AS essay tips
Recommend on Google+
One of the critical differentiating factors in the AS units is essay technique.
Here are a few short tips, with an example of how these tips can be applied on the topic of PM/Cabinet.
1. Provide an introduction which shows recent awareness and also alludes to both sides of the question. It is up to you whether you lay out a clear answer in the intro or not. I prefer not to, and to leave this until the conclusion.
2. Give a good spread of examples. Again, be recent. But don’t ignore really significant examples from the past.
3. If the essay requires balance, try to make sure that you spend an even time on both sides.
4. Seek to support your answer with evidence from academic theory, or reputable sources.
5. Refer back to the question at the end of the paragraph - use the words in the question title. (Some candidates do this at the start of the paragraph, and this works equally well.)
6. Differentiate between the importance of factors, e.g. “A really strong argument in favour of electoral reform according to campaigners is…” Remember the importance of factors on the side of the debate you don’t eventually agree with also matter.
7. Come to a clear and definite conclusion. I think it helps if you pick out the single most important factor in support of your conclusion, especially if the debate could appear evenly balanced.
8. The conclusion, of course, should not come as a surprise to the reader, and it should be signposted on the way.
Here is the example…
To what extent have Prime Ministers become more powerful in recent years?
Within the current government, David Cameron has clearly continued the trend of exploiting his office in order to focus the media on him as an individual. This certainly gives the impression of more individual dominance rather than collegial or collective decision making – as has been the case for other recent PMs But when we consider such developments in terms of actual increases in power for the PM, it may be a matter of style rather than substance.
Cabinet has certainly declined as a full forum for decision making. e.g. BoE independence was made by the Blair/Brown axis not full cabinet. Brown as PM operated a “kitchen Cabinet” including the likes of Ed Balls, but excluding the Chancellor. Under Cameron, George Osborne and Oliver Letwin appear closer to the PM’s ear than most. Therefore PM power has increased in this sense.
Furthermore, recent PMs have increasingly sought the advice of special advisers. Blair’s press secretary, Alastair Campbell, became known as ‘the real Deputy Prime Minister’. Under Cameron Andy Coulson and Steve Hill have mattered more to the PM than most of Cabinet. These tactics certainly afford the PM more power.
Another recent phenomenon is one whereby the electorate focus on the head of the government rather than the government as a collective, suggesting that we have a de facto single executive. This might have something to do with the way politics is now reported on TV where the PM gets far more coverage than the rest of their Cabinet and this suggests an increase in PM power.
The personal style of governance of recent PMs also extends to their habit of taking personal control over departmental affairs: Under Blair obvious examples could be Northern Ireland or child poverty. Whilst under Brown, there is strong evidence to suggest that he often overruled members of Cabinet. And the current PM seems to change party and government policy on the hoof, even forcing his health secretary into a U-turn on scrapping NHS Direct while giving a live TV interview. All this supports the idea of an increase in PM power
Then, and perhaps most convincingly in support of the PM power increase thesis, there is Michael Foley’s theory of spatial leadership, where PMs copy the tactics of US presidents and when employed effectively they allow PMs to increase their personal stature. Under Blair perhaps the most significant development was how he focused heavily on media usage and communication tools as part of a US style permanent campaign. “Newsmilking” is also evident with David Cameron. It is no accident that his wife, sometimes referred in the tabloid press as “Sam Cam”, is frequently in the public eye. This presidentialism suggests PM power has increased.
On the other hand, it is important to note that the office of Prime Minister is too much for one person and it is unrealistic to suspect that they will be able to control the entire apparatus of government. They lack time, institutional support, interest, or even knowledge – Blair reputedly admitted that he didn’t understand economics, for instance. Thus Cabinet still matters and PM power has not necessarily increased.
Essentially, recent history suggests a PM would be unwise to entirely disregard their Cabinet. It was the lack of support from her senior colleagues that mortally wounded Thatcher.Special reference here must go to David Cameron. In opposition Cameron was often accused of running the Conservative Party in a very presidential manner but within the matrix of the Con-Lib Coalition he cannot enjoy that luxury given that he must seek the agreement of the Lib Dems. Therefore PM power has not witnessed an increase.
It is also important to bear in mind that Foley’s theory of presidentialism and “leadership stretch” can be a double edged sword, and lead to a decline in power. Blair’s conscious attempt to create a singular focus on his personal leadership left him exposed when things went wrong after the Iraq invasion. Therefore PM power hasn’t increased.
Lastly, George Jones has compared the PM’s power to an elastic band, which stretches depending on personality and circumstances. Mrs Thatcher was blessed with large majorities, and was credited with improving economic performance. Allied to this, she was a woman with charisma. Blair echoed this and both are therefore seen as powerful PMs. Their successors were less fortunate. Indeed it seems ridiculous to talk of increased PM power when considering Brown’s time in office. His personality did him no favours, he lacked a mandate, and the economic crisis shattered his credibility as PM.
In conclusion it seems accurate to say that PM power waxes and wanes, with some holders of the office apparently more powerful than others. The most convincing piece of analysis of this comes from George Jones, whose theory most sensibly explains why power varies between and within premierships.
blog comments powered by Disqus
POLITICS TEACHER RESOURCE NEWSLETTER
Join over 1,600 Politics Teachers who receive the regular tutor2u Politics Teacher Resource Newsletter by email.
