he believed came from ‘Blairites’ in the Cabinet.

John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, was often called in to mediate. The relationship was never resolved and the Brownites in the party became a more powerful force. Blair eventually accepted that he should step down as Prime Minister, leaving the way open for Brown to take over. Blair had promised a full programme of Constitutional Reform in the 1997 manifesto and he delivered with a wide range of reforms from the devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to the Human Rights Act, reforming the House of Lords and separating the Law Lords from Parliament (see pages 194–7 for full details). He also introduced many reforms to education and the NHS, especially promoting forms of publicprivate partnerships. His involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process has led to peace in Northern Ireland ever since. His early foreign affairs interventions in Kosovo and Sierra Leone gave him confidence that he could stand up to dictators and become hugely popular in the process (many boys in Kosovo were named Tonibler or Toni after him). However, it was in the aftermath of 9/11 in 2001 that he began to travel down the road that would lead to his fateful decision to join George W. Bush in invading Iraq.

Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond When the twin towers fell, Blair was the first world leader to cross the Atlantic to stand ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with the US and President Bush. He was given a standing ovation in Congress and shared a White House press conference with President Bush. The praise was universal. However, this commitment was tested when in 2003, Bush wanted to invade Iraq under the guise of destroying Saddam Hussein’s hidden arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Despite weapons inspectors finding none, Bush was determined to invade. EU leaders had refused, saying that the evidence was not convincing, but Blair was already committed, and in March 2003, troops invaded Iraq. Saddam was toppled, but no weapons were ever found, and the argument that we had been duped into committing troops grew stronger and louder, and Blair’s reputation tarnished for good. After the removal of Saddam, the war gradually turned into mayhem. The US and its allies were drawn into a complex counter-insurgency war that proved to be substantially more problematic and protracted than had been anticipated. A further eight years elapsed before the last UK and US troops could be withdrawn.

262 Component II: UK Politics Blair’s role in transforming Labour’s electoral prospects during the 1990s, and the scale of the Party’s election successes in 1997 and 2001, had given Blair such personal and political dominance over the Cabinet and Government that he had effectively been able to prevail over them. Nevertheless, the Iraq War also underlined the fragility of Prime Ministerial power. The Prime Minister’s poll ratings plummeted and Labour’s majority in the 2005 election was slashed from 166 to just 65. Shortly before that election, Blair became the first Prime Minister to

Definition Prime Minister’s Office: A collection of senior officials and political advisers (numbering over 100) who advise the Prime Minister about policy and implementation, communications and party management.

Having never lost a vote between 1997 and 2005, Blair returned to a Parliament that was not prepared to support him to such an extent. He faced rebellions on detention for terrorists, tuition fees and foundation hospitals. He was then forced to announce a date for stepping down, which he duly did in June 2007.

»» The Commons can effectively remove a government by forcing a vote of confidence in the

Synoptic link At the heart of a Prime Minister’s power over their party is the fusion of power between the legislature and executive. A link could be made here to show that this goes against the liberal idea (core ideas Component One) of a separation of powers.

pre-announce his resignation. He did this by promising that, if he was re-elected for a third term in office, he would not seek a fourth term.

government.

‒‒ Jim Callaghan’s administration fell in 1979 after losing a vote of confidence.

»» The House of Lords is a limit on the Prime Minister’s leadership because the governing party does not have majority control of the second chamber.

»» Coalition governments have unique issues in trying to maintain their majority in the Commons. ‒‒ The 2010–15 Parliament was one of the most rebellious in history because it was difficult

to encourage either Coalition party to support policies to which they were ideologically opposed.

Institutional support



Prime Ministerial institutional power has grown significantly as a result of the build-up of bodies and advisers who support the Prime Minister.

»»Prime Ministers have two important bodies that serve them: the Prime Minister’s Office, which

also includes the Policy Unit, and the Cabinet Office, which has developed into the coordinating centre of the UK executive. The Prime Minister’s Office is part of the Cabinet Office and is staffed by a mix of civil servants and special advisers. Its role and influence was significantly extended under Blair.

»»Civil servants staff the Prime Minister’s office at No. 10 Downing Street, with additional special

advisers on hand to advise on policy and help with communication and strategy. This means that the Prime Minister has the resources to work independently of the Cabinet, exerting greater influence.

»»In addition, due to structural changes made by Blair in 2001, the number and significance of special advisers who are responsible directly to the Prime Minister has increased markedly.

‒‒ According to the Institute of Government, where Major had eight special advisers, Blair

eventually had 50. Blair also became the first Prime Minister to give senior special advisers formal control over civil servants.

‒‒ Despite the fact that initially the Conservative-led coalition reduced the number of special advisers, by 2014 the number of ‘Spads’ supporting Cameron and Clegg was 107.

‒‒ May’s group of special advisers had been dominated by her fiercely loyal chiefs of staff,

Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy, and Boris Johnson’s most important and infamous special adviser was Dominic Cummings.

The Prime Minister and Executive

Limits to the Prime Minister’s power of institutional support



However, the benefit of these institutional supports is limited.

»» Compared to other world leaders, the institutional supports available to a UK Prime Minister

are meagre. Even with the expanded Cabinet Office it does not amount to a Prime Minister’s department.

»» The weaknesses of institutional support have been evident with recent Prime Minister’s top advisers. The following top advisers all became the main story during their time advising the Prime Minister and cost their Prime Minister considerable political capital:

‒‒ Alistair Campbell became a liability for the Blair Government’s ability to achieve its aims

and he resigned after the death of Dr David Kelly who was caught up in the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

‒‒ Andy

Coulson was Cameron’s Communications Director during the phone hacking scandal. The former editor of the News of the World constantly denied any involvement in phone hacking. He resigned as pressure was mounting on him and was eventually found guilty of phone hacking in 2014 and went to prison.

‒‒ Timothy and Fiona Hill were May’s joint Chiefs of Staff. Their overzealous, dictatorial

approach to their position landed May in difficulties. They were accused of tightly restricting access to her, stopping her getting advice from members of her Government and Party. Their advice regarding the 2017 snap election, which was widely seen as disastrous, led to both their resignations in June 2017.

Figure 9.3  The powers and limits of the Prime Minister

Patronage and other Prerogative powers

Powers over Party Party, Carbinet and Parliament are loyal to PM as leader of party Usually commands a majority in Commons

PM appoints, shuffles and dismisses Cabinet ministers as well as all ministers in government

Limits ‘Big Beasts’ have to be included Both ‘wings’ of the party should be represented Rivals may have to be included Botched reshuffles can cause problems

Powers over Cabinet (and Government) Calls, chairs and sets agenda for Cabinet meetings Establishes Cabinet committees, bilaterals, sofa-government and may be able to bypass Cabinet Collective responsibility

Limits Requires Cabinet support on major or controversial issues. ‘Big Beasts’ have their own authority Threat of resignation can damage PM Ultimately PM’s position is dependent on Cabinet support

Limits

Variable factors 1. Personality of the PM 2. What will Caninet and Party put up with? 3. How big is the majority? 4. How popular is the PM? 5. How strong is the Opposition? 6. Media 7. ‘Events dear boy, events’

Loyalty dependent on possibility of electoral success Backbench rebellions in Commons possible Risk of leadership challenge at times

Institutional support Growth of Prime Minister’s Office, including No 10 Policy Unit, Press office and Cabinet Office Increased use of Special Advisors

Limits No formal PM Department Power of other large, rival, departments. Small compared to office of US President

263

264 Component II: UK Politics

‒‒ Dominic Cummings was infamous for the role he played in the EU referendum. His dictatorial

attitude towards ministers, civil servants, advisers and MPs when he came to No. 10 with Johnson in 2019 made him particularly unpopular, and when he broke lockdown rules in April 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic, many saw it as an opportunity to get their revenge. Despite Johnson’s initial support, in November 2020 both Cummings and Cain announced that they were leaving their positions; Johnson had clearly come to the conclusion that his top advisers were causing more problems within government than they were solving.

Elastic band theory: Variable factors that determine the power of the Prime Minister As can be seen in the section above, all Prime Ministers have many ways to exercise power, but there are also significant limits to consider. Nevertheless, the extent of their power fluctuates not only from Prime Minister to Prime Minister but also at different times within the same premiership. In an article titled ‘The Prime Minister’s Power’ (1965), George Jones argued that Prime Ministerial power was dependent upon many variables and subject to important limitations, and the term ‘elastic band theory’ was coined. Jones concluded that Prime Ministerial power has always been reliant on a variety of factors.

Prime Ministerial style and personality One key determinant of Prime Ministerial power is the style and personality of the Prime Minister. Burns, in his book, Leadership (1978) outlines three distinctive styles of leadership:

»»Laissez-faire leaders. These are leaders who are reluctant to interfere in matters outside their responsibility. They tend to have a ‘hands-off’ approach (e.g. Douglas Home and Cameron).

»»Transactional leaders. These are leaders who try to uphold collective government by negotiating and balancing rival individuals, factions and interests against one another (e.g. Edward Heath and John Major).

»»Transformational leaders. These are leaders who inspire or are visionaries. They tend to be

motivated by strong ideological convictions, and also have personal resolution and political will to put them into practice (e.g. Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair).

As well as this, a Prime Minister’s personality influences how they hold the office. Suspicious and more introverted Prime Ministers like Brown and May will lead in a very different style to extroverted personality types like Johnson. Prime Ministers with charisma and flair, like Thatcher or Blair and even to some extent Cameron, may be more effective persuaders than more steady types like Major.

The Cabinet The extent of the Prime Minister’s ability to achieve their aims is partly dependent on how far their Cabinet are prepared to defer to them. Although the full Cabinet is often now largely ignored, it can still act as a major constraint on the Prime Minister. If a Prime Minister is ‘too powerful’ it is because ministers have allowed them to become so.

»»The ‘wets’ in Cabinets during 1981–1982 under Thatcher were never a united force that was able to seriously challenge the Prime Minister.

»»Whereas the unity of the Euro-rebels in the 1990s meant they were able to cause chaos to Major’s Government.

»»Initially, ministers in the Blair Government seemed to be prepared to accept Blair’s presidential style and defer to him. However, from 2001, and increasingly from 2005, ministers were less likely to acquiesce in light of his falling popularity.

The Prime Minister and Executive

»»Gordon Brown, despite his desire to dominate, was constrained by his Cabinet. Towards the

end of his time in office he was unable to freely choose who was in his Cabinet. For example, he was unable to replace Alistair Darling with Ed Balls as his Chancellor because Darling refused to resign and Brown (knowing he did not have enough support on the back benches) felt unable to force him to, despite technically having the power to do so.

»»Cameron had many Liberal Democrats in his Cabinet and Government who were not prepared

to defer to him at all. Equally in his own party, his position among the Conservative members of the Cabinet was not strong as they resented being in coalition.

»»While May had control of her Cabinet for her first year, this evaporated after the ‘snap election’ and from that moment on, they would not defer to her on anything and she struggled for the remaining two years she remained as Prime Minister.

»»Johnson inherited a deeply rebellious Cabinet from May, but after the unexpected size of his win in December 2019, his Cabinet were very supportive and he was able to remove critical ministers like Julian Smith and Geoffrey Cox.

The party Prime Ministers can, in most cases, count on the support of their party, both inside Parliament and beyond. However, this support is conditional. Party leadership is a responsibility as well as a source of power. In particular, parties look to Prime Ministers to provide leadership that will help to maintain party unity and ensure the party’s electoral success. The failure to do so can bring a heavy price.

»»The most dramatic example of this was the fall of Thatcher. She fell because she was unable to win sufficient support from MPs in the leadership election. Support for Thatcher had been reduced by divisions over Europe and by the unpopularity of the Poll Tax (a flat-rate local government tax on individuals which replaced the rates). Thatcher came to be viewed as an electoral liability by fellow MP’s.

»»John Major’s premiership was blighted by deepening tensions within the Party over Europe. A

record of almost unremitting party division after 1992, and Major’s declining authority over his party, undoubtedly contributed to the disastrous Conservative defeat of 1997.

»»While the Labour Party hailed Blair’s win in 1997 as a new dawn, taking them into government

for the first time in nearly twenty years, by the time he left office ten years later, his reputation was in tatters because of his decision to send troops to Iraq in 2003 to support President G.W. Bush. In the subsequent years, Blair has become almost a pariah in the Labour Party, a far cry from his hero status of 1997.

»»Cameron’s Party wasn’t ever sure about his Conservative Party modernising project. They were even less convinced when he couldn’t beat the deeply unpopular Brown in 2010 and they were forced into coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Cameron’s hands were tied firstly by his unimpressed party and also by the party of his coalition partners.

»»To say that May was restricted by her Party and her informal partner in power the Democratic

Unionist Party (DUP) is somewhat of an understatement. May spent two years attempting an almost impossible high-wire act and found herself constrained at every twist and turn by everyone around her.

»»For Johnson, he gained the support of his Party because he read the mood of the country well and won so convincingly in 2019. However, his bad handling of the Covid-19 pandemic and constant U-turns and poor communications resulted in them losing faith. Throughout 2020 he was forced into U-turns by his Parliamentary party as they lost faith with his ability to lead (see Chapter 8 for more details).

265

266 Component II: UK Politics

Size of majority The ability to command a large majority is a pivotal factor in Prime Ministerial power. The larger the government’s majority, the stronger a Prime Minister will usually be.

»»When Thatcher had majorities of over 100, her position was secure because it would take more

than 50 backbenchers to be prepared to vote against the government. However, John Major’s majority was only ever 21 at its height and this caused him issues throughout his premiership.

»»With a majority of 178 after the 1997 election it would have taken 90 Labour MPs to defeat

Blair. Landslide majorities in 1997 (178) and in 2001 (167) enabled the Blair government to suffer no defeats in the House of Commons in its first two terms. Once Blair’s majority had fallen to 65 after the 2005 election, this could be done by around 30 MPs, and he lost two votes in the Commons. The contrast between small and large majorities can be stark.

Synoptic link The size of the majority a Prime Minister has is directly related back to the FPTP electoral system, a topic in Component One, which creates a ‘winners’ bonus’ and hence often an over-large majority to one party, which enhances the Prime Minister’s power.

»»The most significant implication of the 2010–15 Coalition was that it created a majority

government despite the election of a ‘hung’ Parliament. The Coalition’s ‘official’ majority of 77 helped to reduce the number of government defeats during the 2010–15 Parliament. The Cameron Government thus suffered just 6 defeats in 5 years, compared with the 1976–79 Callaghan Government, which ended up with no majority and was defeated 34 times.

»»After the 2017 ‘snap’ election, May led a minority government propped up by a ‘supply and

confidence’ arrangement with the DUP. The DUP played hardball with May and, given the huge splits within the Conservative Party between Leavers and Remainers, May barely ever had a majority for any of her plans. Famously she holds the record for the worst ever Parliamentary defeat for her EU Withdrawal Agreement Bill (432–202).

»»Johnsons’ healthy 80-seat majority gave him a great deal of freedom after the small or no majorities of his predecessors. He managed to pass the EU Withdrawal Agreement by 358 to 234. However, the Government’s poor handling of the Covid-19 pandemic made backbenchers restless (see Chapter 8 for more details).

Popularity of the Prime Minister The Prime Minister’s popularity with the public underpins all the other constraints on them. When Prime Ministers are popular and their governments are riding high in the polls, their authority over the Cabinet and the party is assured. However, when the government’s popularity dips, and its chances of winning the next election are thrown into doubt, life becomes much more difficult for the Prime Minister.

»»Thatcher’s vulnerability in the late 1980s coincided with declining poll ratings and early signs of improved support for the Labour Party.

»»Blair’s declining personal popularity leading up to the 2005 General Election persuaded him to

pre-announce his resignation. This left him as a ‘lame duck’ Prime Minister for the rest of his term in office.

»»Cameron was never either hugely popular or unpopular as Prime Minister and as a result, his

power stayed relatively stable. Until of course, he took the fateful and possibly reckless decision to hold the EU Referendum. Like Blair, his popularity when Prime Minister will always be blighted by a decision he took at the latter end of his premiership.

»»May, on the other hand, was never particularly popular as Prime Minister and the more the public saw of her the less they liked. Her backbenchers, needing any excuse not to support her Brexit position, exploited her lack of popularity.

»»Johnson had always been seen as an ebullient figure. He was able to win the London Mayoral

Election twice, which was considered impossible for a Conservative. He also confounded

The Prime Minister and Executive

267

expectations in 2019 by winning many seats in Labour heartlands. This led many in his party to give him the benefit of the doubt more than once, however, as 2020 progressed and his popularity waned, the confidence in him lessened.

The media Although not included in the original thesis by Jones (1978), the media has an enormous effect on the power of a Prime Minister. The expansion of the ‘broadcast’ media, and increasingly the ‘new’ media has not only increased the flow of political information to the public, but also reordered power relationships within the executive (see Chapter 9).

»»The media’s obsession with personality and image guarantees that media attention focuses

primarily on leaders, and especially on the Prime Minister. Thatcher, Blair, Cameron and Johnson were highly effective media performers and were able to use the media to their advantage.

»»Appointments such as that of Alistair Campbell under the Blair Government and Dominic Cummings and Lee Cain under Johnson’s Government gave rise to an emphasis on ‘spin’ and ‘news management’.

However, media attention does not always work to the benefit of the Prime Minister. Bad news stories such as policy blunders and ministerial resignations are often ‘hyped’ by the media, turning a problem into a crisis. Also, if Prime Ministers are poor media performers, it can overshadow many other positive qualities.

»»Major’s reputation was badly damaged by the Exchange Rate Mechanism crisis in 1992. He was also presented as ‘grey’ and boring by the media.

Definition Spin: The biased or distorted presentation of information so as to gain a desired response; being ‘economical with the truth’.

»»The relationship between the Prime Minister and the media reached a low under Brown who

lacked the presentational skills to be a successful modern leader. Brown’s media image was poor from the start, and then went downhill. Memories of a disastrous YouTube appearance and being infamously caught on mic referring to Gillian Duffy as a ‘bigoted woman’ are just two examples of a disastrous media image.

»»May was also not a skilled media performer, seeming to lack humour and charisma. She appeared wooden and lacklustre in interviews and did herself no favours by admitting to a TV interviewer that the naughtiest thing she ever did was ‘running through a field of wheat’ when younger.

The pressure of events When Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister in 1957–63 somebody asked him what worried him most. Famously, he replied: ‘Events, dear boy, events’. In other words, Macmillan was highlighting the limited control that Prime Ministers have over ‘what happens’. In theory, Prime Ministers ‘run the country’, but in practice surprises come along that demonstrate how little control they actually have.

»»For instance, Thatcher ‘initiated’ the Falklands War of 1982, and considerably benefited from

the victory. Ultimately, for Thatcher the introduction of the Poll Tax and divisions over the EU ended her premiership.

»»John Major was less fortunate over ‘Black Wednesday’ in 1992, when intensifying currency speculation finally forced the UK to leave the ERM. The ERM crisis had a profound effect on the rest of Major’s premiership, badly damaging the Government’s reputation for economic competence.

»»Tony Blair’s Government faced issues like the fuel crisis, foot and mouth and the fox hunting ban. However, the biggest ‘event’ for Blair was Iraq, which changed his premiership forever.

Synoptic link By discussing how the media affects the power of a Prime Minister you are making highly effective synoptic links back to Component One

268 Component II: UK Politics

»»As far as Cameron is concerned, he may not have been so willing to commit his party to holding a referendum on EU membership had he known the outcome.

»»For May it was all about Brexit. Her inability to unite her party around her Brexit vision was a personal and political failure.

»»Johnson was riding high in January 2020; the UK left the EU on the 31st and he was enjoying

the benefits of an 80-seat majority. However, not many ‘events’ are as huge or unexpected as the Covid-19 global pandemic which knocked his Government for six. As 2020 progressed, the Government was seen to have a poor handle on the pandemic, which had consequences for their poll ratings.

Key Debate Summary: Are Prime Ministers still as powerful as they once were? FOR

AGAINST

99Prime Ministers have the hugely significant 88 Prime Ministers must be careful to consider power of patronage.

»» Popular

Prime Ministers with large majorities are often able to exercise this power greatly e.g. Blair and Thatcher at their height were able to appoint anyone they wanted to their Cabinet.

99Prime Ministers have the ability to control their Cabinet.

Tip – When answering questions about Prime Ministerial power, it’s not enough to balance the powers and limits a Prime Minister has. You need to consider why some Prime Ministers are able to exercise much greater power than others. The answer to this comes in understanding and balancing the influence of Jones’ variables on the fluctuating power of Prime Ministers.

»» Charismatic Prime Ministers can bypass or dominate their Cabinet in order to get the outcomes they want.

many factors when appointing their Cabinet.

»» Weaker

Prime Ministers who are unpopular in their party and/or with the public like Brown or May must carefully balance their Cabinets to ensure support.

88 Prime Ministers need to ensure they

maintain the support of their Cabinet.

»» All Prime Ministers need to ensure over

the longer term that they keep their Cabinet behind them and not take them for granted. Even once-strong Prime Ministers like Blair and Thatcher eventually lost the support of their Cabinet and were forced out of office.

99A Prime Minister’s party is naturally loyal to 88 Loyalty of the party is dependent on the their leader.

»» Almost every Prime Minister began their

time in office with the support of their backbenchers, a so-called ‘honeymoon period’. This is because they have proved themselves to be popular with the electorate.

possibility of electoral success.

»» Equally, if Prime Ministers don’t respond

well to events or have a skilled Leader of the Opposition and see their popularity diminish, they will soon lose the support of their party

99A Prime Minister’s institutional support can 88 The Prime Minister’s institutional support give them significant power.

»» Good ‘spin doctors’ can ensure positive media support for a Prime Minister which will enhance their power.

is less than other world leaders and also other major office holders.

»» Sometimes,

overzealous ‘spin doctors’ become the story and Prime Ministers face the political fallout, denting their popularity with the public.

The Prime Minister and Executive

269

CASE STUDY 9.3: CAMERON AS PRIME MINISTER

Source: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Photo 9.5 David Cameron reacts after delivering his resignation speech in Downing Street following the EU referendum result on Friday 24 June 2016.

David Cameron will be remembered as the Prime Minister who took Britain out of the European Union despite, when he first became leader asking his party to stop ‘banging on about Europe. He also wanted to detoxify his party, once described by Theresa May as the ‘nasty’ party. He aimed to do this by supporting socially liberal ideas, the NHS and the environment. He spoke about how some young offenders just needed love. He didn’t try to hide his privileged upbringing and argued that he wanted everyone in Britain to have those kinds of advantages in life.

In coalition During the period of the Conservative–Liberal Democrat Coalition, 2010–15, David Cameron’s power as Prime Minister had to be understood in the light of the framework that coalition government established. A Commons majority and a unified party are the two key requirements for effective Prime Ministerial power. A ‘hung’ Parliament changes this because, in minority or coalition governments, Prime Ministers are much more vulnerable to pressures exerted by another party or other parties. The early introduction of the Fixed-term Parliament Act was significant because it meant that the Prime Minister surrendered a key prerogative power, the ability to dissolve Parliament and to call a general election, but it also locked both parties in for the full term. In this fiveyear period, the Coalition introduced sweeping changes to the education system, the NHS, the benefits system and pensions, as well as massive cuts to public spending aimed at paying off the deficit and increasing university tuition fees.

Another consequence was the constraint on the Prime Minister’s power of patronage. Cameron needed to bind the Cabinet together into the Coalition, with this in mind, Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, was appointed Deputy Prime Minister, and four other Liberal Democrats were appointed to the Cabinet. Cameron could not reshuffle or remove Clegg, nor could he instruct Liberal Democrat ministers. Coalition government meant that patronage had to be exercised with greater care and sensitivity. The constraints that coalition government extended across all the decision-making processes of government, inhibiting the Prime Minister’s capacity to exert policy leadership. This occurred because, unlike single-party governments, coalitions involve an ongoing and complex process of negotiation, simplistically, Cabinet government was back. In Parliament in2013, he suffered a major blow to his authority when he became the first Prime Minister in more than 100 years to lose a foreign policy vote, after Conservative MPs joined with Labour to block his plans for military intervention in Syria. One of the key strategic relationships in the Cabinet was formed by ‘the Quad’ – meetings between Cameron, Clegg, Chancellor George Osborne, and Chief Secretary of the Treasury Danny Alexander. Within this, the most important relationship was between Cameron and Clegg, who quickly developed a close working relationship and met on a regular basis. However, it is by no means clear that coalition government always hampers the Prime Minister’s freedom for manoeuvre. During his first year in office, Cameron suffered no serious policy reverses due to opposition from within the Cabinet or government. This was particularly remarkable in view of the controversial nature of many of the policies the Coalition was unveiling. One of the reasons for this was the prominence that senior Liberal Democrats enjoyed within the Coalition Government’s decisionmaking processes. The fact that figures such as Clegg and Alexander were very clearly ‘insiders’ rather than ‘outsiders’ made it difficult for them to become the focus of disaffection. In 2014, he snatched victory from the jaws of defeat by rushing north of the border to convince Scottish voters to stay within the Union. This victory (and the AV referendum in 2011) perhaps created an overconfidence about his ability to win referendums, as he fatefully promised his party that if he won an overall majority he would hold an In-Out referendum.

270 Component II: UK Politics Single-party government 2015–16 For the third time, in 2015, Cameron confounded the doubters by winning a (very small) majority in the 2015 General Election, the first majority government since John Major in 1992. However, his slim majority left him open to a handful of his own MPs being able to switch votes and defeat him, which they did as his Government suffered a string of defeats, most famously over Osborne’s welfare cuts. The majority he won, however, which meant he had to keep his promise to hold an In-Out referendum. After a round of shuttle diplomacy, to renegotiate the terms of our EU membership, the deal he brought back was

less than overwhelming. The more he tried to convince people it was a transformative deal which meant he was campaigning to stay in the EU, the more positions in his own party hardened, the majority of whom wanted Britain out of the EU. Pitched against Johnson and Gove on the Leave side, the Remain side fought a campaign which was tone-deaf in many ways and sought to frighten Leave voters rather than listen to them. Perhaps, buoyed by two referendum victories to his name which used this tactic, he believed it would work. On the morning after the referendum result, Cameron resigned as Prime Minister. Despite doing many good things for the country and his party, he will be remembered primarily for this.

The significance of ministerial responsibility Individual ministerial responsibility Spec key term Individual responsibility: The principle by which ministers are responsible for their personal conduct and for their departments.

Definition Cabinet Secretary: The most senior Civil Service adviser to the Prime Minister and Cabinet. They often act as one of the Prime Minister’s senior advisers on the working of government and on major policy decisions.

Individual responsibility is the convention that defines the relationship between ministers and their departments. It has two main features:

»»Ministers are responsible for and accountable to Parliament for the policies and actions of

their departments. This is reflected in an obligation to inform and explain, but it may extend to resignation in the event of blunders or policy failures. In theory, individual responsibility implies that ministers take responsibility for the mistakes made by junior ministers and civil servants, but in practice they now only resign as a result of blunders that they have made personally.

»»It also implies that civil servants are responsible to their ministers. This suggests that civil

servants should be loyal and supportive to their minister no matter which party is in government, although if they have ethical concerns about a minister’s conduct, they should refer these to the Cabinet Secretary.

According to the Cabinet Manual 2011, ‘Ministers are individually responsible to Parliament for (i) departmental matters and (ii) for their own conduct in office. … Ministers hold office as long as they have the confidence of the Prime Minister.’ This shows that there are two strands to individual ministerial responsibility. 1. Legal responsibility. Individual ministerial responsibility refers to the convention that ministers are responsible for all that goes on within their own department, whether or not they are directly involved. In extreme cases they may be required to resign, but normally have to account to Parliament and face criticism. A well-known example of this convention in action was the resignation of Lord Carrington in 1982 due to the invasion of the Falkland Islands. As Defence Secretary, he felt it a matter of honour that he should resign, despite protestations from his Prime Minister. However, in the modern era, this is rarely the case.

oo In 2020 Gavin Williamson passed the blame for the exam fiasco to Ofqual rather than resigning and accepting responsibility himself.

The Prime Minister and Executive

271

oo In 2018 Amber Rudd was forced to resign when it was revealed that she had inadvertently misled Parliament when answering questions over the existence of targets regarding the Windrush scandal. She explained in her resignation letter that she had not been ‘sufficiently aware’ of them. This resignation serves as a reminder that ministers must be aware of actions and decisions made in their department.

oo Priti Patel resigned in 2017 after having unauthorised meetings with Israeli ministers and the Israeli Prime Minister. However, in 2020 she failed to resign over claims of bullying her civil servants despite breaking the ministerial code.

oo Theresa May, as Home Secretary, managed to keep her job in April 2012 despite confusion over deadlines for appeals against Abu Qatada’s deportation to Jordan. He was finally deported in July 2013 after a ten-year legal battle. 2. Political responsibility. This covers ministers who are responsible for their own personal conduct, it is seen as a personal failure of the minister, not the Government it holds office for. The media is only too eager to pick up on any event which might suggest that the MP has been dishonest and hypocritical. Ministers are forced to resign because of some personal failing which is not necessarily related to their performance as head of a government department. This aspect of individual ministerial responsibility explains the resignations of:

oo In 2019 Alun Cairns, Secretary of State for Wales, resigned following claims he had known about a former aide’s role in the ‘sabotage’ of a rape trial.

oo Damian Green resigned in 2017 when he was found to have lied about the presence of pornographic images on his office computer.

oo Also in 2017, Michael Fallon resigned regarding allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour.

oo Andrew Mitchell resigned in 2012 for allegedly (but now proven incorrectly) calling police officers on duty at No 10, ‘f****ing plebs’

oo Chris Huhne resigned in 2012 because he was told he would face a criminal charge in connection with allegedly dodging a speeding offence. He eventually resigned as an MP after being found guilty of committing perjury, and served a short prison sentence.

Visit the companion website to access a bonus case study on the exam fiasco of 2020, Gavin Williamson and individual responsibility.

Collective ministerial responsibility According to the Cabinet Manual: ‘The roles of the Prime Minister and Cabinet are governed largely by convention; decisions made at Cabinet and Cabinet committee level are binding on all members of the Government, save where collective agreement is expressly set aside, and any minister who cannot accept them is expected to resign.’ Collective responsibility is a convention that extends to all government ministers. The basis of collective responsibility is that ministers have responsibility, as a group, for all the policies of the government. Collective responsibility is important because:

Spec key term Collective responsibility: The principle by which ministers must support Cabinet decisions or leave the executive.

272 Component II: UK Politics Figure 9.4 Number of ministerial resignations outside reshuffles, 1979–2019 40

May

35 30 25

Blair Thatcher

Major

20

Brown

15

Cameron

10 5 0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12 years

»»It ensures that the government is collectively responsible to Parliament and ministers present a

united front, with the government collectively shouldering responsibility for government actions and policies.

»»It means that discussions inside Cabinet remain private and conflict remains confidential.

Any

member of the Cabinet who feels unable to accept this restraint is expected to resign.

Definition Payroll vote: Used to describe MPs who hold positions in the government which they would have to resign from in order to oppose the government.

»»It can underpin Prime Ministerial power by silencing critics within the Government. »»It also creates a payroll vote in Parliament and helps ensure that potential rebels in government can be silenced.

There are examples of ministers resigning when they do not agree with government decisions:

»» In 2020 Sajid Javid resigned as Chancellor of the Exchequer because he refused to dismiss his advisers during the 2020 Cabinet reshuffle.

»»Between 2018 and 2019 PM May faced 26 resignations by ministers over disagreements with

her proposed Chequers agreement and/or the EU Withdrawal Bill. This included losing her Secretaries of State for Education, Brexit (twice!), Foreign Affairs and Work and Pensions. As Figure 9.4 shows, she faced more resignations during her time as Prime Minister than any other Prime Minister since 1979.

»»In 2016, Iain Duncan-Smith resigned as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. In his

resignation letter to the Prime Minister, Duncan-Smith explained that this was in response to the Government’s latest Budget, which included cuts to both disability benefits and Capital Gains Tax. He said that he was not prepared to defend these cuts in a Budget ‘that benefits higher earning taxpayers’.

»»The issue which most divided the Blair Government was Iraq. Robin Cook and Clare Short both resigned from the Cabinet because of their disagreement with the invasion of Iraq.

However, collective ministerial responsibility has come under great strain with ministers disagreeing but not resigning. The past 50 years have witnessed several internal battles within Cabinet and some of these have led to the ultimate downfall of a Prime Minister. Also, the fact that collective responsibility can be, and has been, set aside has led some academics to argue that it is a rule enforced by Prime Ministers when it suits them and discarded when it does not. The lesson from history is clear – a Prime Minister must maintain at least the semblance of Cabinet unity if they wish to lay claim to be the leader of the country at large.

»»During 2018–19, it was the ministers who disagreed and didn’t resign who destabilised the

May Government. Power visibly ebbed away from May as her divided Cabinet openly discussed

The Prime Minister and Executive alternatives to her EU deal and voted against it while staying in her Cabinet. She was too weak to sack them, and they knew it. Collective responsibility was dead and without it, the appearance of a united government died too.

»»In March 2019, 13 Conservative frontbenchers – including four Cabinet ministers – abstained

on ruling out a no-deal Brexit in all circumstances despite a three-line whip for them to oppose it. Extraordinarily, it later emerged that they had been given permission to do so without being sacked by Theresa May.

»»On the 2016 Referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union, Cameron suspended collective responsibility, allowing ministers to campaign for either side.

»» Under the Coalition, the notion of collective ministerial responsibility was viewed differently. The

Coalition agreement outlined a number of policy areas where internal disagreements were permitted.

»»During the Blair years, the biggest split in the Cabinet was between Prime Minister Tony Blair

and Chancellor Gordon Brown, which reflected deep personal rivalries. Their arguments were often very public and their supporters within the Government were always keen to leak details of the disagreements, but there was never any suggestion of resignations or sackings. At times, Blair’s Government appeared to have two camps, ‘Blairites’ and ‘Brownites’.

KEY TOPIC DEBATE: ARE THE CONVENTIONS OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY STILL IMPORTANT?



Collective ministerial responsibility is a key element of government unity and the Cabinet is still held to account through it. Ministers resign or are sacked if they can’t support the government’s policy.

»»Under the premiership of Theresa May, David Davis and Boris Johnson resigned after the Chequers agreement was unveiled as they couldn’t support it.

»»Also in 2019, but under PM Johnson, Amber Rudd resigned from government for the second time, being ‘unable to stand by when loyal MPs were purged’ and over a no deal Brexit

»»Under Cameron, Iain Duncan-Smith resigned when he couldn’t support cuts to both disability benefits and Capital Gains Tax.



However, collective ministerial responsibility has come under strain with ministers disagreeing but not resigning. A Prime Minister must maintain Cabinet unity if they wish to lead with conviction.

»» Throughout 2018–19 PM May had many senior ministers disagreeing and not resigning, which

was very destabilising to her government. Chancellor Hammond and Brexit Secretary Davis publicly challenged each other regarding the ending of free movement, but neither resigned despite openly contradicting one another.

»» In March 2019, 13 Conservative frontbenchers abstained on ruling out a no-deal Brexit in all circumstances despite a three-line whip for them to oppose it.



Collective responsibility is a flexible convention which can be temporarily suspended when issues that transcend party politics are to be considered by the government.

»»In 2016, May announced that Cabinet ministers who disagree with the decision to grant Heathrow an extra runway would be given a ‘derogation’ from collective responsibility.

»»On the 2016 referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union, Cameron suspended collective responsibility, allowing ministers to campaign for either side.

»»Under the 2010–2015 Coalition, collective responsibility was suspended in certain policy areas. »»In 1975, ministers in the Labour Government were allowed to disagree publicly during the referendum campaign on the EC. This historic decision was known as ‘the agreement to differ’.

273

274 Component II: UK Politics



The fact that collective responsibility can be, and has been, set aside has led some to argue that it is a rule enforced by Prime Ministers when it suits them and discarded when it does not.

»» All the examples above occurred to resolve party management difficulties. In other words,

collective responsibility had to be suspended on these occasions because the Prime Minister could not make their Cabinet support them.

»» This shows that collective responsibility is not effective in making ministers support the policies of their government.



Individual ministerial responsibility is an important aspect of governance as it ensures that ministers are fully focused on the work and actions of their department. It also ensures that those involved at the top of public life maintain the correct quality of behaviour.

»»In 2019, Alun Cairns, Secretary of State for Wales, resigned following claims he had known about a former aide’s role in the ‘sabotage’ of a rape trial.

»»Damian Green resigned in 2017 when he was found to have lied about the presence of pornographic images on his office computer.

»»Also in 2017, Michael Fallon resigned regarding allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour. 

As individual and collective ministerial responsibility are merely conventions, and not legally binding, their application is inconsistently applied. Hence they do not result in securing the accountability of ministers and resignations are now more about personal failings than professional ones.

»» In 2020 Priti Patel was found to have broken the ministerial code with regards to allegations of bullying civil servants in her department. Yet Johnson stood by her and refused to sack her, leading the Institute of Government to say that the ministerial code had been fatally undermined.

»» Theresa May, as Home Secretary in 2012, managed to keep her job despite confusion over deadlines for appeals against Abu Qatada’s deportation to Jordan.

»» Jeremy Hunt didn’t resign in April 2012 when it was suggested that his closeness to the Murdoch family had led to him making a biased decision to allow NewsCorp to take full control of BskyB.

»» Vince

Cable was not sacked as Business Secretary in the 2010 Coalition despite telling undercover reports he had ‘declared war’ on Rupert Murdoch over Murdoch’s bid to take full control of BskyB.



Ministers take responsibility by being answerable and accountable for the work of their departments. Only when they are clearly personally to blame will they resign. The resignation of a Cabinet minister due to individual ministerial responsibility depends on the severity of the issue, the Prime Minister’s response and the role of the media. It is unreasonable to suggest every minister should resign due to a small failure in their own department, but on key issues individual ministerial responsibility does still occur.

»»Amber Rudd 2018 resigned as Home Secretary when she inadvertently misled MPs over whether she knew about targets to remove illegal immigrants.

»» Priti Patel resigned in 2017 over controversy about her unauthorised meetings with Israeli officials. 

Individual ministerial responsibility is clear, but ministers seek to shift the blame to others to deflect bad publicity. There is no formal mechanism for enforcing it, meaning that today ministers frequently use ignorance of misbehaviour as an argument for lack of culpability. Often, it is the media who are the ultimate deciders of when ministers resign, not the conventions.

»» In 2020, Gavin Williamson passed the blame for the exam fiasco to Ofqual rather than accepting responsibility himself.

The Prime Minister and Executive

»» In

2020, Matt Hancock avoided resignation during the Covid-19 crisis by blaming (and subsequently abolishing) Public Health England, arguing that ministers had been dissatisfied and frustrated with how it had handled the Coronavirus crisis.

»» Theresa May, as Home Secretary in 2011, did not resign over lapses in border controls because she argued that a civil servant, Brodie Clark, acted beyond the guidelines she gave him.

These examples show how individual ministerial responsibility is no longer working.

Key Debate Summary: Are the conventions of ministerial responsibility still important? FOR

AGAINST

99Collective ministerial responsibility is

88 However, collective ministerial

99Collective responsibility is a flexible

88 The fact that collective responsibility can

99Individual ministerial responsibility is an

88 Because they are merely conventions,

still important as it is a key element of government unity and the Cabinet is still held to account through it. convention that can be temporarily suspended for issues that transcend party politics

important aspect of governance as it ensures that Ministers are fully focused on the work and actions of their department.

99Individual ministerial responsibility also

responsibility has come under great strain with ministers disagreeing but not resigning. be, and has been, set aside has led some to argue that it is a rule enforced by Prime Ministers when it suits them and discarded when it does not. and not legally binding, their application is inconsistently applied, hence they do not result in securing the accountability of ministers.

ensures that those involved at the top of public life maintain the correct quality of behaviour.

99Ministers take responsibility by being

answerable and accountable for the work of their departments. Only when they are clearly personally to blame will they resign.

88 Individual ministerial responsibility is clear, but ministers seek to shift the blame to others to deflect bad publicity.

275

276 Component II: UK Politics

CASE STUDY 9.4: MAY AS PRIME MINISTER

Source: AFP/Getty Images

Photo 9.6 Beleaguered by a hacking cough, Theresa may is handed a P45 at the 2017 conference speech.

The outcome of the June 2016 EU referendum brought a swift end to David Cameron’s premiership. His successor, Theresa May, was nevertheless confronted by a daunting catalogue of challenges. May had been appointed Prime Minister without having won either a general election or her party’s leadership election, making it difficult for her to claim a personal mandate. Moreover, she inherited Cameron’s slim 12seat Commons majority, which had, by March 2017, become a ‘working’ majority of 17, meaning that the defection of just nine Conservative backbenchers could threaten the government with defeat. Most importantly, her premiership was certain to be dominated by the management of Brexit, an issue that was not only profoundly important but also highly politically charged and deeply complex in policy terms.

Before the snap election Nevertheless, during her first period in office, May enjoyed a honeymoon period in the polls. This was partly due to factors beyond her control, notably the fact that, in the Corbyn-led Labour Party, she confronted an opposition that was deeply divided and struggling to achieve credibility.

Above all, May understood that the party’s long civil war over Europe had been won by the Eurosceptics, and that she was obliged to govern as the Brexiteerin-chief. This was based on the awareness that to have done otherwise would have made it difficult to hold the Cabinet and Government together. Such a stance was underpinned by the belief that the Party’s Remainers would overwhelmingly accept that the verdict of the referendum was clear and unchallengeable. She did this by placing the three Cabinet posts most closely associated with the UK’s departure from the EU in the hands of prominent Brexiteers, and by the constant repetition of the essentially meaningless but politically vital message that ‘Brexit means Brexit’. The Brexit process nevertheless became more demanding from January 2017 onwards, as mounting pressure forced her to reveal her plan for Brexit ahead of beginning the negotiations with Brussels. She announced the decision to withdraw the UK from the European Single Market in order to allow controls to be placed on EU immigration and to end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over the UK. She encountered little difficulty in the March in gaining Parliamentary approval for the triggering of Article 50. Brexit also provided May with a pretext for calling a ‘snap’ general election on 8 June 2017. In announcing her U-turn on the issue in April 2017, she stressed the country’s need for certainty, stability and strong leadership while negotiations were taking place over the UK’s departure from the EU. An enlarged majority would therefore strengthen her hand in delivering Brexit. The reality, however, was very different because May’s honeymoon with the electorate came to an abrupt end during the election campaign, as is shown by Figure 9.5.

‘Dead woman walking’ The decision to hold an early general election was revealed as a catastrophic misjudgement. Confronting a resurgent Labour Party, not only did the anticipated Conservative landslide fail to materialise, but, by falling 8 seats short of a Commons majority, the Party was only able to hold on to power by doing a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). This

The Prime Minister and Executive

Figure 9.5  May’s popularity tracker, August 2016–May 2019

Net favorability rating

10% 0 –10%

2017

2018

2019

277

wider range of voices within the Party. The combination of a diminished Prime Minister and the fact that the Government had lost its majority made it almost inevitable that power would shift both from the Prime Minister to the Cabinet and from the executive to Parliament.

The bonus case study on the companion website titled ‘Parliament and the Brexit –20% May loses majority Process’ shows exactly just how Parliament in general election took control of, and in many ways took over, –30% Boris Johnson and the executive function from May. Between David Davis resign –40% December 2018 and July 2019 when she MPs reject May’s deal by 230 votes was forced from office, May became one –50% of the weakest Prime Ministers in history. Source: Based on data from YouGov Her authority was stripped from her week after week as she showed her inability to left the Prime Minister’s authority in tatters, her political encourage or cajole anyone in Parliament to support her destiny no longer within her own control. Brexit Agreement. The Prime Minister only survived in these circumstances Perhaps the moment that best signified her hapless time because the mass of Conservative MPs recognised that in office was the 2017 Conference speech. Beleaguered an early leadership election could further destabilise by a hacking cough, which at times made it impossible the Party, as well as increase pressure for a second for her to continue speaking, the letters on the message general election. Nevertheless, it was clear that if May behind her started to fall off and she was approached by was to remain in office, she had to adopt a more open a prankster who sought to offer her a P45 (a document and collegiate political style, being willing to listen to a you are given when your employment is terminated).

278 Component II: UK Politics

Chapter Summary ‐‐There are different groups within the executive, all with different roles. ‐‐The power balance between the Prime Minister and the Executive is constantly changing. ‐‐Prime ministers have many powers, but also many limits to those powers. ‐‐The ability of Prime Ministers to exercise their powers depends on a range of variable factors. ‐‐The conventions of ministerial responsibility are hugely significant in underpinning the work of government.

Exam Style Questions Evaluate the view that Prime Ministers have become too powerful in recent years (30). zz Evaluate the view that the personalities and leadership styles of Prime Ministers have the biggest influence on zz the power they wield (30).

Evaluate the view that Prime Ministers are only as powerful as their parties allow them to be (30). zz Evaluate the view that the limitations provided by the other branches on the Prime Minister now ultimately zz outweigh the Prime Minister’s powers (30).

Evaluate the view that the power of the executive has been severely undermined by constitutional reforms since zz 1997 (30).

Evaluate the view that it is the Cabinet that can shape policy and control the power of the Prime Minister, not zz Parliament.

Evaluate the view that the UK government’s control over Parliament has reduced in recent years (30). zz

Source Question Source One

Figure 9.4  Number of ministerial resignations outside reshuffles, 1979–2019 40

May

35 30 25

Blair Thatcher

Major

20

Brown

15

Cameron

10 5 0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12 years

Source Two Collective ministerial responsibility has come under great strain with ministers disagreeing but not resigning. During 2018– 19, many ministers disagreed with May’s policy but didn’t resign, destabilising her government. Power visibly ebbed away from her as her divided Cabinet openly planned and discussed alternatives to her deal and voted against hers while staying in her Cabinet. Collective responsibility was dead and, without it, the appearance of a united government died too. In March 2019, 13 Conservative frontbenchers abstained on ruling out a no-deal Brexit in all circumstances despite a three-line whip.

The Prime Minister and Executive

279

Also, the fact that collective responsibility can be, and has been, set aside has led some academics to argue that it is a rule enforced by Prime Ministers when it suits them and discarded when it does not. Also, there are many examples of individual ministerial responsibility not being kept to. There is an argument that Gavin Williamson and Matt Hancock did not manage their departments effectively enough during Coronavirus. Theresa May as Home Secretary during the Coalition avoided resignation twice during her tenure, managing to pass the buck to her civil servants.

Using the source, evaluate the view that ministers are no longer held to account by the conventions of ministerial responsibility (30). In your response you must:

»»Compare and contrast different opinions in the source »»Examine and debate these views in a balanced way »»Analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.

Further Resources Benedetto, G. and Hix, S. (2007) ‘The Rejected, the Ejected, and the Dejected: Explaining Government Rebels in the 2001–2005 British House of Commons’, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 40, No. 7, SAGE Journals. Bennister, M. (2012) Prime Ministers in Power (London: Palgrave Macmillan). Gimson, A. (2018) Gimson’s Prime Ministers. Brief Lives from Walpole to Johnson (London: Penguin Random House). Seldon, A. (2007) Blair’s Britain, 1997–2007, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Seldon, A. and Lodge, G. (2011) Brown at 10 (London: Biteback Publishing). Seldon, A. (2016) Cameron at 10: The Verdict (London: William Collins Publishers). Seldon, A. (2019) May at 10 (London: Biteback Publishing).

Visit the companion website to access the Further Resources Booklet to explore a range of useful web links related to: government reshuffles, an LSE blog post on Boris Johnson’s Cabinet reconstruction, the power of the Prime Minister and more.

THE SUPREME COURT, THE EU AND SOVEREIGNTY

10

280

Chapter Preview The study of government has traditionally meant the study of central government at a national level. The study of UK government therefore focused primarily on bodies such as the Westminster Parliament, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. However in light of changes to the UK constitution, it is important to understand the impact of the Supreme Court and the European Union on the UK and how the nature of sovereignty has changed. Law and politics are supposed to be different things. When judges administer the law, they are meant to act in a strictly non-political way. Being neutral and independent from the other institutions of government, judges (and therefore law itself) are ‘above’ politics. How accurate is this image of non-political judges and a non-political court system? Furthermore, the law does not speak for itself; it is interpreted by judges who may be influenced by their own beliefs and prejudices. Can judges (or, for that matter, any of us) be strictly impartial? Recent years have seen major changes within the judiciary. In particular, the introduction in 2009 of a Supreme Court tends to strengthen the tendency for senior judges in the UK to act as policy makers, threatening to give them a role similar to that of US judges. At the same time, it has Key Questions and Debates served to strengthen the principle of the separation of powers. »» What is the role of the Supreme Court, On 23 June 2016, the UK voted to leave the EU and there is little and to what extent can it be considered doubt that politics has been transformed by that vote. Therefore, neutral and independent? it is important to understand the desire for closer political and »» How far does the Supreme Court act economic union within Europe, the UK’s politically contentious as a check on the powers of both the relationship with the EU and how that relationship has impacted legislature and the executive? on the political system and policy making. It also raises the question » » What are the aims of the EU and how far of what the future relationship with the EU will look like and how has the EU impacted on both UK policy that might shape British politics. making and the UK political system? »» What is sovereignty and where can it now be said to lie in the UK political system?

Specification Checklist

4.1. The Supreme Court and its interactions with, and influence over, the legislative and policy-making processes. »» The role and composition of the Supreme Court. »» The key operating principles of the Supreme Court, including judicial neutrality and judicial independence and their extent. »» The degree to which the Supreme Court influences both the Executive and Parliament, including the doctrine of ultra vires and judicial review.

4.3. The aims, role and impact of the European Union (EU) on the UK government. »» The aims of the EU, including the ‘four freedoms’ of the single market, social policy, and political and economic union, and the extent to which these have been achieved. »» The role of the EU in policy making. »» The impact of the EU, including the main effects of at least two EU policies and their impact on the UK political system and UK policy making.

4.4. The location of sovereignty in the UK political system. »» The distinction between legal sovereignty and political sovereignty. »» The extent to which sovereignty has moved between different branches of government. »» Where sovereignty can now be said to lie in the UK. So

urc

e: i

Sto

ck . com

/_u lt

raf o

rm

a_

281

282 Component II: UK Politics

The Supreme Court Constitutional Reform Act 2005 The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (CRA) introduced a series of reforms that have, and will continue to have, major constitutional and judicial significance. At the heart of these reforms is the creation of a UK Supreme Court. The Court opened in October 2009. The 12-strong Court replaced the Photo 10.1 The Supreme Court is located in Law Lords as the highest court in the land. It initially Middlesex Guildhall. Its physical separation consisted of existing Law Lords but, as justices of the from Westminster acts as reinforcement of Supreme Court, they ceased to be members of the the principle of the separation of powers. House of Lords.

Source: Peter Dazeley/Getty Images

The Constitutional Reform Act and the new Supreme Court are perceived to have a made a number of changes to the way that the UK constitution works:

Spec key term Judicial neutrality: Absence of any form of partisanship or commitment; a refusal to ‘take sides’ so that the decisions that are taken are objective; impartiality. Judicial independence: The constitutional principle that the actions and decisions of judges should not be influenced by pressure from other branches of government. This allows the Supreme Court to protect citizens from the unjustified use of power by government and impartially resolve disputes, whether between individuals or between individuals and the state.

»» The CRA substantially strengthens the separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.

• Over

time it was becoming increasingly clear that the judiciary was being asked to adjudicate upon constitutional issues which it was not appropriate for members of the House of Lords to decide.

• In the case of R (Jackson) v Attorney-General [2005],

the Law Lords had to resolve a dispute between the House of Commons and House of Lords in relation to whether the use of the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 by the House of Commons was valid to pass the Hunting Act 2004, which banned fox hunting. Yet the judges hearing the case were by definition members of the House of Lords.

• With such cases continuing to arise, the Supreme Court fulfils the need for independence and judicial neutrality to determine constitutional limits of governmental power.

• The second anomaly arose from the office of Lord Chancellor which, uniquely, fused

judicial (head of the judiciary), legislative (presiding officer of the House of Lords) and executive (Cabinet minister) roles. This system did not appear to uphold the principle of judicial independence. As a result, the roles of the Lord Chancellor’s office were split to maintain the separation of powers. The post of Lord Chancellor was merged with that of Secretary of State for Justice, and the post was no longer to be held by a sitting judge or peer but by an MP. The Lord Chief Justice became the head of the judiciary, and the presiding officer of the House of Lords is now the Lords Speaker who is elected by members of the Lords.

»»The CRA addressed long-term concerns about the independence of the judiciary that arose from the control that ministers exercised over the process of judicial appointments by creating the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).

• Previously the Law Lords were appointed by the Crown, on the advice of the Prime

Minister. Other judges were appointed by the Crown, on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, who in turn was appointed the Prime Minister and was a member of Cabinet.

• The

JAC was created to select candidates, free from political interference while encouraging diversity in the range of people available for selection; candidates are chosen based on merit, through free and fair competition. The JAC appoints judges to courts and tribunals but does not select Justices for the Supreme Court.

• A new process was set up for appointments to the Supreme Court based on the creation of an independent selection commission for any vacant seat that arises.

The Supreme Court, the EU and Sovereignty

283

»»The Supreme Court is a court for the whole United Kingdom to resolve key constitutional questions.

• In the case of R (Miller) v Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland

[2019] UKSC 41, the Supreme Court was asked to rule on whether it was within the prerogative powers of government to advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament in the run-up to the deadline for leaving the EU.

• The Divisional Court of England and Wales ruled the case was non-judiciable, could not

be resolved by legal principle or the courts, while the Court of Session in Scotland decided it was judiciable and an unlawful exercise of power by the government. Both Courts could not be right, and only a Supreme Court for the whole UK could resolve the issue.

The role of the Court The Court:

»»Hears appeals on arguable points of law of general public importance. »»Concentrates on cases of the greatest public and constitutional importance. »»Acts as the final court of appeal for all UK civil cases, and criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

»»Has assumed the role of adjudicating on whether the devolved legislatures and governments had acted within or exceeded their devolved powers.

How Supreme Court Justices are appointed The judicial appointments process prior to the Constitutional Reform Act (CRA) made appointments appear as if they were subject to political interference and compromised the principle of the separation of powers. Under the CRA, the appointment process for Supreme Court judges works in the following way:

»»When a vacancy appears on the Court, a selection commission is created. Any potential candidates must apply for the job and are then interviewed by the Selection Commission.

»»Candidates must have held judicial high office for at least two years or satisfy the fifteen-year eligibility condition in terms of their work as a barrister or solicitor.

»»The

commission is chaired by the incumbent President of the Supreme Court, who also nominates a senior judge who is not on the Supreme Court to sit.

»»In addition, it includes a representative from the separate Judicial Appointments Commission

for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; one of these representatives must be a non-lawyer.

The Commission largely does its job its own way and while the Minister for Justice can ask the Commission to think again if the Minister feels the candidate they have nominated is not appropriate, or to reject the candidate outright, this ministerial power has never been used. It is even questionable whether this ministerial power could ever be used, as it would almost certainly involved the Minister of Justice declaring they have no faith in a candidate who is very likely to be a senior, serving judge.

The powers of the Supreme Court Historically the key power of the courts has been to strike down decisions by public bodies, including government ministers where those decisions were considered to be ‘ultra vires’.

Judicial Review The Supreme Court exercises the power of judicial review, allowing the Court to rule on whether a decision or action taken by a public authority, including a minister, is ultra vires. In the UK, the Court

Spec key term Ultra vires: Literally, ‘beyond the power’; this applies when public bodies have acted illegally because their actions have no statutory authority.

284 Component II: UK Politics

CASE STUDY 10.1: R (ON THE APPLICATION OF MILLER AND ANOTHER) (RESPONDENTS) V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION (APPELLANT)

Source: WPA Pool/Getty Images

Photo 10.2 Gina Miller speaks outside the Supreme Court on 24 January 2017 following the ruling on Article 50.

Events Following the Brexit Referendum in 2016, the Government proposed to use its prerogative powers to withdraw from the EU by serving an Article 50 notice, as laid out in the 2009 Treaty of Lisbon, to withdraw the UK from the EU Treaties. The constitutional issue that was raised was whether the government could use its prerogative powers to trigger Article 50 without prior authorisation by an Act of Parliament. The case brought by Gina Miller and Deir Dos Santos against the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union argued that there was a well-established principle that prerogative powers could not be applied to acts which might lead to a change in domestic law. Because the withdrawal from the EU would change domestic law then the Government needed an Act of Parliament to give it the authority to trigger the withdrawal. The case was originally heard in the High Court in October 2016 before being brought to appeal in the Supreme Court later that year.

Significance This Supreme Court case was the most constitutionally significant in the UK for decades. This is because it reasserted the authority of Parliament and defined the boundaries of executive power; the

principle stands that government can make and unmake treaties, but only Parliament can change the law. By a majority of 8 to 3, the Court ruled that an Act of Parliament was required to authorise ministers to give notice of the decision of the UK to withdraw from the European Union. The key reason given was that the European Communities Act 1972 authorised the process of EU law becoming UK law and taking primacy over UK domestic law. Leaving the EU will clearly change UK law, so the withdrawal requires an Act of Parliament. The judges, moreover, always insisted theirs was not a political decision. They were merely applying the law. This was a constitutional, legal matter and nothing to do with the political issues of the benefits of the withdrawal decision, the timing of the decision or the nature of the terms for departure or the future arrangement with the EU. Nevertheless, the High Court case in particular attracted sometimes vitriolic criticism. Branded by one national newspaper ‘Enemies of the People’ for having, supposedly, blocked the popular will as expressed in the Referendum, the judges concerned were also condemned by some Brexiteers for unwarranted judicial activism (meddling in matters that should have been left to politicians) and for allowing alleged Europhile sympathies to affect their professional judgements. In the build-up to the Supreme Court decision, much of the media speculated about the pro-EU positions of the individual judges, based on investigations into their backgrounds and social media postings by members of their families. The Lord Chancellor, Liz Truss MP, was quick to defend the judiciary stating that: ‘Our independent judiciary is the cornerstone of the rule of law and is vital to our constitution and our freedoms. The reputation of our judiciary is unrivalled the world over, and our Supreme Court justices are people of integrity and impartiality.’ However in the end, while the judgement was important constitutionally, it had little impact on the Brexit process, as Parliament quickly passed an Act authorising the Government to trigger Article 50. The Government still triggered Article 50 within its original deadline of the end of March 2017.

The Supreme Court, the EU and Sovereignty can uphold an application for judicial review where a decision is deemed to be illegal, irrational or due to procedural impropriety. The Supreme Court works within the existing framework of Parliamentary sovereignty so it cannot strike down legislation as unconstitutional. Instead it is stopping public authorities from doing something that the law forbids or taking an action where they have no legal authority. In doing so, it acts as a check on the executive branch. If a judicial review is upheld, then the Court can quash a decision, and award damages in certain situations. This enables the Court to uphold the rule of law. The fundamental principle of the rule of law is that all are subject to the law; so ministers and public bodies are bound by the law. Where they act beyond the law, then citizens have the right to access justice by challenging that action in the courts and seek redress for their grievances. In order to support this fundamental principle, there are a number of key ingredients to make this work:

285

Spec key term Judicial review: The power to review actions taken by public bodies on the grounds that they are ultra vires and to review Acts of Parliament to see if they are compatible with the Human Rights Act.

»» All must be equal before the law. »» The law must clear and accessible. »» The law must provide protection of basic human rights. »» There must be a clear legal mechanism for resolving disputes. »»The state will comply with its obligations in international as well as national law.

In 2017, the Supreme Court issued its ruling on R (on the application of UNISON) (Appellant) v Lord Chancellor (Respondent) [2017] UKSC 51. In this case, UNISON challenged the Fees Order of 2013, which transferred some of the costs of employment tribunals to those bringing claims with the objectives of stopping claims without merit and encouraging early settlement. (Government statistics showed a 79% drop in such cases over three years.) The Fees Order, which made fees of up to £1,600 payable by claimants, was quashed because it was ruled ultra vires. It was unlawful under domestic law because it had the effect of preventing access to justice, which is inherent in the principle of the rule of law. The Justice Minister, Dominic Raab, stated the Government would cease taking fees immediately and voluntarily agreed to reimburse claimants, dating back to 2013 (a total of around £32 million).

Synoptic link The UNISON court case is an example of an outsider pressure group using the Courts to protect the rights of its members.

Judicial review and the Human Rights Act The Human Rights Act (HRA), which came into effect in 2000, incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. The Act was a major constitutional reform in that it marked a shift in the UK in favour of an explicit and codified legal definition of individual rights allowing individuals to bring cases for breaches of their Convention rights to UK Courts. In doing so, it substantially widened the capacity of the judiciary to protect civil liberties and check the exercise of executive power and, in certain respects, legislative power. Judicial review and the HRA work in two ways:

1. Actions of a public authority It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a Convention right (unless authorised to do so by an Act of Parliament). The UK courts can hear cases on whether a decision by a public authority, including government departments, has infringed on rights under the ECHR. If ruled unlawful, the courts can cancel a decision, send the decision back to the public authority to make the decision again and/or award compensation where it is necessary, just and appropriate. This type of judicial review has particularly come into the limelight with the number of cases regarding immigration and deportation and the Home Office. In the case of AM (Zimbabwe) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2020] UKSC 17, a Zimbabwean citizen, who was legally settled in the UK, was issued with a deportation order after a series of convictions. He appealed his deportation order, and this was rejected by the Home Office and the lower courts. The Supreme Court ruled his appeal should be heard in a tribunal under Article 3 (No one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), based on the fact he was HIV positive and would be unable to access the medication in Zimbabwe that would prevent infections and potential death.

Tip – The ECHR is not related to the EU, except that all EU member states must have signed the Convention.

Synoptic link Show how the HRA increases the power of the Supreme Court to act as a check on both Parliament and government.

286 Component II: UK Politics 2. Declarations of incompatibility The UK Supreme Court also interprets all existing legislation so that it is compatible with the ECHR insofar as it is possible to do so. If the Court decides it is not possible to interpret legislation so that it is compatible with the Convention rights laid out in the HRA, it will issue what is known as a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ under Section 4 of the HRA. Although a declaration of incompatibility does not place any legal obligation on the government to amend or repeal legislation, it sends a clear message to legislators that this piece of legislation is incompatible, so now they need to decide what to do about it. This means that the government and Parliament can, of course, choose to do nothing, although this remains highly unlikely. When the Court ruled that the Civil Partnership Act 2004 for opposite-sex couples to enter into a civil partnership was incompatible with human rights law, the Government looked to remedy the situation via The Civil Partnership (Opposite-sex Couples) Regulations 2019. Between 2000 and 2019, the various courts in the UK issued 42 declarations of incompatibility. Ten declarations were overturned on appeal, leaving 32 declarations; of which 23 have been addressed by the government, 2 have government proposals in place to address them, 5 rulings are still under consideration by the government and the final 2 are subject to appeal (December 2020).

Judicial independence and neutrality The Supreme Court is made up of 12 unelected and unaccountable judges. This raises the question of why the public is willing to accept decisions made by the judiciary. The answer lies in ensuring that all parts of society have confidence that the decisions taken by the Supreme Court are independent and impartial. This is made all the more difficult when the Supreme Court takes cases about issues where public opinion is deeply divided. This can lead to assumptions that decisions are based on the individual political or moral positions of the judges rather than deciding legal questions by using their legal expertise.

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  IS THE SUPREME COURT INDEPENDENT AND NEUTRAL? The principle of judicial independence is one of the key parts of the constitution. Based on the separation of powers, it holds that there should be a strict separation between the judiciary and other branches of government. Judges can therefore apply the law as their own experience and legal training dictates, rather than as ministers, civil servants or Parliamentarians would wish. As such, judicial independence is a vital guarantee of the rule of law. Law cannot act as a constraint on government if the executive and Parliament can influence judges in how they interpret and apply the law. How is judicial independence maintained? And how far is it upheld in practice?



The biggest threat to judicial independence in the UK has been seen to be the way the judicial function was entangled with the executive and legislative function.

»» The highest court of the land was the Law Lords, fusing together the legislative and judicial functions.

»» The three functions of the state were fused together in the office of the Lord Chancellor. »» The power of elected politicians over the appointment of judges made appointments appear to be open to political influence.



These threats were largely neutralised by the passage of the CRA in 2005, while independence was already protected by rules around pay and tenure.

»»Constitutional commitment. There needs to be a clear, constitutional commitment to the

independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. Since the passing of the CRA, judicial independence has moved from being supported by a constitutional convention to an Act of Parliament. The CRA details that the Lord Chancellor, and all ministers, must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary.

The Supreme Court, the EU and Sovereignty

CASE STUDY 10.2: R (ON THE APPLICATION OF MILLER) (APPELLANT) V THE PRIME MINISTER (RESPONDENT) CHERRY AND OTHERS (RESPONDENTS) V ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (APPELLANT) (SCOTLAND) [2019] UKSC 41 Events In 2019, PM Boris Johnson requested that Parliament be prorogued (suspended) from a date between the 12th and 14th September and for a Queen’s Speech on October 14th. The Government argued that this was about the new Prime Minister being able to set out his own priorities in the Queen’s speech while critics argued it was an attempt to stop MPs debating Brexit and passing law to stop a no-deal Brexit by the 31st October cut-off date. Separate appeals were brought in the High Court of England and Wales and the Court of Session in Scotland. The High Court dismissed the appeal, claiming it was non-judiciable, while the Court of Session ruled the appeal judiciable and the prorogation unlawful. Given the decisions, it was clear that both Courts could not be right and given the importance of the case, the Supreme Court convened a panel of 11 justices, the maximum number of judges allowed to sit, to hear the appeal.

Significance The judgement issued was a unanimous verdict from all 11 judges. The Court ruled that the appeal was justiciable, as it was ruled that the courts have the jurisdiction to rule upon the existence and the limits to a prerogative power. The Court then ruled that the limits to the use of the prerogative power to prorogue Parliament were the principles of Parliamentary sovereignty and the principle of Parliamentary accountability; the ability of Parliament to hold the

Prime Minister and ministers collectively responsible and accountable to Parliament. In issuing its judgement, the Court ruled that the prorogation was unlawful and should be quashed because the prorogation had the impact of preventing Parliament from carrying out its constitutional functions without any reasonable justification. In the opening paragraph of their judgement, the 11 justices wrote: ‘It is important, once again, to emphasise that these cases are not about when and on what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union.’ The ruling dominated the newspapers with headlines such as ‘Boris Blasts; Who Runs Britain?’ and ‘What’s lawful about denying 17.4m Brexit?’ Allegations swirled that the Prime Minister had declared war on the judiciary and that the Commons Leader, Jacob Rees-Mogg, had described the ruling as a ‘constitutional coup’. Richard Ekins, head of think tank Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project argued the Court needed to be reminded of the limits to its judicial power and the ruling was yet another example of those who lose the political debate using the Courts to achieve their political goals. The Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland MP, had to publicly defend the Court, stating that ‘we must all remember that our world-class judiciary always acts free from political motivation or influence and that the rule of law is the basis of our democracy, for all seasons. Personal attacks on judges from any quarter are completely unacceptable.’

»»An

independent appointments process. The CRA established the Judicial Appointments Commission to ensure that there were no concerns about political interference in the appointments process.

»»Separation of powers. Again, the CRA has improved the situation by making a far clearer separation of powers by establishing the Supreme Court and splitting the roles of the Lord Chancellor.

»»Pay. Judges must be paid sufficient salaries to ensure their integrity and impartiality. Judges

should receive appropriate pay, and changes to their salaries and pensions must not be used as a means of influencing judicial decision making. The Senior Salaries Review Body, a non-political

287

288 Component II: UK Politics body, currently makes recommendations to the government on the remuneration of the judiciary. However it remains the case that these recommendations need to be voted on in Parliament and are not always passed, especially in times of austerity.

»»Security of tenure. Security of tenure means that once they are appointed, judges cannot be sacked. They remain in office until their retirement age of 70. The possibility of removal or demotion cannot therefore be used to affect their decision making. Senior judges can only be removed by an address of both Houses of Parliament, something that has not happened since 1830.



Judicial independence relies on the commitment of ministers to upholding the independence of the judiciary and relies on them observing constitutional conventions.

»»Beyond the law, there are constitutional conventions that protect independence such the

government should not use its contacts with the judiciary to influence decisions, ministers should exercise restraint when commenting on decisions whether or not those decisions favour the government and the sub judice rule that prohibits parliamentary debate of matters currently before the courts.



A serious concern about judicial independence stems from a growing willingness of ministers to publicly criticise the courts.

»» The separation of the judicial and legislative functions leads to the risk that over time the understanding between politicians and judges of their respective roles in our constitution will grow weaker.

»» Ministers, in being increasingly willing to make public statements about how the courts should address issues related to public order and civil liberties, and in expressing disappointment at the stance that judges have taken, have tested the principle of judicial independence. For example in 2013, the Home Secretary Theresa May accused judges of making the UK more dangerous by ignoring rules aimed at deporting more foreign criminals due to their belief that Article 8, the right to a family life, could not be curbed.

»» The

decisions around Article 50 and the prorogation of Parliament both saw a growing willingness of politicians to publicly criticise the courts.



Judges should recognise the limits to their role to rule on the lawfulness of actions and not to make decisions on policy so that they ensure that they do not become players in the political process.

»»In essence, this is the practice of judicial restraint, as can be seen when the Court rejected the

challenge to the law on assisted suicide in the R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice case of 2014 and refused permission for a second challenge to come before the Court.



Judges are argued to be taking a more judicially active role, as they seem more prepared to challenge the executive and Parliament.

»» This has been made more difficult since the passage of the HRA, which has brought more

political questions before the Court; however this is can be seen to be more down to elected politicians passing the HRA rather the creation of the Supreme Court.

»» There has been a rise in the number of cases of judicial review because the public seems more willing to challenge the lawfulness of the decisions of public bodies, including government, than ever before. The number of cases rose from 4,240 in 2000 to around 15,600 in 2013, with the vast majority of these cases being immigration and asylum cases.

Judicial neutrality Judicial neutrality implies, strictly speaking, that judges have no political sympathies or ideological leanings. Judges are meant to be neutral in the sense that they are able to ensure that their own views and beliefs do not affect their professional behaviour. Personal preferences and beliefs must, if you like, be left at the court door.

The Supreme Court, the EU and Sovereignty



289

Judges sign up to the principle of impartiality and acknowledge that they are primarily accountable to the law, and should behave in such a way to enhance the confidence of the public in their personal impartiality and that of the judiciary.

»»The judicial oath sums up this point: ‘I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.’

»»Judges are expected to refrain from any activities, including political activities, which might

create the impression of bias or a conflict of interest. Judges must stick to legal topics, not engage in political debate or controversy.

»»The Supreme Court is live streamed so that it is accessible to everyone. This creates a level of

accountability, as senior judges must explain their rulings, highlighting, in the process, the points of law that have affected them. Those watching either the Article 50 or prorogation cases could see that the Court was tackling legal questions about the constitutional issues of the balance of power between legislature and executive, not a debate about the pros and cons of membership of the EU.



Increasing attacks by the media on the character of judges rather than their decisions plus the increasing visibility of judges as public figures undermines impartiality.

Synoptic link

»» The media, in particular over the Article 50 case, was seen by some to have attacked the

Link together the idea of judicial neutrality with the media reporting on key Supreme Court cases.

character of judges making decisions, questioning their neutrality on the issue of Brexit. However, the media argues that, given its role, the Supreme Court is fair game for public scrutiny.

»» Lord Neuberger, the President of the Supreme Court at the time, publicly criticised some of the attacks by the media, claiming that they undermined the rule of law and the reputation of the legal system, and was critical of the government for not being quicker and clearer in defending the judiciary.



Photo 10.3 Baroness Hale of Richmond was the first woman to have served as President of the Supreme Court.

It is argued that a bias tends to operate within the senior judiciary, which stems from the fact that judges are predominantly male, white, upper-middle-class and public-school and ‘Oxbridge’ educated.

»» This argument that the Supreme Court is not neutral, but naturally

pro the establishment, has been traditionally made from the Left of politics, but is increasingly a view taken by the Right. The Left has tended to attack impartiality in terms of bias against minority groups in society due to their lack of social representation. The Right has attacked the judiciary for its inbuilt liberal attitudes in favouring individual rights over the public interest and being antiBrexit.

»» The Supreme Court in 2020 had only two female justices out of 

The judiciary is slowly becoming more diverse, and this will increase the diversity of the Supreme Court over time.

»»Lady Hale, President of the Supreme Court between 2017 and 2020, pointed out that when she joined the Law Lords in 2004, she was the only woman and the only state-educated judge. By the time she stepped down, she was one of three female justices and one of three justices who was state educated. Since the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), the proportion of women recommended for the High Court increased from 13% pre-JAC to 29% in 2017–2018, while the proportion of BME candidates recommended for the High Court went from 2% to 6% over the same period.

Source: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

twelve and no justice from an ethnic minority background, while the majority of justices were Oxbridge-educated.

290 Component II: UK Politics

»»The extensive process of legal training (senior judges have usually worked as barristers or junior judges for between 20 and 30 years) is designed to enable judges to focus entirely on legal considerations. Their ability to act impartially and objectively is strengthened by the requirement that court proceedings are conducted fairly and that judgements are based on evidence.

Key Debate Summary: Is the Supreme Court independent and neutral? FOR

AGAINST

99The CRA enforced a strict separation of

88 The biggest threat to judicial independence

99Judicial independence relies on the

88 Judicial independence is threatened by a

99Judges recognise the limits to their role.

88 Judges are argued to be taking a more

power by moving the judicial function from the Lords to the Supreme Court. commitment of ministers to respecting the independence of the judiciary.

in the UK has been the lack of a strict separation of powers.

growing willingness of ministers to publicly criticise the courts. judicially active role.

99Judges need to ensure the confidence of the 88 Increasing attacks by the media on the public in their personal impartiality and that of the judiciary.

99The judiciary is slowly becoming more diverse.

character of judges rather than their decisions plus the more public role of senior judges undermines impartiality.

88 It is argued that a bias tends to operate

within the senior judiciary based on their background.

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  DOES THE SUPREME COURT HAVE TOO MUCH POWER? The twenty-first century has seen a growing debate in the UK about the power and role of the Supreme Court. In particular, the use of judicial review has come under increasing scrutiny given the rise in judicial review cases being brought and the high profile decisions in the Article 50 and prorogation cases. This raises the issue of whether the Court has too much power over the executive and the legislature. In 2019, the Conservative Party manifesto including a commitment to look at the issue of judicial review to ensure it was ‘not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays’. In 2020, the Government established an independent panel to review whether judicial review strikes ‘the right balance between enabling citizens to challenge the lawfulness of government action and allowing the executive and local authorities to carry on the business of government’.



The power of judicial review limits the power of the executive branch as the courts can declare actions of the executive to be ultra vires or in contravention of the Human Rights Act, and quash them.

»»Judicial review acts to protect the rule of law and ensure that the public have the ability to challenge the lawfulness of the actions of public bodies, including the government.

»»In the UNISON case of 2017, the Fees Order was ruled ultra vires. The government immediately ceased collecting them and pledged to reimburse the fees it had already collected.



The rulings by the Court are about the lawfulness of an action by interpreting the law on cases that are brought before it. It can only work within what the law states, and the executive has the power to place a new bill in front of Parliament to change the law.

The Supreme Court, the EU and Sovereignty

»» In Her Majesty’s Treasury (Respondent) v Mohammed Jabar Ahmed and others (FC) (Appellants)

2010, the Supreme Court ordered that the Terror Order to freeze assets of suspected international terrorists based on a UN resolution was ultra vires. In response, the Government put emergency legislation in front of the Commons, which essentially set out the same asset-freezing regime, and was passed as the Terrorist Asset-Freezing Act 2010.

»» This decision in effect, stated that only Parliament, not the executive, had the right to determine in what circumstances fundamental rights could be legally restricted.

»» The Supreme Court is also bound by the fact that it cannot initiate cases; it can only rule on cases that are brought before it.



The Supreme Court has the power to declare Acts of Parliament as incompatible with the Human Rights Act.

»»While the Court cannot force the legislature to change the law, a declaration of incompatibility encourages Parliament to take action to amend or remove the law in question.

»»Perhaps the most controversial declaration that illustrates the power of the Supreme Court in this area was made by its predecessor, the Law Lords in 2004. In A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department in 2004 (Belmarsh case), it was ruled that the clause of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 allowing indefinite detention without trial of foreign nationals suspected of international terrorism was incompatible with Articles 5 and 14 of the ECHR. Despite being highly critical of the judgement, the Government introduced the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which replaced indefinite detention with control orders, and this was passed by Parliament.



A declaration of incompatibility works within the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. The Court cannot strike down an Act of Parliament or force Parliament to take action.

»» In the Belmarsh case, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was not invalidated; the Government and Parliament chose to change the law.

»» It is not the case that all declarations are deeply controversial and Belmarsh may be more the

exception than the rule. In response to the Steinfeld and Keidan case of 2018, the Court ruled the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 was incompatible because different-sex couples could not enter into civil partnerships. The Government then decided to amend the law the following year via The Civil Partnership (Opposite-sex Couples) Regulations 2019 in a relatively uncontroversial move.



There has been a large increase in the number of judicial review cases, and this is limiting the ability of the democratically elected government and Parliament to deliver.

»»The number of judicial review cases reached a peak in 2013 with 15,594 cases initiated. Critics

argue that many of these cases were weak and lacked real substance and were simply clogging up the judicial system and wasting taxpayers’ money.

»»Critics argue that cases are just adding delays and costs to the management of public services.

For instance in 2014, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals brought before it in relation to the building of High Speed Rail 2 in regard to the governments’ assessment of its environmental impacts.

»»Critics also argue that judicial review has made government departments and Ministers too cautious, as they constantly have to consider the potential threat of judicial review.



While there has been a rise in judicial review cases, recent evidence shows the number of cases has levelled off and that judicial review has a positive impact on decision making.

»» In 2014, only 4,062 claims were issued because immigration cases were transferred to the Upper Tribunal for Immigration and Asylum Chamber in November of that year.

»» Judicial review plays a crucial role in limiting decisions by public bodies that are unlawful, bringing measurable benefits to claimants, who are often the more vulnerable in society. Between 2000 and 2011, success rate in judicial review cases averaged around 40%.

291

292 Component II: UK Politics

»» Judicial review, rather having a negative impact of the quality of decision making, improves decision making and ensures public bodies, including government departments, are aware of their legal obligations.



The Supreme Court is becoming more judicially activist, making decisions that take the Court from beyond its legal role into the heart of the political debate.

»»Given that the Court is unelected and unaccountable, it is seen as unacceptable that the Court is involving itself in political decision making. Political decisions are the reserve of democratically elected politicians in the executive and legislature.

»»Critics here point to cases around deportation, immigration and asylum as well as the cases on prorogation and Article 50 as examples of the Supreme Court taking a more active political role.

»»Those on the Left see this as more of a problem due to the lack of diversity on the Court, while those on the Right attack the liberal bias of the judiciary.



The Supreme Court is not becoming more activist, it is simply fulfilling its role as the constitutional court for the UK, resolving key constitutional and legal questions.

»» The Human Rights Act 1998 was passed by a democratically elected Parliament. In laying out

a series of individual rights in UK law, Parliament voted to give the judiciary a greater role in protecting civil liberties in the UK and checking the executive. In protecting the rights of the most vulnerable in society against the state, the Court is fulfilling the judicial role it has been given.

»» The huge levels of constitutional change brought about by membership of the EU, human rights and devolution have created a situation where the Supreme Court has to resolve key constitutional questions.

»» In both the Article 50 and prorogation cases, the Supreme Court was resolving key constitutional questions about the separation of powers in the UK.

»» In the case of Scotch Whisky Association and others (Appellants) v The Lord Advocate and another (Respondents) (Scotland) [2017] UKSC76, the Supreme Court ruled on an appeal that the 2012 Alcohol Act, which set a minimum pricing regime for alcohol in Scotland, broke EU law. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating the Act did not break EU law, and minimum pricing was a proportionate means to achieving a legitimate aim.

Key Debate Summary: Does the Supreme Court have too much power? FOR

AGAINST

99The power of judicial review is a powerful

88 The Court can’t initiate its own cases,

99The Supreme Court has the power to

88 Due to Parliamentary sovereignty, The Court

99There has been a large increase in the

88 Recent evidence shows the number of cases

99The Supreme Court is becoming more

88 The Supreme Court is simply fulfilling its role

check on the executive branch.

declare Acts of Parliament as incompatible with the Human Rights Act. number of judicial review cases limiting the power of democratically elected governments. judicially activist.

and can only interpret the law while the executive can place a new law in front of Parliament.

cannot strike down an Act of Parliament or force Parliament to take action.

has levelled off and that judicial review has a positive impact on decision making.

as the constitutional court for the UK.

The Supreme Court, the EU and Sovereignty

The aims, role and impact of the European Union on UK government The aims of the EU The European Union is an economic and political union between 27 member nations that span much of the continent of Europe. The history of the EU is often told as steady progress towards greater integration with a growing membership and population (see Table 10.1). However that progress has been uneven.

Table 10.1 The widening of EU membership Dates

Widening of membership

1952 European Coal and Steel Community/ 1957 European Economic Community

Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Germany and Netherlands (6 members)

1973

Denmark, United Kingdom, Ireland (9)

1981

Greece (10)

1986

Portugal and Spain (12)

1995

Austria, Finland and Sweden (15)

2004

Slovenia, Slovakia, Malta, Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Latvia, Estonia, Cyprus, Czech Republic (25)

2007

Bulgaria, Romania (27)

2013

Croatia (28)

2017

The UK triggers Article 50 and on 31 January 2020 the United Kingdom left the European Union (27).

The main aim of the founders was to foster closer economic ties in the belief that countries that trade together become economically interdependent, making peace far more likely than conflict. This continuing process of integration would over time lead to an even closer union as countries and their populations experience the real benefits of cooperation. The earliest form of integration was the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), with power to regulate the coal and steel industries in the six member states. The same countries formed the European Economic Community (EEC), established by the Treaty of Rome, which they signed in 1957. The EEC was a customs union and had the broader goal of an ‘ever closer union among the peoples of Europe’. Although many of the early supporters of European integration favoured a ‘federal’ Europe, in which the sovereignty of the European nations would be ‘pooled’, the more powerful tendency turned out to be a ‘functionalist’ one, based on incremental steps towards integration, particularly in the area of economic cooperation. The integration process was relaunched as a result of the signing in 1986 of the Single European Act (SEA), which envisaged an unrestricted flow of goods, services, capital and people throughout Europe (a ‘single market’), to be introduced by 1993. The Maastricht Treaty, which was negotiated in 1991, ratified in 1992 and took effect in 1993, led to the creation of the European Union (EU). This committed the EU’s 15 members to both political union and monetary union. During the period of widening and deepening, the UK’s commitment to Europe was always somewhat equivocal (see Table 10.2). Europe was seen as an economic issue, and the issue of greater political integration was of little interest while the widening raised concerns in some quarters about the free movement of people. Overall public opinion remained largely indifferent to Europe and membership remained politically controversial within the main political parties.

293

Spec key term European Union (EU): The European Union is the term adopted after the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 to describe the political and economic union that fosters cooperation between member states.

Definition Customs union: Internal free trade among member states with common external tariffs on goods from outside the union. Pooled sovereignty: The combination of the national sovereignties of member states to enhance their power and influence; the whole is greater than its parts. Political union: The establishment of common citizenship rights within the EU and a strengthening of EU institutions to ensure common policies in designated areas. Monetary union: The establishment of a single European currency, the euro, regulated by the European Central Bank.

294 Component II: UK Politics Table 10.2 The deepening of the EU and the relationship between the UK and the EU Date

The deepening of the EU

The UK and the EU

1952

The European Steel and Coal Council is instituted.

 

1957

The Treaty of Rome establishes the European Economic Community

 

1961

 

The Macmillan Government (Conservative) applies to join but membership is vetoed by France.

1967

 

The Wilson Government (Labour) applies to join but membership is vetoed by France.

1973

 

UK joins the EU

1975

 

The Labour Government holds a referendum on remaining with two-thirds voting to stay.

1986

Single European Act commits the EU to the creation of a single market and introduces an increased number of cases that can be decided by a qualified majority rather than by unanimity to make the law-making process more effective.

 

1992

Maastricht Treaty, leading to the creation of the European Union, launches the plan for the euro and social chapter.

The Major Government (Conservative) opts out of the Social Chapter and the euro.

1997

Treaty of Amsterdam, includes the incorporation of the Schengen Zone on passport-free travel within the EU.

The United Kingdom does not participate in the Schengen Zone.

1999

The EURO becomes the currency for 11 member states

 

2000

Treaty of Nice leads to the practice of qualified majority voting being applied to a wider range of policy areas

 

2007

Treaty of Lisbon confirms the power of the EU to act in areas of human rights, judicial and foreign policy, and strengthens EU independence by giving it a legal personality (able to sign international treaties).

 

2016

The EU referendum is held, with the UK voting 52% to 48% to leave. The UK triggers Article 50 and on 31 January 2020 the United Kingdom left the European Union. The UK then entered a transition period, where they were a member of the single market and customs union, which expired on 31st December 2020.

The Supreme Court, the EU and Sovereignty

295

The single market The single market, set as a key objective by the Single European Act, was perhaps the most ambitious type of trade cooperation that Europe could attempt. It aimed to remove tariffs, quotas or taxes on trade and included the free movement of goods, services, capital and people. It also aimed to remove other barriers to trade, such as different regulations on packaging, standards and safety to create seamless trade between member states. The single market is seen by the EU as one of its greatest achievements, as it is said to have fuelled economic growth and made the life of European businesses and citizens easier. The market is certainly vast, incorporating 450 million consumers and 22.5 million small and medium-sized enterprises. It is argued that it stimulates competition and trade, improves efficiency, raises quality, and helps cut prices. However, after the 2007–09 economic crisis, the single market struggled with weak economic growth and productivity growth fell behind the rest of the world.

Political and economic union Economic union As part of the project of an ever closer union laid out in the Maastricht Treaty, the economic union was to be built around the single market and a monetary union. The monetary union would see member states adopting a single currency – the euro – and handing over regulation to a European Central Bank. The UK secured an opt-out from the euro under John Major and remained outside the Eurozone. The Eurozone has expanded to 19 states, but after the global financial crisis of 2007–09, it has been in the grip of a sovereign debt crisis; the states of Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain found themselves in a position where they would be unable to pay their debts. Because this debt crisis presented a threat to the survival of the euro, these states received a huge European financial bailout to keep them afloat. The eye-watering costs to other Eurozone states and the sluggish growth in the Eurozone since are seen to have weakened the case for other states to join the euro.

Political union The sovereignty of member states was enshrined in the so-called ‘Luxembourg compromise’ of 1966. This accepted the practice of unanimous voting in the Council of Ministers, granting each member state a national veto. However, as a result of the Single European Act 1986, the Maastricht Treaty and other treaties, the process of closer political union saw the practice of qualified majority voting (QMV) being applied to an increasing range of policy areas to increase the efficiency of making law. QMV is a mechanism that allows the EU to take decisions without the need for unanimity, but requires more than a simple majority of members. This means that an individual member state, such as the UK, can vote against regulations in these policy areas but if a majority is achieved, those regulations are imposed on all member states. About 80% of all EU legislation is adopted using QMV. The widening of the EU has had a significant impact on the decision-making processes of the EU. With the increased number of member states has come a wider range of national and political interests that have to be satisfied; this makes it more difficult for the EU to make decisions and to pursue coherent strategies. The problems within the EU have been exposed by the migrant crisis, which started in 2015 with more than one million people crossing into Europe. It triggered deep political divides, both north–south and east–west, as member states could not agree on a migration and settlement policy. It is perhaps the case that the widening of the EU will limit its ability to achieve an ever closer union.

The ‘four freedoms’ The Treaty of Rome in 1957, which established the European Economic Community, set out the four freedoms: the freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and people. These freedoms were further strengthened by future treaties as the Community moved from a customs union towards a single market.

Definition National veto: The power of member states to block Council of Ministers’ decisions on matters that threaten vital national interests. Qualified majority voting: A system of voting within an EU Council of Ministers in which different majorities are needed on different issues, with states’ votes weighed (roughly) according to size (larger states such as Germany getting more votes and smaller states such as Malta getting fewer).

Spec key term The Four Freedoms: The free movement of goods, services, capital and labour are the four freedoms that are the key foundations of the single market. They are enshrined in the 1957 Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act 1986, the Maastricht Treaty 1992 and the Lisbon Treaty 2007.

296 Component II: UK Politics The freedoms are the foundation of the single market, and were established with the aim of benefitting member states by generating trade, improving productivity and offering workers better opportunities. For a state to be part of the single market, it must sign up to all four freedoms:

1. Free movement of goods This freedom was the clear priority when the Treaty of Rome was signed. It allows for goods to move freely between member states without any taxes or other barriers to trade. Regulations around consumer protection mean that the goods must meet specific standards, such as food standards, and these standards also apply to imports of goods from outside the EU.

2. Free movement of people The free movement of people was instituted with the aim of producing a mobile workforce across the EU as citizens (and their families) are free to move to and live in any other EU country. This involves the removal of any discrimination based on nationality when it comes to employment, remuneration and conditions of work and employment. In the UK, the free movement of people became a mainstream political issue as the EU’s membership widened, particularly from 2004 onwards.

3. Free movement of capital The free movement of capital involves removing the restrictions and controls on funds being moved between EU member states. The aim here was to generate economic growth by enabling capital to be invested efficiently.

4. Free movement of services The free movement of services allows people or companies legally operating in one member state to offer services in other EU countries without discrimination on the grounds of nationality. Services are crucial to the single market, making up around 70% of its economic activity and employment.

Social Policy While the responsibility for employment and social policy lies mostly with member states, such as wage regulation (for example, the minimum wage), pensions, retirement age and unemployment benefits, social policy issues have been part of the EU’s integration process.

»»The Treaty of Rome included the commitment to the free movement of people and the principle of equal pay between men and women.

»»The Social Chapter, which the Conservative Government of John Major opted out of but was later signed by Tony Blair, introduced some protections for workers and expanded the EU regional policy that benefitted the more deprived areas of the UK through increased investment.

»»In 2017, the EU put forward the European Pillar of Social Rights as part of the its commitment to delivering new and more effective rights for Europe’s citizens in three areas: equal opportunities and access to the labour market, fair working conditions and social protection and inclusion.

The main areas covered by EU rules include working conditions, especially for part-time and gig economy workers, workers’ health and safety, rules to prevent workplace discrimination and safety measures for the food production and distribution process. The role of the EU social policy has remained contentious in UK politics, with the Conservative Party arguing that social policy should remain in the remit of member states.

The Supreme Court, the EU and Sovereignty

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  HOW INFLUENTIAL HAS EU MEMBERSHIP BEEN ON UK POLITICS?

Policy The impact of the EU on policy in the UK grew in significance over time but remained highly variable depending on policy area.



Beyond the regulations of the single market, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the Common Fisheries Policy are two areas where UK policy has been most dramatically impacted.

»»The CAP is an EU policy to provide financial support to farmers within member states by

supporting the prices they are paid for produce and providing income for rural development. The CAP has been highly criticised in the UK because the UK gets much less from the CAP than it contributes due to the small size of its farming sector. Further criticisms have included: it encourages farming practices that damage the environment, benefits large landowners just for owning more land, drives up the price of food produce in the UK, and stops farmers from the developing world being able to compete on a level playing field with EU farmers.

»»The Common Fisheries Policy is used to manage fishing fleets and fish stocks. The Policy has been criticised for giving equal access to UK waters for EU fishing fleets and this is to the detriment of the UK, given the relatively large size of the UK fishing zone, and has been blamed for the decline in the UK fishing industry.

»»The move to a single market meant that around 80% of all regulation on the production, sale and distribution of goods, services and capital in the UK originated in the EU.



Many other areas of UK policy remained largely unaffected by the EU with taxation and most of the main areas of public expenditure controlled by the UK.

»» Education, welfare and healthcare policies are clear examples where there is very limited impact on policy in the UK.

»» There have been attempts to develop a common foreign and defence policy, which have been largely unsuccessful. The UK remained very sceptical due to its close ties to NATO and its ‘special relationship’ with the USA.

»» With departure from the EU, the UK will take control over the main policy areas. New legislation

is required as result. The Internal Market Bill is needed to protect seamless internal trade in the UK and enable the government to invest in communities and businesses, to replace the EU regional policy. The Agriculture Bill 2020 is required to prepare UK farming for departure from the EU, including food and animal welfare standards as well as what subsidies farmers will receive now they will be outside the CAP.

Political parties Membership of the EU has had considerable impacts on political parties and the nature of the party system in the UK.



The two main political parties have been split over Europe and the issue has seen the rise of new political parties helping to change the nature of the party system.

»»Divisions within the Labour Party, for instance, led Wilson to call the 1975 Referendum on continued membership, with the Cabinet officially supporting staying in but around onethird campaigning for leaving because they believed it was an undemocratic, capitalist club. During 1981–87, Labour supported withdrawal from the EU, yet by 1997 the party had a much more positive view of Europe. The party then split again over the 2016 EU Referendum and later over whether to implement Brexit or negotiate a new deal before holding a second referendum.

297

298 Component II: UK Politics

»»Euroscepticism grew within the Conservative Party from the late 1980s onwards, leading to

divisions that threatened the survival of the Major Government and had a profound impact on the Cameron Government. The 2016 Referendum saw Cameron resign as Prime Minister and Party leader, and the Brexit splits in Cabinet and the Party undermined May’s leadership and forced her resignation.

»»The UK Independence Party (UKIP) won 12 seats in the European Parliament elections of 2004

and 13 seats in 2009, equalling Labour’s tally. In 2014, UKIP gained 27 seats and became the largest UK party in the European Parliament before two Conservative MPs defected to the party in the same year. In 2019, the Brexit Party was created, winning the most votes and seats in the European Parliamentary elections in the UK, and contesting seats in the 2019 Election which had not been won by the Conservative Party in 2017 in order to ensure Brexit was delivered.



After the 2019 Election result, the EU as a political issue for parties changed.

»» Since the 2019 Election, the leaders and policies of all the main parties lined up behind the fact that the UK will leave the EU and that there is no case for a second referendum.

Synoptic link

»» Both UKIP and the Brexit Party have been unable to break through in Westminster elections,

Link together the EU to the nature of the party system in the UK and its impact on party unity.

and with the UK’s departure from the EU, their position was weakened further.

Public opinion How has EU membership affected public attitudes within the UK? The evidence here is that relatively little has changed. The UK’s failure to adopt a more clearly European identity, or to participate more fully in EU initiatives, has been underpinned by continuing public scepticism about the benefits of EU membership.



The EU Referendum result in 2016 was confirmation of a hardening of Eurosceptic public opinion and that the EU had become a priority issue for voters.

»»The EU became a more high-priority issues for voters, with hardening attitudes against the EU,

after 2010, partially as a result of the debt crisis in the Eurozone, slow economic recovery from the 2007–09 crash and the migrant crisis within the EU.

»»Since the Referendum, attitudes to the EU and Brexit appear to have impacted on public opinion

and voting behaviour in the UK in the 2017 and 2019 General Elections as well as the 2019 European Parliamentary Election. In particular, opposition to Brexit in Scotland appears to have increased public support for independence while opposition to the Withdrawal Agreement in Northern Ireland opens up the possibility of the reunification of Ireland in the medium term.



Eurosceptism has remained a mainstay of public opinion over the lifetime of the UK’s membership.

»» Before the 1975 Referendum, roughly two-thirds of people polled claimed to oppose continued

Synoptic link Link together the EU and voting behaviour in the UK, both in elections and referendums.

EC membership. Although this was turned into an almost two-thirds victory for the Yes campaign, Euroscepticism soon reasserted itself. Opinion surveys across the EU have consistently demonstrated that knowledge of, interest in and support for the ‘European project’ has been lower in the UK than in many other member states. For example, in a 2014 Eurobarometer opinion poll, conducted by the European Commission, only 44% of UK citizens were optimistic about the future of the EU, the lowest level in any member state except Greece.

»» The low level of voter turnout in elections to the European Parliament suggests support for and interest in the EU has remained consistently low.

»» Major political parties who have tried to align themselves with public opinion have failed to profit in elections. In 1983 Labour and in 2001 the Conservative Parties both tried to tune into public opinion on the EU, but still lost badly because the EU was just not a priority issue for voters.

The Supreme Court, the EU and Sovereignty

299

Sovereignty and the constitution The impact of the EU on the British constitution, and Parliamentary sovereignty in particular, remains highly contentious.



As a result of the European Communities Act 1972, it became the case that European law takes precedence over UK law where the EU has competency.

»»The relationship between the EU and the UK constitution became clear as a result of the

Factortame Case 1991. In this case, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) overturned sections of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 which aimed to prevent boats from Spain and other member states from fishing in UK waters. The case showed that the ECJ could strike down acts of parliaments and that EU law has primacy over UK law where the EU has competency, impairing Parliamentary sovereignty.



Parliamentary sovereignty was not infringed because Parliament cannot bind its successor; this means that Parliament could repeal the European Communities Act 1972 at any time.

»» In 2018, Parliament passed the EU Withdrawal Act which repealed the European Communities

Act. At the end of the transition period on 1 January 2021, EU law will no longer have primacy over UK law and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice will end. However, it is important to note that the Withdrawal Act copied across all existing EU law into UK law. This retained EU law is then subject to amendment, repeal and improvement in the future, but will continue to shape UK politics long after the departure date.



The introduction of QMV and the transfer of more areas of legislative competency to the EU undermined Parliamentary sovereignty.

»»The EU has exclusive competency to legislate on agricultural, fisheries and transport policy, as well as the rules governing the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital.

»»Multiple areas have moved to QMV; for example, under the Maastricht Treaty 30 areas,

such as consumer protection, were moved to QMV and a further 24 under the Treaty of Amsterdam. This was controversial because the UK lost its national veto and could no longer unilaterally block measures that would be unpopular back home; it was seen as an erosion of sovereignty.



All treaties that move areas of competency to the EU and areas to QMV had to be signed by all states in order to come into force.

»» This means that the democratically elected governments of the UK have chosen to hand over more areas to EU competency and agreed to the extension of QMV.

»» The UK has been able to preserve its sovereignty by negotiating opt-outs: to the euro, the Schengen Zone and the Social Chapter.

»» The UK has always maintained red lines over powers it would not hand over to the EU; this includes the admission of new member states, defence policy, taxation or changes to EU treaties.

»» On leaving the EU, all areas of competency will return to the UK Parliament, so the UK will have taken back control. This has created a further constitutional problem however; the question of whether the powers should be passed back to the devolved institutions or Westminster.

Definition European Court of Justice (ECJ): The judicial branch of the EU that is responsible for ensuring the equal application of EU laws across all member states and for interpreting existing EU law.

300 Component II: UK Politics

Key Debate Summary: How influential has EU membership been on UK politics? FOR

AGAINST

99In certain policy areas, such as agriculture

88 However the impact of the EU is variable,

99The EU has created divisions in the main

88 Post Brexit, the divisions within the parties

99The EU post-2010, became a high-priority

88 Public opinion has remained largely

99The European Communities Act 1972

88 With the Withdrawal Act 2018, the UK

and fisheries, the impact on the UK has been very significant. parties, and seen changes to the party system with the rise of new parties.

issue for voters and impacted both public opinion and voting behaviour. and the transfer of more areas to EU competency, plus the extension of QMV, have had a major impact on the UK’s constitution.

with large areas of policy making remaining unaffected by the UK’s membership. are less significant and the new parties have lost relevance.

indifferent or Eurosceptic over the entire period of the UK’s membership. has taken back control by repealing the European Communities Act and leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Sovereignty What is sovereignty? Sovereignty, in its simplest sense, is the principle of absolute and unlimited power. As such, sovereignty is the defining feature of a state, emphasising the state’s supreme authority over its internal affairs (sometimes called ‘internal sovereignty’). The location of internal sovereignty largely determines the constitutional make-up of a state. The United Kingdom is a unitary state (see page 188), with sovereignty located in the Westminster Parliament.

Parliamentary sovereignty Spec key term Legal sovereignty: Refers to supreme legal authority: that is, an unchallengeable ‘right’ to establish any law one wishes. (Parliament is sovereign in a strictly legal sense.) Political sovereignty: Sovereignty refers to absolute political power: that is, an unrestricted ‘ability’ to act however one wishes.

Parliamentary sovereignty has long been seen as a key principle of the constitution of the United Kingdom. What parliamentary sovereignty means in practice is that Parliament has no legal limits on its law-making powers. This principle is most closely associated with A.V. Dicey’s 1885 work, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, in which he states that ‘Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having the right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.’ It is worth unpicking A.V. Dicey’s definition to find the rules that underpin Parliamentary sovereignty.

»»Firstly this means that statute law, passed by Parliament, is supreme over all other kinds of law, such as common law.

»»Secondly, no other body, such as another legislature or the Supreme Court, can challenge or set aside any statute law passed by Parliament.

»»Thirdly, the principle includes the idea that no Parliament can bind its successors, meaning no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change.

The concept of Parliamentary sovereignty that Dicey is describing is legal sovereignty, as there are no legal limits on Parliament’s powers to make or unmake law. However there are non-legal limits on Parliament; these limits are the practical and political realities of the world in which Parliament operates. In this case, it makes more sense to discuss power in terms of political sovereignty, as this focuses on where power lies in the real world rather where power lies in a strictly legal sense.

The Supreme Court, the EU and Sovereignty Parliament is not, and has never been, politically sovereign. Parliament has the legal right to make, amend or unmake any law it wishes, but not always the political ability to do so. There has been a long-running contradiction in representative democracy in the UK between Parliamentary sovereignty and popular sovereignty, by which supreme power is seen to lie with the people. Parliament receives its authority from the electorate, and when Parliament passes laws that are in conflict with the views of the people then tension arises and Parliament’s power can be challenged. When the Conservative Party introduced the Poll Tax in the 1980s, it met with condemnation, evasion of the law and public unrest. This helped to bring down the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, and saw Parliament under the new Prime Minister, John Major, repeal the Poll Tax out of political necessity. The other main political constraints on Parliamentary sovereignty include the following: powerful pressure groups, especially major business interests; public opinion, particularly electoral pressures; the views of major trading partners, notably the USA and the EU; and the policies of international organisations, such as the EU, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the UN.

KEY TOPIC DEBATE:  IS PARLIAMENT SOVEREIGN? Over recent years, Parliament has passed an increasing number of statutes that appear to provide practical limits on Parliamentary sovereignty, including the Devolution Acts, the Human Rights Act and Constitutional Reform Act, and the European Communities Act of 1972 which took the UK into the EU. In addition to this, the wider use of referendums – a form of popular sovereignty – has placed further limits on the legal sovereignty of Parliament. Finally it has been argued that sovereignty has been drifting from Parliament to the executive branch as the executive has become more dominant. However these developments do not essentially weaken the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, since, legally at least, only Parliament can make law. Parliament can repeal any of the laws that appear to provide practical limits and could choose to ignore the outcomes of a referendum because they are not legally binding.

Devolution Legally, the power of Westminster is unaffected by the passage of the Devolution Acts, yet in a practical sense Parliament has lost the power to make law in many areas of domestic law, particularly in Scotland.



There is no loss of legal sovereignty because devolution is not the same as federalism.

»»The power that has been devolved can be called back and the Devolution Acts could be

repealed by Parliament or, as has happened in Northern Ireland, the devolved government can be suspended.

»»In 1972 the Stormont Parliament was suspended, after 50 years of home rule, to be replaced

with direct rule from Westminster. Since the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive has been suspended five times, leaving the running of government to Northern Ireland’s Civil Service and the British government.



Northern Ireland is a special case, and it is almost impossible to imagine the reversal of devolution in Scotland and Wales without the support of the majority of the populations in those countries, suggesting Parliament is not politically sovereign.

»» The Scotland Act 2016 and Wales Act 2017 recognise this fact, by stating that the devolution

settlements can only be reversed via referendum. This appears to recognise that the UK has moved to a quasi-federal system of government and all the political pressure is now for more devolution of powers not less.

301

Definition Popular sovereignty: Supreme authority lies with the people.

Synoptic link Link together the idea of Parliamentary sovereignty to the ability of groups to influence the passage of legislation in the UK.

302 Component II: UK Politics

Human Rights The Human Rights Act and the creation of the Supreme Court, via the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, do not give the courts the ability to strike down legislation passed by Parliament. However the balance between Parliament and the judiciary has been altered because Parliament feels the responsibility to respond to decisions by the Court that declare statutes incompatible with the Human Rights Act.



Parliamentary sovereignty means that the Supreme Court cannot strike down statutes and, while the Court is part of the discussion about rights, Parliament has the final say in determining the law regarding human rights.

»»In the case of A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department in 2004, otherwise known as the Belmarsh case, it was ruled that the indefinite detention of terror suspects was incompatible with human rights. However, the Home Secretary did not release the suspects until Parliament had passed new legislation granting the powers to use control orders, electronic tagging and other restrictions.



»»The 2019 Conservative manifesto included a pledge to update the HRA in order to give ‘a proper

Synoptic link Link together the protection of rights in the UK and Parliamentary sovereignty.

Parliament, because it is legally sovereign, has the power to repeal, replace or amend the Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights. balance between the rights, our vital national security and effective government’.



While Parliament remains legally sovereign, it is clear that Parliament feels obliged to respond to judicial decisions regarding the Human Rights Act.

»» In the case of civil partnerships and the police keeping fingerprints and DNA on file, Parliament has amended the law in response to judicial decisions, showing that there are real restrictions on the political sovereignty of Parliament.

The EU In 1972, Parliament passed the European Communities Act. The implications for this in terms of Parliamentary sovereignty became clear when EU law and UK statute clashed in the Factortame case of 1991. The result of this case made it clear that, where the EU has legislative competency, then EU law has primacy over UK law. However in the 2016 EU Referendum, the UK voted to leave the EU and the 2018 Withdrawal Act repeals the 1972 European Communities Act.



The EU Withdrawal Act of 2018 repeals the European Communities Act. This shows that Parliament has always retained legal sovereignty because it could have chosen to leave the EU at any time.

»»As a result of the Act, the EU will no longer have primacy over UK statute and will end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice so both legal and political sovereignty will return to Parliament.



During the UK’s period in the EU, only certain areas of legislative competency were passed to the EU.

»» These included agriculture and fisheries, while most of the main areas of public expenditure, such the NHS, education, welfare , as well as foreign and defence policy remained largely unaffected.



The decision to transfer areas of legislative competency to the EU was voted on in Parliament.

»»In 1986, Parliament passed the Single European Act, which replaced many unanimous decision-

making processes with QMV, and ratified the Lisbon Treaty in 2008. The UK remained sovereign, as can be seen in the UK’s effective negotiation of opt-outs to the euro and the border-free Schengen Zone.



The UK’s political sovereignty was actually increased while in the EU due to the concept of pooled sovereignty.

»»The UK’s ability to tackle environmental problems is increased by pooling its sovereignty with

other member states as climate change and pollution are transnational issues that cross borders and need collective actions by states.

The Supreme Court, the EU and Sovereignty



303

EU law has primacy over UK law where the EU has competency.

»» The Factortame case made it absolutely clear that Parliament had lost both legal and political sovereignty.

»» The increasing use of QMV in many legislative areas where the EU has competency means the

EU could impose regulations on the UK in these areas, without the approval of the UK, if the qualified majority is achieved, showing a loss of political sovereignty.

»» In areas where the EU has competency, such as fisheries, agriculture and the regulation of the

production, distribution and sale of goods, services and capital, the UK’s political sovereignty to set its own policies was heavily restricted.

»» The Withdrawal Act copied across all existing EU law into UK law. This retained EU law is then

subject to amendment, repeal and improvement in the future, but will continue to shape UK politics long after the departure date.

Wider use of referendums Since the referendum on European Community membership, the UK government has increasingly used referendums on important constitutional issues, including multiple referendums on devolution as well as Scottish independence and continued membership of the EU. This raises the question as to whether popular sovereignty through referendums is a challenge to Parliamentary sovereignty.



Referendums in the UK can only be granted via an Act of Parliament and the result of a referendum is only advisory and not legally binding.

»»Many

Conservative MPs voted against the creation of the Scottish and Welsh devolved governments, after the referendums had been held. In their 2005 manifesto the Conservative Party pledged a new vote for the people on the Welsh Assembly, including an option to abolish it. This shows that legally Parliamentary sovereignty has always been maintained.



However, it is politically unrealistic for Parliament to ignore a clear result in a referendum where there has been a reasonable turnout.

»» In 2016, while a majority of both the House of Commons and House of Lords supported Remain,

as did the leaders of the three main parties heading into the Referendum, in the end popular sovereignty won out over the will of Parliament in the triggering of Article 50 and the passing of the EU Withdrawal Act of 2018.

Dominance of the executive It has been argued that there has been a drift in power from Parliament to the executive branch. However, it remains the case that Parliament has the legal power to make or unmake any law.



»»So whatever the size of the majority, the executive still has to rely on Parliament for legislation. »»While Parliament may rarely exercise its power to veto legislation proposed by the executive, its The relationship between Parliament and the executive is constantly changing.

»»When the Prime Minister is weak, Parliament is more dominant, such as during the period Theresa May was in power where she suffered 33 defeats in the Commons.

»»Even where there is a strong Prime Minister, such as Blair, Parliament can still exercise its powers, as it did in 2005 when Blair was defeated on his proposal to allow the police to detain terror suspects for up to 90 days without charging them.



Show how referendums impact on the concept of sovereignty.

Ultimately only Parliament has the power to make or unmake any law.

ability to use this power means that the executive often has to compromise with Parliament by amending the legislation in order to get it passed.



Synoptic link

In the UK, the fused executive and legislative branches mean that, in practice, political sovereignty has passed from Parliament to the executive when a Prime Minister has a large majority in the House of Commons.

Synoptic link Link together the potential of the FPTP system to deliver majorities in the House of Commons and the relationship between Parliament and the executive branch.

304 Component II: UK Politics

»» This is particularly the case with the two Thatcher Governments of 1983 and 1987 and the Blair Governments of 1997 and 2001, where both Prime Ministers enjoyed a majority of over 100 seats.



The Royal prerogative, including the power of patronage and the party whip system, helps ensure the Prime Minister’s dominance over Parliament.

»» Tony Blair did not lose a vote in the House of Commons from 1997 to 2005, suggesting that political sovereignty resides in the executive.



The power of the executive over Parliament is being changed by the UK’s departure from the EU.

»» The EU Withdrawal Act, through Clauses 7, 8 and 9, grants significant delegated law-making powers to ministers to correct the deficiencies in EU-retained law at the expense of Parliament.

Key Debate Summary: Is Parliament sovereign? FOR

AGAINST

99Parliament is and always has been legally

88 Parliament has never been politically

99Parliament remains legally sovereign

88 Politically, power has now passed to the

99The judiciary cannot strike down a statute

88 Parliament feels obliged to respect and

sovereign as there are no legal limits on its ability to make or unmake any law.

because devolved powers can be recalled.

for breaking the HRA and Parliament can repeal the HRA if it chooses, so Parliament remains legally sovereign.

sovereign; it is limited by popular sovereignty and a range of other realworld, political limits. devolved assemblies because the UK is increasingly a quasi-federal system.

respond to judicial decisions suggesting there are limits to Parliament’s political sovereignty.

99The UK had increased political sovereignty 88 During the UK’s membership, EU law had as part of the EU through pooled sovereignty, and always had the ability to leave the EU and return sovereignty to Parliament.

primacy where the EU had competency, suggesting a loss of political and legal sovereignty.

99Only Parliament can call a referendum and 88 Politically, it is unrealistic for Parliament to the result is advisory so Parliament remains legally sovereign.

99Parliament is legally sovereign, and

the executive has to rely on it for all its legislation.

ignore a clear result on a decent turnout in a referendum.

88 Politically, the executive, particularly when it has a large majority, dominates Parliament and so controls the law-making process.

The Supreme Court, the EU and Sovereignty

305

Chapter Summary • • • • • •

The Constitutional Reform Act reinforced the separation of powers in the UK through the transfer of the House of Lords’ judicial function to a new Supreme Court. All parts of society need to have confidence that the decisions taken by the Supreme Court are independent and impartial, but question marks remain over whether this is the case. The Supreme Court plays a key role in upholding the rule of law through judicial review. However, there is controversy over whether the Court has too much power over the executive and the legislature. There has been a process of closer political and economic union in Europe and this has impacted on the UK’s relationship with the EU. The impact of the EU on the nature of UK politics and policy making remains a dynamic and contested debate. The nature of sovereignty remains contested in the UK, with contested debates both about where sovereignty lies and where it should lie.

Exam Style Questions Evaluate the view that the Supreme Court is neither independent nor neutral (30). zz Evaluate the view that the Supreme Court is an effective check on the executive and legislative branches (30). zz Evaluate the view that the UK Supreme Court has too much power for an unelected and unaccountable body (30). zz Evaluate the view that the EU has had a considerable impact on UK politics (30). zz Evaluate the view that, since the UK left the EU, Parliament is now sovereign (30). zz Evaluate the view that sovereignty no longer lies in Parliament (30). zz

Source Question Source 1 There are many ways that the EU has had a striking impact on UK politics. One area is policy making, where the impact of the EU on certain areas of UK policy making has increased in significance over time. The Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy are the two areas where UK policy has been most dramatically impacted. Membership of the EU has had considerable impact on political parties and the party system in the UK. The two main political parties have been split over Europe and the issue has seen the rise of new political parties, helping to change the nature of the party system. The referendum result in 2016 was confirmation of a hardening of Eurosceptic public opinion and that the EU had become a priority issue for voters, and this appears to have impacted on public opinion and voting behaviour in recent elections. In particular, opposition to Brexit in Scotland appears to have increased public support for independence. Lastly, the impact of the EU on the British constitution, and Parliamentary sovereignty has been made clear by the result of a number of key court rulings.

Source 2 While the UK was a member of the EU, many areas of UK policy remained unaffected, with taxation and most of the main areas of public expenditure controlled by the UK. Education, welfare and healthcare policies are examples of the limited impact on policy. Moreover, since the 2019 Election, the leaders and policies of all the main parties have lined up behind the fact that the UK will leave the EU and that there is no case for a second referendum, Additionally, UKIP/Brexit Party’s position has weakened further since Brexit. In reality Euroscepticism has been a mainstay of public opinion since the UK’s membership. The UK has always been considered an awkward member of the EU; this is nothing new. Lastly, it is not accurate to say that Parliamentary sovereignty was infringed by the EU because Parliament cannot bind its successor, which this means that Parliament could and has repealed the European Communities Act 1972. At the end of the transition period on 1 January 2021, EU law will no longer have primacy over UK law and it will end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

306 Component II: UK Politics Using the source, evaluate the view that EU membership has been of minimal impact on UK politics? In your response you must:

»»Compare and contrast different opinions in the source »»Examine and debate these views in a balanced way »»Analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.

Further Resources Visit www.supremecourt.uk/ to learn more about the role of the Supreme Court, the justices and its decided cases. Lady Hale, The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom – Lessons from our First Ten Years, transcript of lecture (12 December 2019). Available at www.supremecourt.uk/docs/ten-year-anniversary-lecture-lady-hale.pdf (accessed 14 December 2020).

Visit the companion website to access the Further Resources Booklet to explore a range of useful web links related to: diversity and the Supreme Court, the relationship between the judiciary and Parliament, the aims and role of the EU, Brexit and the constitution and more.

EXAM FOCUS

11

Introduction The aim of this chapter is to unpick the Assessment Objectives (AOs) that are crucial to understanding how to do well in your A-Level Politics exams. We’ll help you to understand what they mean and, most crucially, how to incorporate them into your answers to both essay and source questions. We will lead you step by step through all the elements that make up the skills and knowledge needed to do well, including how to incorporate the AOs, how to answer a source question, and how to organise your paragraphs in essay and source questions. We’ll then bring all of this together with a full worked example at the end of the chapter. Throughout this book, when we have considered the key debates within a topic, we have provided matched, paired points for both sides of an argument. In this chapter, we will explain how to use these points when writing essays. Before going into more detail, we first provide an initial overview of some of the key things you need to know about the exams covering UK Politics: the exam papers and question types, the three AOs, the idea of ‘synopticity’, the breadth of questions, caps on marks and the need to provide balanced answers.

The Exam The UK content of the course is assessed in two separate exams. Component 1 is the UK Politics element and Component 2 is UK Government. (Both Components 1 and 2 also include questions relating to the Political Ideas part of the course.) In each UK section of the exam you will have to answer

»»ONE source question from a choice of TWO »»ONE essay question from a choice of TWO The types of questions

Components 1 and 2 each have an identical range of questions. They both have three question types:

»»UK source questions – 30 marks »»UK essay questions – 30 marks »»Ideas essay questions – 24 marks.

This chapter is concerned only with the first two types of question (the UK questions).

UK source questions Questions for UK source questions will typically begin with the stem ‘Evaluate the view that…’ and follow with a statement. The source, of approximately 300 words, will give two opposing views to the statement outlined in the title. Your job is to read the source, consider both sides of the arguments presented in the source and then compose an answer which argues throughout that one side of the argument is stronger than the other.

(See page 324 for more details)

307

308 Essentials of UK Politics and Government For example, in the Edexcel Pearson 2019 Component 1 A-Level exam, one source title was, ‘Evaluate the view that proportional representation would improve elections to the House of Commons.’ It was followed by a source outlining the views of Steve Double MP and Caroline Lucas MP, one agreeing and one disagreeing with the title. Source questions are marked out of 30 which are allocated as follows; AO1 – 10 marks, AO2 – 10 marks, AO3 – 10 marks

UK essay questions Questions for UK essays will also typically begin with the stem ‘Evaluate the view that…’ and follow with a statement for you to consider. Here, you have to consider both sides of the argument and then compose an answer which argues throughout that one side of the argument is stronger than the other. For example, in the Edexcel Pearson June 2019 Component 2 A-Level exam, one essay question was, ‘Evaluate the view that membership of the EU undermined Parliamentary sovereignty’. Essay questions are marked out of 30 which are allocated as follows; AO1 – 10 marks, AO2 – 10 marks, AO3 – 10 marks

Introduction to the Assessment Objectives (AOs) (See page 312 for more details)

AO1 ‘Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of political institutions, processes, concepts, theories and issues’ AO1 is probably the AO that everyone is most familiar with because it relates to ‘knowledge and understanding’. This is the bread and butter of what is taught in classrooms day in, day out. Everything in the chapters of this book begins with AO1: knowledge and the understanding that flows from it. Without good knowledge and understanding, there is a limit to how effectively you can utilise the other two AOs.

(See page 313 for more details)

AO2 ‘Analyse aspects of politics and political information, including in relation to parallels, connections, similarities and differences.’ AO2 is about analysis, but what does this actually mean? Dictionary definitions include ‘detailed examination’ or ‘the process of examining’ something (Cambridge). So, what do we have to do to improve our AO2 marks?

»»Firstly, we have to be solid in our AO1 because analysis (AO2) flows from and is grounded in knowledge and understanding.

»»Secondly, we have to explore our AO1 point in more detail, probing, investigating and exploring the knowledge we have stated as AO1.

»»Thirdly, AO2 also requires ‘comparative analysis’, which means exploring AO1 points to tease out similarities and differences, or to compare how they’ve changed over time.

(See page 318 for more details)

AO3 ‘Evaluate aspects of politics and political information, including to construct arguments, make substantiated judgements and draw conclusions.’ To evaluate, according to dictionary definitions, is to ‘judge the importance or value of something’ (Cambridge) or to ‘make a judgment about them, for example about how good or bad they are’ (Collins). AO3 is all about judgements; it requires you to not just know information (AO1) and to

Exam Focus explore and compare information (AO2), but also to consider all of that and then decide which side of the argument is stronger i.e. judge (AO3). The above provides a basic introduction to the AOs. Later in the chapter we will be exploring ways to incorporate them into answers and looking at good (and not such good) practice.

Synopticity in the two UK papers Synopticity in A-Level Politics refers to being able to tie things together or connect things from different Components. By doing this, you are demonstrating a wider understanding of how different elements of the course relate to each other, illustrating that you understand the subject in a more holistic way. Synopticity in the UK papers occurs in Component Two, but only in UK 30 mark essays. In these essays you are required to draw on relevant knowledge from Component 1 UK and/ or the Core Ideas. For example, a question asking whether a Prime Minister is too powerful may include references to the role of first-past-the-post in creating large majorities, as well as the role of the party and policies in keeping a Prime Minister popular and in power. A question on whether the UK should have a codified constitution could make a connection with the contrasting traditions of liberalism and conservatism in their view of this debate, as well as discussing the role of constitutions in rights protection, all of which are found in Component 1.

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Evaluate the view that Parliament is able to sufficiently limit the power of the Prime Minister’ – looking at Synopticity Blair managed to go 8 years, 1997–2005 without a single defeat in Parliament. Blair was very effective in handling his relationship with the media and his resultant popularity enabled him to put pressure on his MPs to back his legislation. Therefore, there can be no doubt that Prime Ministers can dominate Parliament through their powers of patronage and their use of whips.

By linking Blair’s effective media strategy at the beginning of his premiership with his power, the student is making an effective synoptic link back to Component 1.

It’s important to know that there is a cap in place here – if no synoptic skills are addressed in the essay, you can’t achieve the best marks. Also, it’s worth noting that good synoptic links can add to the overall AO1 marks achieved and this gives you a chance to draw from all the UK politics and ideas content from Component 1 in answering the questions.

Breadth of questions Related to the issue of synopticity, is the idea of connectivity. This is the ability to link different aspects of the topics covered within just one component. For example, discussing the impact of first-past-the-post on voting behaviour in a Component 1 answer. For example, there has been an exam question about whether elections are stable and predictable. This type of question allows students to answer it by looking at many aspects of Component 1 – elections, parties, participation, voting behaviour and media. A student who is

309

310 Essentials of UK Politics and Government able to address this question in a broad way, as opposed to concentrating on just elections, for example, is going to be able to show their understanding of the course in a more holistic way. As a result, you may be surprised to see much broader questions than you may be expecting in both UK Components. For example, in Component 1 where the topics are Democracy and Participation, Parties, Elections and Referendum, Voting Behaviour and The Media, questions might incorporate aspects of any two (or more) of these topics. For example:

»»Evaluate the view that pressure groups are more essential to democracy in the UK than political parties.

»»Evaluate the view that media support is the key factor in making some pressure groups more effective than others.

»»Evaluate the view that the key weakness in the UK’s representative democracy is the firstpast-the-post electoral system.

In Component 2 the topics are The Constitution, Parliament, Prime Minister and Executive and the Relationship between the Branches (which includes the Supreme Court, the EU, and Sovereignty). Component 2 essays might be based on questions such as:

»»Evaluate the view that the main problem with introducing a codified constitution would be the end of Parliamentary sovereignty.

»»Evaluate the view that Parliament is now the most powerful branch in the UK. »»Evaluate the view that the unelected Supreme Court should not exercise control over the UK Executive.

In order to prepare effectively for the exams, students should try to make up their own questions by combining different aspects of the topics in Component 1 or Component 2. However, it’s also important to remember that questions in Component 1 can’t reference Component 2 or vice versa, so you are unlikely to see a question referencing the Supreme Court (Component 2) and Rights (Component 1), for instance. However, students should be encouraged to discuss rights in a Supreme Court essay (where relevant) as it adds to the synoptic requirements of a Component 2 essay (see page 309).

Caps on the UK papers Throughout the two UK papers, there are a number of caps to be aware of. It’s important to know where they exist to make sure you don’t fall foul of them. 1. All 30-mark questions (both sources and essays) will be capped at Level 2 if answers don’t consider both sides of the argument (see details of the Level Based Mark Schemes, pages 321–4). 2. If a source answer (in either Component 1 or 2) does not use the information in the source, it can be capped at Level 2. 3. Essays in Component 2 must have synoptic links back to topics in Component 1 otherwise they will be capped at Level 4.

‘Consideration of both views’ and balance The 30-mark Source questions in Components 1 and 2 ask students to ‘examine and debate these views in a balanced way’, and the 30-mark Essay questions ask students to ‘consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way’. So, what does ‘balance’ mean? While it’s not necessary to ensure that you have an even word count of arguments in favour to arguments against in your answer, it is also important to ensure that both sides of the argument have been fairly considered. So, a 60:40 split is probably fine, but anything significantly less than that may not be considered balanced.

Exam Focus Another issue which students find difficult is the need to reconcile the need for ‘balance’ with the AO3 need to ‘make substantiated judgement’. The answer to this conundrum is not as complicated as it may first appear. If you are answering a question on whether FPTP should be reformed, and you are taking the viewpoint that it should be reformed, you must still ensure that nearly half your answer is exploring the benefits of FPTP, even if you then go on to criticise these benefits to justify your view.

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Evaluate the view that the only parties that matter are Labour and Conservatives’ – looking at balance Smaller parties such as the SNP and UKIP have had the ability to push politics in a certain direction, meaning that Labour and the Conservatives are not always the only parties that matter. The SNP is currently the third largest party in Parliament, holding 56 out of the 59 Scottish seats. Although they will never form the government, they have greater influence in Parliament than they used to by gaining more seats. Nicola Sturgeon is pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and it’s more likely that she will be able to do this as her party has a somewhat large presence in Parliament. In 2015, although UKIP only won one seat, Nigel Farage led his party to influence UK politics in a huge way with the Brexit referendum, which their side won and caused massive disruption to politics. For a minor party to influence this referendum in a big way shows that smaller parties do matter, and Labour and the Conservatives are not the only ones that matter. On the other hand, the power of the SNP is limited due to the fact that Labour is unwilling to work with them as the SNP have taken away many Scottish seats from Labour.

This is a very unbalanced answer, merely paying lip service to the other side of the argument.

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Evaluate the view that Parliament is able to sufficiently limit the power of the Prime Minister’ – looking at balance EXTRACT:

Another argument is that although PMs may be able to control the Commons, they have less control of the Lords. This is because party loyalties are weaker in the Lords and the government does not have an inbuilt majority. The Coalition’s Legal Aid legislation was defeated 14 times before important alterations were made, allowing it to pass. On the other hand, the Welfare Reform Bill faced the Coalition’s biggest defeat in the Lords to stop aspects of the bill being included, and May’s ‘Brexit’ Bill faced 15 defeats in the Lords. However, defeats in the Lords are usually overturned in the Commons showing that Prime Ministers are not really limited by the Lords. Often the Lords relent due to the undemocratic nature and their lack of legitimacy because they are unelected and recognise their constitutional role as secondary to the elected Commons. May’s Brexit Bill was ultimately passed by the Lords and the Coalition’s Welfare Reform Bill was also passed by the Lords when they were threatened with a removal of some powers by Cameron. Additionally, the Lords are constrained by the Salisbury convention, a reminder of their secondary nature as an unelected house.

Here the student is outlining one side of the argument

Overall this is a balanced argument which comes to the view that PM’s aren’t limited by Parliament.

This paragraph argues the other side and rejects the arguments in the paragraph above.

It’s also worth noting here that this question references ‘Parliament’ and the student has done well to discuss both the Commons and the Lords. When a question uses the term ‘Parliament’, it is expected that students discuss both Houses of Parliament in their answer

311

312 Essentials of UK Politics and Government

Assessment Objectives in detail AO1 in detail ‘Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of political institutions, processes, concepts, theories and issues’ We introduced the AOs at the beginning of the chapter, but now we are going to look at them in more detail. To recap, AO1 is about what you know, what you’ve been taught and the level at which you understand it. When answering a question, you have to begin with AO1 and the key is to carefully select the information you think will best help you to answer the question. What are the key points you need to discuss to answer the question? Knowledge selection is a much-underrated skill when considering AO1, but it’s included in the Exam board mark scheme for AO1 (see page 322). This means you have to choose very carefully which information you are going to write about in your answer. Sometimes, students write ‘everything they know’ about a topic and hope that their teachers can sift the important bits from the unimportant bits. It’s worth noting that higher AO1 marks require students to do the sifting, not their teachers! Another question students always ask when organising their answers is ‘how many points’ they should include. Annoyingly, there is no simple answer. The truth is, there are no official rules about how many points to include. It is, however, usually worthwhile following the rule of thumb ‘more than one, less than four’ as there is a limit to what you can write in 45 minutes. Bear in mind, as you will see later, each ‘point’ must be matched up with a counter-point, so each ‘point’ is actually a paired point. Another area where AO1 can cause issues is if students focus predominantly on AO1 to the exclusion of the other two AOs. An outstanding student, who can write reams of detail about an issue can only ever get 10/30 for it because there are only 10 marks available for AO1 knowledge and understanding. AO1 requires students to know and understand their knowledge and how to use it, remembering that the key to writing a really good answer is to balance all three AOs. A final aspect of AO1 is the use of examples. Examples, used well, lift ordinary AO1 to really good AO1, like seasoning a plate of food. Some students underuse their examples, often punctuating an essay with little more than ‘e.g. Extinction Rebellion’. While lots of detail about who Extinction Rebellion are and what they stand for is not needed, using relevant details, like how Extinction Rebellion’s methods secured headlines in the media, to enhance your AO1 and to explain your point can really lift an answer.

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Evaluate the view that the only parties that matter are Labour and Conservative’ – looking at AO1 EXTRACT:

It could be argued that the only political parties that matter in our political system are the Conservatives and Labour. Since 1922, with few coalitions, the Conservatives and Labour have battled it out to be our governing party. For example, if we look at the results of the 2019 Election, the Conservatives won 43.6% of the vote and Labour won 32.2% of the vote. Coming in third was the Liberal Democrats with 11.5% of the vote. Seats wise, the Conservatives had 365 seats, Labour 203 and Lib Dem 11. This data tells us that both in percentage of votes and seats the Conservatives and Labour are the two dominant parties (by a landslide) and therefore it could be argued that they are the only two that matter.

Here the student is giving too much statistical information about seats won etc., which is overshadowing the point they are making. Just below it they summarise the data and begin to make (and end) their point.

Overall the highlighted parts outline the relevant AO1, and despite lots of content, it is actually quite limited.

Exam Focus

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Evaluate the view that the only parties that matter are Labour and Conservative’ – looking at AO1 It can be argued that the Conservative and Labour Parties are in fact the only political parties to matter within UK politics due to their continuous domination at all general elections because they are the only two parties to ever win majorities in Westminster. In fact, the UK has at times been described as having a dominant party system where for a prolonged period of time between 1997 and 2010 the Labour Party held the majority in the Commons following the Conservative’s dominance between 1979 and 1992. The repetitive pattern of political power exchanging hands between the Conservative and Labour Parties highlights their supremacy over the UK political climate, providing them with the greatest opportunity to influence UK politics. As a result, this may lead to conclusions that due to their political dominance they are the only two parties to matter.

Here the student gets straight to the point they are making in the opening sentence. The student uses key words like ‘dominant party systems’ very effectively.

They use examples very effectively to develop their point, without overdoing it.

Throughout their whole answer, they have not lost sight of the question and selected AO1 effectively to answer it.

AO2 in detail ‘Analyse aspects of politics and political information, including in relation to parallels, connections, similarities and differences.’ AO2 requires students to analyse in two distinct ways:

»»Firstly, to examine and explore AO1 in more detail, or as the Level Based Mark Scheme puts it (see page 321), to make ‘logical chains of reasoning’.

»»Secondly, to make ‘comparative analysis’ by ‘drawing on similarities and differences’ to make ‘cohesive and convincing connections’. Comparative analysis also relates to changes over time.

The first aspect of AO2 requires students to explore and probe AO1 points that they have raised. This is often a challenge to understand. Sometimes, students add AO1 detail, thinking this is the same as analysing a point: Often, students make the same point in different ways, rather than develop their point:

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Evaluate the view that devolution has been successful in the UK.’ – looking at AO2 It can be argued that devolution has not been successful because it has seen an asymmetric amount of power devolved to each country. The main features of devolved power in the UK are legislative, financial and administrative. Devolution has arguably been asymmetric because Scotland has been provided the most power, followed by Wales and then Northern Ireland. This is asymmetric as it provides different powers to the different regions. This means that some parts have more powers than others.

This paragraph doesn’t really move on from the initial point that devolution is asymmetric.

313

314 Essentials of UK Politics and Government Sometimes it’s easier to use phrases which naturally lend themselves to analysis:

»»this means that »»therefore »»this leads to

»»this is because »»this shows that »»as a consequence

»»as a result.

You can try to use one of these phrases after you’ve written a couple of sentences at the beginning of your paragraph to help you analyse your point. Using ‘signposts’ like these helps to flag to your teacher that you are analysing.

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Evaluate the view that devolution has been successful in the UK.’ – looking at AO2 It can be argued that devolution has not been successful because it has seen an asymmetric amount of power devolved to each country. The main features of devolved power in the UK are legislative, financial and administrative, but devolution has developed in an asymmetric manner as Scotland has been provided with more power than the other two nations. This had led to tensions within the UK and calls for greater regional balance. ……. As a consequence of the asymmetrical nature of devolution in the UK, some English cities have been given their own Mayors and English Votes for English laws has attempted to unsuccessfully redress the unfairness of the ‘West Lothian Question’. Hence it can be seen that as a result of the asymmetric nature of devolution, it has not been successful in the UK.

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Evaluate the view that social factors determine voting behaviour.’ – looking at AO2 The class division is no longer as pronounced as it was due to class dealignment. This has happened because society has generally become more affluent and some of the working class aspire to be middle class, as they want to earn more and own property. This is shown by Thatcher’s policy of the sale of council homes to tenants to help get them on the property ladder, so those who were working class can feel like they have something to aspire to be rather than just sitting at the bottom of the pecking order.

Here the student has started the point with asymmetric devolution but extended it to show why it caused problems, before concluding that, as a result, devolution has not been successful.

The phrase ‘no longer’ here shows change over time which is an important element of AO2. Here the student is developing their AO2 by developing an example to explore the point more deeply.

While examples are primarily a feature of AO1, the way they are used can allow them to improve a student’s AO2.

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Evaluate the view that wealth is the key factor in pressure group success.’ – looking at how to develop examples Basic example – As well as wealth, celebrity endorsement can make pressure groups more successful, such as Marcus Rashford and the free school meals issue during Covid.

This demonstrates AO1 only.

Exam Focus

Explained example – As well as wealth, celebrity endorsement can make pressure groups more successful, such as Marcus Rashford and the Free Meal vouchers in the summer holidays during the Covid Crisis. By publicly talking about his own experiences of growing up in poverty, and how necessary the vouchers were to his family, he was able to create empathy and support for the scheme among the wider public and was successful in making the government do a U-turn. Rashford’s involvement in this campaign made it successful because it raised the media profile of the campaign, helping it to gain public sympathy and in turn put pressure on the government.

315

This demonstrates AO1 and AO2.

The second aspect of AO2 requires students to apply comparative analysis. Comparative analysis is a key part of essay writing. This means looking at two different features and then comparing and contrasting them to see where there might be similarities and/or differences. It also relates to comparing how one thing may have changed over time, for example, the power of a Prime Minister, or the effectiveness of Parliament. Students often don’t understand how to construct comparative analysis, as opposed to just writing about two different things. A very useful way to enhance comparative analysis is by using comparative language. This will enable you to draw comparisons and contrasts between different arguments. Some simple ways to incorporate comparative analysis is by using words like:

»»whereas »»despite »»however »»similarly »»although

»»not only »»but also »»in contrast »»both »»as well as

»»instead »»no longer »»still

As mentioned earlier, using ‘signposts’ like this helps to flag to your teacher that you are analysing. There is a simple way to understand the difference between comparative analysis and simply discussing two different things. Take the following example.

Source: iStock.com/ bahadir-yeniceri

Source: iStock.com/ chrisbrignell

Here are two bottles. Let’s start off describing them both.

‘This container holds milk and is designed in a way to keep the milk fresh. It is made from glass, which is transparent. This bottle is cylindrical and has a tapering neck to allow easy pouring of the milk. It has a coloured foil lid which has been heat sealed on. Milk in glass bottles is usually delivered to the door and the bottles are collected so they can be sanitised and reused, almost immediately.’

This is knowledge - AO1 ‘This container holds milk and is made of plastic. It has been designed to keep milk fresh. It has an opaque finish and a different coloured plastic lid. Under the lid, it has a heat-sealed foil cap to keep the milk fresh. This bottle is rectangular in shape and is tapered at the top to make pouring the milk easier. The design of the container also incorporates a handle to make holding and pouring even easier. Milk in plastic containers like this is normally sold in shops. The container can be recycled.’

This is knowledge - AO1

316 Essentials of UK Politics and Government Above are correct facts about both containers but there is no comparison. Now we are going to take these facts and turn them into a comparative paragraph.

‘Both containers hold milk. While they are both designed to help kee p the milk fresh, the way they do this is different. The glass bottle just has a heat-sealed foil lid, whereas the plastic bottle has a heat-sealed foil l id as well as a plastic screw cap too which makes the bottle easier to reseal o nce the foil lid has been removed. One clear way they are different is that one is made of glass and the other of plastic. This also means that while one is transparent, the other is opaque. In addition, because one is made of plastic, it has been shaped to incorporate a handle which makes it easier to carry. Their shape is another area of difference; one is cylindrical in shape whereas the other one is rectangular. However, despite this difference, both are tapered at the top in order to make it easier to pour the milk. One final comparison is their ability to be reused. While it’s clear that both can be recycled, only the glass bottle can be almost instantly reused, simply requiring sanitising after use to enable it to be reused. The plastic bottle, on the other hand, needs a lengthier process of recycling before the plasti c can be reused.’

This is comparative analysis - AO2. This type of technique can be used in essays and source answers when discussing the relative merits of one side over another. In order for comparative analysis to be effective it’s essential to match your arguments ‘for’ and ‘against’. Throughout this book we have provided matched, paired points for you to consider when writing essays. If you look at the example above, the comparisons are made between two related aspects of the containers; lids are compared with lids, shape is compared with shape. The comparison would not be effective if we compared the lid of one with the shape of the other; it would be an inadequate comparison. This is true when comparing arguments – they need to relate to each other. Try this technique when comparing different electoral systems. For example, compare whether different electoral systems provide local representation or whether they fairly reflect voting patterns. Equally, when looking at similarities or differences between party policies, it would be wise to compare their foreign policies, their welfare policies and their policies on law and order. You wouldn’t compare one’s foreign policy with another’s welfare policy, it would not really enable you to make effective comparisons. Throughout the book, the topic debates have been laid out in this way, pairing and comparing arguments. There are also summary tables at the end of each debate so you can use them when revising a topic.

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Evaluate the view that the differences between the political parties are greater than the similarities.’ – looking at comparative analysis AO2 Economics are, for the three major parties, rather moderate and an area of similarity as all three parties support capitalism as their primary economic policy. All three parties support the principle of equality of opportunity and this principle can be seen in many of their policies: support for the NHS and state-funded education. As well as this there is a genuine mutual support for international trade.

Here the student is identifying and drawing on similarities between the parties.

Exam Focus

317

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Evaluate the view that the differences between the political parties are greater than the similarities.’ – looking at comparative analysis AO2 Despite their similarities, the parties disagree when it comes to welfare. While it’s clear that the Conservative Party seeks to reduce dependency on welfare, shown by their introduction of the Universal Credit system, Labour, on the other hand, disagrees and instead wishes to scrap Universal Credit for being ineffective, divisive and unfair. While Chancellor George Osborne seems to see a divide between ‘skivers’ on welfare and ‘strivers’ who work, Labour instead argues that many people who benefit from welfare have a full-time job but still do not earn enough to survive.’

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Using the source, evaluate the view that the use of proportional representation would not improve elections to the Commons.’ – looking at comparative analysis AO2 While it is true that FPTP is unfair to smaller parties as it requires a high concentration of votes in a constituency, this ‘problem’ leads to a positive outcome, as usually one of the two major parties is able to form a strong and stable government, and hence more able to make coherent and conclusive decisions on key matters.

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Evaluate the view that Parliament is able to sufficiently limit the power of the Prime Minister.’ – looking at comparative analysis AO2 While it has been argued that previously Parliament was unable to challenge the power of Prime Ministers, more recent times have shown this view to be inaccurate. Since 2010, and especially in the 2017–19 Parliament, Prime Ministers have been very effectively challenged by Parliament. Reduced majorities and more rebellious backbenchers have made life difficult for more recent Prime Ministers. Theresa May went down in history for the biggest government defeat, losing by 230 votes. This is a far cry from Blair not losing a single vote between 1997 and 2005.

Here the student is looking at differences, comparing views and making effective use of comparative language.

In this small extract from a longer paragraph, the student is effectively referencing an earlier argument that FPTP is unfair to smaller parties but then challenging this argument with another one. This is an effective example of comparative analysis.

This student is comparing the past with the present, making effective comparative analysis

They are also using their examples effectively to enhance their point.

AO3 in detail ‘Evaluate aspects of politics and political information, including to construct arguments, make substantiated judgements and draw conclusions.’ This AO requires you to evaluate. This means weighing up the evidence on both sides and coming to a reasoned judgement. You must come down on one side; you must conclude that one side of the argument is better than the other. It doesn’t matter which side, as all perspectives are equally valid. Additionally, your conclusion can be that one side wins hands down, or that one side is marginally more convincing than the other, as long as you conclude that it is the ‘better side’.

318 Essentials of UK Politics and Government However, the AO requires you to make a ‘substantiated judgement’, in other words you can’t just present both sides equally throughout the essay and then, in your conclusion, argue that side X is stronger than side Y. A substantiated judgement is one which is argued throughout the answer. This can begin in the introduction, continue throughout the essay and be reasserted in the conclusion. This means that answers need to be carefully thought out and planned to ensure that AO3 is embedded throughout your answer. In addition, AO3 marks can be improved by weighing up the importance of the point you are making, for example by using phrases such as: ‘this is one of the most important arguments in favour of’, ‘this argument is very significant’, ‘this point may be of less importance than others’.

Incorporating AO3 in introductions STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Using the source, evaluate the view that UK democracy is in crisis.’ – looking at AO3 in introductions. ‘In this essay I will consider the source’s view on the low participation at the ballot box and how it demonstrates UK democracy in crisis. In contrast I will also consider the view that participation outside the ballot box is on the rise, demonstrating a democracy that is not in crisis. I will consider the source’s view that the levels of trust and confidence in the government are low, and in contrast I will consider how its impact is minimised as it is caused by shortterm factors, not long-term ones. In my essay I will argue that UK democracy is not in crisis.’

Although this introduction unnecessarily outlines all the points it will make (for more information on introductions), it does set out clearly in the final sentence the way it is going to argue to answer the question.

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Using the source, evaluate the view that the use of proportional representation would not improve elections to the Commons.’ – looking at AO3 in introductions. The current electoral system used for elections in the Commons is the system of First Past the Post (FPTP). This electoral system is a simple plurality electoral system whereby constituents elect one candidate from a political party to represent them in the House of Commons. First past the post is the current electoral system used in Westminster. There are flaws with the system, however it is extremely unlikely that there would be an entirely flawless system. Hence, this essay will argue that the use of proportional representation would not improve elections to the Commons.

While this is quite a long introduction, from an AO3 perspective it nails the key aspect of outlining the way it is going to argue.

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Evaluate the view that the only parties that matter are Labour and Conservative.’ – looking at AO3 in introductions I agree with the view to some extent; however, I do not think that Labour and Conservatives are the only parties that matter. I think that they are the dominant parties but other parties matter in order to secure Britain as a democracy. However, some would agree with the view due to the First Past the Post voting system, who actually votes for them and why. But some would disagree due to the ability of smaller parties to influence politics and discussions in Parliament.

This student is not answering the question in their introduction – they are giving all the possible options of what they might think. This is to be avoided.

Exam Focus

319

Incorporating AO3 throughout the essay One of the most important things to understand about all three AOs is that they don’t work in isolation. AO2 feeds off AO1 and AO3 feeds off AO2 and hence in turn, AO1. In other words, in order to enhance AO3, it is necessary, firstly, to know the arguments on both sides of the debate (AO1), and then to have developed and compared both sides with each other (AO2). If this has been done, you are then able to come to a ‘substantiated judgement’ about which side of the debate you think is stronger. While it’s important for AO3 to top and tail answers with effective introductions and conclusions, this is not enough. To achieve a Level 5 in AO3, the Pearson Level Based Mark Scheme (see pages 321–4) requires students to

‘Construct fully relevant evaluation of political information, constructing fully effective arguments and judgements, which are consistently substantiated and lead to fully focused and justified conclusions’ This can be interpreted to mean that your AO3 must exist throughout the answer. We’re now going to look at ways this can be achieved. Let’s assume a student has argued in one paragraph in favour of a point and in the following paragraph they’ve argued against it. How then can they add evaluation to this? One way is to add an ‘interim judgement’. This is a third paragraph after the two described above which evaluates which side of the argument is stronger.

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Evaluate the view that the only parties that matter are Labour and Conservative.’ – looking at AO3 via interim judgements All of this evidence does however suggest that the view that the Labour and Conservative parties are the only parties that matter in our political system is valid. This is because they are the two most powerful parties in the UK right now, as they have the most elected MPs in Parliament who have the ability to influence decisions.

This paragraph above is relatively brief, but does manage to provide a judgement, enhancing AO3 marks.

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Evaluate the view that the only parties that matter are Labour and Conservative.’ – looking at AO3 via interim judgements Overall, although it is valid to conclude that the Conservative and Labour parties have the most important influence over UK politics, it is unjust to claim they are the only parties to matter, as if that were the case the Coalition would

have never been able to occur. Nevertheless the importance of minor parties cannot be exaggerated because, although the Liberal Democrats were able to form government in the Coalition, they have failed to ever gain a majority within the House of Commons. Furthermore, following the Coalition their influence over UK politics has only declined, as seen in the 2019 General Election results where they were only able to secure 11 seats, highlighting that although important, minor parties still fail to compare to both the Conservative and Labour Parties who in comparison matter more. ‘ This longer paragraph is much more detailed in its evaluation, considering both sides and balancing one view against the other before concluding that Labour and Conservatives matter more. It’s also useful to note that this response is more nuanced in its evaluation. It is not arguing that smaller parties don’t matter at all, but that ultimately, despite their importance in a number of ways, they don’t matter as much as the two main parties, fulfilling the requirement

320 Essentials of UK Politics and Government to make a judgement, but suggesting that it is a marginal one. This is completely valid. The important thing to understand about this paragraph is that it does come down on one side, however marginally. Another way of incorporating AO3 into answers is by integrating AO3 into the two-paragraph model mentioned earlier.

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Evaluate the view that Parliament is able to sufficiently limit the power of the Prime Minister.’ – looking at AO3 judgements incorporated into paragraphs. ‘Convention dictates that Prime Ministers are only able to act if they have the support of Parliament. For instance, Blair sought and won a vote in the Commons before taking action in Iraq; in 2003, equally, Cameron lost a vote in the Commons on military intervention in Syria and accepted he had to change his policy. After the vote Cameron said it was clear Parliament did not want action and ‘the government will act accordingly’. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller v DExEU showed that the Prime Minister’s prerogative powers may not be used to nullify rights that Parliament has enacted through primary legislation. This forced the PM to seek Parliament’s permission to trigger Article 50. However, this argument must be rejected as there are numerous examples of Prime Ministers taking major decisions with little consideration of Parliament. May did not consult Parliament, saying it was ‘legally and morally right’ for the UK to join air strikes against Syria in 2018 and ‘it was my responsibility as PM to make these decisions’. Using the Article 50 example, despite most MPs not wishing to leave the EU, the legislation to trigger Article 50 passed the Commons by 498 votes to 114. In most cases, FPTP enables Prime Ministers to win sizeable majorities in elections which make it easier to win votes in the Commons. This shows that Prime Ministers have many ways of encouraging a reluctant Parliament to do as they wish, showing that Parliament is not in any way effective in limiting the power of the Prime Minister.

This integrated second paragraph above shows how the student is evaluating by incorporating their view into their paragraph. In this type of method, they are presenting the argument they don’t agree with in the first paragraph, but then arguing against it, expressing their view, in the second. While this way is more complex, it might be less time consuming than adding a third paragraph, as the first way outlined. Either of these methods are highly effective ways of incorporating AO3 into your answers and ensuring that judgements are demonstrated throughout your answer.

Incorporating AO3 in conclusions While your introductions begin the process of AO3, your conclusion should simply bring your whole argument together and end the journey. What a conclusion should not do is contain all your evaluation in one place; evaluation must be spread throughout your essay.

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Evaluate the view that devolution has been successful in the UK.’ – looking at AO3 in conclusions. Overall, despite devolution leading to anger from some due to its asymmetric nature, devolution has clearly been successful because it has led to devolved government making key decisions regarding their country. Moreover, although nationalism is rising in the devolved regions, devolution has not led to any sort of break-up of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is clear to see that devolution has been successful in the United Kingdom.

Here the student is bringing their essay to a close with a summary of their points and reinforcing the view from their whole essay that devolution has been successful.

Exam Focus

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Evaluate the view that the only parties that matter are Labour and Conservatives.’ – looking at AO3 in conclusions. To conclude, Labour and Conservatives are the two biggest parties and they are the only two that are likely to form a government (largely due to FPTP), however, this doesn’t mean that they are the only parties that matter. Smaller parties have the ability to influence politics and they represent the views of many that are lost within the voting system. Minor parties matter but don’t receive the same representation, which leaves the impression that Labour and Conservatives are the only parties that matter. However, I disagree.’

321

This is a conclusion which raises as many questions as it answers. Although it ends the paragraph with ‘I disagree’, it has taken so many twists and turns it is uncertain what they disagree with. It is always best to keep conclusions simple and simply restate the view argued through the essay.

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Evaluate the view that Parliament has become more effective.’ – looking at AO3 in conclusions. ‘In conclusion, it is correct to argue that Parliament is indeed highly effective. Via three crucial elements – the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and select committees – Parliament is able to successfully deliver its function of ensuring legislation is compatible with public and national interest, that the government is held to account, and democracy is subsequently upheld. These three cooperative elements of Parliament arguably hold the most influence in doing so, offering focused attention on the political processes of the United Kingdom in order to consistently improve and develop it.’

This is a detailed conclusion which reinforces at the beginning of the paragraph what it has been arguing throughout the answer.

Level Based Mark Schemes Level Based Mark Schemes (LBMS) are used by Pearson and other boards to mark student answers. This shows you the different levels for each AO and the marks they would achieve. Below is a simplified version of the table you will find in a Pearson Mark Scheme. This shows you that your final mark will be made up of individual marks achieved for AO1, AO2 and AO3. In order to do well, it is therefore essential to do well across all three AOs, as in UK answers each AO is worth one-third of your answer (10 + 10 + 10 = 30).

UK Essays & Sources Descriptor Summaries AO1 Level

AO1 - Superficial knowledge and understanding, limiting the ability to underpin analysis and evaluation (Component 2 essays – makes limited synoptic points)

Level

AO1 - Some accurate knowledge and understanding, some of which is selected appropriately (Component 2 essays – makes some relevant synoptic points)

Level

AO1 - Mostly accurate knowledge and understanding, much of which is selected appropriately (Component 2 essays – makes generally relevant synoptic points)

Level

AO1 - Accurate knowledge and understanding, which is carefully selected. (Component 2 essays – makes relevant and focused synoptic points)

Level

AO1 - Thorough and in-depth knowledge and understanding, which is selected effectively (Component 2 essays – makes convincing and cohesive synoptic points)

1

2 3 4 5

322 Essentials of UK Politics and Government So, to begin with the AO1 table, here judgements are made on the knowledge and understanding you have presented to answer the question. Is the knowledge ‘superficial’, ‘accurate’ or ‘thorough’. In other words, how well do you know your stuff? Have you prepared and revised well, did you take in what your teachers have taught you, or are you just winging it, with vague recollections of what your teachers taught you? Secondly, how relevant is the content you have chosen in answering the question – is it highly ‘effectively’ chosen or is only some of it ‘appropriate’? In other words, are you answering the question or are you rambling on, spouting everything you know about something? Are you answering the question set in the exam, or the one you had prepared for, hoping no one will notice? Depending on what you present, your answer will be placed in one of 5 Levels for AO1.

UK Essays & Sources Descriptor Summaries AO2 Level

AO2 – Limited comparative analysis with partial logical reasoning, making simplistic connections

Level

AO2 – Some emerging comparative analysis with some focused logical reasoning, making some relevant connections

Level

AO2 – Mostly focused comparative analysis with focused logical reasoning, making mostly relevant connections

Level

AO2 – Consistent comparative analysis with coherent logical reasoning, making relevant connections

Level

AO2 – Perceptive comparative analysis, with sustained, logical reasoning making cohesive and convincing connections

1

2 3 4 5

As previously discussed, AO2 consists of two parts, exploring the AO1 in more detail (‘logical reasoning’) and secondly, comparing different elements to find comparisons and contrasts (‘comparative analysis’). The same process occurs as with AO1, how good is your logical reasoning? Is it ‘partial’, ‘focused’ or ‘sustained’? To simplify, how well are you probing and examining the points you’ve raised? Are you exploring and making your point relevant to the question? Equally with comparative analysis, are you comparing ‘cohesively’ or ‘simplistically’? Are you comparing the arguments For and Against the issue directly in the structure of your essay or are you simply outlining one set of arguments in favour and then following that by outlining the opposing views? Are you judging the effectiveness of one institution directly with another, or just explaining what each does in turn? Comparative analysis requires you to find the similarities and/ or differences and present them as such in your answer. Depending on what you present, your answer will be placed in one of 5 Levels for AO2.

UK Essays & Sources Descriptor Summaries AO3 Level

AO3 – Superficial evaluation, constructing simple judgements, many which are descriptive and lead to unsubstantiated conclusions

Level

AO3 – Some relevant evaluation, constructing occasionally effective judgements, some are partially substantiated and lead to generic conclusions

Level

AO3 – Generally relevant evaluation, constructing generally effective judgements, many of which are substantiated and lead to some focused conclusions that are sometimes justified

1

2 3

Exam Focus Level

AO3 – Mostly relevant evaluation, constructing mostly effective judgements, which are mostly substantiated and lead to mostly focused, justified conclusions

Level

AO3 – Fully relevant evaluation, constructing fully effective substantiated judgements, which are consistently substantiated and lead to fully focused and justified conclusions

4 5

Lastly there is AO3 – evaluation. This AO requires an ‘answer’, and for that answer to be consistently argued throughout the essay, i.e. ‘substantiated’. So is your evaluation ‘unsubstantiated’, ‘partially substantiated’ or ‘consistently substantiated’? In other words, does your answer only come in your conclusion as a complete surprise because there have been no indicators prior to this? Or have you begun to outline your view in the introduction, argued it throughout the paragraphs and tied it all together in a brief conclusion? Depending on what you present, your answer will be placed in one of 5 Levels for AO3. The table below outlines the total marks for all AOs out of 30. When marking your answer, your teachers will take a view of your performance on each AO and place you in one of these levels, and then allocate you a final mark.

UK Essays & Sources Marks out of 30 Level

1

Level

2

Level

3

Level

4

Level

5

1–6 7–12 13–18 19–24 25–30

So, let’s imagine your answer has got very good AO1 (L4 perhaps), analysis is good (say, L3), but AO3 is weaker (somewhere around L2). It is likely that your answer would end up in L3 overall, between 13 and 18/30. If you were in the higher end of those levels for all three AOs, you might be at the higher end of the mark and vice versa. It’s interesting and important to note that you would have received a middling mark despite the fact that your knowledge was in the higher levels. As discussed at the beginning, you must remember that all three AOs have the same value, you have to be successful in all three to be successful.

Source questions Question 1 of both UK papers are source-based questions. Like the essay questions they are worth 30 marks and you should think about spending 40–45 minutes on them. Source questions can be asked about any aspect of the Component 1 or Component 2 UK specification and can be made up of text, a table, graphs or charts or a combination of these. They could be presented as one source or two separate sources. They will usually have the stem ‘Using the source, evaluate the view that…’.

323

324 Essentials of UK Politics and Government The source (or sources) will have the two sides of an argument to a debate and the question will be about this debate. For example, if the question is, ‘Using the source, evaluate the view that Parliament no longer fulfils its functions’, the source will put forward the views that it does AND it does not fulfil its functions. Your job is to use the points raised in the source to formulate your answer. The source below is from the June 2019 Component 1 Edexcel paper

Source: Pearson Edexcel Level 3 GCE: Politics (Advanced), Paper 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas (2019) (9PL0/01)

Instructions on the exam paper There are some clear requirements about what you need to do in a source question. On the exam paper, after the source question, there will be a short list to guide you, as follows: ‘In your response you must’:

»»‘compare and contrast the different opinions in the source’ ‐‐ This means you must use the points in the source to construct your essay, finding areas of agreement and disagreement.

»»‘examine and debate these views in a balanced way’ ‐‐ This means that you must look at both sides discussed in the source and give both fair consideration (see section on balance on page 310).

»»‘analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source’

Exam Focus

‐‐

This piece of advice relates to the fact that AO2 and AO3 can only be awarded to points derived from the source. In other words, you can mention points not included in the source, but you will get no AO2 or AO3 marks from them. Students often find this advice quite complicated and follow the simpler advice to not introduce any new points that are not in the source.

Provenance Another area of confusion for students (especially students of A-Level History) is the issue of the provenance of the source, i.e. its origins, or its authors. While it is expected that A-Level History students consider the source’s origin and what that may mean with regards to the source’s bias or its reliability, this is NOT the case with sources in A-Level Politics. There is no need to do this and students will waste valuable time if they choose to ignore this advice.

Preparing to answer the source Source answers should be structured in exactly the same way as essays. The only difference is where your points come from. In theory, you have 45 minutes to answer a source question, but in reality, you will have less than this. Below are some suggestions for how to prepare your answer. 1. It’s essential to read the source thoroughly, your answer must be based on it. Read it through once first. 2. Read through it a second time and now use two different coloured highlighters to highlight the arguments in favour in one colour and the arguments against in another colour. 3. Make a simple grid plan (see below). Write down very briefly – one or two words is fine – the arguments for each side as outlined in the source. These, and only these, will form the basis of your answer (if you are really struggling with time you could miss this step out). 4. Pair up the arguments and counterarguments as much as possible (see the red arrows below). 5. Use these points as outlined throughout this chapter (although you do not have to use them all, just use the ones you feel are the most important and you are most confident writing about).

FOR

AGAINST

1.

a.

2.

b.

3

c.

4

d.

‘Using the source’ The phrase preceding the question in source questions is ‘Using the source……’ and this is the most important aspect of answering a source question. As you can see in the first bullet above, you are being told to ‘compare and contrast the different opinions IN THE SOURCE’. You must not ignore this advice. The whole point of the source is that you should read, understand and then debate the source’s views on the question and not hijack the question to answer it in the way you want to. (This is the point of the essays (Question 2) where you can freestyle with the points you choose to answer the question.) In many ways, the source can be seen as easier: because it is giving you the points to discuss, you don’t have to think of them yourself!

325

326 Essentials of UK Politics and Government So, for example, if a source says that, ‘First Past the Post (FPTP) invariably delivers strong and stable government’, you could use that point in your answer in two ways: 1. ‘According to the source, “FPTP invariably delivers strong and stable government”. This point is supported by looking at the results of general elections in the post-war era…’ OR 2. ‘The source suggests that one of the advantages of FPTP is that it creates stability by delivering single party, strong governments. This point is supported by looking at the results of general elections in the post-war era…’ 1. directly quotes the source before continuing to discuss it, whereas 2. paraphrases the point made in the source. Both of these are excellent ways of fulfilling the criterion of ‘using the source’. What you should avoid, however, is writing out large chunks of the source, which is both time consuming and unnecessary.

Proportional representation would improve elections to the Commons because, under FPTP, parties running in elections ‘seek to defeat their opposition completely’, which in turn leads to very little cooperation between the parties after the election. FPTP often leads to a majority government in Parliament, as seen in the most recent general election in 2019, where Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party won an 80-seat majority. This has meant that parties in Parliament, especially the two major parties, have become more divided and less concerned with ‘post-election cooperation’, as Caroline Lucas MP suggests. Here the student has referenced the source twice in very brief direct references.

Interpreting AO1 for source answers As previously discussed, the three AOs are worth one-third each of the 30 marks available in your source answer. While AO2 and AO3 are the same in essays and source questions, students can sometimes get confused about how to achieve good AO1 marks in sources. In a source, AO1 marks generally begin from points within the source, i.e. by identifying a key AO1 point made in the source. In addition, you can improve your AO1 mark by adding an explanation of the point raised in the source. Using examples and evidence to explain the point also adds to AO1 marks.

Proportional representation would not improve elections to the Commons because FPTP leads to a ‘strong and stable government’, as Steve Double MP suggests. FPTP, due to requiring parties to have a high concentration of votes, often gives the winning party a winner’s bonus. This was seen recently in the general election in 2019, where Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party won an 80-seat majority. Here the student has taken a point from the source and then explained it before adding an example.

Debating not describing One other issue with the source is to make sure you are not simply describing what the source says. Sometimes, students simply outline what the source is saying in their answers.

The case for keeping FPTP is made by Steve Double MP. He outlines a number of reasons why FPTP is better for the Commons than PR. He argues that FPTP delivers strong and stable government which can be seen in almost every election since 1945. He also argues that FPTP maintains a direct link between MPs and their constituents… This doesn’t meet the basic purpose of what is required. The source answer needs to debate the issues raised in the source, not simply explain them in your own words.

Exam Focus

Structuring source and essay answers Introductions and conclusions Introductions play an important role in source and essay answers. They should usually fulfil two to three functions.

»»First, you should define anything that MAY need defining. (This one depends on the title and

can be ignored in some cases – if it’s a word or phrase that would be commonly understood, e.g. democracy, then it probably doesn’t need defining, but if it’s a less well-known phrase or concept, e.g. democratic deficit, then it probably does).

‐‐

So, if a question is asking whether the UK is suffering from a participation crisis, it would be useful to provide a brief definition of what this phrase means. Equally, however, if the question is whether the UK is a democracy, the term ‘democracy’ probably does not need defining in the introduction (although you may choose to outline the criteria for judging throughout the essay).

»»The second purpose an introduction should serve is to provide context to the question/answer. ‐‐ This is usually a summary of the two perspectives of the debate and/or changes over time.

‐‐

It’s important to note the word ‘summary’. Too often students list all the arguments they are going to debate throughout their essay, both for and against, in their introduction. This is unnecessary and a waste of precious words (and hence time). A couple of sentences which sum up the key views of each side are more than sufficient. In a source answer, you should follow the advice above but also use this as an opportunity to reference the source, i.e. ‘according to the source’. Again, it should still be a summary, but you should refer to something in the source. This shows that you are fully engaged with it.

»»A final, but key, function of an introduction is to express a view. ‐‐ This is crucial to your AO3 analysis. It needs to be clear. ‐‐ Often students end their introduction by stating their intention to investigate both sides and

come to a view. It is better, at this stage to outline the view that you are going to take to signal that you are fully aware of the AO3 demands. This is why it is so important to plan your answer fully before you start writing – you need to know your destination.

Visit the companion website and navigate to the section about how to plan your revision and effectively prepare for your exam.

Conclusions are crucial because they play a parallel role to introductions. The role of a conclusion should not be underestimated.

»»A good conclusion should be brief, it should not be rambling. »» It is the culmination of your essay and the last thing to be read. Its objective is to reassert your view. »»You need to briefly bring all the arguments together and clarify your line of argument by making your point of view clear.

»»You need to be convincing and persuasive without being overly strident or dismissive. Remember, it’s OK to argue that the perspective you are arguing has only marginally ‘won’.

»»Remember, the conclusion is your last chance to convince the reader of your view.

327

328 Essentials of UK Politics and Government

How to organise paragraphs

Figure

One of the most challenging aspects of exam questions is bringing everything you’ve learnt together to answer the question asked of you while making sure you are hitting the requirements of all three AOs. Here we are going to look at ways you can organise your answers to be as effective as possible. This advice applies equally to sources and essays. The only difference between the two is (a) where your points come from and (b) ensuring you reference the source. Apart from that, the structure of essays and sources can be identical 11.1  Structure 1 because the AOs they need to hit are the same.

Introduction Argument For 1 FOR

Argument For 2 Argument For 3 Argument Against 1

AGAINST

Argument Against 2 Argument Against 3

Conclusion Figure 11.2  Structure 2

Introduction Section One

Argument For 1

Section Two

Argument For 2

Section Three

Argument For 3

Argument Against 1 Argument Against 2 Argument Against 3

Conclusion Figure 11.3  Structure 3

Introduction Section One

Section Two

Section Three

Argument For 1 Argument Against 1 Interim Judgement Argument For 2 Argument Against 2 Interim Judgement Argument For 3 Argument Against 3 Interim Judgement

Conclusion

Firstly, it goes without saying that you need to know your stuff. No amount of organising paragraphs can drastically improve the quality of a student’s answer if it doesn’t show good knowledge and understanding of the content. As was outlined on page 000, AO1 is the foundation of everything else; without it, there is a limit to what can be achieved. On the assumption that AO1 knowledge is solid, it’s important to know how you can ensure that the structure of your answer is set up to address the different needs laid out in this chapter. We’ve covered introductions and conclusions, so that leaves the main body of the essay. The first step when considering the content you need to answer a question is to select the best arguments to discuss. In the source, this has already been done for you (see pages 324–7). Once you’ve decided on the best content, how then do you organise this? One option is considered in Figure 11.1. The problem with the structure in Figure 11.1 is that, while it covers AO1, it is very difficult to achieve any AO2 comparative marks because it is hard to compare the ‘for’ and ‘against’ arguments if they are all bunched together. Additionally, if arguments ‘for’ and ‘against’ aren’t compared, it is hard to make substantiated judgment (AO3) throughout the essay. Although it is feasible to make the second half of the essay comparative, by relating the ‘against’ arguments back to the ‘for’ arguments at the beginning, this is not ideal. This structure is not ideal because it limits your ability to access two of the three AOs. So, what structure would best enable an answer to address all three AOs? The answer is clearly one that pairs ‘for’ and ‘against’ arguments and which facilitates comparative analysis, consequently enabling substantiated judgements to be made. Once you’ve selected your arguments, the next stage is to organise your arguments into pairs, ideally matching the ‘for’ and ‘against’ pair (this is discussed in more detail on page 000). Throughout this book, we have laid out the arguments to Key Topic Debates according to this structure. This is important because this is the key to both AO2 comparative analysis and AO3 evaluation. It’s not enough to pair any ‘for’ argument with any ‘against’ argument – they have to be related to each other. Let’s call each pair of arguments a ‘section’. How many sections is reasonable? On the assumption that you have no more than 45 minutes in the exam, it is fair to say more than one and less than four! Our suggested essay structure looks something like Figure 11.2. The structure in Fig. 11.2 covers AO1 and AO2, but still leaves AO3 to be included. We know that AO3 must be included throughout the answer, not just left to the end, or even just the beginning and end. Two possible ways of including AO3 in the answer are considered here. This first option includes an interim judgement after both views are taken into consideration. The structure would look something like Figure 11.3. In this extract, the student is ticking all three AOs in a highly effective and clear way.

Exam Focus

329

Argument against 1

It can be argued that there is a participation crisis because the public have limited interest in engaging with and participating in politics. This is suggested by the decreasing voter turnout. Since the mid-1900s there has been much fluctuation, however, the statistics are troubling for many politicians considering that voter turnout is lower in the present day than it was 50 years ago. Average voter turnout during 1945 to 1997 general elections was 76% compared to roughly 67% voter turnout in the 2019 general election. This is significant as it brings the legitimacy of the governing body into question. This is because fewer people voting means Here in the opening paragraph that the government will be elected on a smaller share of the of the section the student is outlining the arguments agreeing with the vote. The lower voter turnouts suggest that fewer people are essay title by looking at voter turnout showing an interest in politics and are less concerned if their opinions are not represented in Parliament.

Alternatively, others may argue that there is not a participation crisis and the low voter turnout is simply due to lack of interest when things are not of huge significance. The public do not want to vote on issues that will not make a major difference in their lives or in ‘second order’ elections like those held for the bodies In the next paragraph of the section, the student is giving the in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This is because alternative arguments, crucially, these smaller bodies are seen by some as less powerful and related to voter turnout influential. Voter turnout is more likely to increase if the matter is something that will affect vast amounts of the public who feel passionately about the issue or if the issue is viewed as controversial. For example, there was a huge turnout of 72.2% for the controversial EU referendum as the outcomes of this referendum would have a significant impact on almost everyone across the country.

Interim judgement

Section One

Argument for 1

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Evaluate the view that the UK is experiencing a participation crisis.’ – looking at structure

However, this counterargument is weak because turnout is still relatively low in most, if not all, general elections. The outcomes of general elections also affect many people across the nation as the result determines which party will govern the country. This is a Finally in this section, the student matter that one would think the public would be concerned is giving their judgement. about, yet the majority of people seem to be uninterested. This proves that the UK is experiencing a participation crisis as the public aren’t involving themselves in matters that will affect them the most and they seem unaffected by this.

An alternative structure is the one shown in Fig. 11.4. This is a more complex structure but with the advantage of saving words (and hence time) as there is no separate judgement paragraph because it is incorporated into the second paragraph. For this structure to work effectively, the order that you argue the ‘for’ and ‘against’ points is important. Let’s say you are going to agree with the essay title, for this structure to work, you would begin with the ‘against’ argument (i.e. the one you DON’T agree with). You would then follow this with the one you do agree with and as part of your comparative analysis in this paragraph you would include your critical judgement.

330 Essentials of UK Politics and Government

Introduction Section One

Argument against the view you’re arguing

Section Two

Argument against the view you’re arguing

Section Three

Argument against the view you’re arguing

Argument in favour of the view you’re arguing, including substantiated judgement Argument in favour of the view you’re arguing, including substantiated judgement Argument in favour of the view you’re arguing, including substantiated judgement

Conclusion Figure 11.4  Structure 4

Argument against the view you’re arguing

Proponents of the view that the UK is not experiencing a participation crisis would argue that low voter turnout in recent years is simply due to a lack of interest in things that are not of huge significance. They argue that the public do not want to vote on issues that will not make a major difference in their lives or in so-called ‘second order’ elections, like those held for the bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This is because these smaller bodies are seen as less powerful and influential. They suggest that voter turnout is more likely to increase if the matter is something that will affect vast amounts of the public who feel passionately about the issue or if the issue is viewed as controversial. For example, there was a huge turnout of 72.2% for the controversial EU referendum as the outcomes of this referendum would have a significant impact on almost everyone across the country.

Argument in favour of the view you’re arguing, including substantiated judgement

Section One

STUDENT EXTRACT ‘Evaluate the view that the UK is experiencing a participation crisis.’ – looking at structure

However, the more compelling argument is that the UK is experiencing a participation crisis as turnout is relatively low in most general elections, as well as so-called ‘second order’ elections. General elections affect all the people across the nation as the result determines which party will govern the country. Since the mid-1900s there has been much fluctuation. However, the statistics are troubling as voter turnout is lower in the present day than it was 50 years ago, showing that there is a participation crisis. The lower voter turnout shows that fewer people are showing an interest in politics and are less concerned if their opinions are not represented in Parliament. Average voter turnout at general elections during 1945 to 1997 was 76% compared to roughly 67% voter turnout in the 2019 general election. This is significant as it brings the legitimacy of the governing body into question which is a problem in a democracy. Thus, it is clear that the UK is definitely experiencing a participation crisis as the public aren’t involving themselves in matters that will affect them the most and they seem unaffected by this.

In the first paragraph of the section, the student is outlining the argument they don’t agree with. Note that the language is relatively passive, they are presenting a view rather than arguing it.

In this second paragraph, they are clearly arguing for their view. They are critiquing the arguments above and suggesting that this side of the argument is stronger. By doing this they are incorporating their AO3 into the paragraph.

Exam Focus

331

Putting it all together We have now looked at all the different elements of an answer to an essay and a source question. Let’s now look at a whole essay and how to combine these elements to make a good answer.

For more examples of student essays with annotations highlighting good or bad practice, please see the companion website.

Sample Essay #1 ‘Evaluate the view that devolution can be considered a success.’ This essay would relate to Component 2 This answer has some really good elements but is lacking in AO3 and synoptic links.

Devolution of power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, was begun by the Labour Party in the late 1990s. It was popularly endorsed via referendums and maintains the support of the public. However, the process of devolution has been fraught with difficulties and unintended consequences, and has created constitutional disruption within the UK.

99Here the introduction does a really good job of providing context 88 but it hasn’t outlined the view it will take. Labour created the devolved bodies as part of their plan to decentralise power. They argued it would bring decisions closer to the people, with Scotland being able to implement more policies such as free tuition fees, prescriptions and social care in your own home. The popularity of these policies is reflected by the continuing success of the SNP in Scotland and Westminster. This suggests that devolution has brought stronger levels of citizen engagement with national legislatures in Scotland and Wales.

99This is showing an understanding of similarities or differences over time, which is a way of creating

effective comparative analysis. Note: identifying that things haven’t changed is still comparative analysis.

On the other hand, the devolution project introduced by the Labour Party lacked any constitutional coherence. Devolution has evolved in a piecemeal, asymmetric fashion, making it harder for the public to understand. It is not formally entrenched, and the devolution project remains deeply unsettled, as is reflected in the conflict about whether the policy areas returned from the EU post-Brexit should return to Westminster or the devolved bodies. In addition, many have argued that England has been short-changed in terms of devolution, with no English assembly and only 15 metro mayors. Moreover, with EVEL not really resolving the West Lothian Question, there is no ‘voice’ for England and EVEL remains a deeply unclear and complex Parliamentary procedure, little known or understood by the general public. This suggests that the devolution process continues to destabilise the UK constitution and creates more problems than it solves.

99This paragraph is introducing and then developing the point well, showing good knowledge of relevant examples.

88 These two paragraphs identify both sides of the argument very effectively, but don’t take a side. It is very much an ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ type of essay.

332 Essentials of UK Politics and Government Another argument in favour of devolution being a success is that the devolved assemblies are very popular, and the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all enjoy the benefits of decisions made closer to them while having the security of being part of the United Kingdom. During the Covid outbreak, each of the component nations of the UK chose their own path with regards to going into and easing lockdown, while all benefitting from the substantial economic measures which were paid for by the Treasury of the United Kingdom. This example clearly shows the benefits of a dual system whereby decisions can be taken locally, in a region-sensitive way, while unexpected storms can be weathered by being part of a larger state. This suggests that the devolution process has been successful because devolved assemblies are more popular than when they started and there are no main parties now suggesting that the devolution process should be reversed.

99Here is a great instance of an example being very effectively used to develop the point made. By explaining the example, the point is explored and developed.

However, the alternative view is that devolution would lead to the break-up of the Union, as the Conservative Party suggested in the 1990s when it opposed devolution. This argument can be seen to have been borne out by the referendum in Scotland in 2014. The problem has been deepened by the Brexit vote, with both Scotland and Northern Ireland voting to remain. Since the Covid-19 outbreak, Nicola Sturgeon’s popularity has soared and with the Scottish Parliament elections only a year away, a majority victory for the SNP will make IndyRef2 virtually unstoppable. This suggests that devolution, rather than containing the desire for independence, has unsettled the UK constitution and it may lead to the break-up of the Union.

99This paragraph is referencing the negative side of the popularity of devolution, i.e. it’s so popular that

people want to completely rule themselves. This is a really good example of pairing arguments and making good comparative analysis within a paragraph.

88 Again, as above, two evenly balanced paragraphs. Note that by ending each paragraph with a

summary sentence that says (in the first paragraph) that it’s been a success and then (in the second) that it has not been a success, it adds to the lack of direction.

Another way the devolution process can be seen as a success is because interest and support for devolution continues to grow. Welsh interest in devolution has increased, as has their demand for greater powers for their Assembly, which changed its name to Senedd Cymru – the Welsh Parliament – in 2020 to reflect its more powerful status. Since the 2016 Conservative Party Local Governance Bill, fifteen regions have applied for and successfully elected metro mayors, which has led to greater regional identity in England. Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester Mayor, has become a key face for the city, famously having a public row with the Conservative Government in 2020 over potential Covid-19 restrictions in the area, as well as being the focal point in the wake of the Manchester bomb attack. At the same time, the Northern Ireland devolution settlement has helped secure a peaceful environment for over twenty years, which can be considered a huge success. However, there is evidence that interest in devolution is much lower than it appears, as turnout in elections to devolved assemblies and metro mayors is low. Voter turnout averaged 29% for the metro mayor elections while voter turnout in devolved assemblies is lower than in general elections, reflecting the view that Parliament in Westminster remains the key focus of politics. In addition, despite maintaining peace, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive were suspended (not for the first time) between January 2017 and January 2020 amidst clear divides between the unionist and republican sides. This suggests that the devolution process remains fragile and lacks the widespread popular interest and support it needs to be seen as a success.

99Good comparative analysis of change over time. 99 Good up-to-date knowledge made relevant to the point being made. 88 As with the preceding paragraphs, a distinct lack of judgement.

Exam Focus

333

Despite the fact that devolution has clearly succeeded in decentralising power and making the UK more democratic, the uneven and asymmetrical nature of devolution has unsettled the constitution. There is a lack of clarity over the powers of the devolved bodies and how they relate to Westminster, which was further exaggerated by Brexit.

99A good summary of the essay. 88 No judgement given. Sample Essay #2 ‘Evaluate the view that devolution can be considered a success.’ Similar to the above example but now with added synopticity and substantiated judgements.

Devolution of power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, was begun by the Labour Party in the late 1990s. It was popularly endorsed via referendums and maintains the support of the public. However, the process of devolution has been fraught with difficulties and unintended consequences, and has created constitutional disruption within the UK. On this basis and despite devolution appearing to be beneficial to the UK, this essay will argue it has not been a success as it has created more problems than it has resolved.

99 The added final sentence provides the introduction with the all-important view which is essential for AO3. The Labour party included in their 1997 manifesto the creation of devolved powers as part of their plan to decentralise power and enhance democracy in the UK. They argued that the creation of the devolved bodies would bring decisions closer to the people, with Scotland being able to implement more centre left policies such as free tuition fees, prescriptions and social care in your own home. They argued that devolution enhanced UK democracy, bringing stronger levels of citizen engagement within Scotland and Wales. The popularity of these policies is reflected by the continuing success of the SNP in both Scottish elections and general elections since 2011. Moreover, the PR electoral systems used in the devolved bodies secure broadly proportional results. These elections arguably redress some of the disproportionality inherent to Westminster’s system and have led to the rise of smaller parties like the SNP and Plaid Cymru creating greater choice for the electorate.

99Because this essay is a Component 2 topic, it needs to contain synoptic links with Component 1. The key changes in this paragraph are to add synoptic links (highlighted in blue throughout).

However, these arguments must be rejected because, despite bringing decisions closer to the people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the devolution project introduced by the Labour Party lacked any constitutional coherence. Devolution has evolved in a piecemeal, asymmetric fashion, making it harder for the public to understand. It is not formally entrenched, and the devolution project remains deeply unsettled, as is reflected in the conflict about whether policy areas returned from the EU post-Brexit should return to Westminster or the devolved bodies. This has reinforced the view that the unintended consequences of devolution cannot lead to it being considered a success. In addition, there can be no doubt that England has been short-changed in terms of devolution, with no English assembly and only 15 metro mayors. Moreover, with EVEL not really resolving the West Lothian Question, there is no ‘voice’ for England and EVEL remains a deeply unclear and complex Parliamentary procedure, little known or understood by the general public. Thus, there can be no doubt that with all these democratic deficiencies, the devolution process continues to destabilise the UK constitution and cannot be considered a success.

99Here the additions focus primarily on reinforcing the AO3 in the paragraph, and one more synoptic reference of ‘democratic deficiencies’.

334 Essentials of UK Politics and Government Proponents of devolution argue that it is very popular, and the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all enjoy the benefits of decisions made closer to them, while having the security of being part of the United Kingdom. During the Covid outbreak, each of the component nations of the UK chose their own path with regards to going into and easing lockdown, while all benefitting from the substantial economic measures which were paid for by the Treasury of the United Kingdom. This example clearly shows the benefits of a dual system whereby decisions can be taken locally, in a region-sensitive way, while unexpected storms can be weathered by being part of a larger state.

99By beginning this paragraph, ‘Proponents …argue’, the student is distancing themselves from the views expressed here. In other words, this is what ‘they’ say, but it’s not ‘my’ view.

However, there can be no doubt that, as the Conservative Party suggested in the 1990s when they opposed devolution, devolution is clearly leading to the break-up of the Union and cannot therefore possibly be considered a success. This argument can be seen to have been borne out by the referendum in Scotland in 2014 and the subsequent fracturing of party politics in Scotland, with Labour losing support to the smaller nationalist SNP. The problem has been deepened by the Brexit vote, with both Scotland and Northern Ireland voting to remain. While to some the Covid-19 outbreak may have indicated the benefits of the Union, in Scotland, this has clearly not been the case. Since the Covid-19 outbreak, Nicola Sturgeon’s popularity has soared and with the Scottish Parliament elections only a year away, the likely majority victory for the SNP will make IndyRef2 virtually unstoppable. Thus, it is clear that devolution, rather than containing the desire for independence, has unsettled the UK constitution to the greatest extent and the United Kingdom may not survive, rendering it a failure.

99Additions here are, once again, trying to enable this paragraph to be more argumentative. References to

the fracturing of party politics creates a synoptic link. The addition of the sentence on Nicola Sturgeon and the Covid-19 outbreak creates a comparative link with the paragraph above.

Finally, proponents of the devolution process suggest that it can be seen as a success because interest and support for devolution continues to grow. Welsh interest in devolution has increased since the very narrow referendum vote in 1998, as has their demand for greater powers for their Assembly, which changed its name to Senedd Cymru – the Welsh Parliament – in 2019 to reflect its more powerful status. Since the 2016 Conservative Party Local Governance Bill, fifteen regions have applied for and successfully elected metro mayors, which has led to greater regional identity in England. Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester Mayor, has become a key face for the city, infamously having a public row with the Conservative Government in 2020 over potential Covid-19 restrictions in the area and being the focal point in the wake of the Manchester bomb attack. At the same time, the Northern Ireland devolved settlement has helped secure a peaceful environment for over twenty years, which can be considered a huge success.

99Again here, using the wording ‘proponents’ to create distance and the reference to the referendum created a synoptic link.

However, the more compelling argument is that interest in devolution is much lower than it appears because turnout in elections for devolved assemblies and metro mayors is low. Voter turnout averaged 29% for the metro mayor elections while voter turnout in devolved assemblies is considerably lower than in general elections, reinforcing the view that Parliament in Westminster still remains the key focus of politics. In addition, despite maintaining peace, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive were suspended (not for the first time) between January 2017 and January 2020 amidst clear divides between the unionist and republican sides. These arguments all clearly show that the devolution process is exceptionally fragile and lacks the widespread popular support in needs to be successful.

99The opening phrase creates a clear line of argument which is added to throughout the answer

Exam Focus

335

Thus, despite the fact that devolution has decentralising power, there can be no doubt that the piecemeal, uneven and asymmetrical nature of devolution has unsettled the constitution, making the devolution process a failure. There is a clear failure in the lack of clarity over the powers of the devolved bodies and how they relate to Westminster, which has been further exaggerated by Brexit. It has put the Union under threat which means, without a doubt, that the devolution project cannot possibly be considered a success.

99This conclusion ties together the arguments made in the answer and ends with the view that has been argued throughout the essay.

Final thought On our companion website you will find a lot of helpful advice on how to prepare for your exam, but before we end the chapter, remember this…. Perhaps the most important piece of advice is worth reiterating: answer the question set, NOT the one you wish had come up. This means that the time you spend selecting a question and wondering what, exactly, the question is asking, is the most valuable time you spend in the examination – that is, the bit before you start writing. Around two-thirds of candidates underperform to some degree in every examination because, anxious to start writing and believing (foolishly) that quantity is more important than quality, they ignore this advice. Make sure that, for this purpose at least, you are in the minority. Good Luck!

Index Location references in bold type refer to illustrative material and on-page definitions.

A additional member system (AMS), 100, 113 advantages, 114 disadvantages, 114 Greater London Authority, 117 Scottish Parliament, 114–15 Welsh Parliament, 116–17 age factor in voting behaviour, 137–8 Anti-federalist League, 82 Anti-Poll Tax movement, 44 anti-Semitism, 55 Ashers v Lee (2018), 52 Assessment Objectives (AOs) aspects, 310–11, 315–23 broader questions, 312 essay questions, 310 conclusions, 330 elements, 333–7 introductions, 329 paragraphs organisation, 330–2 exams, 309–10 knowledge and understanding, 310, 314–15 LBMS, 323–6 need for balance, 312–13 source questions, 309–10 answer preparation, 327 Component 1, 326, 328 conclusions, 330 elements, 333–7 exam paper instructions, 327 introductions, 329 issues debating, 329 paragraphs organisation, 330–2 provenance, 327 using the source, 328 synopticity, 311 UK papers, caps on, 312 asymmetrical devolution, 205 Athenian democracy, 5 authoritative works, 191

B backbenchers, 221, 222 Barnett formula, 212 Beveridge Report, 75

336

Big Beasts, 252 black and ethnic minority (BME) voters, 138 Black Lives Matter, 32 Black Wednesday, 89 Blair, T., 52, 87–8, 137, 145, 261–2, 296, 303, 319 Brexit, 80, 82, 201, 224 Brexit Party, 82, 87 Brexit referendum, 124 British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), 165–6 broadcast media, 165–7 and bias, 175 democracy, 181–2 and election campaigns, 167 impact on voting behaviour, 177–8 Brown, G., 51, 76, 89, 145, 146, 148, 149, 181, 194–8, 224, 227, 230, 234, 240, 252, 255, 261, 265–8, 273 Buckland, R., 287 bureaucracy, 250 Burnham, A., 112, 334, 336 by-election, 18

C cabinet, 251 importance of, 254–7 cabinet committees, 251 cabinet government, 253 cabinet office, 254 cabinet secretary, 270 Cameron, D., 85–6, 169, 260, 269–70 campaigns influence on voting behaviour, 149, 151 catch-all parties, 65 cause group, 32 Centre for Policy Studies (CPS), 36 Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), 32 Citizens’ assemblies, 17–18 civil disobedience, 13 civil liberties, 49 class alignment, 134 class dealignment, 135 classical liberalism, 78 Clegg, N., 79, 260 clicktivism, 14 coalition governments, 123 codified constitution, 188, 203

collective responsibility, 271, 272, 273 common law, 49, 191 compulsory voting, 19, 24–5 Confederation of British Industry (CBI), 32 consent, 4 Conservative Party, 55 economy, 73 foreign policy, 74 ideology, 71 law and order, 73–4 One Nation conservatism, 71–2 origins of, 71 Thatcherism, 72 welfare, 73 constituency, 18 constitution, 16 codified constitutions, 188 entrenched and unentrenched constitutions, 189 uncodified constitutions, 188 unitary and federal constitutions, 188–9 constitutional reform under Blair and Brown Constitutional Reform Act, 197–8 devolution, 195 electoral reform, 195 Freedom of Information Act, 196–7 House of Lords reform, 197 Human Rights Act, 196 referendums, 195–6 under the coalition Fixed-term Parliaments Act, 198 Police and Crime Commissioners, 199 Recall of MPs Act, 199–200 Welsh and Scottish devolution, 199 Wright Committee’s recommendations, 198 codified constitution, 203 conservative government Brexit, 201 English Votes for English Laws, 200–1 metro mayors, 201 Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (CRA), 282–3

Index conventions, 191 Corbyn, J., 13 Coronavirus Act (2020), 55 corporations, 35–6 covid-19, 211–12 Crime and Security Act (2001), 52 crossbenchers, 226 customs union, 293

D declaration of incompatibility, 286 democracy direct democracy, 4–5, 5 advantages of, 6–8 disadvantages of, 8–9 franchise/suffrage, 21–2 legitimacy, 4 and media broadcast media, 181–2 print media, 180–1 social media, 182 representative democracy, 6, 6 advantages of, 8–9 disadvantages of, 6–8 vote in the twenty-first century, 23–5 votes for prisoners, 26 democracy in the UK Citizens’ assemblies, 17–18 direct involvement of the public, 15–16 electoral registration reform, 18–19 initiatives, 17 recall elections, 18 referendum, 16–17 voting and electoral reform, 19–20 democratic deficit, 15, 15 democratic elections., 6 deregulation, 72 devolution, 189 and covid-19, 211–12 in England, 210–11 in Northern Ireland, 207–10 policy differences, 210 in Scotland, 206 in the UK, 204–5 in Wales, 207 devolved assembly elections, 94 Dicey, A.V., 300 direct action, 13 direct democracy, 4–5 disillusion and apathy, 152 dominant party system, 83

E economic union, 295 elastic band theory, 264 elections devolved assembly elections, 94

general elections, 94 local elections, 94 roles in democracy education, 96 forming governments, 94 participation and legitimacy, 95 representation, 95 elective dictatorship, 235 electoral asset, 145 electoral campaigns, 86–7 Electoral Commission, 18, 19 electoral liability, 145 electoral systems additional member system, 113 first-past-the-post electoral system, 99 disproportionality, 101 smallest winning vote shares, 101 two-party politics, 102 vote concentration and FPTP, 98 votes cast and seats, 100 votes needed per MP, 101 general election results in parliament in 2015, 108 general election results in parliament in 2017, 106 general election results in parliament in 2019, 104 new electoral systems, impact of coalition governments, 123 minority government, 123 party representation, 121–2 voter choice, 122–3 non-proportional systems, 96–7 plurality systems, 97 proportional representation, 113 proportional systems, 97 safe and marginal constituencies/ seats, 98–9 single transferable vote, 117–18 supplementary vote, 110 swing analysis, 105, 107, 109 wasted votes, 103 electoral volatility, 141 elitism, 42 engaging the public, 40–1 English Votes for English Laws (EVEL), 200–1 entrenched constitution, 188 e-petitions, 14 Equal Franchise Act (1928), 21 Equality Act (2010), 51–2 essay questions, 310 conclusions, 330 elements, 333–7 introductions, 329 paragraphs organisation, 330–2 ethnicity factor in voting behaviour, 138–9 EU ‘in/out’ referendum 2016, 127

European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), 293 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), 49, 285, 286 European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), 49 European Court of Justice (ECJ), 299 European Economic Community (EEC), 293 European Union (EU), 293 impact on the UK aims, 293–4 economic union, 295 four freedoms, 295–6 policy impact, 297 political parties, 297–8 political union, 295 public opinion, 298 single market, 295 social policy, 296 sovereignty and constitution, 299–300 Euroscepticism, 72 executive, 193, 220, 250 cabinet, 251 government ministers and their advisers, 251–3 power in, 253–4 structure of, 250 exit polls, 169 Extinction Rebellion group, 34

F fake news, 168 Farage, N., 82 federal constitutions, 189 first-past-the-post (FPTP), 97 Fixed-term Parliaments Act, 198 floating voters, 134 forming governments, 94 four freedoms, 295, 296 franchise/suffrage, 21–2 Freedom of Information Act (2001), 50–1, 196–7 frontbenchers, 221, 222 fusion of powers, 220

G gender factor in voting behaviour, 137 general elections, 6, 94 general election (1983), 144 general election (1997), 146–7 general election (2010), 148–9 general election (2017), 150–1 general election (2019), 151–2 ‘Get Brexit Done,’ 96, 167 Good Friday Agreement, 12, 16, 123 governing competence, 143 Greater London Authority, 117

337

338 Index Green Party, 13 Greenpeace, 32 group politics, 13

H head of state, 221 hidden bias, 174 high-speed rail scheme (HS2), 41 HMCI v The Interim Executive Board of Al-Hijrah School (2017), 52–3 House of Commons, 220 powers of, 226 role of backbenchers, 222 role of MPs, 221 role of official opposition, 222 role of speaker, 223 role of whips, 223 House of Lords, 223, 225 legislative function, 241–2 powers of, 226 representation, 243 scrutiny, 242–3 Howard League, 56 human rights, 302 Human Rights Act (1998), 49–50, 196, 285–6, 302

I individual responsibility, 270 individual rights, 53–4 initiatives, 17 inner cabinet, 251 insider group, 33 interest group, 32 Iraq War, 80 issue voting, 141

J Johnson, B., 96, 145, 169, 287 judiciable, 188 Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), 282, 289 judicial independence, 282 judicial neutrality, 282 judicial review, 41, 283, 285 Human Rights Act, 285–6

K Keynesian economic approach, 79 Keynes, J.M., 75 Kinnock, N., 88

L Labour Party, 13, 34 ideology economy, 76–7 foreign policy, 77–8 law and order, 77

New Labour ideas, 75 Old Labour, 75 socialism, 75 Third Way, 76 welfare, 77 leaders influence on voting behaviour, 143 left-wing, 70 legal sovereignty, 300 legislative bill, 227 legislative function effectiveness of parliament’s, 229–31 legislature, 220 Level Based Mark Schemes (LBMS), 323–6 Liaison Committee, 238 Liberal Democrats Centre Left, 79 Centre Right, 79 classical liberal, 78 economy, 79 foreign policy, 80 law and order, 80 modern liberal, 78 welfare, 79 Liberty, 51 list system, 113 lobbyists, 37, 38 local elections, 94 London mayoral election, 111–13 ‘Luxembourg compromise,’ 295

M Macmillan, H., 267 Major, J., 296, 301 mandate, 65, 150 manifesto, 142 marginal seat, 98 May, T., 41, 169, 276–7, 319, 322 media broadcast media, 165–7 and election campaigns, 167 and democracy broadcast media, 181–2 print media, 180–1 social media, 182 and elections media bias, 173–5 impact on voting behaviour broadcast media, 177–8 print media, 178–9 social media, 179 nature of, 162–3 new media, 162 print media, 163–5 social media, 162, 167–8 problems associated with, 168 traditional media, 162 metro mayors, 201

Miller, G., 284 minimal state, 72 minister, 251 ministerial responsibility collective responsibility, 271, 272, 273 importance of, 273–5 individual responsibility, 270 legal responsibility, 270–1 political responsibility, 271 minority government, 123, 230 modern liberalism, 78 monarchy, 225–6 monetary union, 293 money bills, 226 multi-party systems, 83

N National Education Union (NEU), 32 nationalisation, 75 nationalist community, 208, 209 National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), 43 national veto, 295 new media, 162 New Right, 72

O Old Labour (social democracy), 75 Onasanya, F., 18 One Nation conservatism, 71 open bias, 173 opinion polls benefits of, 170–1 drawbacks of, 171–2 exit polls, 169 policy issue polls, 169 polling companies, 170 private polls, 169 voting intention polls, 169 opposition, 222 organic society, 71 Osborne, G., 260, 319 Outsider group(s), 33

P pairing, 223 parliament, 220 House of Commons powers of, 226 role of backbenchers, 222 role of MPs, 221 role of official opposition, 222 role of speaker, 223 role of whips, 223 House of Lords, 223, 225 legislative function, 241–2 powers of, 226 representation, 243

Index scrutiny, 242–3 legislative process, 227–9 main functions of legislative function, 229–31 legitimacy function, 234 recruiting and maintaining the government, 233–4 representative function, 231–3 scrutiny function 236–40 monarchy, 225–6 parliamentary government, 220–1 scrutinising the executive committees, 237–9 debating, 239–40 elective dictatorship, 235 questioning, 236–7 parliamentary government, 193 parliamentary sovereignty, 188, 192 participation group politics, 13 individual politics, 14 membership of political parties, 12–13 rates of voter turnout, 11 voting and non-voting, 11–12 participation crisis, 10 parties. see political parties partisan alignment, 135 partisan dealignment, 65, 135 party funding donations, 67 funding of political parties 2019 General Election, 68 grants, 67 membership fees, 67 PPERA rules, 67–8 state funding for, 69–70 party image influence on voting behaviour, 147–8 party politics, 61. see also political parties conservatism (see Conservative Party) emerging and minor parties Brexit Party, 82 SNP, 81–2 features of, 62 functions of organisation of government, 64–5 participation and mobilisation of electorate, 65 policy formulation, 62–3 recruitment of leaders, 63–4 Labour Party (see Labour Party) left and right, 70–1 characteristics, 71 Liberal Democrats (see Liberal Democrats) party success affecting factors

electoral campaigns, 86–7 leaders, 85–6 media support, 87–8 opposition, 88–9 party unity, 88 policy, 88 wider political context, 89 party systems multi-party systems, 83 two-and-a-half-party system, 83–5 two-party system, 83 similarities and differences, 80 party system, 83 party unity, 88 patronage, 251 peak group, 32 petitions, 14 pluralism, 42 pluralist democracy, 46 plurality systems, 97 Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC), 199 political apathy, 7 political consumerism, 14 political participation, 4 political parties, 297–8 Political Parties, Elections and Referenda Act (PPERA) of 2002, 18, 67–8 political socialisation, 134 political sovereignty, 300 political union, 293, 295 polling companies, 170 pooled sovereignty, 293 popular sovereignty, 301 pragmatism, 71 presidential government, 254 presidentialism, 253–4 pressure groups, 32 corporations, 35–6 enhance democracy concentrating power, 48 holding unaccountable power, 46–7 narrowing participation, 47 supplementing electoral democracy, 46 widening participation, 47 widening power, 47–8 insider and outsider groups, 33 interest and cause groups, 32 lobbyists, 37, 38 methods of exerting influence, 38–41 insider methods, 38–40 outsider methods, 40–1 rights civil liberties, 49 common law, 49 Equality Act (2010), 51–2

Freedom of Information Act (2001), 50–1 Human Rights Act (1998), 49–50 individual rights vs. the collective rights, 53–4 and responsibilities, 52–4 successful factors compatibility with the government, 44 organisation and leadership, 43–4 public support, 45 size, 43 wealth, 42 think tank(s), 33 primary legislative powers, 206 prime minister, 250–1 ability to manage cabinet, 260, 262 elastic band theory cabinet, 265 media, 267 party, 265–6 popularity of, 266–7 pressure of events, 267–8 size of majority, 266 style and personality, 264–5 institutional support, 263–4 leadership over the party, 262 limits to over their cabinet, 262 limits to power over their party, 263 patronage and prerogative powers, 259–60 Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), 236–7 powers and limits of, 259 Prime Ministerial government, 253 Prime Minister’s Office, 263 print media, 163–5 and bias, 174–5 and democracy, 180–1 impact on voting behaviour, 178–9 private member’s bills, 229 private polls, 169 privatisation, 72 proportional representation (PR), 99 Public Accounts Committee (PAC), 239 public authority, 285 public bill committees, 237 public opinion, 43, 298

Q qualified majority voting (QMV), 295 quasi-federal, 189

R Raab, D., 285 Rashford, M., 41, 317 rational choice model, 141 Reagan, R., 258

339

340 Index recall elections, 18, 18 Recall of MPs Act 2015, 18, 199–200 Rees-Mogg, J., 287 referendums, 12 confusion in representative democracy, 126 create educated and informed electorate, 126 electorate to decide on specific issues, 125–6 EU ‘in/out’ referendum 2016, 127 major referendums since 1973, 124–5 make government more responsive, 129 misleading or oversimplify complicated issues, 126 promote participation, 126 Scottish independence referendum, 128 settle long-standing disputes and issues, 128 use of, 125 voter apathy or fatigue, 128 region factor in voting behaviour, 139–41 Representation of the People Act (1918), 21 Representation of the People Act (1969), 21 reserved power model, 206 responsibilities, 52 responsible government, 235 right-wing, 70 Royal Assent, 191 Royal prerogative, 257

S Sadiq Khan, 112 safe seat, 95 salisbury convention, 226 Scottish independence referendum, 21, 128, 207 Scottish National Party (SNP), 13, 81–2, 128 Scottish Parliament, 114–15 scrutiny function, 235 secondary legislative powers, 207 Second Reform Act (1867), 21 secret ballot, 26 separation of powers, 220 single market, 295 single transferable vote (STV) system, 100, 103, 117 advantages, 118 disadvantages, 118 Northern Ireland Assembly election, 120–1 redistribution, 119 Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), 209

socialism, 75 social justice, 75 social media, 162 and bias, 175 and democracy, 182 impact on voting behaviour, 179 social policy, 296 sociological model, 134 sofa government, 254 sortition, 5 source and essay questions, 309–10 answer preparation, 327 Component 1, 326, 328 conclusions, 330 elements, 333–7 exam paper instructions, 327 introductions, 329 issues debating, 329 paragraphs organisation, 330–2 provenance, 327 using the source, 328 sovereignty, 204, 300 devolution, 301 European Union, 302–3 executive dominance, 303–4 human rights, 302 parliamentary sovereignty, 300–1 referendums, 303 statute law, 188 ‘Strong and Stable,’ 167 Sturgeon, N., 81 Sunak, R., 260 supplementary vote (SV), 100, 110 advantages, 110 disadvantages, 110–11 London mayoral election, 111–13 Supreme Court (UK) Constitutional Reform Act 2005, 282–3 judicial appointments process, 283 judicial independence, 286–8 judicial neutrality, 288–90 power of, 283, 285–6, 290–2 role of, 283 ruling on Article 50, 284

T Thatcher Government, 72 Thatcherism, 72 Thatcher, M., 44, 258 the rule of law, 192 The Sun, 176 think tank, 33 Third Reform Act (1884), 21 Third Way, 76 toe the party line, 223 Trades Union Congress (TUC), 32 traditional media, 162 treaties, 191 Tulip Siddiq, 154

two-and-a-half-party system, 83 two-party system, 83, 84–5

U UK Independence Party, 82 UK’s constitution constitutional reform (see constitutional reform) criticisms of the constitution centralisation, 193 democratic rule, 193 effective government, 194 elective dictatorship, 194 flexibility, 193 history and tradition, 193 strengths, 193–4 uncertainty, 193 weak protection of rights, 193–4 development of, 190 sources of the constitution common law, 191 conventions, 191 statute law, 189–90 strengths of the constitution, 193, 194 works of constitutional authority constitutional monarchy, 192 parliamentary government, 193 parliamentary sovereignty, 192 rule of law, 192 Ulster Unionist Party (UUP), 209 ultra vires, 283 uncodified constitutions, 188 unionist community, 208, 209 unionists, 209 unitary constitution, 189 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), 49 universal suffrage, 4

V valence influence on voting behaviour, 143 vote of confidence, 221 voter ID system, 23 votes for prisoners, 26 voting age, 19 voting behaviour long-term influences age, 137–8 class alignment, 134 class dealignment, 135 ethnicity, 138–9 floating voters, 134 gender, 137 partisan alignment, 135 partisan dealignment, 135 political socialisation, 134

Index region, 139–41 media impact on broadcast media, 177–8 print media, 178–9 social media, 179 short-term factors influencing campaigns, 149, 151 electoral asset, 145 electoral liability, 145 electoral volatility, 141 governing competence, 143

issue voting, 141 leaders, 143 manifesto, 142 party image, 147–8 rational choice model, 141 turnout, 152–3 valence, 143 social factors, 153–5 voting intention polls, 169 voting system, 20

W wasted votes, 103 Welsh Parliament, 116–17 West Lothian question, 195 wider access points, 39–40 working with ministers and civil servants, 38 working with parliament, 38–9 working with political parties, 39 Wright reforms, 238

341