Some UK pressure groups

Firstly, remember our definitions:

Pluralists, elitists

Insiders, outsiders

Sectional/interest groups, cause/promotional groups

People often struggle with naming insider groups - let's have a think:

The National Farmer's Union is a great example of a core insider - because they are needed on a range of government policy AND have expertise.

The National Trust is a great example of a specialist insider, as they have such a large membership and are in the public eye.

The WWF, who have expertise on wildlife and nature and work all around the world.

The CBI are are a useful examples because their insider status is under threat! Having previously lost some status due to disagreements with government (eg over Brexit). They had a huge degree of sway, but now are being side-lined after a recent sexual assault scandal.

BUT have been replaced by other groups, such as the Institute for Economic Affairs, a free market think tank. If insider groups like the CBI aren't aligned with the government's views and interests then it stands to reason that they might choose someone more in touch with their views.

The British Bankers Association are certainly well aligned with more free-market, Conservative governments.

The TUC (Trade Union Congress) may have less influence under a Conservative than Labour government, but still may be needed to provide advice to the government on workers' issues, or for negotiations with unions.

A group like the Board of Deputies of British Jews may be consulted on issues to do with anti-semitism, or specifically to issues that affect Jewish people in the UK.

Stonewall are a group who slowly gained insider status, but recent controversies over issues like trans-prisoners and trans rights in general has led to some government organisations distancing them from the group.

It is worth remembering that we have  core insiders (eg NFU), specialist insiders (eg the British Meat and Poultry Association), peripheral insiders (who are only rarely consulted by the government, like SANDS), and prisoner groups (who are basically under government control, like Historic England).

There are so many outsider groups, and you know loads of them!

Stop the War, Fathers 4 Justice, UK Uncut, Extinction Rebellion, Fareshare (but are they insiders now?), Animal Liberation Front, Amnesty, Liberty, Prison Reform Trust, Plane Stupid, Gurkha Justice Campaign. And many more!

Remember that these can also be subdivided:

Potential insiders (like the Gurkha campaign or Fareshare), outsiders by necessity (who must be outsiders due to being outside the mainstream like CND or Plane Stupid), and outsiders by choice (who don't want to be associated with government, like Liberty or Amnesty). 

Electoral systems, simplified

There was a lot of confusion about electoral systems at a recent revision session. So here are the systems, but simplified.

Also, this link to the Electoral Reform Society gives scores for each system based on proportionality, voter choice and local representation. https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/ 

Majoritarian

Proportional

First past the post 

Used for: Westminster elections, council elections

Advantages: creates a strong constituency link for local representation, more likely to result in majority governments, simple and easy to administer

Disadvantages: can often be disproportional, tends to create a 2 party system, unfair to smaller parties

Alternative Vote

Used for: very little? No UK elections use it, though obviously the 2011 referendum was about it. Labour Party leadership elections, hereditary peer replacement elections in the Lords.

How does it work: majoritarian system where everyone can rank candidates. If no-one wins 50% then you eliminate the bottom candidate and reallocate their lower preferences. 

Advantages: the idea is that you get a more popular overall winner, who is acceptable to a greater range of constituents, and you still get a strong chance of a majority government. Retains constituency link!

Disadvantages: it may not actually solve the issues it claims to solve! In 2015 the Conservatives may have actually done better with this. Why change to it if it isn't actually more proportional? Also, it has been rejected! Would everyone just put centrist parties as their 2nd choice?

Additional Member System

Used for: Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections

How does it work: There are a number of FPTP seats, but when that inevitably results in disproportionate results, a second vote is then counted and a number of 'top up' MPs are added to make it more proportional. 

Advantages: Best of both worlds? Constituency link AND proportionality. Has worked pretty well in Scotland and Wales, and is used in Germany and Italy.

Disadvantages: May make majority governments unlikely. Two classes of MPs (who do the second ones represent?).

Supplementary Vote

Used for: UK mayoral elections, most notably in London. This is being scrapped in the next round of mayoral elections. Many would believe that this is because the Conservatives tend to do poorly in their second preferences!

How does it work: A version of AV, but with only a second preference. Majoritarian.  

Advantages:  A bit fairer than first past the post. Gives greater legitimacy.

Disadvantages: Not really one thing or the other? Not as simple as FPTP, not as fair as AV or proportional systems.

Single Transferable Vote

Used for: Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland

How does it work: Whew, it's complicated. Ranked choice voting in multi-member constituency, to try to give more constituents a representative of their choosing.

Advantages: It's great for ensuring that communities in NI get a representative, where under FPTP a Catholic or Protestant with a representative from the other party would have be a problem. You get constituency MPs and a lot more proportionality.

Disadvantages: So very, very complicated.

Proportional Representation - List

Used for: Was used for European elections in the UK until departure in 2020. Used elsewhere, such as the Netherlands (DENK!).

How does it work: Everyone in an area votes - you get allocated a relatively proportional number of seats. Each party has a list, and you get a certain number of your candidates from it.

Advantages: Super fair to voters, and allows minor parties to have a share of the votes, including ethnic and religious minorities.

Disadvantages: Will always result in coalitions, you don't have specific local MP.

Party funding, for no apparent reason

Looking through AQA past paper questions, it appears that they haven't asked a question about party funding (or a few other things for that matter). Of course, that doesn't mean they will, but it does mean that is a distinct possibility. Obviously this works for Year 12 as well! So what are the key things we should know?

Breakdown of Conservative income

Breakdown of Labour income

Problems with the current system

First of all, and most obviously, there is the problem of scandal, and you have quite a few to choose from. Bernie Ecclestone famously contributed £1million to the Labour Party back in the 90s, which was seemingly linked for an exemption for Formula 1 from the ban on tobacco advertising in sport which took place at that time. There are many more examples such as:

- cash for questions, where Conservative Party MPs, such as Tim Smith and Neil Hamilton, were accused of taking money to ask questions in Parliament

- cash for honours, where Labour were accused of taking money (under Blair) to award peerages. Tony Blair was actually questioned by police for this.

- this problem has continued under the Conservatives. Several major Conservative donors and  supporters have been awarded knighthoods, such as Lord Ledbedev, the owner of the 'i' newspaper, and a Sunday Times report shows 15 of the last 16 of the Conservative Party's treasurers have been offered a seat in the House of Lords having each donated more than £3m to the Tories.

- cash for access, where Peter Cruddas, the Tory chairman, was accused of soliciting donations to allow access to David Cameron, including policy input. He memorably referred to 'premier league' donations.

All of this points to a system where donations tend to impact party policy. Conservatives would argue that, while they are accused of being influenced by big business, the donations of trade unions to the Labour Party have a greater influence.

In 2019 the Conservatives received about £19m from businesses and individuals, and Labour received £7m from unions.

Attempted reforms

In 2000 and 2009 the Labour government passed PPERA and PPEA (Political Parties, Elections and Referendums). These were designed to reform our funding, by making it more transparent. All parties have to register with the Electoral Commission, and declare donations over £7,500 (though there is an obvious loophole here). They also put in place a spending limit of £30,000, and allowed the Electoral Commission to fine those who broke campaign law (such as the Vote Leave campaign being fined £70,000 in the EU referendum).  The latter act increased the EC's powers, and closed the loan loophole, where certain donations were simply classified as loans.

The Lobbying Act 2014 tightened up the rules about campaigning for other groups, such as pressure groups, charities and unions in elections. It is important when comparing with the US!

Models of state funding

The Coalition Government included a commitment to party funding reform in its coalition agreement. Reports on party funding were published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (2011) and the Electoral Commission (2013). Cross-party talks broke down in 2013. The 2011 report, known as the Kelly report proposed a donation limit of £10,000, and state funding, at an estimated cost of 50p per voter per year, where parties would receive £3 per vote in a general election - this would be estimated to cost about £23m per year. There was limited appetite for this in a time of austerity under the coalition, as well as major parties (ie Con/Lab) recognising that it would benefit them the least.

It should be said that we do already have some limited state funding, in the form of Short Money (for the Commons) and Cranbourne Money (for the Lords), which is designed to help fund opposition parties to create potential policies.

The benefits of state funding include:

• Reduces reliance on private donors or trade unions with vested interests, making parties more responsive to the public
• Creates more of a level playing field for parties, reducing the unfair advantage given by large donations
• Parties could perform more effectively without the need to spend time and effort raising funds

The drawbacks of state funding include:

• Parties would no longer need to seek financial support, so may have their links to society weakened
• If as expected funding is linked to past electoral performance, this would favour existing parties
• It may make parties less independent of the state

Defence of the current system

There is certainly little attitude for change

Public funds are limited, and most don't want that money going to politicians

The current system has already been reformed, so there is no need, or at least we could mildly modify it

Famously Tory and UKIP donor Stewart Wheeler defended the giving of money as 'freedom of speech'!

Party Lines

• Conservatives: will seek agreement on a comprehensive package of party funding reform
• Greens: introduce a system of state funding
• Labour: committed to reform party funding and would cap donations
• Liberal Democrats: wide reforms to party funding and would cap donation at £10,000 per person per year