WOW! Politics 2014
WOW! Politics 2014 is a brand new CPD course that follows the popular format used in our sell-out courses for Economics & Business Studies.
WOW! Politics 2014 will provide teaching colleagues with a fantastic collection of resources that can be used immediately in the A Level Politics classroom.
We've asked a superb team of experienced and passionate Politics teachers to develop their best-ever lesson resources for A Level Politics.
The result will be a superb collection of teaching resources that students will find engaging, challenging and enjoyable!
Further information about the contributors and resources provided on the course will be added to this blog entry in the near future.
Revision Update: UK Politics: Internal Party Democracy
The opportunity for members to have an input into party proceedings might be considered to best identified by considering three main areas:
1. The election of leaders
2. The role of conference and policy making
3. The selection of candidates for elections
read more...»Revision Update: UK Politics: A Leadership Challenge to David Cameron?
“Damn your principles! stick to your party” So said the Victorian Conservative Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli. Yet it would appear that principles are being placed before party at the present time within the Conservative party.
According to Conservative rules, 46 MPS is all it takes for a leadership challenge to be launched against Cameron. 15% of Conservative MPs must ask the 1922 Committee for an election and a simple majority secures the leadership. These were the rules introduced in 1998 which led to the ousting of Iain Duncan Smith in 2003. Given the size of the vote against the government on the proposed EU referendum and House of Lords reform, it would seem that this requirement could be easily met should Conservative MPs perceive Cameron to be an electoral liability in 2015.
read more...»Revision Update: UK Politics: Are Labour the Tories Democratic Organisations?
To what extent are the Labour and Conservative parties democratic organisations?
The election of Ed Miliband was said to be due to the influence of the unions. This would suggest that the unions might wield too much power within the Labour party making it undemocratic. It should be noted however that political parties actively seek to involve their membership and seek to establish their democratic credentials.
The parties could be stated to be democratic organisations as they allow their members to choose their leaders. David Cameron was able to defeat David Davis relatively easy and Nick Clegg secured a narrow victory over Chris Huhne. Democracy can be defined as “rule of the people for the people by the people”. This is normally achieved through the direct participation of the people and in party terms through members voting their leader. Ed Miliband too was elected by a combination of the members, unions and parliamentary Labour party via an electoral college where each branch of the party gets 33.3% of the vote.
read more...»Revision Update: UK Politics: Labour as a One-Nation Party?
There was an interesting turn of events at the Labour party conference in 2012 when Ed Miliband used the term to “one nation” to describe his party. The phrase originates from as long ago as the nineteenth century when the Conservative leader, Benjamin Disraeli, sought to drag his party back from the political wilderness and to connect with the newly enfranchised working class. He warned of the dangers of two nations divided into the rich and the poor. One nation Conservatism then was used to describe a Conservative ideology which justified state intervention on paternalistic grounds to lesson income and wealth divisions. Ironically, similarities may be made with Cameron’s “compassionate Conservatism”.
read more...»Revision Update: UK Politics: Conservative Party
The dilemma the Conservatives faced after the 2005 general election was similar to that of the Labour party in the 1990s. The party, having lost successive elections, needed to change in order to get re-elected. Labour’s four defeats in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992, assisted the development of New Labour. This “project” saw the Labour party abandon many of its traditional policies such as state ownership of the “commanding heights” of the British economy with the amendment to Clause IV of their constitution with a move to the centre right ground of British politics. The success of this move was evident with an unprecedented three successive election victories in 1997, 2001 and 2005.
The Conservatives then had a similar need for a “makeover”, a reinvention if you will, so that they could reconnect with the British public. Their support in the elections where Labour won showed no real sign of change. Their vote “flatlined” around the 30% mark and this was in part due to the public’s perception of the Conservatives as “the nasty party” as was identified by the then party chair, Theresa May, at the 2003 party conference. This allowed the election of David Cameron in 2005 after their third election defeat on a modernising agenda. Part of his brief was to give his party a more new policies and a new image; a brief which might be called a modernising agenda.
read more...»Revision Update: UK Politics: Exemplar Answer: Functions of Political Parties
Discuss the view that parties no longer fulfil their functions?
Turnout at the recent Police Commissioners elections was at a record low level of c15%. As the candidates were based upon party labels this might suggest that political parties are failing to fulfil their function of participation. However, a quick glance at Westminster reveals that parties still remain critical to the operation of UK government and politics.
Parties no longer fulfil the function of participation. Pressure groups such as 38degrees and the RSPB have more members than all the political parties put together. The notion then that parties can aggregate the interests of the public no longer holds true. Membership of all the parties has fallen from over 1m in the 1950s to less than 200, 000 today for both the Conservatives and the Labour Party. The liberal Democrats have suffered an even greater decline since they joined the Conservatives in 2010 in the coalition government. Were it not for the backing of private donors (The City for the Conservatives and unions for Labour) and some state funding, the parties would be in terminal decline.
read more...»Revision Update: UK Politics: Exemplar Answer: MPs and their Constituents
To what extent do MPs represent their constituents?
Since the election of “Blair’s babes” in 1997, there has been an increased focus on the composition of the House of Commons (HoC) in terms of gender, age, race and class. More recently Osborne stated that “we are all in this together” but Miliband has been quick to draw attention to the privileged background of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. Some argue that whilst the HoC does not mirror society, it cannot adequately represent it. Others would argue that MPs can still serve their constituents even if they come from a different background.
read more...»Revision Update: UK Politics: Exemplar Answer: Does the Executive Have Too Much Power?
DOES THE EXECUTIVE HAVE TOO MUCH POWER?
Lord Hailsham stated that the UK has an “elective dictatorship” in the sense that the executive is able to dominate the legislature. It could be said that the UK has a fusion of powers rather than a separation of powers. Whilst it could be argued that the UK system is markedly different from that of the US which is based upon the separation of powers, it should be recognised that there are limits upon the power of the executive.
The executive could be said to have too much power principally because parliament is unable to serve as an effective check. The government controls the parliamentary timetable which restricts the function of both houses. Private members bills are unlikely to be successful which caused Jack Straw to demand that the backbenchers be given more powers.
read more...»Revision Update: UK Politics: Exemplar Answer: Parliament and the Executive
Discuss how effectively parliament checks the executive
The recent government defeat over the issue of the EU budget was a rare occurrence. For the most part the executive dominates the legislature. Indeed Lord Hailsham described the relationship between the two branches of government as an “elective dictatorship”. However, whilst the separation of powers may be less obvious than in the USA, the UK parliament can still actively check the executive.
Parliament is unable to effectively check the executive due to the Westminster model of parliamentary government. This ensures that the executive has an inbuilt majority in the House of Commons and when this is allied to the exercise of strict party discipline and the limited powers of the House of Lords, it ensures that parliament can do little to check a government. This is especially the case when there has been a creation of a large majority after an election such as 1997 and 2001 with Labour majorities of 179 and 167 respectively. Majorities of 66 in 2005 and 83 with the coalition in 2010 mean that all the other parties united cannot defeat the government thus rendering Parliament relatively powerless.
read more...»Revision Update: US Politics: The Supreme Court
THE 2011 -12 TERM – CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS LEADS THE COURT
There can be little doubt that the ruling on Obamacare was the decision that was most eagerly awaited from the Court in this term, indeed many regard NFIB v Sebelius as a landmark ruling and one which define the Roberts Court. It is therefore worthy of detailed analysis. Several key points might be made in this regard.
· The voting on the issue of the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was surprising in that it was expected that it would Justice Kennedy who would provide the swing vote on the issue. It was anticipated that the usual conservative bloc of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito would face the liberal bloc of Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, with Kennedy providing the pivotal vote. The fact that it was Roberts and not Kennedy that joined with the Liberals was therefore a great surprise.
· Roberts did not sanction the act under the interstate commerce clause as the others did but under the right of Congress to levy taxes.
· This action has meant that the Court has avoided being drawn into the political arena as it was with rulings such as Bush v Gore. It was an example of judicial restraint. In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts stated “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
· The ruling has helped the Obama presidency.
· In doing say Roberts has helped ensure that the respect for the Court is retained. This is a key determinant of its legitimacy, authority and power.
read more...»Revision Update: US Politics: Exemplar Answer: A Conservative Robert’s Supreme Court?
Discuss the view that the Roberts Court is a conservative court
The landmark ruling of NFIB v Sebelius in 2012 which sanctioned Obamacare provides a clear illustration of the jurisprudence of the Roberts Court as it ruled contrary to public expectation in a liberal manner. However, others would suggest that this is the exception rather than the rule.
The Roberts Court may be regarded as conservative due to the composition of the court and the impact of recent appointments. Following the resignation of Justice O’Connor, President GW Bush had the opportunity to replace a centrist swing voter with a conservative. Justice Alito. This bolstered the conservative wing of the court. Justices Scalia and Thomas were already in place after their appointments by Presidents Reagan and GH Bush respectively. The bush appointments of Roberts and Alito, with Justice Kennedy who supports the conservative side 60-70% of the time has meant that the Court has a conservative majority which can outvote the liberal bloc of Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor. Obama’s appointments have had little impact. Sotomayor and Kagan replaced two liberals (Souter and Stevens respectively) unlike the Alito appointment.
read more...»Revision Update: US / UK Politics: Exemplar Answer: A Bill of Rights?
Discuss the view that a bill of rights alone does not provide an adequate protection of rights.
The continued failure of the UK government to depart the Muslim cleric Abu Qatada would suggest that bills of rights can go a significant way to ensuring that rights are protected. However, the fact that Theresa May, the Home Secretary, has suggested that the UK may opt out or derogate from the ECHR would seem to indicate that rights need more that a written statement that rights exist.
The role of the legislature can prove critical in the defence of rights and a much needed part of the protection of rights equation. Without legislative support, a bill of rights will not provide an adequate protection of rights and liberties. The point is that Parliament could, via the mechanism of parliamentary sovereignty, ban any “freedom” they want. Two measures presently going through Parliament clearly illustrate that the ECHR does not provide an adequate protection of rights. The Justice and Security Bill can result in secret trials, the “snooper’s charter” (Communications Data bill) threatens the right to privacy.
Developments since 9/11 clearly illustrate the fragility of rights in the USA and suggest that they are not adequately protected. Most recently, the National Defense Authorization Act 2012, paved the way for indefinite detention of US citizens without trial due to alleged association with terrorist groups. There are even first amendment free speech concerns relating to journalists’ ability to criticise the government owing to the vagueness of the act. This concern was the basis for the Supreme Challenge in Hedges v Obama which decided in favour of the government in 2013.
read more...»Revision Update: US Politics: Exemplar Answer: Protection of Rights in the USA
Discuss the view that rights are not adequately protected in the USA today.
In the aftermath of the bombs at the Boston marathon, there is a possibility that there could be a knee jerk reaction from the authorities which could see national security concerns override individual rights. It should be recognised however that the USA has a well-established rights culture which would suggest this will not be the case.
read more...»Revision Update: US Politics: Rights and the War on Terror
The continuation of the usurpation of rights due to the “War on Terror”
Despite the regime change at home with the election of President Obama in 2008, there has been scant sign of any relaxation of the government controls designed to improve national security. Indeed many would argue that they continue to be undermined by:
- Secret surveillance of US citizens has been increased by the National Security Agency.
- More government documents have been classified. In 2011 these amounted to 92m compared to 76m in 2010.
- Whistle-blowers have faced a government crackdown with increased use of the obscure Espionage Act which dates from World War I.
- Congress sanctioned an extension of phone tapping without a warrant until 2017.
- Prosecutions by military tribunals rather than civilian courts.
- The continuation use of renditions by the CIA and the failure to close Guantánamo Bay detention centre which it is argued amounts to “the fundamental civil liberties issue of our time.”[1]
- An expanded definition of a terrorist without recourse to the legal process (National Defense Authorization Act 2012).
The detention of suspected terrorists at Guatánamo Bay (GITMO) and developments since 9/11such as the Patriot Act, provide an interesting case study of the how rights may be subject to abuse and of the roles played by various political institutions.
With regard to the rights that are “in play” with regard to the detention of these prisoners, these include:
- Habeas corpus rights
- The right to a fair trial
- The right to a lawyer
- Freedom from torture
Under the terms of the US Constitution, the 6th, 7th and 8th amendments would seem to have been disregarded.
In order to aid analysis of the roles played by the three branches of government, the following sections look at each branch in turn.
read more...»Revision Update: US Politics: Pressure Groups, Newtown and the NRA
Another massacre in a school and a revival of calls for gun control might have suggested that this was the moment when the powerful gun lobby group, the National Rifle Association, might finally have to face some sort of defeat in its attempts to prevent any restrictions to the second amendment. It is probably too early to tell whether or not this is the case but this event does help shed more light on:
1. The factors that can contribute to pressure group success
2. The role of pressure groups in a democracy
3. The nature of US government and politics
read more...»Revision Update: US Politics: Cabinet Government in the US?
Abe Fortas once remarked:
With regard to the cabinet as an institution, as differentiated from the individuals who compose it, it is a joke. As a collegium, it does not exist. Its members, serving as a cabinet, neither advise the president nor engage in any meaningful consideration of serious problems or issues.”
This would seem to confirm the view that the USA operates with a singular executive as opposed to the plural executive used in the UK. It was consequently something of a surprise to see a range of cabinet secretaries appear on various TV programmes in a concerted effort to rage against the impact of the automatic cuts in government spending that will result as a result of the president and the Congress failing to come to a compromise agreement over the federal budget deficit.
read more...»Revision Update: US Politics: Obama’s Second Administration
THE SECOND TERM OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
The appointment of the cabinet can sometimes help illustrate the uses of the cabinet. It was President Clinton who said that he wanted a cabinet that “looked like America”. The consequential selection of women and people from ethnic minorities meant that the cabinet might help broaden the electoral appeal and support for the administration.
This factor has been less to the fore with the appointments to Obama’s second term team but the appointments still provide insight into how the administration might function.
read more...»Revision Update: US Politics: The Start of Obama’s Second Term
The start of the Obama second term posed some interesting questions with regard to the policy direction of government and the style that President Obama may adopt in order to push through this agenda. There are several key developments which give us some insight into these issues.
read more...»Revision Update: Elections: Voting Behaviour and the Next General Election
As a general rule one should be wary of making speculative comment about the likely outcome of the next general election. Given the volatility of the electorate and the ever changing nature of the political landscape, it is incredibly difficult to make reasoned assumptions about how people will vote in the future and the factors that are likely to be of influence. Using the rational choice model however, we are able to identify certain key developments which might play some role in the next election.
The rational choice model recognises that most voters are not strong identifiers and have no real connection with the political parties. They are essentially unaligned and consequently as Ivor Crewe once remarked “votes are up for grabs”. Voters then decide how to vote on the basis of a series of judgements made about several relevant factors. As an aid for revision, I have reduced these to the “4Ps”. These then are:
1. Past performance
2. Policies
3. Personality
4. Party Unity
This article is not the place to consider how these factors have each played out in recent elections. Suffice to say, they do provide a convincing explanation as to why certain parties won and lost elections. With regard to 2015, we can place some recent developments into a voting behaviour perspective.
read more...»Revision Update: UK Judiciaries and Rights
Composition of the Judiciary
Despite the creation of a judicial appointments commission, there have been no significant changes to the make-up of the UK Supreme Court. Lord Neuberger, the president of the Court himself stated “We are not getting the best people as judges, because there are a whole lot of women out there who will be better than some of the men.” This was after three new appointments to the Court of twelve were all male.
New appointments: Lord Justice Hughes (64); Lord Justice Toulson (66); Lord Hodge (59)
The only female on the Court remains Lady Hale who is tipped to become deputy president when the post becomes available in May.
There is a mandatory retirement age of 70 which should allow for periodic injections of youth as evidenced above!
Given their key role in the interpretation of the law and the soon to be acquired powers in “secret courts”, such a narrow social background might be viewed as a concern. In the past, judges have been accused of being conservative and Conservative. Recruitment that resulted in a Supreme Court that looked more like UK society would help allay some of those fears. The fact that the last four appointments have been male would suggest that Judicial Appointments Commission is yet to have an impact.
read more...»Revision Update: Parliament: Is Executive Power Checked?
The recent government defeat over the issue of the EU budget was a rare occurrence. For the most part the executive dominates the legislature. Indeed Lord Hailsham described the relationship between the two branches of government as an “elective dictatorship”. However, whilst the separation of powers may be less obvious than in the USA, the UK parliament can still actively check the executive.
Parliament is unable to effectively check the executive due to the Westminster model of parliamentary government. This ensures that the executive has an inbuilt majority in the House of Commons and when this is allied to the exercise of strict party discipline and the limited powers of the House of Lords, it ensures that parliament can do little to check a government. This is especially the case when there has been a creation of a large majority after an election such as 1997 and 2001 with Labour majorities of 179 and 167 respectively. Majorities of 66 in 2005 and 83 with the coalition in 2010 mean that all the other parties united cannot defeat the government thus rendering Parliament relatively powerless.
The work of parliament illustrates how the legislature cannot check the government effectively. This is clearly evidenced by the work of Public Bill Committees. With an inbuilt majority for the government as composition reflects the outcome of the general election on the floor of the Commons and pressure from the whips over selection and voting, opposition amendments to bills are very rarely adopted. The notion of line by line, clause by clause scrutiny of a bill is called into question when the government, through the use of the guillotine can end discussion before every clause has been considered. Butler described the process as “futile marathon” and Tony Wright as a “shocking state of affairs”.
read more...»Revision Update: Parliament: House of Lords
THE HOUSE OF LORDS
Reform of the House of Lords (HoL) continues to be an on-going saga in British constitutional reform. With Labour’s reforms in 1999 which ended the right of most of the hereditary peers to sit in the House, and with promise of stage II to be delivered in the imminent feature, it was reasonable to assume that there would be some sort of closure to this long outstanding issue. Since then however, no progress what so ever has been made.
The government proposed a second chamber that would be:
a. 80 directly elected
b. Serve a 15 year term with a third elected every 5 years
c. Represent regions
d. The number of peers to be reduced from 826 to 450
e. The number of church of England bishops would be reduced to 12 from 26
f. The remaining hereditary peers would be removed
read more...»Revision Update: Parliament: Select Committees - Watchdogs Without Teeth?
DEPARTMENTAL SELECT COMMITTEES
The dominance of the executive over the legislature has long been recognised. It is to a great extent the natural consequence of the UK using the Westminster model of government. The largest party forms the government after an election. This means that the government has an inbuilt majority. When this is completed by strict party discipline, the government in effect is in an all-powerful position. It should not lose a vote provided it can keep its majority together. The need for this imbalance to be addressed resulted in the formation of departmental select committees in 1979.
read more...»
Revision Update: Parliament: Evaluation of the Legislature
RECAP: THE FUNCTIONS OF PARLIAMENT
1. To legislate.
2. To scrutinise the government
3. To represent the people
read more...»Revision Update: The Executive: Collective and Individual Ministerial Responsibility
HOW SIGNIFICANT ARE THE CONVENTIONS OF COLLECTIVE AND INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY TODAY?
Collective responsibility can be regarded as one of the corner stones of cabinet government in the UK. The convention states that any member of the government (so this extends to junior ministers as well as those within cabinet) must publically support and promote government policy. There may be disagreement in private, but everybody must “sing from the same hymn sheet” in public. If a minister is unable to do this, they must resign from the government.
The convention is needed to maintain a united public face in order to ensure confidence and public support are maintained for the government. Indeed a striking feature of the coalition government since 2010 has been its unity. The coalition agreement set out a range of policies which both parties have adhered to. The Liberal Democrats even reneged on their pre-election pledge not to raise tuition fees. The disagreements that have been evident have been relatively minor. For instance Vince Cable is rumoured to have been sceptical of certain austerity measures, however, he has maintained support for Osborne’s policies as was recently evidenced at the Lib Dem conference.
In the recent past, Clare Short and Robin Cook, both resigned from the cabinet over the Iraq war. However, the absence of notable resignations and the unity of the coalition government would tend to suggest that the convention of collective responsibility remains a significant force in government today.
read more...»Revision Update: The Executive: Prime Ministerial Power
The constraints upon the power of the Prime Minister have been clearly evident in the past year. These constraints have come from:
1. Within the cabinet from his own Conservative ministers
2. Within the cabinet from Liberal Democrat ministers
3. His own parliamentary party
read more...»Revision Update: The Executive: Coalition: All Good Things Must Come to an End
Perhaps inevitably as the coalition enters its third year, the relationship between the partners entered a new phase. It should be remembered that the coalition is made up of two different political parties and therefore it is only natural that some divisions should appear from time to time.
The driving force however behind this new phase is the low level of support in the opinion polls for the Liberal Democrats. Their support has been around the ten per cent mark as opposed to the 23% they secured in the 2010 general election. The Liberal Democrats need to establish their own distinct identity. As coalition partners they run the risk of being tarred with the same brush as the Conservatives. If a voter wants change, they only have the one option of voting Labour if the Lib Dems are perceived to be one and the same thing as the Conservatives.
read more...»Revision Update: The Executive: Cabinet Reshuffle in September 2012
A cabinet reshuffle can provide a valuable insight into:
- The power of the Prime Minister
- The constraints upon the Prime Minister
- The policy direction of the government
The cabinet reshuffle was Cameron’s first significant change to the composition of the cabinet since the creation of the coalition in 2010. The Liberal Democrats decided not to change any of their 5 senior ministers but there were significant changes by the Conservatives.
read more...»How Cabinet REALLY works!
There's a great series in The Times, Tuesday 23 April and Wednesday 24th April, about the huge rows developing between members of the cabinet and the Treasury over the Spending Review, with Osborne and Alexander demanding 10% cuts in department budgets.
