Unit 1: Voting & Participation

How people used to vote....obviously and exaggeration, but not too far from the truth!

Questions for discussion: Is participation in democracy important? How would you increase voting rights? Should 16-18 year olds have the vote? Should prisoners be allowed to vote?

Unit 1: Political Parties - Revision Notes

Click here to access a presentation on political parties. A really useful introduction to how political parties function in the UK.

Unit 1: Thatcherism

This is a short clip of Robin Day interviewing Margaret Thatcher on whether Thatcherism had divided the nation. She outlines some of the major changes that she had brought in and mentions the idea of one Nationism, a traditional Conservative idea.

Unit 1: Political Parties - The Conservatives

This is a biased view of Conservative history, but useful nonetheless...


These are past examination questions for you to consider:


To what extent are there differences between the Labour and Conservative parties
over policies and ideas? (25 Marks)


To what extent is the modern Conservative Party influenced by ‘One Nation’
principles? (25 Marks)


(a) Define two functions of a political party. (5)
(b) Explain what is meant by the term Thatcherism. (10)
(c) To what extent do the UK’s major parties accept Thatcherite ideas and policies? (25)

In what ways has the Conservative Party distanced itself from Thatcherism? (10)


To what extent are the ideas and policies of the Labour and Conservative parties
similar? (25 Marks)

Unit 1: Participation & Democracy

Political Participation and Democracy from mattbentley34

Unit 1: Political Parties

Click here to access a list of the main UK Political Parties. It provides a useful introduction to the topic.

Unit 1: What is Government?

Author and journalist Danny Wallace takes a light-hearted look at the system of governance in the UK.

Unit 1: Political Parties

Classic BBC comedy 'Yes, Prime Minister', (a favourite of Mrs Thatcher apparently). The PM wants to make some important changes to the education system but Humphery points out that its not all that relevant.

Unit 1: Political Parties, politicians & coalition government.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm so, so sorry.

But I just couldn't resist posting this superb lampoon of Nick Clegg's heartfelt (?) apology to the nation - which has now become a viral hit.

Of course, a promise is a promise. Clegg made a solemn promise during the 2010 General Election to oppose the introduction of higher tuition fees. He even signed a pledge. So this apology for breaking his promise and perhaps destroying for ever any trust that the student and parent population might have had in him, must have been hard to do.

But will the public apology work? Can it rebuild trust in the Liberal Democrats? Or does it further undermine Clegg's standing? A great discussion point.

In the meantime, enjoy the video...it would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic!

Questions for discussion: Do coalitions work? Can we trust politicians? What future does Nick Clegg have within his own party?

Library - Politics Reading List

The following books are available for you to read in the library....

50 political ideas you really need to know

 

European politics : a comparative introduction by Tim Bale

 

The European Union : a beginner's guide by Alasdair Blair

 

Global politics by Andrew Heywood

 

The globalization of world politics : an introduction to international relations by John Baylis

 

Introducing politics for AS Level by Peter Holmes

 

Political ideologies : an introduction by Andrew Heywood

Unit 1: Direct Democracy - Why not let social media run the country?

Why bother having elections and votes in Parliament, when you can find out what the people want in real time, 24 hours a day, on social media?

No-one is seriously suggesting that the keys to Downing Street should be handed over to Facebook users. Or that the prime minister should be replaced by a Twitter feed, however tempting that might seem to some.

But the weird, and slightly scary, fact is that after years of overly-optimistic predictions about e-democracy, social media is now so freely available and widespread that it would probably work. In theory.

"Technologically it is now possible. We could function as a direct democracy," Labour MP Kevin Brennan told a Hansard Society event at Westminster.

"The cost of obtaining people's views on a range of different subjects is miniscule compared to any other time in history, unless you go back to ancient Greece when you just gathered in the market place and you could have a direct vote on things."

But, argued the shadow education minister, it would be a truly terrible idea.

"Ultimately someone has got to take a decision. How comfortable would we be with a decision on capital punishment taken via a TV debate and a vote on Twitter?

"We have indirect democracy for a reason. When does crowdsourcing become mob rule?"

The whole point of representative democracy, of the kind practised for centuries at Westminster and in most Western democracies, is that it acts as a brake on "wild and irrational decisions", he reasoned.

Irrational mob

But could social media be harnessed by politicians in a more modest way to help them form better policies?

The experts assembled by the Hansard Society, in a windowless conference room in an obscure corner of the Parliamentary estate, were divided on this one.

Britain Thinks polling chief Deborah Mattinson thought politicians should take advantage of the vast ocean of vaguely political chat sloshing around on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and the rest. It might give them a better handle on what voters are feeling about their decisions (social media is particularly good at gauging emotion, the panel agreed).

Just as long as they don't start mistaking it for public opinion. "Social media is not a giant focus group and we shouldn't confuse it with that, we shouldn't think it is the same," Ms Mattinson told the event. 

Britain Thinks Social media users are entirely self-selecting and although there are millions of them, spanning many age and income groups, they do not include everybody and there is no reliable way of checking their authenticity. They could be posing as other people or not expressing their true opinion.

They also have a habit of behaving like an irrational mob, "shutting down debate quite aggressively", argued Gordon Brown's former polling guru, and many of them only communicate with narrow groups of like-minded people.

Then there is the question of how to cut through the crushing banality of most tweets (MPs are some of the worst offenders here, the panel agreed).

The answer might be a piece of software, WeGov, being developed by computer scientists at Southampton University, with help from the Hansard Society and EU funding.

Privacy concerns

There are dozens of "sentiment analysis" programmes on the market that allow companies to monitor what people are saying about their products on social media.

But Wegov, which is in the final stages of development, claims to be the first one specifically designed for politicians, enabling them to monitor debate, filter out the background "noise" and zoom in on what people are saying about them and their policies in a particular geographical area.

Paul Walland, one of the computer scientists behind the software, told the event that politicians would even be able to break into conversations to defend policies or pose questions.

But although Mr Walland insisted WeGov will only check publicly available sources, there are serious privacy concerns.

"There is a feeling of creepiness, I think, that people get when people realise that their conversations are being mined, processed and spat out the other end for delectation of politicians for making policy," said Kevin Brennan.

Perhaps, suggested Deborah Mattinson and Nick Pickles, of Big Brother Watch, politicians should ask people first before listening in on their online conversations.

So, setting aside all the hype and conjecture, are there any examples of social media actually being used to shape government policy?

Bold experiments

When the coalition was formed, it launched a series of bold experiments in crowdsourcing laws and throwing open government data to public scrutiny. It also reformatted Labour's e-petition scheme, allowing it to trigger debates in Parliament.

How much of this has filtered through to actually policy is hard to say. Critics would say very little.

But Nick Jones, deputy director of digital communications at Downing Street, insists that the revolution is still on track.

Asked to come up with an example, he points to the Red Tape Challenge, which has received more than 28,000 comments since it was launched by the prime minister last year and which has a "social media element".

More than 150 pieces of legislation identified by the public as unnecessary have been so far been scrapped.

Not one to set the pulse racing, Mr Jones conceded, but a sign, perhaps, that social media could be on its way to being a part of the everyday fabric of government.

The far Right - still an issue?

Click here for a thoughtful piece on the far right in the UK. All comments welcome!

A few links to democracy notes.

Besides your text book, here are a few links to help you with the essay...(Click on the word to open the file)

Introduction to AS Politics

Participation & Democracy

Also, please remember to look at the Politics Student (articles can be seen here in the right hand column).

Have a good weekend!

Unit 1: Democracy exam question

This is your first big piece of homework. I expect you to complete for next Thursday 20th September.

(a) What are the main features of representative democracy?

(5)

(b) In what ways has political participation declined in the UK in recent years?

(10)

(c) Evaluate the effectiveness of the various ways in which participation and

democracy could be strengthened in the UK.

(25)

In the exam you would get  40 minutes to answer all three questions. That is 1 mark per minute. Please bare this in mind when handing work in. I do not want 12 pages of stuff, when only 4 are required.

If you require some help, please don't come to me the night before it is due in, rather see me earlier in the week.

Enjoy!

Unit 1 - Exam Answer

Q What is legitimacy? (5 Marks)

A

Legitimacy means rightfulness. As such it can be seen as an approval term which may sanction political behaviour or conduct. • Legitimacy confers authority on an action, institution or political system. As such it distinguishes between power and authority, authority being power cloaked in legitimacy. • Political legitimacy stems from two sources. Firstly it arises from below, through the consent of the public, usually provided by regular and competitive elections. For example the results of an election may extend legitimacy to a new government, basing their mandate on the content of a successful manifesto. • Second it is based on rule-governed behaviour, in this case achieved through the existence of a constitution. For instance the former PM Gordon Brown initially claimed legitimacy to continue as PM after the last general election results as the constitution conferred the legitimacy to stay in post until the time a new government could be formed with Nick Clegg and David Cameron. • Legitimacy is associated with political stability and order, by contrast, regimes which are seen as illegitimate tend to foster instability and disorder.

AO1

Knowledge and understanding

• 2 marks for each aspect of terms accurately identified

• Up to 3 marks for a more detailed or developed description of the term depicting comprehensive knowledge and understanding.

Political Ideologies....who is right?

I love this clip from 1948.....let me know your thoughts. Please comment...

Completely bias, but also rather funny....

Direct Democracy

There was debate in the Commons last year on Britain’s relations with the EU. This was prompted by an e-petition.

Jackie Ashley in the Guardian newspaper writes an excellent piece in support of the e-petition process.

Here is the link.

Below are the main arguments for and against direct democracy. (Excellent for revision notes)

Arguments for direct democracy

- The British system of representative government based on parliamentary democracy is limited in the extent that elections are held only every four or five years.  Using direct democracy via a system of referendums would reduce this democratic deficit.  Since 1997 Labour held referendums in each of their first two terms and we could say that the deficit has been reduced.  Regular referendums under a system of direct democracy would thus eradicate this deficit.

- Direct democracy brings government closer to the people at a time when faith in politicians is falling and decision making has become too distant, reducing democracy to an abstract.  Voter turnout during referendums is high when the vote is precipitated by a long and sustained debate about the issue, thus showing that the electorate is keen to engage in the political process when it is felt that their vote matters.  For example, 81% voted in the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement.

- Direct democracy can be seen as important ways to confer legitimacy upon policy plans, especially if they involve major constitutional change or the introduction of novel ideas.  If Britain were to go into war, a direct consultation with the people would be a far more legitimate means of making the decision than a vote in Parliament where a majority of the MPs represent a party that most of the public did not vote for.

- Referendums can settle an issue that has been on the political agenda for some time.  We saw this when voters in Scotland voted in favour of a Scottish Parliament after years of debate.  The referendum result demonstrated, as one politician put it, ‘The settled will of the Scottish people.’  If there hadn’t been a referendum then the Tories would certainly have made a bigger fuss over the issue.

- Direct democracy has educative benefits.  Research undertaken in Denmark at the time of the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty suggested that ordinary voters knew more about its contents than did Danish MPs.

Arguments against direct democracy

- In a complex society such as the UK’s it should be the elected politicians who make the decisions.  After all, they are the experts, and ordinary voters do not have sufficient knowledge to make accurate judgments about important changes to the law or the way we are governed. George Bernard Shaw summed up this idea when he wrote that ‘Legislation must be made by the quality, not by the mob.’

- There is evidence that referendum results can be skewed by voter ignorance, and as a consequence the vote is not based on a rational analysis of all of the evidence.  Thus we could expect that if a referendum were held on capital punishment at the time of a high profile murder case the public would be unable to step back and consider the issue in the round.

- Who would square the circle of competing and conflicting outcomes of votes?  What if the people voted for lower taxation and at the same time higher public spending?

- Faith in the political system can be undermined by poor turnouts which do not confer legitimacy on proposed changes.  In the referendum on the Welsh Assembly, the combination of a close vote and low turnout meant that only 25.2% of the entire electorate voted in favour.  Many argue that a minimum threshold should accompany such votes, such as the 40% required in the 1979 votes on devolution.

- Some are concerned about the way the outcome of a referendum vote can be influenced, thereby bringing into question the whole system of direct democracy.  For instance, the financial imbalance between any Yes and No campaigns could influence the outcome.  We saw this with the vote in Wales when the Yes campaign was able to outspend the No campaign by 7:1.  And who would set the question to be put to referendum under a system of direct democracy?

- On a related point, some issues are so complex and cannot be reduced to a simple yes/no response.  Further, the question wording may mean that the electorate would not necessarily be given the opportunity to vote for their preferred option, as was the case when the London Assembly and Mayor idea was combined leaving voters unable to reject one without the other.

- Minority interests may well come under threat.  For instance, it is unlikely that the public would have voted in favour of legalising homosexuality.

Questions/Activities for you:

Research a recent UK referendum. Discuss the reasons behind the referendum and whether it was the best way to solve the issue. (One Side Maximum)

Unit 1: UK Democracy Timeline

Here is an example of three democracy timelines, two speifically UK based and the first one (click here), a world timeline.. You guys need to make your own, which will be used as a reference point throughout the year.

Power, Authority & Legitimacy

Click here to access a presentation on the first concepts we study in umit one, Government & Politics.

Why study Politics?

What are your politics?

Click here to access a political quiz (there are no right/wrong answers). I suggest you click on the extreme like or dislike to give you a better idea of who you are. We will take the quiz again after a few months...just to see if you might change your views.

Which political system is best?

First lesson proper, you will be in three groups. You need to do the following:

Study three types of political system.

UAE
UK
North Korea

Each group will post their ideas on this blog. Your ideas will include:

Key features of the systems:

Power
Authority
Government
Legitimacy

You will need to use the computers, search each system and each key word.

I do not want any political comment. Just how the systems work. I envisage you taking 30 minutes to research and 15 minutes to post on blog.