Summary A-Level Edexcel UK Politics Paper 1 UK essay plans
55 keer bekeken 0 keer verkocht
Vak
Component 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas
Instelling
PEARSON (PEARSON)
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 with examples up to date as of November 2024.
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
2024 – Labour government won a strong majority in the July election and can therefore lead government
effectively
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.
2024: In the 2024 UK general election, Labour secured a substantial majority of 412 seats with only 34% of the
total vote share, highlighting a persistent disparity between popular votes and parliamentary representation
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 Harrogate this is Tom Gordon, 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
effectively no party competition
An example of this would be in Richmond (Yorkshire) where the Conservatives always win 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
2024: despite Reform UK getting 14% of vote they secured only 5 seats
Evaluate the extent to which different electoral systems produce different outcomes
Different:
,One of the ways in which FPTP 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.
- In the 2024 UK general election, Labour secured a substantial majority of 412 seats with only 34% of
the total vote share, highlighting a persistent disparity between popular votes and parliamentary
representation
- Thus, governments under the FPTP voting systems are often formed without the support of 50% of
those who vote.
- 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, FPTP 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- the most recent was in
2010
- 2024: Greens and Reform UK received significant vote shares—14% and 12% respectively—but RUK
got only 5 seats and Greens only 4
- Therefore, FPTP produces different outcomes to other voting systems as it’s a majoritarian system.
- 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
Different voter systems produce differing levels of turnout
- Different electoral systems can also affect voter turnout and engagement.
- FPTP can lead to voter apathy, especially in "safe seats," where one party is almost certain to win,
resulting in many voters feeling that their votes do not matter.
- In systems like STV (Single Transferable Vote) or AMS, where votes are more likely to contribute to the
election outcome, voter engagement tends to be higher. For instance, countries employing PR often
report higher voter turnout rates, reflecting a belief that every vote has an impact on the final results
- For instance, in the 2023 Dutch general election, voter turnout was around 78%, largely attributed to its
Proportional Representation system encouraging participation across a wider range of parties. In
contrast, the UK's turnout for the 2024 general election was approximately 60%
Similar:
FPTP can lead to coalition governments, such as happens in other systems such as 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 FPTP if neither of the two main parties have sufficient authority to run the
government..
- Up until April 2024, there was a coalition agreement between the Scottish National Party (SNP) and the
Scottish Greens, known as the Bute House Agreement
- Thus, electoral systems can 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 2024 UK general election when Labour secured a substantial majority of 412 seats with only 34% of
the total vote share
- The Scottish National Party (SNP) achieved a majority government for the first time in the 2011
elections, winning 69 out of 129 seats. They won a second majority in the 2016 elections
Different systems can produce minority governments
, - In both FPTP and proportional systems, parties can achieve minority governments
- 2024: when the coalition collapsed between SNP and Scottish Greens, the SNP chose to form a minority
government (AMS)
- 2017: Conservative party won 318, just short of 326 required for majority government, so they formed
a minority government (FPTP)
- This shows that majoritarian and proportional systems can produce similar outcomes (minority
governments)
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 was 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.
2024 – Labour government won a strong majority (won 412 seats) in the July election and can therefore lead
government effectively
The use of FPTP to elect these governments shows that strong and stable government should continue under
this system
If a government has a small majority or no majority under the Westminster system, they can be seen as weak
and unstable
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.
2017: Theresa May led a minority government, – 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, without managing to get Brexit done
(likely due to her minority government)
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
2024 – Labour government won a strong majority (won 412 seats) in the July election and can therefore lead
government effectively. They have been able to start working on their manifesto, as can be seen by their
scheme of releasing prisoners early (to deal with overcrowding)
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 had a majority, his party was unstable due to party
discipline, in relation to events such as parties during lockdown. Lots of sleaze allegations –an MP found out for
watching porn in the commons. Johnson forced to resign in 2022 – replaced by Truss and then Sunak
- Is this really stable government?
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper abbysrevision. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €19,19. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
