A-Level Politics

Government and Politics blog, made by an A-Level student, to help with revision. 

[a-level-politics]

Classification of Pressure Groups: Core Aims

You can classify pressure groups by two ways; Core Aims and Strategy or Status. 

If you classify pressure groups by core aims, then you get sectional, a.k.a interest, groups and cause, a.k.a promotional, groups.  

Sectional Groups:

Want to represent common interest

Closed membership-only those in the industry, Teacher’s Union NASUWT who are limited to only teachers

Represent the majority of it’s members 

Members have a direct link to the interest of the group

Eg, TUC who protect wages and working conditions, British Medical Association-BMA who represent the interests of doctors and makes sure their rights are protected, Farmers Union

Cause Groups:

Seek to advance a certain cause or set of ideas that may not have a direct benefit to the members. Eg, RSPCA who try to protect the rights and well-being of animals, that may not exactly have total benefit to the members.

Open membership, anyone who shares the desire for that cause and shares the ideas can join. 

They can be quite short-lived when they have reached their goal. For example, the Snowdrop campaign to ban handguns that was combated after the 1997 Firearms legislation. 

They often have limited funds, and access to the government, as they can have too radical ideas. For example, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, CND, will not gain much access to the government due to the controversy surrounding nuclear weapons. 

For Cause Groups, you can also classify them into three different sub-sections. These sub-sections being; Sectional Cause, Attitude Cause and Political Cause. 

Sectional Cause:Sectional Cause groups aim to protect a section of society. For instance, Shelter protects the homeless by increasing funds for homeless shelters and soup kitchens.

Attitude Cause: Attitude Cause groups aim to change peoples views on a certain issue. For example, Greenpeace aim to change peoples views on the environment, to care more for it.

Political Cause: Aim to achieve political goals. Such as, the Electoral Reform Society who want to change the government’s electoral system.

[a-level-politics]

Pressure Groups and Political Parties

Similarities: 

Ways to express opinion

Outlets for political participation, especially through membership

Role in workings of government, especially close insider groups

There can be close relations-TUs with the Labour Party, Electoral Reform Society with the Liberal Democrats

Differences: 

Do not seek to win elections and form a government

Do not attempt to advance ideas covering ALL public policy

Some aspirations may be non-political

There are more groups than parties as they separate opinions while parties cater to wider views 

[a-level-politics]

Why do people join pressure groups?

People act together to protect what is important to them, may that be by prevention, introduction or continuation of different policies. In the 1830s, Alexis De Tocqueville noted that human beings are natural social creatures - natural to form groups. This can be shown in the formation of pressure groups, where people form groups based on a cause or an interest. 

[a-level-politics]

Pressure Groups and protest movements-What?

Pressure groups are organised bodies that seek to influence government and development of public policy by defending common interest or promoting their cause. 

There are a number of different types of pressure groups that cover different policy issues. There are some that are national and some that are local. Some have a bigger influence on government due to a number of different factors like their status or the amount of money they have. 

Most pressure groups tend to be single-issue, such as the Leave EU pressure group, instead of sectional and cause groups. This is as they can focus on combating one issue and have less group divides over a range of issues. 

Pressure groups can have conflicting views, with the Action on Smoking and Health wanting tighter restrictions on smoking while FOREST, Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco, want more relaxed regulations. 

[a-level-politics]

Advantages of AMS:

Produces fairly proportional results. The SNP in 2011 got 45% of the vote and gained 53% of the seats which is quite proportional. This is good as this increases the vote to seat ratio, giving more power towards the voter and creates a more representative democracy. 

Retains to some degree the MP-constituency link. More choice for constituents about who to approach with issues. In Scotland, there is 7 regional MSPs, so there is a large choice of people which means there is more likelihood for their issue to be heard. For example, if someone in the North East Scotland region wanted to bring up an issue concerning welfare, instead of only having to contact Ross Thomson, the current Conservative MSP 2017, they could contact Jenny Marra, who is the current Labour MSP whose party concerns itself more with welfare issues. 

Makes coalitions more likely, which has advantages. Parties had to work together to make laws for the country e.g. the Labour/Lib Dem coalition of 1999-2003 ensured that Scottish students do not have to pay to go to university or college. With parties having to work together, they represent a wider range of voters, ensuring to appease both voters for the two parties

Under the AMS, less votes will be “wasted”. This is because seats are awarded proportionally rather than a “winner takes all” scenario as is the case with FPTP. For example, in the Glasgow region in 2011, 3 Labour, 2 SNP, 1 Conservative and 1 Green MSP were elected. Under FPTP, only Labour and maybe the SNP would have gained representation in Glasgow and thousands of votes cast for other parties like the Greens would have counted for nothing.

Under the AMS, smaller parties have a greater chance of gaining seats in Parliament, therefore more voices are heard representing more views. In 2011, 15 Conservative MSPs and 2 Green MSPs were elected into the Scottish Parliament. 

Disadvantages of AMS:

Less choice of candidates – in Scottish elections, the second vote is for a party rather than a candidate so the eventual MSPs are chosen by the parties – not by the voter. This allows parties to punish their own potential candidates if they step out of line with the Party which is arguably unfair. For example Margo MacDonald was an SNP MSP but after falling out with the party, she was placed sixth on the SNP list for the Lothian region meaning that she had very little chance of becoming an MSP for the SNP again

Likely chance of a coalition government. There can be too much time wasted on discussing and compromise instead of getting the job done quickly – as in a majority government. The minority SNP government of 2007-11 had difficulty passing laws.This was because they did not have a majority of seats in the SP and so had to rely on the support of MSPs from other parties to win votes in Parliament. They failed for example to pass a law on Alcohol Minimum Pricing in 2010 because opposition MSPs (mostly Labour) voted against it.

The AMS system in Scotland leads to constituency MSPs and regional MSPs which can create conflict over who is the most important. In August 2003, the then Labour MP Brian Wilson described list MSPs as “a waste of space”.

Quite confusing. Because there are 8 MSPs that citizens can potentially approach this might lead to confusion as to who to approach. Also, having to vote twice in an election causes confusion and in previous elections in 1999 and 2003, thousands of ballot paper were incorrectly filled in meaning that votes were not counted. 100,000 ballot papers were wasted in 2007 – perhaps partly down to the confusing nature of the AMS.

Heightens the chances of extremist parties such as the BNP gaining representation in Parliament.The BNP have put forward regional candidates for the most recent Scottish elections. In 2011, the BNP gained 2,500 votes in the Glasgow region. Although this was not enough to gain an MSP they have a much better chance of gaining an MSP this way than under a FPTP system where only one party can win the seat for a constituency.

[a-level-politics]

Advantages of FPTP:

It creates a strong, single-party government that can easily carry out action due to having the overall majority in Parliament. Compared to the 2007-11 Scottish SNP minority government that found it hard to pass laws, like the Alcohol Minimum Pricing law.

Creates a strong link between the MP and the constituency. There is only one elected representative so the local people know who to address with their issues. For example, Ian Mearns was elected to be the Gateshead MP in both the 2010 and 2015 election. This means that if someone wanted to bring up an issue, such as roadwork, they could easily contact that MP.

It is simple to understand for the voter, who only needs to put an x in the ballot paper for the candidate that represents the party they want to vote for. Then, as it is a ‘winner takes it all’ system, the candidate with the most votes win and gains a seat in Parliament. The party with the majority of seats forms a government.

Unlikely to produce coalitions, which is good as the single party in power provides a mandate that lays out all the policies and issues they want to address. This allows the electorate to see what the party stands for and what they want to introduce. This helps keep the party in line, as the people can accuse the party as not following their mandate and scrutinize them. This makes it more democratic also, as the government can be held accountable and voted out in the next election if not meeting standards.

Disadvantages of FPTP: 

The system creates wasted votes, where if you vote for the Green Party in a Labour-dominated safe seat, your vote will be overruled  by the overwhelming majority vote for Labour. It is estimated that up to 70% of votes cast are wasted votes. Also, the votes aren’t proportional, with in 2005 election, Labour won 355 seats with only 36% of the votes, that shows that FPTP over-represents winning parties.

In 2015, the Conservative government won with only having 36.7% of the vote, that is not the majority. This affects the legitimacy of the government as not even half of the government supports them. FPTP rarely produces a true majority government.

There is lack of representation for minority parties, such as the Liberal Democrats or the Green Party. In the 2010 election, the Liberal Democrats won only 57 seats with 23% of the vote while Labour won 258 seats with 29.0% of the vote. This is affects the representation of the electorate views by not letting the party that represents their views have more power in Parliament.

[a-level-politics]

Direct democracy in Britain?

Two ways:

By referendums, that give the public more power and let them vote on a major issue.

By recall elections, that allows voters to petition for a public vote to remove an elected official. 

[a-level-politics]

Types of Democracy

Totalitarian: Citizens given the right to vote but only for the party in power Majoritarian – Where the government is based on majority support Consensual – Conscious effort to include all groups not just majority Parliamentary – Where the executive part of government is drawn from the elected legislature Consultative – A more conventional representative democracy, includes elements of direct democracy Pluralist – A system of government that encourages participation and allows free and fair competition

[a-level-politics]

What we’ll go over:

Unit 1: People and Politics:

Democracy and political participation 

Party policies and ideas

Elections

Pressure groups

Unit 2: Governing in the UK:

The Constitution 

Parliament

The Prime Minister and Cabinet

Judges and Civil Liberties 

Unit 3B: Ideologies:

Introducing Political Ideologies:

Liberalism

Conservatism

Socialism

Anarchism 

Unit 4A: The Government of the USA:

The Framework of the US Government:

The Legislative Branch

The Executive Branch

The Judicial Branch