Useful political ideologies quotes and clarification

Socialism:

Marx and Engels - Capitalism instilled a 'false consciousness' and made humans selfish, ruthless, greedy. New economic system would revive their noble characteristics of being cooperative, selfless, fraternal. 

Believed "what individuals are depends on the material conditions of their production" - History involves "a continuous transformation of human nature"

Centrality of social class. Capitalism creates two conflicted economic classes- the bourgeoisie (ruling class, own and mange economy) and proletariat (sell labour to bourgeoisie in return for wages)
Harsh inequalities of wealth and power, and exploitation of proletariat.
State would always serve the interests of whichever class controlled the economy. Liberal state 'merely a committee' for the ruling class, never provide an evolutionary road to socialism.
Capitalist societies unstable, and would eventually be overthrown by a 'historically inevitable' proletariat revolution
After revolution, a new state would emerge-'the dictatorship of the proletariat', then this alternative state would wither away and be replaced by a stateless, classless society, involving common ownership.

Luxemburg - "A capitalist state promotes exploitation and is at odds with humanity's natural, fraternal instincts."

Rejected 'dictatorship of the proletariat', advocated immediate construction of a new democracy.

"The wall of Capitalism is only strengthened and consolidated by the development of social reforms. Only the hammer blow of revolution, that is the conquest of political power by the proletariat, can break down this wall."

Webb - "Capitalism is the principle cause of crippling poverty and demeaning inequality"

Capitalism the principle cause of inequality and poverty.
Reform gradual not revolutionary; 'the inevitability of gradualism'
Neither paternalism or philanthropy could solve poverty and inequality; could be solved through trade unionism and state intervention.
1905-1909
Examined State's approach to poverty
Minority Report: Education, Living Wage, Disabled, Healthcare
Anticipated Beveridge Report (1942) which was implemented by Labour after 1945

Capitalism a 'corrupting force for humanity', fostering 'unnatural levels' of avarice and selfishness'

"The state should guarantee a national minimum of civilized life...sufficient nourishment and training when young, a living wage when able-bodied, treatment when sick ,and modest but secure livelihood when disabled or aged."

Crosland - Steady expansion of the welfare state; community inequality and advance socialism Advocated more public spending and better public services rather than public ownership.

True objective of socialism is equality, could be achieved with a managed capitalist economy
Capitalism had changed forever due to Keynesian economics; permanent economic growth and full employment
'mixed economy'; mainly private enterprise and private ownership, with key services and a small number of industries owned by the state.

New form of state education, known as comprehensive education, which would end the segregation of pupils at age 11
Break down class divisions whilst ensuring equality of opportunity
Secretary of State between 1965 and 1967; made comprehensive education the norm by the time of his death.

"If its the last thing I do, I'm going to destroy every ****ing grammar school in England. And Wales. And Northern Ireland."

Giddens - Corrosive effects of capitalism and individualism on community and fraternity

"The new mixed economy looks for a synergy of the public and private sectors."

“all welfare states create problems of dependency, interest-group formation and fraud.” Can be linked to New Labour policy of Job Seekers Allowance as opposed to the dole!

"Why shouldn't the super rich be forced to help the super poor?"

Conservatism:

Hobbes - cynical: individuals are selfish, driven by a restless and ruthless desire for supremacy and security

the state arises 'contractually' from individuals who seek order and security

to serve its purpose the state must be autocratic and powerful

there can be no society until the creation of a state brings order and authority to human affairs - life until then is 'nasty, brutish and short'

constructive and enduring economic activity is impossible without a state guaranteeing order and security

Burke - "A state without the means of change... is without the means of conservation" - we need to change to keep things working correctly BUT this should be empirical, and based on tradition and experience

"the wiser, stronger and more opulent" - those at the top of society SHOULD be there, based on their abilities and better nature

"a partnership between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are yet to be born" - property is important and offers stability

"acknowledge, nurture and prune... the crooked timber of humanity" - society is imperfect but 'little platoons can fix it (somewhat) - contrast to Hobbes who only thought about the state providing order

Oakeshott - "society's present direction stems from its past development" - tradition and habit are important.

"a known good is not surrendered for an unknown better"

"philosophy of imperfection" need not be a "philosophy of pessimism" - it is okay to accept the imperfect!

the role of the state was to "prevent the bad rather than create the good" - shows some continuation with the other early theorists and a difference with socialists

"we all sail a boundless sea with no appointed destination"

it is the job of the government to "keep the ship afloat at all costs" using experience and stoicism rather than "fixating on a port that may not exist"

Rand - "while the state becomes flabby, it also becomes feeble" - big states, including with sizeable welfare state elements are also weak and inefficient, and should be streamlined.

"Money is the barometer of a society's value"

"the small state is the strong state"

Nozick - "tax, for the most part, is theft"

"Oakeshott mentality" was "lazy" Nozick- believed Oakeshott's nautical metaphor was too fatalistic and undermined the ability of individuals to shape their own circumstances. Nozick argued this kind of reasoning left socialist ideas unchallenged

His libertarian ideas led towards him favouring the decriminalisation of victimless crime such as drug consumption - this is at odds with strong state conservatives.

"taxation of earning from labour is on a par with forced labour"

"no state more extensive than the most minimal state can be justified"

Comparative theory 9 markers

 This has been a topic that has caused some angst for a lot of our pupils. As a consequence I just wanted to share some basic advice for how to approach this one single 9 mark question (so don't stress yourself out.

1. What are the theories?

Rational theory - the role of individuals and their decisions.

Cultural theory - the role of the countries and their cultures.

Structural theory - the structures of the systems of the individuals operate in and how that affects them.

More information here - https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/politics/comparative-politics/ 

2. What could the questions be on?

Any of the comparative topics in the book, and there is a specific section on each one. These are listed as:

- Constitutional arrangements

- Executives

- Judiciaries

- Electoral and party politics

- Pressure groups

- Civil Rights

You can find more info here: https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/politics/a-level/politics-7152/subject-content/government-and-politics-of-the-usa-and-comparative-politics 

3. How do I go about this?

Don't overcomplicate things! Just make sure that:

- you explain how the theory works

- you go about things in your normal way - three paragraphs explaining three different aspects of the topic at hand.

- you include the UK and US in every paragraph.

- you analyse from the perspective of that theory - eg. 'therefore, rationally pressure groups are able to target a greater range of access points in the US than the UK, so may vary their lobbying between branches of government or even at state level, whereas lobbying in the UK tends to be far more London-centric.'

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

Party systems: what do we have and why does it matter?

UK politics has long been dominated by the Labour and Conservative parties - that much is obvious. Every election going back to way before the Second World War has been won by one of the big two. Even before that, in the era before 1918 when the franchise truly expanded to the working class and women, the UK had been a 2 party duopoly of the Conservatives and Liberals, and before that their predecessors, the Tories and Whigs.

Donald and Hillary - a classic 2 party match-up.

But there have also been periods of flux, and the growth of other parties at various points. And when we look around our country, isn't there evidence of other parties being significant? Is the old two party system out, or is it just as resilient as it ever was?

Firstly, the argument for decline. In 1951 the combined vote share for the Conservatives and Labour was 96.8% - virtually no other party was represented, and they gained 616 seats between them. By 2010, the number of seats for the big two remained high, with 564. But their combined vote share was just 65%. The reason for this is clear; First Past the Post prevents other parties gaining strong representation. The Lib Dems managed to get 23% of the vote, but were still stranded on 57 seats.

So what are the alternative views?

Multi-party system

This is most commonly seen in Europe, where Proportional Representation is common, leading to the success in gaining seats for parties like DENK and Party for the Animals in the Netherlands. Despite us having FPTP there is an argument for it in the UK; the success of parties like the Lib Dems, the SNP, and the 5 Northern Irish parties, whose level of representation varies, means that there is still a chance for representation in parliament. Looking around the UK, there is clearly multi-party politics outside England, as well.

Regional party system

Due to the variety of systems we have in the UK (with elections not just to Westminster but also to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Senedd, NI Assembly, London, and elsewhere), the electoral system can vary significantly depending on where you look. If you look in Scotland - it's a dominant party system for the SNP. In Wales, a 2 party system perhaps, though Labour almost always form the government. In Northern Ireland we have a true multi-party system. Also, if one looks at different areas of England the party system can vary dramatically.

Dominant party system

The UK has had many elections in recent years - but only 2 changes of government in 30 years (and 3 in nearly 50 years!). Labour won power in 1997 but held on for 13 years, and the Conservatives won in 2010, and will be in power until at least 2024 (it appears). The nature of First Past the Post makes it possible for a party to gain a strong grip on power, and tends to exaggerate support for the largest party.

2.5 party system (2 party plus)

This is, I suppose, an argument that the 2 party system still has some legs. Whilst alternative parties in principle can gain power, they often can only do so as part of coalitions. The Lib Dems managed to gain representation as part of the coalition in 2010-2015, and the DUP supported the Conservative government from 2017-2019. Additionally, parties can influence government even when they don't gain power - one only needs look at the change in Conservative policy due to the growing influence of UKIP in the 2010s.

But despite all of this, the last few years have actually seen the 2 party system come back stronger. In 2017 the two main parties gained 82.4% of the vote, with the post-2015 decline of the Lib Dems helping both major parties. The Conservatives have gained over 40% in subsequent elections, and poll numbers suggest this may be on the cards for Labour in the future, so the system seems resilient for now.

So, whilst the UK doesn't have the strength of a 2 party system like the US, it is clear that, while we retain First Past the Post for Westminster elections, the era of Conservative and Labour dominance will remain.

How significant are retired voters?

When teaching voting behaviour recently (it's my favourite topic), I was talking to pupils about how to counter-argue and get marks for analysis. One really interesting area for that is that of class and its apparent declining influence in UK politics. The famous Pulzer quote was that "class is the basis of all British party politics". Yet, by 2017 and 2019 we were looking at a Conservative Party that was able to be highly successful with working class voters, and 2019's statistics in fact showed that the Tories were more successful with C2DE voters (i.e. those with less education or training) than they were with ABC1, which is a dramatic turnaround from even a few elections ago.

But one thing that may give us further food for thought on this is the information regarding voting by wealth and retirement status. It is clear that age clearly has a huge impact, but one thing that surprised me is how much. As you can see in the below diagram, every single income group other than the very poorest are more likely to vote Conservative if we include people who have retired.

However, if we exclude retirees, the picture is dramatically different. All voter groups earning under £100,000 a year are more likely to vote Labour. We might well expect those earning over 100k to be more pro-Conservative, but the fact that most who were even very wealthy by most standards, in brackets such as £70,000 to £99,999 was very surprising to me.

The Conservative lead amongst retired voters clearly gave them a major edge in 2019. It is worth remembering that the turnout amongst 65+ voters was 74%, with younger voters being considerably below this. It would be very interesting to see if the age at which people become more likely to vote Conservative goes up significantly in our next election.

How democratic are our parties, and does it matter?

 Years ago there was a branch of political science called Kremlinology, named after the seat of the Soviet government in Moscow. Kremlinologists would watch the activities of the USSR's leadership for signs of the direction of the party, which could be hard to discern. Sometimes the study of the internal structures of the major UK parties can feel similarly obscure to our pupils, so here is some explanation.

The specification asks for knowledge of  the "party structures and functions of Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties". What this really means is knowing about 3 distinct areas, as well as how the party works.

Party leadership elections

We have certainly seen a lot of these in recent years! All parties have a balance of influence of MPs, members, and in some cases constituency parties, which in the Labour Party and Lib Dems have a role in nomination.

The Conservative system notionally has a low threshold of MPs required to get on the initial ballot of MPs. Then, from there, the MPs are whittled down to final 2, before members get their say. This can, in itself, limit the influence of members, as MPs can prevent their preferred candidate from getting on the ballot, or can manipulate the candidates in their own way. Additionally, on 3 occasions out of the 7 new leader events since the system was created (Howard, May, Sunak) there hasn't even been a leadership contest! The system created for Sunak's election was almost specifically designed to prevent a leadership contest going to the members.

In Labour, the real battle is again amongst MPs.  Ed Miliband brought in the current system which was used to elect Corbyn (twice) and Starmer. Originally the support of 15% of MPs were required to be on  the ballot, but this is hard for figures from the left of the party to attain. Indeed, Corbyn only just got the right amount at the very last minute, but won comfortably with members (many of whom had paid £3 to vote in the election, a system which has since been scrapped). As leader Corbyn originally wanted to  reduce this to 5% - the theory being that once on the ballot, left wing figures would be able to be successful amongst members, as was the case with Corbyn. This was watered down to 10%, but has been increased by Starmer to 20%, which in theory should make it harder for another Corbyn-like figure in the future.

The Lib Dem system uses STV, which is lovely of them, but given that there have almost always been two candidates, it's basically pointless. Lib Dems need the support of 1 MP and 200 members from different parts of the party. Therefore, it is much easier to get nominated in the Lib Dems, and gives much more power to members.

Candidate selection

This is where it gets even more fractious. Local members want to have a say, and to be able to choose their own candidates, whereas party leaders want to be able to guarantee that they have a good standard of candidate who will maintain party discipline. Potentially strong candidates are 'parachuted' into safe seats, such as brothers David and Ed Miliband, who were from London, educated at Oxford, and represent(ed) South Shields and Doncaster.

Recently in Labour there have been some examples of local members taking action against MPs they disagree with. Under Corbyn, more central Labour MPs were threatened with deselection, such as Chukka Umunna, who eventually left the party. More recently Sam Tarry was deselected by his constituency (though this was the opposite, with a more left wing MP being removed). In the Conservatives, Nick Boles and Dominic Grieve were threatened with deselection due to their opposition to Brexit. Members of Leave.EU mass-joined the party in order to vote for candidates who were more supportive of Brexit. Furthermore, recently David Campanale was deselected by Lib Dem members, who were concerned by what they saw as anti-LGBT views. Still, it is VERY rare for sitting MPs to be deselected, with this only happening to Sam Tarry (poor Sam) since 2010.

Parties have attempted to boost their numbers of ethnic minority and women candidates through processes such as Women Only Shortlists (Labour - though they no longer exist) and A Lists (Conservatives). These have been effective, as demonstrated by the far greater numbers of minorities on the Conservative benches, including in cabinet posts, and by Labour now having more than 50% women MPs. However, these have not been without controversy, with criticism of these as an example of positive discrimination (and this was successfully challenged in court back in 1996).

Policy formation

All party leaders want to make policy as independently from their party members as is possible. Part of this is just practicality - a leader, especially when governing needs to be able to make decisions and respond to issues as they arise. However, the Lib Dems and Labour in particular have traditions of internal party democracy that can, at least in theory, hold the leadership to account.

For example, under Jeremy Corbyn Labour's conference voted that it wanted to retain Trident, Britain's nuclear deterrent. Corbyn, who is against nuclear weapons, was forced to retain this as part of his policy platform. The Lib Dem conference similarly forced Nick Clegg to abandon his policy on Heathrow expansion, which the Lib Dem conference was against. That said, party leaders will try to ignore or avoid listening to their conference - I find it very unlikely that Keir Starmer will stick to his party's pledge to bring in proportional representation at the 2022 Labour Conference.

A telling quote about the roles of conferences is as follows, from Democratic Audit: " ‘the Liberal Democrat conference thinks it makes policy and it does, the Labour conference thinks it makes policy but doesn’t and the Conservative conference knows it doesn’t make policy and doesn’t care’". In the Conservative Party, the tradition is that the leader makes a greater proportion of decisions. Famously, John Major said of the 1992 manifesto "it was all me", and David Cameron and Oliver Letwin wrote their 2010 and 2015 manifestoes. Still, it is clear that a massive departure from the expected policy preferences of members would be hard to achieve, like if the party pivoted to being pro-EU. That said, the current high tax policies of Sunak and Hunt may test out that theory.

Analysis

So, there are clear examples for both party of being democratic or not. Historically the Conservatives have been more centralised and top-down, and Labour at times have had a more chaotic, member-led party. However, at periods of success Labour has tended to adopt a more top-down approach as well, and it is clear that Starmer has tried to limit member influence in order to make Labour more electable. There are also questions about how much say party members should have when the success of the whole country is at stake, where it can result in something like Liz Truss's brief stint in office, and her failed mini-budget. Perhaps the lesson for parties is that less member democracy increases your chances of entering government.

What next for Scottish independence?

This week the UK's Supreme Court delivered a decision which has significant bearing on the future of the United Kingdom, and for politics students an impact on our understanding of issues such as devolution and the nature of our state.

In recent years the question has emerged, since the beginnings of devolution under the Labour governments of Tony Blair after 1997, about whether the traditional unitary state that exists in the UK still exists. Does the existence of assemblies in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and London (and English Votes for English Laws until recently) mean that the UK is now a federal state? Or does the differing strengths of those parliaments and assemblies (where the Scottish parliament is by some margins the most powerful, and London's assembly lacks power) mean that what we have is a form of asymmetric devolution, or what Vernon Bogdanor would call 'quasi-federalism'.

But the Scottish desire for a fresh referendum has meant the question of whether they can call it themselves has ended up at the Supreme Court, which has ruled that this can only be done by the Westminster government under our unitary system. This means that we can add a new sense of clarity to the existence of a unitary state which appeared to be slipping away.

The Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has said that the SNP will now pursue other avenues towards independence. One thing that is quite likely is treating the next Westminster elections as a de facto referendum, where, if 50% of the population vote SNP then this is seen as a green light. This is a path that is not without risks - firstly because the SNP only received 45% of the vote in 2019, an identical share to the Yes vote in 2014. Additionally, there may be significant numbers of voters who vote SNP to give Scotland a strong voice in Westminster, or vote for them on other policies, but would not vote for them if they knew their vote would be interpreted as a de facto vote for independence. Still, the SNP have dominated all Westminster and Scottish elections since the early 2010s, and it is not impossible that this threshold is reached.

The Donald is running again: can he win?

 

Whether Donald Trump can win the presidency again is actually two questions. The first is whether he can win the Republican nomination, and the second is whether he can go on from there to win the presidency itself. My answer to these questions is, respectively, 'no/maybe', and 'no' (though, as many will be aware, I've been wrong before).

It is abundantly clear that huge numbers of Republican voters are fiercely loyal to Trump. It is an article of faith to many of these voters that the 2020 election was stolen, and there is certainly a huge overlap between supporters of Trump and supporters of baseless conspiracies such as QAnon and 'Pizzagate'. It would be foolish to write Trump off; in 2020 many believed that other well established, experienced and mainstream candidates like Jeb Bush (a brother and son of a president, and a governor in his own right), Ted Cruz (a Texas senator) and Marco Rubio (a senator from Florida) would be well placed to beat him. But Trump's policies, stamina, unique debating style, and ability for attracting publicity made him a difficult opponent to beat.

This time, however, he does have another strong opponent in the form of Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, who has just won reelection in hugely convincing fashion. But Trump beat similarly strong opponents before - why not this time? Well, last time he was running as an outsider - all other candidates were painted by Trump as being soft, or working with Democrats, or any number of other more offensive ideas (like being the Zodiac killer in the case of Ted Cruz). This time Trump has to run on his record in office. Whilst president he failed to enact Obamacare reform, and many in the GOP will be unwilling to replicate 4 years that many found exhausting. It will also not have escaped the notice of those in his party that many of those endorsed by Trump in the recent mid-terms failed to win election, suggesting an aversion to him from some voters.

Still, the 2022 Republican Party is still the party of Donald Trump. It will be difficult for anyone to beat him, and he is hugely popular amongst Republicans. Whilst some of the sheen may have worn off it will still be very hard to beat him, and Trump can point to achievements such as the appointment of three arch-conservative Supreme Court justices, leading to the 2022 Jackson abortion decision. This would be likely to play very well with the Republican arch-conservative support base.

If Donald Trump can clear the hurdle of the Republican primary, we could well see a repeat of the 2020 presidential election, against Joe Biden, who would be 81, nearly 82, at the time of the next election against a 78 year old Trump. Trump could have the advantage of an unpopular president, but would obviously come with baggage of his own. The lack of success for Trump endorsed candidates in the recent midterms might suggest that he will struggle in 2024, and that women and other groups who have particular motivation to vote will turn out strongly to vote against Trump. Whatever happens, we are destined for a tumultuous couple of years with Donald Trump back at the forefront of American politics.