Summary
Summary A-Level Edexcel UK Politics Paper 1 UK essay plans
- Course
- Institution
A-Level Edexcel UK Politics Paper 1 UK essay plans covering a range of possible essay titles for the UK politics part of Paper 1
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
abbysrevisionnotes
Reviews received
Content preview
Paper 1:UK Electoral Systems
Evaluate the extent to which the UK now has a multiparty system – done below
Evaluate the extent to which there is a strong case in favour of retaining the First Past the Post system
for Westminster elections/ Evaluate the extent to which there is a strong case in favour of reforming
Westminster Elections
1. FPTP tends to produce a strong and stable government
Such as in 2019 – Boris Johnson held a clear majority and therefore is able to lead his government effectively
(pass legislation during corona, ‘get Brexit done’ etc.) There was a fairly simple transfer of power from Johnson
to Truss and Truss to Sunak
2. The present Westminster electoral system consistently distorts popular political preferences, giving
parties majority control of the HoC on the basis of a minority of votes. PR systems are much better at
balancing representation
Under FPTP, in 2005, Labour won a majority of 36% of the vote, but were able to form a majority with this very
small amount – clearly this percentage is very low and does not seem representative of the whole of England.
3. In FPTP, there is a clear constituency link, and every MP represents a specific area.
Each constituency has a clear leader – e.g., in Hgate this is Andrew Jones, in Skipton, this is Julian Smith. If they
have a problem, it is clear where to go to – this is not the case under PR systems such as AMS and STV
4. However, there is also the problem of many seats become part of party ‘heartlands’, where there is no
possibility of a realistic challenge from other parties. It also produces ‘electoral deserts’ where there is
effeitvely no party competition
An example of this would be in Richmond, where Rishi Sunak is MP or Liverpool city centre, where Labour will
likely always win. This makes it unfair and undemocratic as voters can often feel their vote is wasted in a place
like this and it also leaves no room for smaller parties
5. FPTP is the simplest, whereas STV is complex, and AV can lead to a 2nd or 3rd placed candidate as a
winner and was rejected in 2011 – suggesting that people do not want change
This was seen in the Labour leadership election where Ed Miliband, beat his brother David in the fourth round
of AV, despite David having been more highly rated than Ed in the previous three rounds
6. FPTP excluded the voices of smaller parties however - the voice of the voters is distorted or even
ignored as they struggle to achieve seats even when they win millions of votes. Even if PR is more
complex, it would produce a result that reflects what the electorate wants
UKIP won 3.9m votes in 2015, but only 1 seat
Green won around 1m votes but again only received 1 seat
Evaluate the extent to which different electoral systems produce different outcomes
Different:
One of the ways in which first-past-the-post voting system produces different outcomes to other parties is that
it leads to no clear correlation between number of vote’s casts and seats won.
- For example, in 2005 general election Labour received 40.7% of the votes but won 413 seats and also
during the 2010 general elections Conservatives won 36.1% of the votes but retained 307 seats. Thus,
governments under the F-P-T-P voting systems are often formed without the support of 50% of those
who cote.
- Furthermore, the Additional Member System leads to different outcomes as it’s a proportional system
which means the proportion of seats won by the candidates and the votes, they received are
proportional. For example, in Scotland in 2007 the SNP received 31% of the votes and won 47 seats and
Labour won 29.2% of the votes and won 46 seats. This means that often political parties are rewarded
with a fair share of the seats for the votes they obtained
Also, F-P-T-P ensures that one party obtains a majority of seats, leaving little room for smaller parties, whereas
other systems have more proportional outcome where smaller parties can achieve more seats
- For example, there have only been three full coalition governments in the UK- two in world wars and
one in 2010. Therefore, F-P-T-P voting system produces different outcomes to other voting systems as
it’s a majority system. There is only 1 Green MP in Pment
, - Also, in AMS the outcome is made more proportional by its constituency list top up, thus making it
easier for third party candidates to make an inroad into politics. Thus, AMS produces different
outcomes to other electoral systems due its hybrid nature, where it combines F-P-T-P voting system
with closed list system. There are 7 Green MSPs in Scotland
Difference in policies
- Different outcomes produce is evident through different policies across the regions
- For example, in Scotland they have control over voting age which is 16 and during the pandemic they
were able to respond of their own accord
- Welsh Language Act 2011 – protecting the Welsh language
- Free prescriptions in Wales and Scotland
Similar:
However, there is similarity between the outcomes of different electoral systems, as F-P-T-P can lead to
coalition governments, where more than one party has significant power at one time, such as happens in AMS.
- For example, in 2010 general election a coalition was formed between the Conservatives (with 32.4% of
the votes) and Liberal Democrats (with 22.0% of the votes). This suggests that coalition government
still can be formed using F-P-T-P if neither of the two main parties have sufficient authority to run the
government. Accordingly, third parties like liberal Democrats can in theory exert tremendous influence
in such a situation since they can ally with one of the two main parties to form a coalition, which
subsequently happened in 2010 elections.
- As of 2021, SNP in coalition with Scottish Greens - AMS
- Thus, electoral systems do sometimes produce similar outcomes
Majoritarian outcomes: where the party or candidate with the most votes win.
- In FPTP, the candidate with the highest number of votes in each constituency wins, even if they do not
secure an absolute majority. This often leads to single-party dominance in the UK Parliament, as seen in
the 2019 general election when the Conservative Party won a majority of seats with (365) 43.6% of the
vote.
- Similarly, under AMS, the SNP have 64 MPSs meaning they have a majority – this 64 is also double the
next number of MSPs (31 for Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party)
Westminster still holds the power
- Even if you argue that they have different outcomes, it is not particularly significant because all power
is concentrated at Westminster
- Sunak, for example, just blocked the Scottish Transgender Bill and Second Referendum, highlighting
that, whatever the outcome, power is still largely concentrated at Westminster
Evaluate the extent to which the Westminster electoral system ensures strong and stable government
There have been few elections where not just one party has been needed to create a government.
The election of May 2010 and of 2017 are the only ones since 1979 where no single party has been in office
without a clear majority. Even the May 2010 outcome has been a stable and strong government
Some have alleged that the workings of the Westminster system in May 2010 and of 2017 exposed its failings as
opposed to displaying its strengths and stability. It is possible that the Westminster electoral system could
produce coalition governments which are weak and unstable.
The coalition for the Lib Dems was disastrous as they were unable to fulfil many of the policies that they had
proposed in their manifesto, due to being in a coalition – such as tuition fees, which at worst, they were
supposed to decrease, and at best were supposed to abolish, and yet which were trebled
The norm of the Westminster system has been to provide stability. Often with landslide majorities – the use of
FPTP allows this
Boris Johnson won with a clear majority in 2019, winning 365 seats, such as Blair did in 1997, and they were
both able to produce strong governments in terms of legislation – Blair began devolution under constitutional
reform and Johnson was able to handle the pandemic and Brexit relatively effectively. The use of FPTP to elect
these governments shows that strong and stable government should continue
, If a government has a small majority or no majority under the Westminster system, they can be seen as weak
and unstable
A deep-rooted weakness of both administrations was the fundamental fact that neither enjoyed a significant
parliamentary majority. Major’s relatively narrow Commons majority of 21 was gradually eroded by by-
election losses, defections, and the suspension of the party whip for several MPs. The ultimate consequence was
that by the end of 1996 Major headed a minority government that struggled to get legislation through Pment.
In also seeking a personal mandate, Theresa May risked the small majority she’d inherited from David Cameron
when she called the 2017 general election. She did so in the expectation that she would strengthen her
parliamentary position for impending Brexit negotiations, even though in constitutional terms she wasn’t
required to for three more years. Yet the volatile result saw her reduced to leading a minority government, and
within a considerably quicker timescale than Major did after becoming Prime Minister – she even had to sign a
confidence and supply agreement with the DUP. May was 8 seats short of a majority – she resigned in 2019
Stability and strength have allowed governments to carry out their manifesto pledges with a clear mandate
Boris Johnson, with his 365 seat majority, was able to get Brexit done and there was a clear mandate about this
because he had won with a large majority. Blair had an emphasis on constitutional reform, and he was able to
do this very significantly in his premiership as he had won a landslide victory
Strong and stable government, it can be argued, is more likely to arise from party discipline than from the
electoral system – even governments with large majorities can be weak/unstable.
Many would argue that currently, even though Johnson has a majority, his party is unstable due to party
discipline, in relation to events such as parties during lockdown. Lots of sleaze allegations – recently an MP
found out for watching porn in the commons. Johnson forced to resign in 2022 – replaced by Truss and then
Sunak (explain)
UK Elections, Voting Behaviour & the Media – look at voting behaviour
Evaluate the extent to which general elections in the UK are lost by the government rather than won by
the opposition
At times, the public tires of the personalities and policies of the government
The electorate has been known to ‘punish’ failure or misconduct, in 1992 and 1997 there were a series of sleaze
allegations against Conservative MPs (seen to be particularly ironic considering the Tory ‘Back to Basics’
slogan), this is clear evidence that governments lose elections if they fail to deliver or if their conduct and
behaviour places them out of step with the ordinary voter, voters want governments to be trustworthy and
moral. May’s loss of a majority in 2017 – although she did not lose it shows that governments can cause their
own misfortune
Oppositions can win by winning over the media in a general election contest, this can have a huge bearing on
who wins the election
Opposition leaders perceived as ‘strong’ and ‘fresh’, such as Blair in with his New Labour front in 1997, win
votes. In an age of personalities and image – it is how charismatic the leaders are that determines the outcome,
or it is how well they win over the media and gain their backing. Therefore oppositions have the potential to
win elections and overthrow an existing government, particularly if the leadership is strong and they can win
over the media. This trend is likely to continue as media influence grows.
A government that is not united and has internal divisions is prone to defeat
Disunity in political parties is damaging, for example the Conservative split over Europe in the 1990s, the
Labour split between the Blairite and Brownite factions in 2010 – a governing party at war with itself cannot
win general elections and as splits seem to be prevalent in large parties these issues will continue to have an
impact
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller abbysrevisionnotes. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $20.68. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
85651 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now