Unit 1: Should young people be forced to vote?

When we reach the next General Election (scheduled for summer 2015) it is likely that older people will once again be most likely to cast their votes. Voting is not compulsory in the UK, but the evidence suggests that older people are much more likely to exercise their right to vote compared with younger people. So, could this feature of UK election turnout be changed by making voting compulsory for a certain category of voter - the first-time voter?

There are no official figures for voting by age, but a long-running academic study, the British Election Study, provides reasonably consistent survey-based data for General Elections since 1964:

The decline in young people’s engagement in politics is often commented on in the media and the data indicates that voter turnout has been low among young people relative to older age groups. However, in the context of falling overall turnout at General Elections, the decline has been sharpest among voters aged 18-24:

A left-leaning think take - the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) - has just issued a report arguing that young people should be required to turn out at the first election in which they have the right to vote.

The IPPR think tank has said their proposals would involve a small fine for young people deciding not to vote at their first election. They would also offer first-time voters who did not back any political party a "none of the above" option.

Guy Lodge, one of the authors of the IPPR report, has been quoted as saying:

"Unequal turnout matters because it gives older and more affluent voters disproportionate influence at the ballot box. Turnout rates among the young have fallen significantly which means there is less incentive for politicians to pay attention to them."

Is he right? Would the threat of a fine or other punishment be enough to persuade young people to make their way down to the polling station or fill in a postal vote? And if they did, what percentage of the vote would "none of the above get"?

Political commentator Michael White in the Guardian dismisses the IPPR proposal suggesting that the political system should look long and hard at the underlying reasons why turnout is disproportionately low among young people:

"Yes, there is a serious problem of voter disaffection from politics, a process that delegitimises government and hollows out democracy across the developed world. One does not need much imagination to see where that may quickly take us: towards authoritarian populist regimes which erode the all-important rule of law.

This is partly the voters' fault, though pandering politicians rarely say so (and pandering newspapers dare not, for fear of losing readers). If that sounds harsh consider one of the more telling points in today's IPPR report: 44% of 18 to 24-year-olds vote, compared with 76% of over 65s. Guess which group's benefits (the tabloids never admit pensions are benefits) have been protected by the coalition? Right first time."

Making voting compulsory for first-time voters would be just one step towards mandatory voting for the whole electorate. This BBC video looks at the voting system in Australia (where voting is compulsory).

Unit 1: Jan 2008 - Mark Scheme

Who will be the first to see this??????

<iframe src="http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/26055800" width="479" height="511" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" style="border:1px solid #CCC;border-width:1px 1px 0;margin-bottom:5px" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen> </iframe> <div style="margin-bottom:5px"> <strong> <a href="https://www.slideshare.net/mattbentley34/jan-08-26055800" title="Jan 08" target="_blank">Jan 08</a> </strong> from <strong><a href="http://www.slideshare.net/mattbentley34" target="_blank">mattbentley34</a></strong> </div>

Unit 3: Post War Economic Consensus - Episode 1/6

The first episode of six on why UK Economic Policy has changed since 1945.

Click here to access part one (10 Minutes long)

Points to note

The major features of domestic politics included:

1. Governments accepted a commitment to maintain full employment by Keynesian techniques of economic management. Ministers would use their levers, such as cutting taxes and boosting state spending, to increase the level of economic activity.

2. Acceptance and some encouragement of the role of the trade unions. In contrast to the pre-war years, governments recognised and consulted them regularly on workplace relations and economic policy. The unions’ access to government was increased partly by full employment and partly by governments turning, post-1961, to income policies as a way of curbing inflation.

3. The mixed economy, with a large role for state ownership of the utilities (such as gas, electricity, coal, rail, etc) and intervention and planning in the economy.

4. The welfare state. The object of the national insurance system and the National Health Service was to provide an adequate income and free health when a family’s income was hit by, for example, sickness, old age, unemployment or death of the main breadwinner. The services were provided out of general taxation, or insurance, and represented social citizenship.

5. There was a belief that government could play a positive role in promoting greater equality through social engineering, for example, by progressive taxation, redistributive welfare spending, comprehensive schooling and regional policies.

Abroad, the parties agreed on: the transition of the empire to the British Commonwealth, an association of independent states; British membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato); nuclear weapons, (regarded as a mark of being a major power); and, on balance, that Britain should join the European Community.

These policies were pursued by both Labour and Conservative governments, the latter because they thought it was necessary to gain working class support to win general elections and gain the consent of the major interest groups.


Consensus is not an ideal term because it may be read as suggesting that there were no differences between the parties. In fact, the above ideas and policies were often challenged by the left of the Labour party and by the free market or right wing of the Conservatives. But much of the political elite – the media, civil service and the leaderships of the parties, particularly when they were in government - shared many of these ideas.

Unit 1: Past Question on power, authority and legitimacy

Sorry for the delay, here is the questions I want you to complete at home. Remember, the 5 mark question should be no longer than half a side of A4, the 15 mark question a side of A4.

Distinguish, with examples, between power and authority. (5 marks)

How is legitimacy maintained in the UK political system? (15 marks)

Unit 3: Post war economic consensus

Click here to access the article on the history of the post war economic consensus.

Please write down any issues you have so we can discuss on Sunday.

Unit 4: UK Interest Rates - 300 years of data!

Thanks to Jacob for this article on UK interest rates since 1694!

Useful to look at the data post war and specifically since 1979. What conclusions can you come to?

Unit 2: Prime Ministerial Power - Parliament is still all powerful!

David Cameron humiliated - the newspaper reaction to his defeat

What the national newspapers thought of the commons vote against a military strike on Syria

National newspapers were swift to react to the commons vote against taking military action in Syria, changing late print editions to run new splashes and comment.

The front page headlines make uncomfortable reading for prime minister David "I get that" Cameron. Every title refers to him being humiliated and that his authority has been diminished.

Tory-supporting titles were noticeably critical. "The humbling of Cameron", said the Daily Mail. "No to war, blow to Cameron", said the Daily Telegraph. "CAM DOWN: PM humiliated as MPs say NO to military strikes", said the Sun. And the Times headline underscored the same message: "Cameron humiliated as MPs veto missile strikes on Syria".

"Shock commons defeat", said the Daily Express in a page 1 blurb pointing to a piece inside headlined: "Cameron rocked as MPs say no to air strikes against Syria." The paper also carried the result of an online opinion poll recording that a majority of the public were against military action.

A similar message was delivered by the non-Tory press: "We don't want your war", said the Daily Mirror. "MPs force Cameron to rule out British assault on Syria", said the Guardian. The Financial Times's splash heading said: "US ready to act alone as MPs reject Syria strike: Embarrassing vote defeat for Cameron".

The Independent's main headline, "A tale of two wars", was rather odd, but the sub-deck said: "PM suffers dramatic commons defeat as Labour hardens opposition to air strikes". And the freely distributed Metro's front page said: "Cameron defeated on Syria air strikes".

The Telegraph's leader, "A nation haunted by mistakes of the past", said it was the Iraq war that poisoned Cameron's authority. Memories of being taken to war on a false prospectus, mentioned by the PM during his speech, played an overriding part in the rejection of his call for military action.

Though the paper thought the commons performance of Cameron better than that of Ed Miliband it conceded the nation owed the Labour leader a debt "for the political manoeuvrings that delayed any hasty decision on military action."

It concluded: "The resulting vote leaves both British policy on Syria, and Mr Cameron's own leadership, mired in the deepest uncertainty."

The Telegraph also carried a piece by Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator, "David Cameron failed the test of trust, and paid the price", in which he wrote:

"British prime ministers are just not supposed to lose votes on issues as fundamental as war and peace. This represents not just an extraordinary defeat, but a catastrophic political misjudgment."

The Guardian's leading article saw it as victory for parliament: "The government was prevented from mounting a premature and foolish attack on Syria because it could not muster enough votes to support it. Parliament, in other words, did its job when it mattered."

It spoke of Cameron as "the principal loser" who, despite a "a polished performance", lost control of a key issue of foreign policy and therefore suffered "an almost unprecedented failure."
It praised Miliband for "insisting that Britain holds to the line of proper process and law", adding that "Cameron's readiness to change his approach should be noted too. Both of them have learned some lessons from 2003."

The Times, which favoured intervention, said the vote was a disaster:

"It was a disaster for the prime minister who misjudged his party. It was a disaster for the country, which turned its back on its tradition of standing up to tyranny. It was a disaster for the western alliance, split apart by British failure to stand with its allies.
And most important of all, it was a disaster for the people of Syria, who know that they have fewer friends in their hour of need."

But the Times thought "the only crumb of comfort is that the vote will not have stopped western action altogether" because the US may act alone. And it concluded:

"Military strikes to deter the Assad regime from further use of chemical weapons and limit its ability to deploy them would not preclude continued diplomatic efforts. At best they could even force it to negotiate.
There are many worse scenarios, including retaliation by Iran against Israel, but the worst at this bleak juncture is for America to send the clear message that its warnings mean nothing."

The Mail's opening sentence to its front page news story said that Cameron's "authority in parliament and on the world stage was dealt an unprecedented blow" and called it "an extraordinary assault" on his authority.

In its editorial, the Mail said the "shock defeat inflicted … by a combination of Tory rebels and Labour unquestionably marks the low point" in Cameron's premiership.

He had "staked his personal credibility on committing the British military to join America in missile strikes on Syria … that credibility is in tatters."
More positively, said the paper, the vote represented "an undoubted triumph of parliament over the executive – a day in which MPs voted with their consciences and represented the wishes of a deeply sceptical public."

The Mail gave Max Hastings a full page in which to fulminate against the prime minister:

"What is it about British prime ministers that they appear to succumb to madness in foreign affairs?
After the ghastly example of Blair's wars, how could Cameron for a moment contemplate dragging this country into a struggle in which we have no national interest, and there is almost nil prospect of achieving a good outcome for the Syrian people or the region?"

The Sun's political editor, Tom Newton-Dunn, reflected the prevailing view among journalists working in Westminster: "Even veteran parliament watchers were left aghast by last night's shock vote … David Cameron and George Osborne sat silently on the front bench, hunched over their knees and frowning."

He concluded: "Prime ministers simply don't lose votes on war, leaving us in truly uncharted territory. Mr Cameron can survive this, but his authority will never be the same again."
Newton-Dunn's shock was shared by Sky News's political veteran, Adam Boulton. Live on camera immediately after the vote he struggled to convey its significance for Cameron. He variously described it as "a savage rebuff", "a massive rebuff", "an unprecedented rebuff" and "a massive miscalculation".

That opinion was reflected also by the Times's sketch writer, Ann Treneman: "No one could believe it when it happened." Least of all, of course, the prime minister.

And one American newspaper has weighed in with a critical report. The headline on the front page of the New York Daily News says: "The British aren't coming!" And then, in larger type, it repeats the line. It's a reference to Paul Revere's warning to the American revolutionary militia about the approach of British forces in Massachusetts with the cry: "The British are coming, the British are coming."*

The article begins: "President Obama's attempts to form a coalition of nations willing to attack Syria appear to be splintering. The biggest blow was dealt by the normally reliable Brits, whose parliament stunned Obama on Thursday by voting down prime minister David Cameron's proposal to join the attack on Bashar Assad's government."
*I previously attributed the double use of the line to the famous song about the city, New York, New York: so good they named it twice!