Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PARTY DEMOCRACY

    PARTY MEMBERSHIP

    Labour: mid-late 1990s - around 400K, has dropped to half that number since
    Conservatives: 1997 - 350K, has fallen to around 250K
    Liberal Democrats: around 70K, this fell from the 100K members they had before the merger with the SDP

    Several theories have been put forward to suggest why party membership has fallen, a trend that has been clearly identified since the 1950s:
    - people now participate in politics in different ways, such as joining pressure groups
    - specific objectives of pressure groups have greater appeal, rather than broader political ideas and policies associated with parties
    - poor image of politicians, people do not wish to be associated with sleaze
    - increasing power of the EU makes many political parties that focus on local or national policies appear irrelevant
    - it is no longer necessary to join a party to stay up-to-date, there are other sources available
    - membership does not mean views are heard or acted upon

    CONFERENCES
    - both annual conferences of the Labour party and Conservative party lack any real power
    - events are carefully stage-managed
    - votes ‘rubber stamp’ party approval for policies
    - the Conservative conference does not have a formal role
    - the Labour conference has formal powers regarding policy-making, according to their constitution

    CANDIDATE CHOICE

    LABOUR
    - Labour has a list of approved individuals, potential candidates do not need to be on this list
    - in theory, providing that they are a member of the party, any individual can be nominated
    - reforms in the 1980s increased the power of the central party in order to exclude potential candidates that are seen as embarrassing and unsuitable
    - once the approved candidates are on a shortlist, all local members and members of affiliated trade unions have a vote each.

    CONSERVATIVES
    1. candidates apply to central office
    2. candidates are then vetted by the candidate selection officer
    3. approved candidate entered onto list and can apply for any advertised vacancies.
    4. the local constituency of the candidate shortlists all applicants and makes the choice
    - Ordinary party members have less power than the executive council of the local Conservative association

    LEADERSHIP CHOICE (this has extra detail I researched into, if you want the basics it’s the on page 26/27 in the textbook)

    LABOUR
    - before 1983, leadership was restricted to MPs
    - if the party is in power then a leadership election can be triggered if two-thirds of the party agree at a party conference
    - if they are in opposition, then it is triggered if 20% of Labour MPs demand a contest.
    - the voting system has changed multiple times when it comes to electing a new party leader. Tony Blair was elected using a block vote FPTP system, Miliband elected under a block vote reallocation system
    - Miliband was elected under the block vote system, except votes were reallocated after each round until someone had over 50% of the vote
    - David Miliband was in the lead for rounds 1 through to 3, but Ed Miliband won overall in round 4. Ed Miliband was the top choice for trade unions, whereas David Miliband was the top choice for MPs and party members.
    - the leadership contest that was triggered by Miliband’s resignation was under a new system
    - MPs could only stand for election if they had been nominated by at least 15% of MPs, which would be 35 MPs currently, meaning that a maximum of 6 MPs can run for leadership
    - each member had a vote, in comparison to past systems
    - MPs also had equal voting power as a party member, meaning that the MPs had less influence
    - members of the public could also have voted for the Labour election by paying £3
    - this system resulted in Jeremy Corbyn being elected as the current Labour leader

    CONSERVATIVES
    - before 1965, Conservative leadership was determined in private consultations among senior party members.
    - in 1965, the Conservative party introduced a procedure for electing the party leader through a ballot of all Conservative MPs.
    - members of Parliament are to consult local party members.
    - for a leadership contest to be triggered off, only 10% of Conservative MPs would be needed.
    - William Hague was elected leader under this system in 1997 after the Conservatives’ catastrophic defeat in the general election.
    - Hague proposed to reform the leadership election system to give ordinary party members more say. Now, when more than two candidates are proposed, initial ballots of Tory MPs are held with the lowest placed candidate dropping out at each round until only two remain.
    - at this point, the final two candidates - David Cameron and David Davis in 2005 - are voted on by each member of the Conservative Party.

    PARTY FUNDING AND REFORM

    PARTY INCOME
    - an increasingly small percentage of parties’ income is derived from membership fees
    - parties have begun to rely on rich donors and the support of businesses to boost funds
    - this has not prevented parties from experiencing acute financial difficulties
    - for Labour, trade union funding dropped: partly due to reduced TU membership, also as part of a protest from the unions against what they see as anti-union policies
    - businesses and unions feel that they do not get a sufficient return for their investment
    - according to the electoral commission covering March to June 2007:
    - Labour received £5 million from individuals, businesses and unions
    - Conservatives received £4.5 million in donations & £1.78 million in government subsidies
    - both parties were heavily in debt: Labour by £20.2 million, the Conservatives by £16.3M

    Sir Hayden Phillips 2007
    - proposed that parties receive 50p each year for every vote cast for them in the most recent general election, and an additional 25p for each vote received in the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, and European Parliament
    - state funding would be increased by £25 million per year
    - individual donations would be capped

    CASH FOR HONOURS: MARCH 2006
    - enquiry focused on four businessmen who had lent Labour £5 million and were then nominated by Blair for peerages
    - flurry of arrests of advisers and fundraisers, dozens were interviewed
    - not just focused on Labour: leading Conservative donors were also questioned
    - investigation cost nearly £800K and the result was that there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone in the case
    - despite no charges or prosecutions, the affair tarnished reputations of the major parties
    - long-running row over ‘cash for peerages’ rumbled on for four years, seriously affecting party income
    - donations now have to be registered and it appears that all of the parties are able to attract top political donors once again

    REFORM AND PROPOSALS
    - a Parliamentary Committee recommended state funding in 1976
    - it was recommended in 1981 that there should be a cap on individual donations
    - there was also a recommendation that the state should match any total received by voluntary donations
    - in 1998, the Committee on Standards in Public Life suggested:
    - anonymous donations over £50 banned
    - foreign donations to be outlawed
    - donations over £5K to be publicly disclosed
    - shareholders of businesses wishing to donate to be balloted
    - funds and spending of parties to be submitted to Electoral Commission
    - spending cap of £20 million for all parties when fighting general elections
    - state funding for parties to be extended
    - in event of referendums, both sides have broadly equal funds
    - new laws came into force after 2001 election; these limited the parties to a maximum spend of £30K per constituency contested

    FOR STATE FUNDING
    - most other European democracies have state funding of parties
    - the state would be able to fund the opposition’s shadow cabinet for more effective opposition
    - the parties would no longer be reliant on individuals and businesses for funding and thus not feel under obligation to them
    - parties could concentrate on ideas, policies and their duties rather than fundraising. Governments could concentrate of just governing
    - secret funding could bring democracy into disrepute
    - parties would be able to plan for their long-term future and give job security to employees
    - funding would be considered to be fair and ethical

    AGAINST STATE FUNDING
    - in countries such as Italy, state funding actually increased corruption and it was abolished
    - taxpayers could well object to money being given to radical, extreme or fringe parties
    - individuals, rich or poor, should be free to make donations to a party if they wish to do so
    - the ruling party could fix the state funding to their own advantage
    - it would be very difficult for the parties to agree a funding formula that is acceptable to all of them
    - funding linked to votes would make it difficult for minor parties to compete
    - state funding would prevent unorthodox but workable ideas from being championed by donors
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Strucutre for internal democracy is about, how they elect their leadership, their candidates and formulate policy...always referring back to how much say ordinary members get compared to the elite.

    sources of funding are..
    funding in kind- free air time, postal resources
    state money- short money and cranborne money-(2 or more mps to get this)
    membership fees- on decline- yet parties spending more, so raises the question of where is the money coming from?
    labour have the trade unions.
    donations from wealthy individuals- lord ashcroft, paul Sykes, bernie eclston ect.
    fundraising- small scale is fine- however can be used as cash for access/influence.
    i would also talk a little bit about malcom rifkind and jack straw..recent example of how they purposed they could grant access for money.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    How long should you spend on each question? Like timings?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    10 and 20on the first 2 that use the sources- just don't go over half an hour. Then half an hr for the other 2. I'm resitting the paper from last year and my main advice would be to spend as little time on the 1st question as possible. Get your 4 Ao1 point down and move on
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by racheltominey15)
    10 and 20on the first 2 that use the sources- just don't go over half an hour. Then half an hr for the other 2. I'm resitting the paper from last year and my main advice would be to spend as little time on the 1st question as possible. Get your 4 Ao1 point down and move on
    Thank you!!
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    How did everyone find that?

    the questions were awkward
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dk1234)
    How did everyone find that?

    the questions were awkward
    I really liked this exam! I'm just hoping that F852 is just as lovely! (I'm not looking forward to it)
    Also, the timings helped massively. I didn't make the same mistake of overruning on questions like last year
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi I took the paper too, and I am fairly sure that the first three questions went perfectly I was super pleased, but then I did the pressure groups question and my timing was off, My paragraphs used models to expose the importance of different factors, so Rational choice with short term factors, Dominant ideology with the media, Party loyalty with partisanship and of course Sociological to include age and class. But yeah I ran out of time and only did about five lines for my last para and a three line conclusion, and I guess I'm just looking for assurance that my life isn't over :')
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ipgeorge)
    Hi I took the paper too, and I am fairly sure that the first three questions went perfectly I was super pleased, but then I did the pressure groups question and my timing was off, My paragraphs used models to expose the importance of different factors, so Rational choice with short term factors, Dominant ideology with the media, Party loyalty with partisanship and of course Sociological to include age and class. But yeah I ran out of time and only did about five lines for my last para and a three line conclusion, and I guess I'm just looking for assurance that my life isn't over :'
    How did you get on with the selectable question? [3,4&5]
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Did anyone do the 'To what extent do you agree' choice Q on 'there should be an extensive reform of the way we elect MPs'???

    This was a Q analysing the pros and cons of FPTP right?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    oh I did question 5 so the voting behaviour one which is the one that went wrong. The compulsory questions were absolutely fine.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ipgeorge)
    oh I did question 5 so the voting behaviour one which is the one that went wrong. The compulsory questions were absolutely fine.
    Last year I didn't answer the last question at all (since I messed up my timings) and I got a C for the paper! Don't worry, best thing to do is focus on F852 now
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Questions were decent but messed up with my timing leaving me rushing questions 2 and 4. Managed to get my points down but was quite rushed, hopefully didn't lose too many marks.

    Looking at previous mark schemes, seems low 70's raw mark usually got you an A, we reckon same this year?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kiera28)
    Did anyone do the 'To what extent do you agree' choice Q on 'there should be an extensive reform of the way we elect MPs'???

    This was a Q analysing the pros and cons of FPTP right?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes because it had the command word "discuss" after the statement.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I agree, overall the paper was quite pleasant and the questions were perfect to what I revised. Fortunately, because I knew the content so well, I was not rushed for the questions and even went on to use the extra paper (!!)

    Does anyone know the Government questions from the 2015 Paper? Thanks
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by liamtheeagle)
    Questions were decent but messed up with my timing leaving me rushing questions 2 and 4. Managed to get my points down but was quite rushed, hopefully didn't lose too many marks.

    Looking at previous mark schemes, seems low 70's raw mark usually got you an A, we reckon same this year?
    For this year though the questions were easy I think an A will be below 75/00- probably 72
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone know what the questions were for the 2015 F852 test. OCR stillhavent released it
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Billy_Boi)
    Last years questions for Unit 1 were:

    Using the sources and your own knowledge, outline the ways pressure groups can use courts to pursue their objectives.

    Using your sources and your own knowledge discuss the view hat pressure groups make the UK more democratic?

    The Labour and Conservative Party are both internally undemocratic. Discuss.

    To what extent is the government's record in office an important factor influencing how people vote?
    Hello, do you know what the questions were for Unit 2 in 2015?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beckyfrance)
    Hello, do you know what the questions were for Unit 2 in 2015?
    I'll check.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beckyfrance)
    Hello, do you know what the questions were for Unit 2 in 2015?
    Judiciary Question: Discuss the view that the executive is the greatest threat to civil liberties in the UK.

    Constitution Question: To what extent do the advantages of having a flexible constitution outweigh the disadvantages?

    Parliament Question:
    a) Using the sources and your own knowledge, explain the role of the backbench MPs in the HoC.
    b) Using the sources and your own knowledge discuss the view that political parties have too much power in the House of Commons?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: June 5, 2017
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.