Why are some pressure groups more successful than others?

There are many reasons for why some pressure groups are more successful than others. One of them is due to their relationship with the government.  Some insider pressure groups are in close contact with senior civil servants and ministers and are therefore able to influence legislation.  For example, Trade Unions and the British Medical Association may be asked to share their expertise and policy details.  These groups may be more successful than outside groups , who will find it hard to influence government legislation.  These may be groups who wish to work with the government such as Greenpeace or because of their violent methods that cannot be associated with the government, for example Anti Animal Testing Groups.  Therefore, these groups may be less successful in directly influencing the government.

Furthermore, a reason why some pressure groups are more successful is because of there financial situation and organisation.  Pressure groups can receive money from membership fees and donations for instance.  Evidently, this results in pressure groups having a higher success rate as they can spend more money on advertising and employing professional lobbyists, scientists etc. Ultimately, this can influence public opinion and the government, making the pressure group more successful, for example Live 8.  In addition the success of a pressure group is also based on there organisation, more publicity campaigns can keep the cause going and gain support from the public eye.  In recent events, Ash was successful promoting the dangers of smoking which resulted in the ban in public areas.  Therefore, this shows that wealthy and organised pressure groups may be more successful in influencing the government.

Moreover, a third reason why some pressure groups are more successful than others is due to the media.  Media coverage plays a significant role in manipulating the views of the public, the media will portray a pressure group as important or not important therefore influencing public opinion.  For instance, Live 8 used the media to raise awareness of problems in Africa, without media attention the pressure group would have been unsuccessful.  This shows that the media helps to improve public image, however it is apparent that a well known charismatic leader can influence the success of a pressure group.  For example, Bob Geldof and Bono helped to promote problems in Africa.  This maintains that the media can determine the success of a pressure group.

In conclusion, the decision on methods used can affect the success of  pressure group.  For instance, Amnesty International refuse to use militant methods to promote there cause.  On the other hand, extreme methods used by pressure groups can lead to the alienation of public support.  For instance, the direct action used by Father 4 Justice and Anti Animal Testing groups can often be of a violent nature.  Therefore, this implies that the methods of practice used can effect the success of a pressure group. 

RSPCA pressure group

A pressure group can be described as an organised group that does not put up candidates for election, but seeks to influence government policy or legislation. They can also be described as ‘interest groups’, ‘lobby groups’ or ‘protest groups’. Some people avoid using the term ‘pressure group’ as it can inadvertently be interpreted as meaning the groups use actual pressure to achieve their aims, which does not necessarily happen. In Britain, the number of political parties is very small, whereas the number of pressure groups runs into thousands; as the membership of political parties has fallen, that of pressure groups has increased.

One example of a pressure group is the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). The RSPCA were the first pressure group to introduce a law to protect animals and they work hard to ensure that all animals can live a life free from pain and suffering. Furthermore, through campaigning they raise standards of care and awareness of issues for the animals who have no voice. With the support of the public, they push for laws to be changed, the improvement of the welfare of animals on farms, in research labs, in the wild, in paddocks and in people’s homes.

The RSPCA use investigations and prosecutions to stand up to people who deliberately harm animals to send out a clear message that animal abuse will not be tolerated. In addition, highly trained officers tackle neglect and cruelty at every level and work hard to stamp out large-scale serious, organised and commercial animal cruelty.

This pressure group is an animal welfare charity and they rely on the continuing support of animal lovers to help them so they can continue to be there for animals. The RSPCA accepts donations from the public and people can get involved by campaigning, volunteering or fundraising to help the charity.

Moreover, the RSPCA is an insider pressure group. This means that the government will ask high place people with them for advice and it will be listened to more than an outsider pressure group. However, they are a charity and receive no government funding; they only rely on people to support this work through donations.

To what extent are the current ideas of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party similar and different?

There are many similarities and differences between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. This is due to their manifestos and what the MP’s within the party believe in.

Firstly, the Conservative Party believes that individuals should own and control businesses and services and make profits from them, and that the government should not interfere with these things. If this creates a gap between rich and poor, then it's not down to the government to sort it out. It's all about survival of the fittest. This compares to the Labour party who believe that The government should work with private companies to provide good public services and that the government should be involved in helping to close the gap between rich and poor by providing opportunities for those in need. Also, the Labour party think that all public services such as schools and hospitals need to receive funding from the government in order to provide good-quality services that are available for everyone to use.

Furthermore, the Conservatives think that tax should be low, so that people can keep as much of what they earn as possible. As businesses and services are privately owned, it's thought that people will have more money to spend on these things, instead of the government taking peoples money and choosing for them. Therefore, the Conservatives believe that this will improve public services, because in order to get people to use them, they need to be good. On the other hand, the Labour Party say that there need to be different levels of tax depending on how much people earn. Therefore, the more people earn, the more people should pay otherwise there will be a group of very rich people and a group of very poor people. Furthermore, the tax is used to provide services for everybody, rich and poor.

Moreover, within the community, the Conservatives believe that traditional values should be encouraged to help build strong communities and families. Also, that strict discipline and respect will cut crime and criminals should be treated harshly. However, the views of the Labour party are different again because they believe that communities need to be strong by promoting tolerance of and respect for all and by all and that everyone should enjoy their individual rights but they must also understand that they have responsibilities to those around them.

In conclusion, the two main parties have many differences and believe in different aspects of politics. This shows the representation of the Labour party being left wing and therefore for holding beliefs about equality compared to the Conservative party being right wing and showing beliefs which support competition between businesses and having different classes within society.

Does Jeremy Corbyn align himself more with traditional socialism or is he a social democrat? Why?

Throughout his political career, Jeremy Corbyn has been known as a passionate left winger of the labour party. Furthermore, many people associate Jeremy Corbyn with traditional socialism, however, since gaining control of the labour party, there are key arguments that show Corbyn has been embracing social democrat principles.

Firstly, whilst Corbyn was a backbencher, he voted for the Transport Bill May 2000. This is associated with traditional socialism because it takes away the capitalist view of profit and ensures that profit goes back into improving services for all of the people, instead of just the business holders. Therefore this links with the belief of the socialists that wealth should be a collective ownership. Corbyn also aligned himself with traditional socialism due to him supporting free education due to his belief that education should be available for everyone. This further supports traditional socialism because of agreeing with the reduction of social class divisions because currently only middle and upper class people can afford higher education.

However, Jeremy Corbyn has also proposed policies that agree with the ideology of social democracy. For example, Corbyn proposes a mixed economy which is a key idea of social democracy. In a mixed economy, there are private and public industries which are used to keep the balance between capitalism and state intervention. In addition, Corbyn has proposed the re-nationalization of utilities, such as water gas and electricity, whilst allowing free enterprise  and entrepreneurship. Jeremy Corbyn has also been a strong supporter of comprehensive social welfare which is an aspect of social democracy and has contentedly supported the NHS, a key expansion of the welfare state that was introduced through the Beveridge Report 1942.

In conclusion, Jeremy Corbyn individually aligns himself with traditional socialism and strongly supported the ideology in the backbenches. Now Corbyn is the labour party leader, there is evidence to suggest a moderate shift to social democracy, which is supported by the majority of party members.

Does the UK suffer from a democratic deficit?

A democratic deficit occurs when government or government institutions fall short of fulfilling the principles of democracy in their practices, operation or where political representatives and institutions are discredited in the eyes of the public. In the UK there has been a discussion in recent years that Britain’s democracy is flawed. Politicians are held in low esteem, parliament seems outdated and the expenses scandal exposed just how many politicians had lost a duty to public office.

One of the main factors forwarded to argue there is a democratic deficit in the UK is the low levels of voter turnout and widespread disillusionment with the political system. In 2001 the UK received a general election turnout of 59.4%, which is extremely low. A greater number of voters voted against the Labour government than those that elected them. In 2010 it increased to just below 65%. This means that, low turnouts bring to question government legitimacy and the strength of its electoral mandate. Therefore, if citizens are having little influence in politics, democracy weakens as it is no longer really a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

On the other hand, defenders of the status quo claim that there is not a democratic deficit in the UK because citizens of this country, unlike many others, have their human rights and freedoms guaranteed under the rule of law. Evidence of this can be found in the 1998 Human Rights Act and 2010 Equality Act, as well as Britain’s continued membership of the European Court of Human Rights. In addition to this, reforms are taking place to develop our country so it is more democratic and fair, this is evident in Labour’s 1997 pledge to increase the use of referendums and even, David Cameron’s backing of e-petitions and increased devolution of powers to Scotland and the regions, as a result of the close verdict of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.

With exception to the Scottish independence referendum (84.5%), turnouts for referendums have been historically poor, for instance the 2011 AV referendum got a turnout of just 42.2%.  Local referendums have often had lower turnouts; in Sunderland the referendum for a directly elected mayor (2001) had a turnout of 10%. As for e-petitions, Parliament’s Backbench Select Committee still retains the sole power to abandon or debate an issue that may have generated the 100,000 signature threshold gained online.

This shows that there has been a growing ‘democratic deficit’ in recent years, which has mainly been caused due to low political participation in voting and other political areas.

Would a change in the voting system enhance our democracy?

There are many changes that can be made to our voting system that could possibly enhance our democracy. For example, on Thursday 5th May 2011, a referendum was held to vote on the alternative voting system, as part of the Conservative – Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement drawn up after the 2010 general election and was a nationwide vote. The referendum concerned whether to replace the present "first-past-the-post" system with the "alternative vote" (AV) method. The proposal to introduce AV was rejected by the electorate.

On a turnout of 42.2 per cent, 68 per cent voted No and 32 per cent voted Yes. Ten of the 440 local counting areas recorded 'Yes' votes above 50 per cent; six in London, and those in Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh Central and Glasgow Kelvin in Scotland. The campaign was described in retrospect by political scientist Iain McLean as a "bad-tempered and ill-informed public debate"

Although this voting system was not put in place due to the majority vote being no, this change in the voting system would have enhanced our democracy more. The Alternative Vote (AV) is a preferential system where the voter ranks the candidates in order of preference. Each voter has one vote, but rather than an X, they put a '1' by their first choice a '2' by their second choice, and so on, until they no longer wish to express any further preferences or run out of candidates. Candidates are elected outright if they gain more than half the votes as first preferences. If not, the candidate who lost (the one with least first preferences) is eliminated and their votes move to the second preference marked on the ballot papers. This process continues until one candidate has half of the votes and is elected. This system would enhance our democracy because due to the way the candidates are elected straight away if they receive more than half the votes, compared to the first past the post voting system where constitutional MP’s have to be elected to win a seat in the House of Commons. This is evident due to UKIP winning more than a third of the UK votes but ending up with only 1 seat overall.

Should the UK use more referendums?

A referendum is a vote on a ballot question, which involves the Government asking all members of the eligible voting public to cast a vote to accept or reject a certain proposition.
Once a referendum result is in, the Government reserves the right to make the final decision. Whilst the Government is likely to respect voters’ wishes and let the referendum result carry the day (particularly if it called the referendum in the first place), the Government can still choose to set it aside.

One reason why people believe the UK should use more referendums is because they increase participation in democratic action. This is due to people believing that their opinion will matter more due to the consequence of the referendum being directly up to the public's choice. Furthermore, this could result in the public wanting to know more about politics; in order for them to understand about the subject; so that their vote in the referendum will represent their beliefs more accurately. 
However, this can be argued against due to not a lot of people understanding politics to an appropriate extent and therefore placing a vote which doesn't truly represent Britain.

Another reason why referendums are useful is because they can help to conclude a decision which the government is divided upon. This is extremely useful because it results in the public's voice being listened to more compared to just the government and will mean the public can be more happy about the outcome of the referendum if the government agree to go along with it.
On the other hand, if the voter turnout is low for certain referendums, people may argue that this result does not reflect the view of the majority and therefore, this defeats the idea of the government being controlled by the people due to not everyone caring and therefore not voting. This could be further effected by people who don't really understand politics and therefore just vote for any answer for the sake of it.

Furthermore, one big factor effecting the argument on whether more referendums should be held is that they cost lots of money to hold. This can be shown by the referendum on changing the voting system from first past the post which cost tax payers £75 million, according to the election watchdog. Official estimates before the national poll in 2011 suggested that the final bill was around £100 million. This is an extreme problem held towards referendums considering the amount they cost and the fact that a lot of people may not even decide to vote due to them being uninterested in the matter.

In conclusion, I believe that the UK should hold more referendums. This is because they involve a more direct opinion from the public and therefore more people will want to become involved in politics to voice their beliefs. Furthermore, they result in issues being solved in the UK which lots of people have a problem with, and are therefore solved in a more fair and direct manor because the people are the ones who decide on what happens (as long as the government don't overall the final decision).

Is the UK truly democratic?

Democracy is a general description of a political system that is organised on the basis that government should serve the interests of the people. It is expected that citizens should also influence decisions or make decisions themselves. As well as this; the government should be accountable under a democratic society. The UK is regarded as beholding democracy however current trends suggest increasing political apathy have begun to question whether the UK political system is truly democratic. The UK is regarded as being highly democratic in that all elections are free from bias and interference. However, the First Past the Post electoral system undermines the belief of free and fair elections in that smaller parties have no realistic chance of winning. Furthermore, there is only one representative of each constituency to express the ideologies of all constituents, this means that the constituents are under represented. 

Evidently, our democracy is far from flawless. People may argue that Britain could be made more democratic through a proportional electoral system. However, this may confuse voters and result in weaker government. People also believe that compulsory voting could improve our democracy. But this could create careless votes by people who are not interested in politics and therefore this would be an inaccurate representation of what the population wants. Also, people believe that more referendums could be the answer, but this may be subject to people who do not know what is best for the country, and even if this did occur, only those who set the agenda of the referendum are those who possess the power and have the overall decision.

In addition, the UK is not democratic in that the party that is in government does not have any legal obligations to legislate the popular policies of their manifesto programme, however the fact that the executive is held to account by legislature means that any undemocratic behaviour is publicized. For example, the Liberal Democrats main vote winner was the policy of not increasing the university fees, the fact that Nick Clegg then agreed to the decision of tripling university fees, has had terrible effects on his party. The people that voted for the Liberal Democrats on that basis are now informed, free press publicizes immoralities, which therefore results in them becoming unlikely to be voted in again anytime soon.

In conclusion, this means we don't truly have much choice in political parties. Consensus politics means that the three main parties are becoming increasingly similar and we are left with very little choice and people vote tactically therefore, not for the party they truly want in power, but for a party that is better than the one that is most similar to the main parties ideologies. Many voters see the parties they wish to be in office too small, therefore deem it futile to engage in political participation and vote.

What happened in the most recent UK election

The most recent general election was held on 7th May 2015 and was the 56th parliament election of the United Kingdom. The voting throughout the UK took place in 650 constituencies where each county voted to elect one Member of Parliament to the House of Commons. This was held on the same day throughout England apart from Greater London.

Polls and commentators predicted that the outcome of the vote would be extremely close and could result in a second hung parliament (as was in 2010 election). Furthermore, Conservative votes were extremely underestimated shown by opinion polls. Having been in coalition with the Liberal Democrats party since 2010, the Conservatives won 330 seats before and 36.9% of the vote, compared to the recent election where the Conservatives won a working majority of 12. After the surprise, The British Polling Council started an inquiry into the large difference between the opinion poll and the final outcome. This election was the first time the Conservatives had won a majority vote since the 1992 general election.

In addition, the Scottish National Party have had a surge in support since the 2014 Scottish independence referendum and became the third largest party by winning 56 of the seats in Scotland out of the 59, which were mostly at the expense of Labour. Also, the Liberal Democrats had their worst result since 1970 and held only 8 seats compared to their previous 57. However, the Green Party won their highest ever share of the overall vote with 3.8%, as well as the growing support for the UK Independence Party which came third in terms of votes with 12.9% but only won 1 seat.