Unit 1: Referendums and cost

Click here to access a recent BBC article highlighting another potential issue re referendums. They cost too much!

Unit 1: Referendum essay

Define Referendums. (5)

Referendums are a form of direct democracy. They may be defined as ballots [either national, regional or local] in which citizens are asked to vote either in favour or against a specific political proposal usually framed in terms of one specific question requiring a ”Yes” or “No” answer. A recent example would be the referendum on electoral reform. The result being a resounding 'no' to change.

Why have referendums been used more widely since 1997? (10)

It has been pointed that many UK citizens have a pessimistic view of UK parliamentary institutions and of individual MPs believing that MPs fail to reflect the views of voters and that they are likely, for a variety of reasons, to operate as so-called lobby fodder simply voting in accordance with the party line. Furthermore the recent MPs expenses scandal may have further eroded public confidence in MPs.

UK referendums have in practice always been used in attempts to resolve constitutional issues. Supporters argue that it is in accordance with democratic principles, that citizens should have a right to express an opinion on any proposal to change the constitutional rules according to which they are to be governed while governments themselves may use the referendum result to emphasise the public acceptability of policies which they wish to introduce in order to resolve difficult political problems. This was certainly the case in relation to the 1998 referendum in Northern Ireland which led to the setting up of a new Northern Ireland Assembly and Northern Ireland Executive in Stormont.

Do the advantages of referendums outweight the disadvantages? (25)

The principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK means that referendums cannot be binding although it would be very difficult for governments to ignore the results of official referendums. Several important arguments have been raised in support of the increased use of referendums.

It is argued that although full direct democracy may be impractical and inefficient in modern, large scale, complex societies the use of referendums is an important mechanism for the provision of some direct democracy which can increase citizens’ active participation in and understanding of political questions.

Once a referendum campaign is underway citizens may be encouraged to take more interest in political issues which they might otherwise have ignored and it can be noted that the increased availability of computer technology greatly facilitates the practical organisation of referendums.

Contrastingly it is said that when citizens vote in General elections they are merely signalling their general support for a political party without committing themselves to specific party policies  so that theses General elections do not provide governments with a mandate to introduce specific party policies. However referendums provide governments with a much clearer mandate because they provide a clear indication of citizens’ views on particular issues.

Following a “Yes” vote governments can claim to be introducing a policy which has the consent of the governed while a “No” vote can prevent the government from introducing policies which are actually unpopular as was the case when N.E. citizens decisively against an elected assembly for the North East and the Labour Government responded by scrapping further planned referendums in the North West and Yorkshire. In general referendums are said to enhance the legitimacy and acceptability of government policy since the policy follows a full discussion of the issues in a referendum campaign and citizens are more likely to respect and conform to decisions which they have made themselves.

Supporters further claim that once the results of a referendum on a constitutional issue are implemented it is unlikely that subsequent governments will reverse the policy so that referendums are seen as providing some necessary long term political stability. For example it is conceivable that a Conservative government could be elected which opposed Scottish and Welsh devolution but such a government would be unlikely to abolish the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly given the results of the 1997 devolution referenda.

Referendums may sometimes be helpful to political parties when they themselves are divided on a particular issue. For example in 1975 both the Labour government and the Conservative opposition were disunited over continued UK membership of the then EEC. Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson opted for a referendum on the UK’s continued membership of the then EEC as a means of resolving the dispute over Europe which seriously divided his own party. Once the voters decided 2:1 in favour of continued EEC membership Labour opponents of continued EEC membership were much weakened. Wilson did, however, attract considerable criticism of this opportunistic rather than principled use of the referendum.

Opponents have also raised powerful arguments against the use of referendums. They argue that the use of referendums undermines the role of parliamentary representatives [i.e. MPs] by preventing them from using their independent judgement to represent the interests of their constituents. M.Ps independent judgement  is seen as especially important when complex technical issues are involved as in the decision whether or not to remain in the EEC/EU or to join the Single European Currency [Euro] or to ratify the current new European Treaty/Constitution.

Referendum campaigns are open to the criticisms that the referendum result could be influenced by the timing of the campaign which will be determined by the government itself and by the precise wording of the referendum question although this is now unlikely in the UK because the wording must be agreed with the independent Electoral Commission. However the issue of timing suggests that more thought should be given to the development of clear procedures for the triggering of referenda.

Different sides of the campaign may attract different levels of financial and mass media support so that both sides of the argument are unequally represented and there are also dangers that certain sections of the mass media may seek to simplify complex issues unduly and to persuade voters with misleading emotive phrases. [It is certainly true that in 1975 the Pro EEC membership campaign was far better funded than the Anti-EEC campaign.

It is possible that government support for one side rather than the other in a referendum campaign may unduly affect the outcome of the result because voters may cast their vote more as an assessment of overall government popularity and performance than as a verdict on the specific referendum issue. One wonders for example whether Tony Blair could have persuaded the electorate to support membership of the Euro in 1997 when he was still exceptionally powerful. He certainly could not have done so in the summer of 2007.

Critics claim that the increased use of referendums could undermine support for existing representative institutions in that once individuals are given the opportunity to take decisions on their own behalf they may be less willing to rely upon their representatives. This could lead to increased demands for referendums on a whole range of complex moral questions which are currently decided inside parliament. Furthermore it is pointed out that although votes in parliament are usually won by the governing party, government ministers can also protect minority interests at least to some extent whereas the increased use of binding referendums on issues such as abortion or euthanasia could indeed increase the danger of the tyranny of the majority.

It may be recognised that public trust in UK political institutions may well have been eroded but critics of referendums argue that public trust can best be rebuilt via increases in the efficiency and accountability of existing political institutions which will then persuade voters that good government can best be achieved by allowing MPs to exercise their traditional representative function. [However supporters of referendums would argue instead that over-mighty governments do little to protect the interests of minorities and even in some cases of majorities. They might ask for example whether the poll tax would have been introduced or whether the UK would have gone to war in Iraq if referenda were necessary before such policies could be introduced.]

We may conclude that the use of referenda in the UK has contributed favourably to the growth of UK democracy but that the dangers of referenda may suggest that they should be used sparingly. It is essential that mechanisms must be found to increase the effectiveness, accountability and legitimacy of UK political institutions so that citizens have much greater confidence in the abilities and desires of representatives to represent citizens’ interests more effectively. This in itself would be likely to reduce the demand for referendums in circumstances where they are undesirable.

Unit 1: By-Elections - are they a good political indicator?

Click here to access a recent BBC article on by-elections. It is useful as it brings in issues such as participation, legitimacy, FPTP and poltical ideologies.

Unit 1: Revision Presentation - Electoral reform & Devolution

Click here to access the presentation on impact of electoral reform.

Click here to access the presentation on devoltion in the UK.

Unit 1: Participation, FPTP & Political Party Support

The recent by-elections in Croydon North, Ratherham & Middlesborough highlight many issues. Namely the participation crisis in UK politics, the problems the Lib Democrats are facing and the rise of the right (UKIP & BNP)

Click here to access results.

Unit 1: Pressure groups & Bestiality!

Click here to access a very interesting article from the BBC. Apparently bestiality was made legal in 1969 (the practice of having sex with animals). However animal rights groups have campaigned for a change in the law and Hans-Michael Goldmann, the head of the parliamentary committee investigating the new amendment, told the Tageszeitung newspaper that the new legislation was intended to clarify the current legal position.

Would this have been on the political agenda if the pressure had not existed?

Another Angry Voice! - Excellent blog

Thank you Mr Vadgama for finding this blog from a fellow Yorkshireman! Click here for the link. Enjoy!

Unit 1: Additional Member System

Back to our good old friend Queen Lion and her jungle parliament....CP Grey calls it MMP, we know it as AMS.



In pairs, discuss and jot down the key pros & cons of AMS.

Do this for all the electoral systems you have studied.

Finally, as a group, decide on which electoral system (inlcuding FPTP) you would use for the UK Parliament elections. You should obviously be able to justify why you have chosen the one you have, but also, why you have discarded the rest.

Examination quesion: June 11 - Should the Westminster electoral system be reformed? (25 Marks)

Unit 1: Electoral Systems and spoiled ballots

Thanks to Jacob for this article on the Scottish elections in 2007. This was when the Scottish decided to hold elections to the parliament on the same day as local council elections. Three different types of electoral system were used on the same day.

Click here to access the article. A useful piece highlighting the potential problem of alternative systems to FPTP.

Unit 1: Democratic Deficit

Click here for a piece by the BBC on the recent Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC) elections.

Questions for discussion include how legitimate are the newly elected commissionaersand does it highlight the issue of democratic deficitu in the UK?

Unit 1: Another explanation of STV

Single Transferable Vote STV from mattbentley34

Click here to access a really simple explanation of STV. Remember, we are not concerned with the 'Droop' formula as such, although it would be useful to remember the name.

What you do need to know is how it affects representation in an assembly or parliament. Remember, this is used in Northern Ireland (due to the specific needs in this part of the UK)

This clip from New Zealand explains the system really well....with no Droop formula to be seen!



How does the Single Transferable Vote work? The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a form of proportional representation which uses preferential voting in multi-member constituencies. Candidates don't need a majority of votes to be elected, just a known 'quota', or share of the votes, determined by the size of the electorate and the number of positions to be filled.

Each voter gets one vote, which can transfer from their first-preference to their second-preference, so if your preferred candidate has no chance of being elected or has enough votes already, your vote is transferred to another candidate in accordance with your instructions.

STV thus ensures that very few votes are wasted, unlike other systems, especially First Past the Post, where only a small number of votes actually contribute to the result.

Advantages & Disadvantages of the Single Transferable Vote

The case for	The arguments against
STV gives voters more choice than any other system. This in turn puts most power in the hands of the voters, rather than the party heads, who under other systems can more easily determine who is elected. Under STV MPs' responsibilities lie more with the electorate than those above them in their party.	In sparsely populated areas, such as the Scottish Highlands, STV could lead to massive constituencies. This was one of the reasons cited by the Arbuthnott Commission for not recommending STV for non-local Scottish elections.
Fewer votes are 'wasted' (i.e. cast for losing candidates or unnecessarily cast for the winner) under STV. This means that most voters can identity a representative that they personally helped to elect. Such a link in turn increases a representative's accountability.	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.
With STV and multi-member constituencies, parties have a powerful electoral incentive to present a balanced team of candidates in order to maximise the number of higher preferences that would go to their sponsored candidates. This helps the advancement of women and ethnic-minority candidates, who are often overlooked in favour of a 'safer' looking candidate.	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
STV offers voters a choice of representatives to approach with their concerns post-election, rather than just the one, who may not be at all sympathetic to a voter's views, or may even be the cause of the concern.	Voters only tend to come into contact with candidates at election time, whereas people in the party know them much better. It could be argued, therefore, that a system that allows a political party to parachute its preferred candidates into safe seats is better than one that leaves the choice more in the hands of the voters.
Competition is generally a good thing and competition to provide a good service to constituents is no different.	In large multi-member constituencies, ballot papers can get rather big and confusing.
Parliament is more likely to be both reflective of a nation's views and more responsive to them. Parties are broad coalitions, and can be markedly split on certain key issues, such as war. With only one party person per constituency, the representatives elected may well not reflect the views of their electorate. Many voters in the UK general election of 2005 were faced with a dilemma, as they wanted to support a certain party, but did not want to support the war in Iraq. STV would have helped them express these views much more clearly.
Under STV, as opposed to hybrid systems such as AMS, all MPs are elected on the same basis, thus lessening the chances of there being animosity between them.
There are no safe seats under STV, meaning candidates cannot be complacent and parties must campaign everywhere, and not just in marginal seats.
When voters have the ability to rank candidates, the most disliked candidate cannot win, as they are unlikely to pick up second-, third- and lower-preference votes.
By encouraging candidates to seek first-, as well as lower-preference votes, the efficacy of negative campaigning is greatly diminished.
There is no need for tactical voting.
There is a more sophisticated link between a constituency and its representative. Not only is there more incentive to campaign and work on a more personal and local level, but also, the constituencies are likely to be more sensible reflections of where community feeling lies. For example, there is more of an attachment to the City of Leeds or the City of Manchester, than there is to, say, Leeds North East or Manchester Withington, whose boundaries have a habit of changing fairly regularly anyway.

Unit 1: Revision Guide

AS Politics - Revision Guide: Unit 1 from mattbentley34

Unit 1: Single Transferable Vote explained

Stupid backing track, but a simple way of explaining a difficult electoral system.


Click here to access the 2007 results in Northern Ireland elections (using STV).

Single Transferable Vote System : Northern Ireland Elections other than to Westminster

• Country divided into multi-member constituencies with 3-5 members per constituency. Parties may put up as many candidates as there are seats.
• Voters  may rank all parties appearing on the ballot paper in order of preferences although in practice many will not rank all candidates
• Voters can choose within parties as well as between parties. For example an individual might rank anti-war candidates in two parties highly rather than ranking 4 candidates in one party highly.
• Seats are allocated using the Droop quota system in which the number of votes necessary to secure election is the total number of votes cast divided by the number of seats in the constituency +1 +1 additional vote.

• For example in a 4 member constituency where 10,000 people vote, a candidate requires the following:

(10,000/(4+1))+1 = 2,001 votes

At what point did I lose you Tash?? :-)

If a candidate gains an appropriate share of first preference votes s/he will be automatically elected.

• The second preference votes of this candidate are redistributed to other candidates and these second preference votes may enable another candidate to reach the quota in which case their second preference votes will be redistributed.
• Alternatively the bottom candidate is eliminated completely and their second preference votes are redistributed. The process continues until all constituency members have been elected.
• It is a time consuming process but can be aided by computer and it generates greater proportionality than FPTP which is seen as particularly important in the context of N. Ireland Politics.
• Northern Ireland Elections: Click here for BBC  Coverage

Unit 1: An argument for PR

An old clip 1984 which explains the disadvantages of FPTP and the advantages of PR. Very bias, but really useful for evaluation of a very common essay...

Unit 1: John Prescott - Legend?

This is the moment politics got real...

On a serious note, do you think this improves his reputation, or is it just another reason we should not trust politicians?

Unit 1: Partcipation in Elections

PCC elections: Watchdog to probe record low turnout

Fewer than 15% of voters turned out in the 41 English and Welsh police areas electing a PCC, a peactime low. Click here to access the article.

Why do you think turnout was so low?


Despite high-profile candidates such as ex-Deputy Prime Minister Lord Prescott, turnout was still the lowest in peacetime Britain



What can we do to increase participation in our suppsedly democratic society?

Unit 1: What is the Alternative Vote?

Thanks to James Edwards for finding this piece.

What is the alternative vote? A referendum on 5 May 2011 will ask UK voters whether they want to change how MPs are elected in General Elections.

Click here to access an excellent piece explaining just how AV works and what the advantages and disadvantages of changing the system are.

Unit 1: What is FPTP?

Another clip helping explain FPTP...

Unit 1: 2010 Elections - Rap style

This is a satirical (look it up Vlad) look at the 2010 Election - it is just for fun!

The highs and the lows of the 2010 General Election from 2010.

Unit 1: FPTP explained

This article includes a video explaining the 'First Past the Post' system and the advantages and disadvantages...essential knowledge for any electoral system essay.

First Past The Post (FPTP), also known as Simple majority voting or Plurality voting. How does First Past The Post work?

Under First Past The Post (FPTP) voting takes place in single-member constituencies. Voters put a cross in a box next to their favoured candidate and the candidate with the most votes in the constituency wins. All other votes count for nothing.

FPTP is the second most widely used voting system in the world, after Party List-PR.

In crude terms, it is used in places that are, or once were, British colonies. Of the many countries that use First Past The Post , the most commonly cited are the UK to elect members of the House of Commons, both chambers of the US Congress, and the lower houses in India and Canada.

First Past The Post used to be even more widespread, but many countries that used to use it have adopted other systems.

Advantages of FPTP

It's simple to understand and thus doesn't cost much to administer and doesn't alienate people who can't count.

It doesn't take very long to count all the votes and work out who's won, meaning results can be declared a handful of hours after polls close.

The voter can clearly express a view on which party they think should form the next government.

It tends to produce a two-party system which in turn tends to produce single-party governments, which don't have to rely on support from other parties to pass legislation.

It encourages 'broad-church' centrist policies. ie extremist parties will find it very difficult to gain power.

Disadvantages of FPTP

Representatives can get elected on tiny amounts of public support as it does not matter by how much they win, only that they get more votes than other candidates.

It encourages tactical voting, as voters vote not for the candidate they most prefer, but against the candidate they most dislike.

FPTP in effect wastes huge numbers of votes, as votes cast in a constituency for losing candidates, or for the winning candidate above the level they need to win that seat, count for nothing.

FPTP severely restricts voter choice. Parties are coalitions of many different viewpoints. If the preferred-party candidate in your constituency has views with which you don't agree, you don't have a means of saying so at the ballot box.

Rather than allocating seats in line with actual support, FPTP rewards parties with 'lumpy' support, i.e. with just enough votes to win in each particular area. Thus, losing 4,000 votes in one area can be a good idea if it means you pick up 400 votes in another. With smaller parties, this works in favour of those with centralised support.

With relatively small constituency sizes, the way boundaries are drawn can have important effects on the election result, which encourages attempts at gerrymandering.

Small constituencies also lead to a proliferation of safe seats, where the same party is all but guaranteed re-election at each election. This not only in effect disenfranchises a region's voters, but it leads to these areas being ignored when it comes to framing policy.

If large areas of the country are electoral deserts for a particular party, not only is the area ignored by that party, but also ambitious politicians from the area have to move away from their homeland if they want to have influence within their party.

Because FPTP restricts a constituency's choice of candidates, representation of minorities and women suffers from 'most broadly acceptable candidate syndrome', where the 'safest' looking candidate is the most likely to be offered a chance to stand for election.

Encouraging two-party politics can be an advantage, but in a multi-party culture, third parties with significant support can be greatly disadvantaged.

Questions for discussion: This piece tends to highlight the issues with FPTP. Can you write a short piece arguing why we still use it and in fact, why it is the best voting system we have!

Unit 1: General Elections explained

A useful introduction to the British electoral system...

Unit 1: History of Parliament

A fun look at the history of parliament...

Unit 1: Elections, US of A style

A topical clip on how the US elecoral system works..

Unit 1: Vote now!

Have you been watching the British political parties at their annual conferences? In the UK there’s lots of coverage but do all the speeches, gaffes, deals and splits affect what you believe? The next general election is not until 2015, but if you could vote today, which of the five major parties listed below would you go for?

Click here to access some onfo on each party and then cast your vote!

Unit 1: Traditional Conservatives, New Right or One Nation

Click here to access a recent piece on Camerons view of crime.

Is the British Prime Minister has appealing to traditional Conservatives with his call to punish offenders. However, he also wants to help criminals go straight. Desperate politics or sensible strategy?

Politics reading list.

The library has some more new books for you to read. Especially relevant at the moment is the second one.   

 

Both are by Philip Allan who write the Politics Review magazines

 

AS Government & Politics - The constitution & constitutional reform

by Eric Magee

 

AS Government & Politics - UK elections & electoral reform

by Eric Magee

Unit 1: Pressure Groups - Presentation

Useful pressure group material. Click here to access the presentation from todays lesson.

Unit 1: Political parties - Are they all the same?

Wow, the perfect article comes at just the right time. Click here to access a piece looking at Cameron Vs Milliband. They sound the same. They look the same. Are all politicians actually the same? This checklist tracks differences between the leaders of Britain’s two biggest parties. How would you vote?

Unit 1: Participation and Voting

Click here to access a link discussing voting age in Scotland. The article begs the question, is this more democratic or is this just a gimmick which will have little or no effect on turn out.

Unit 1: Democracy - One Nation for Scotland?

Scottish independence: the other One Nation debate!

In Edinburgh the question was not the division between the rich and the poor, but the division between Scotland and the United Kingdom.

Do we live as one nation or two? That question has dominated the party conference season. It returned with a vengeance on Monday, but not in a form that Benjamin Disraeli would have expected. In Edinburgh on Monday the question was not the division between the two nations of the rich and the poor, but the division between Scotland and the United Kingdom.

The signing of an agreement between the UK and the Scottish governments on the terms of the independence referendum is a milestone. Both sides appear ready to accept the outcome. It would feel more historic if the vote were going to happen any time soon, rather than in 2014. But the vote will be the first time that Scotland has voted on its national status in the democratic era. It may lead to the further splintering of the UK. It would change the lives of everyone in these islands.

There is no doubt that the Scottish people voted for this process to begin. By handing the Scottish Nationalists a majority of seats at Holyrood last year, they put the future of the union unequivocally in the arena.

Spain and Canada have been amazed at how ready the UK government has been to facilitate such a move. At a time when Catalan and Québecois separatist feeling is running high, Madrid and Ottawa have not been so relaxed as London is here. The UK government deserves credit for this approach. It is the democratic path. But it may look like reckless overconfidence if Scotland votes yes. Don't underestimate this moment. Monday's agreement between David Cameron and Alex Salmond is not the end of the phoney war, however. There will be plenty more phoney between now and autumn 2014. But the terms of combat for the future of Britain have now been set. They are, broadly speaking, the right ones. Both sides deserve some credit for the readiness to compromise. A few weeks ago, it looked as if a deal might not be done, with Mr Salmond in particular posing as a leader who could ignore the UK and the law. The deal means that the referendum will have a firm legal basis. It will be crafted in Scotland with British authority. This was essential. Without such a basis, the possibility of legal challenge to both the referendum and the result was very real.

The constitution has been followed, but in a politically practical way. Both sides have won something in the trading between the Scottish secretary, Michael Moore, and the deputy first minister, Nicola Sturgeon. But it is Mr Moore, and behind him Mr Cameron, who have come off best. Restricting the referendum to a single question – an independent Scotland or not? – removes the possibility that independence might win by a wafer-thin majority while further devolution – which may actually be what most Scots want – was overwhelmingly endorsed. That would have been a recipe for political confusion. Having a single question deals with that.

All the current polling shows that the single question – whatever its eventual form and whatever the franchise terms – will go the way of the status quo. That is why Mr Cameron signed on the dotted line. But the result is certainly not a done deal. The mood will change over the next two years. And the current polling also shows that the Scottish Nationalists remain Scotland's dominant party, at least in the Holyrood context. Mr Salmond signed off partly because he is a gambler and partly because he thinks he will be returned as first minister in 2016, whatever the result in 2014.

Two years is too long to wait. But the deal is done. There is a rich debate to conduct now, not just in Scotland, about the best constitutional arrangements for these islands – and not least about the rights of 16- and 17-year-olds in the process.

On Wednesday, the Liberal Democrats will make some proposals. At the weekend Mr Salmond addresses his party conference. Let us not prejudge the unfolding argument, but let the guiding star of it always be the best way of securing the good of all, just as it should be in that other One Nation debate.

Unit 1: Is the UK Democratic?

Qasim and Jacob's excellent powerpoinbt on democracy in the UK.

How Democratic is the UK? from mattbentley34

Unit 1: Minority Parties - Do they matter?

Minority parties in British politics from mattbentley34

Unit 1: UK Prime Ministers - Timeline

Click here to access an interactive chart on UK Prime Ministers. Looking at the history, do you think we are a two party system here in the UK?

Unit 1 & 3: Economic policy - Are benefits fair?

Click here to access a link which looks at how the Conservatives and Labour differ on economic welfare policy. The Conservatives say benefits encourage idleness and lack of responsibility. Labour say proposed reforms will hurt the vulnerable.

Questions for discussion: What would a fair system look like?

Unit 1: Neil Kinnock tries to reform the Labour Party

Neil Kinnock's famous speech to the Labour Party Conference, Brighton, October 1985. Ho wants to move Labour away from their old, arguably outdated policies. He failed, whereas 9 years later, Tony Blair succeeded.

Unit 1: Tony Blair - Ideology & Policy

Lets start with an amusing clip from 'Spitting Image'. I think it tells you just what type of image Blair was giving the nation. Blair's valedictory at the Labour Party conference in 2006 just as he steps down as British Prime Minister.

Regardless of any differences in politics between you and him, unlike anybody since, this is the ultimate example of a geniune political leader who took ownership of his party and the issues of his time while seeking to resolve every single one of them - not insignificant.

For anyone conducting academic or professional research regarding Tony Blair, this is the only speech you need to listen to.

Part 1
Part 2 Part 3 Part 4

Unit 1: Old Vs New Labour

Click here to access a link discussing the labour party, where is has come from and where it is going.

Unit 1 & 3: Should Britain Leave the EU?

Click here to access an activity on whether the UK should leave the EU. Unthinkable 5 years ago, but it seems the argument is growing in popularity.

A second activity here on what next for Europe...further East or consolidate with a hard core?

Unit 1: Coalition Government & Lords Reform

Wow, click here for an excellent piece on the coaltion government and the problems it faces. What a mess when the real political ideologists raise their heads.

Another activity here. This will really help explain the issue of the 'Democratic Deficit' that some argue is created by the House of Lords.