username1987655
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
please can anyone tell me a good revision guide or any good websites for this topic as i cannot seem to find anything on media influence and factors affecting electoral outcomes

PLEASE HELP!!!
0
reply
Jimbo Jones
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
when I was doing my a level/a2 in politics, I used (a) the textbook(s) and (b) the past papers (usually and lukcily they would come with an answer section).

seeing as I studied politics for uni (2:1 from exeter) and I got an A* in my A level, what specifically are you trying to find out? maybe I could help you but it's honestly been a very long time since I did it - in one sense I know a lot, but in another sense I know or remember less of this particularly

the media's influence on media outcomes (from the top of my head, interpreting "the media" in a loose way):
1) the media (i.e. news channels and journalism websites particularly) criticise political parties or governments, affecting how people will vote in the next election (the obvious one). BBC politics, for example, will broadcast prime minister's questions and "the daily politics" featuring the two well known personalities of andrew marr and jo coburn. other shows on BBC politics includes andre marr's show. all of these shows basically have a politician (or politicians) sit down with the presenters whereby they will ask them some tricky or sometimes downright awkward questions in order to put them on the spot to really grill information out of them. this can go well or badly, and when they go very badly this can lead to what people call "carcrash interviews". these kinds of interviews can lead to politicians and government officials resigning, i.e. (in my opinion) the former leader of the green party (natalie bennett) or chloe smith resigning from the position she held about half a decade ago now. "question time" too is perhaps the biggest show here where david dimblby will have 5 people (mostly of them tend to be politicians, businessmen, activists and so on) who answer questions that the audience members pose to them. again, this can either help or hinder political parties. channel 4 also have their version of this with presenters like john snow. ITV was the channel that actually hosted the EU debate between nigel farage and nick clegg (I think?).

2) social media websites can spark social movements which lead people into more direct channels of politics (i.e. from social media memes and pages to IRL protests, boycotts, etc) and those forms of direct action can get media coverage on the more mainstream sites of media (news channels and major organisations' websites). social media like facebook can also be how people spread political information in the first place through rudimentary things like camera phones - the assault of a political protester by the police (or something like that) might spark massive resentment towards a particular government - social media can be the realm where things like petitions are spread and signed, and it can be the medium whereby certain organisations can receive donations as well (also that's rarer than merely spreading information). as young people, for instance, are insanely active on social media, their exposure to politics today is basically inevitable, so this is a very important vehicle for political messages that can either hurt or harm political parties or campaigns
0
reply
username1987655
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by Jimbo Jones)
when I was doing my a level/a2 in politics, I used (a) the textbook(s) and (b) the past papers (usually and lukcily they would come with an answer section).

seeing as I studied politics for uni (2:1 from exeter) and I got an A* in my A level, what specifically are you trying to find out? maybe I could help you but it's honestly been a very long time since I did it - in one sense I know a lot, but in another sense I know or remember less of this particularly
well done!!!! Thats so good, to be honest i'm looking for help with answering questions on political parties- specifically to what extent to political parties ideologies differ (25 marks) and if parties should be state funded. As it's a new spec and format, there are no specimen questions available which is really daunting as im hoping for an A at the end of year 12, i dont really know what i need from the textbook
0
reply
Jimbo Jones
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by MediaROCKS)
well done!!!! Thats so good, to be honest i'm looking for help with answering questions on political parties- specifically to what extent to political parties ideologies differ (25 marks) and if parties should be state funded. As it's a new spec and format, there are no specimen questions available which is really daunting as im hoping for an A at the end of year 12, i dont really know what i need from the textbook
I've just edited in some points in my last message - I've got 2 areas that can answer that question but as for more nuanced areas I'm not too sure - I don't know your module syllabus here and I'm just going from my knowledge in general

"to what extent do political ideologies differ"? that's an A2 question, isn't it? oh wait, funny: I've just realised something: I was doing a levels when we did a level exams at the end of the first year and a2 exams at the end of the second year. that was quite a while ago and to be honest I think the current format of doing all the exams in one yea is pretty intense. okay, so, I'll try and answer this question for you, given the fact that I am assuming that the political ideologies here are liberalism, conservatism, socialism and anarchism (right?)(maybe feminism and multiculturalism are also "ideologies" here in your syllabus? you'll have to let me know). generally, to do well includes these kinds of points based on point-evidence (if there is anything relevant or empirical to link in)-explanation (or "conclusive/evaluation"] and to sprinkle your paragraphs with quotes from political thinkers.

AGAINST (they don't much differ):
1) liberalism and conservatism both see the actor of politics as being a self-serving individual. "methodological individualism" or rational choice theory is the school of thought which sees the individual of society as "an economic man" (as adam smith suggests) and is guided by market forces (an invisible hand which seems to lead to moral consequences of society, i.e. if everybody follows their self-interest, they end up improving society through their efforts towards their particular area of skill). from this, they both value the institution of private property and economic liberty (capitalism, free markets or "laissez faire" economics, lower taxes and so on).

2) liberalism and socialism both value a kind of "equality" (and if we're discussing feminism and multiculturalism, you can obviously say the same for those with liberalism/socialism). while it is obvious how socialists value equality (perhaps a kind of equality of outcome in the sense that people in the community become more equal based on their holdings of wealth and property via taxes and policies of nationalisation of things like utility industries and resources for education or health and so on), liberalism values equality before the law. this kind of equality is individual equality, not collective equality. "social liberals" (i.e. william beverage, T. H. Green, john rawls, etc) are more left wing in their approach to liberalism (in contrast to classical liberals) in that they are open to the idea of things like keynesian economics (whereby the government intervenes to invest in the economy in certain ways to prevent unemployment or the boost the economy, which is what capitalism is known to do until a crisis, when times are bad and to reduce that spending when the economy is better), more welfare and more equality of opportunity. equality of opportunity is kind of the bridge between liberalism and socialism in an economic sense in that it is a kind of individual equality (not collective) but it is a form of equality that is economic (as it involves resources) and not merely something like an equality of rights to things like free speech, justice, protections and so on. we might even* say that conservatism is in favour of equality in that "one nation conservatism" made popular by people like disraeli and the post war conservatives like macmillain ran upon the idea that a cohesive national society was best retained and stabilised against the threat of socialist revolutions by reducing the kinds of conditions that led to it (poverty and divisions between classes). this meant that to stimulate a more moral society, and to uphold "tradition" of a democratic capitalist nation, some aspects of social spending (or "socialism" in the more social liberal sense) would be seen to be necessary, which appeals to "equality" in that way.

3) liberalism and anarchism both question the role and value of authority (or authoritarianism) in that while liberalism is in favour of "limited" (or minimal) government" (thomas referson, for instance, said "that government which governs least governs best) and murray rothbard (and anarcho-capitalist) flipped this around a bit and said "that government is best which governs not at all"]

4) socialism and conservatism, to some extent, have some relatively large value placed within the role of authority when it comes to (in the case of conservatism) the organic, cohesive and national society, and (in the case of socialism) the community involving wealth and property (they want a state to endorse common ownership and higher taxation which requires more authority). for conservatives, the common good is secured by a state which directs the public morals and gears people away from particularly harmful vices (i.e. drugs, sex, etc) and towards virtue (perhaps religion, charity, family, etc). socialism on the other hand appeals to a kind of economic, not civil or social authoritarianism in the sense that it aims to direct people into good economic relations, such as less poverty, more economic equality through progressive or "aggressive (classist)" taxation, or simply increasing equality of opportunity through better schools and so on. overall, this authority that socialism and conservatism values is in the interests of the community, not the individual; conservatism sees the individual not as atomised in the perspective of their right wing sister ideology (liberalism) but rather as aggregated; they have consequences on the lives of others that are inseparable socially. socialism values the community in the sense that the individual cannot be valued if they are not looked at in the context of their class and their class interests (although this is more marxist and less generally "socialism" i.e. bernstein's democratic/evolutionary/"parliamentary" socialism, or

5) human nature in liberalism and socialism can be said to be similar in the sense that they see it as a plastic or at least improvable aspect of humanity. for example, john locke (basically the granddaddy of liberalism) saw the individual as a blank slate (or, in latin, a "tabola rasa"]. he thought that the individual was neither naturally good or naturally bad but will become either based on his social environment. this will make people, if they are exposed to moral upbringings, to have a very free and liberated existence free (mostly) of crime, immorality and so on. socialism, on the other hand, sees human nature perfectable in that socialism, requiring a regard for the good of the society over the self, requires a kind of reconditioning of man. marx, for example, thought that individuals were only selfish because they had grown up in a capitalist superstructure (which is basically the social aspect of a society, i.e. religion, culture, media, the arts, philosophy, science, etc) where the hegemony (as antonio gramsci called it) of capitalist prestige was dominant. therefore, this meant that socialist politics can nurture human beings to be more social, sharing and altruistic people.

6) in a way, liberalism and socialism are both utilitarian (geared towards maximising pleasure). liberalism does this via civil society (freedom) whereas socialism does this through economics ("spreading the wealth around"]. liberalism, however, sees the individual as a personal utility-maximiser whereas socialism doesn't actually (in many cases, at least) justify socialism through that kind of "methodological individualist" approach but rather one based on something akin to "we are socialists because we're good people, not selfish pleasure seekers". however, the more casual the socialist, the more they will justify oscialism based on the consequences for society (i.e. pleasure) - social democracy, for example, and mixed economics (this is from people like antoni crosland who thought that the best way to help the poor was the utilise the best aspects of capitalism - wealth generation - and the best aspects of socialism - wealth redistribution; this is what led to the politics of new labour).

FOR (they do differ)
1) however, liberalism is against conservatism (sort of) in that it has a more principled approach to capitalism; conservatives value capitalism through economic pragmatism, tradition, society's flourishing and so on. liberalism is filled with ideologues that value individualism and capitalism through a very philosophical lens. for example, ayn rand's philosophy was based on how it is moral to be selfish and hence capitalistic. to a lesser extent, kant is kind of like this because he believed that no individual ought to exploit another individual as if they are merely a means to an end (as opposed to an end in themselves: a moral utility, not a moral agent) - therefore, individuals ought to strive towards their own ends, not others', so long as they can see the act itself as being moral in a universal way. john stuart mill's and john locke's philosophy of capitalism was more based on a rights-based approach ("natural rights" of life, liberty and property* for locke, and the "harm principle" (commonly called the non-aggression principle) of J. S. Mill). in that sense. on the other hand, conservative and neoliberals (basically conservative but liberal in the field of capitalism) are more results driven and less principle driven when it comes to capitalism and the market. for example, people like

2) quite obviously, liberalism+conservatism and socialism are very different in the sense that one of them tends to be very right wing, the other is very left wing. one is capitalist (mostly), and one is socialist.

3) liberalism (and definitely anarchism!) is often anti-tradition whereas conservatism is pro-tradition. liberals (i.e. hume, thomas paine, some of the US founding fathers like jefferson, ayn rand, etc) are quite anti-religious, or at least pro-secularism (separation of church and state) whereas conservatives like edmund burke (and probably many others; I can't remember many conservative thinkers as there were quite a lot fewer of them compared to the other ideologies; "chesterton" and "oakshott" come to mind but I don't know if they talk about religion; chesterton calls tradition a "democracy of the dead" so that might be relevant when it concerns the apparent wisdom of past institutions like religion) believe that tradition is good and revolution (like the french revolution) is bad and destructive in some cases. anarchism tends to be very anti-clerical and conservatism tends to be very pro-clerical. liberalism is usually just pretty secular.

4) some ideologies can even be said to be *extremely* different from within, such as anarchism (and feminism). in the case of anarchism, ultra-liberals (anarcho-capitalists) see the state being bad because it is a violation of individual's natural rights (rothbard's view, and perhaps robert nozick's view - those two both view taxation as theft). however, ultra-socialism (anarcho-collectivism, or anarcho-communism ("mutual aid"]) absolutely oppose that view and people like proudhon think that private property*, not taxation (perhaps the opposite thing entirely), is "theft" instead. people like bakunin even think that private property itself as an institution is how governments begin as people with money can buy political power from people; if you pay somebody to be your henchman or your soldier, then you can take over people's villages, cities, countries and so on. I don't know how much this view might actually answer the question though because it is "an ideology" not "aspects of an ideology" (which is what this bit is)

...

as for whether parties should be state funded

FOR
1) it gives parties a more equal chance of appealing to the public not in a plutocratic (wealth-based) manner whereby it is wealth that decides whether parties can get exposure and hence victory prospects or not. there is some sense in the viewpoint that politics shouldn't be "bought and sold" but rather based on freedom of speech and discussion. a marketplace of ideas ought to be the mechanism by which elections flourish, not "pay to win". parties getting state funding then mean that they will competing on an equal* playing field (not necessarily a different one for small parties that need the support when the large ones do not, as I will explain next]

2) it particularly is helpful towards political parties that are very small and dispersed with regards to their support base (i.e. UKIP and the greens). in a first past the post system which is institutionally unfair towards these smaller parties (I would claim, at least), small parties particularly will need all the exposure that they can possibly get because they tend ot have much less wealth than the larger parties, but not necessarily "worse" policies; labour has lot of money given to them by the big trade unions (because the labour party was originally the party *of* the trade unions, and they want more pro-union policies, i.e. better minimum wages, better working conditions and so on, typically something that labour are more likely to give them) or big corporations (because the big corps. will want less taxation and regulation, which the tories are more likely to support). therefore, it is good for the kinds of parties that sometimes can't actually afford to compete with the more resourced parties like labour/conservatives. with state funding of parties (or state aid for parties during campaigns, TV ads, etc!)

AGAINST

1) there is an argument that parties that are unpopular (and "small"] do not deserve money because if they were actually popular then they would already have a lot more money (this is kind of a paradox in my opinion though because if they're small, they'll not get exposure, and if they don't get exposure, they'll be small (rinse and repeat!).

2) some people might philosophically oppose the idea that their hard earned money is going to be given to parties that they might vehemently oppose. they might say that it is their right as a citizen to be free from politics and to be free from even voting if they so wish. this is more of an argument of freedom and less one of a kind of "fairness" to parties (this fairness being anti-state intervention, as I've written about in the paragraph above)

3) there are better solutions to helping equalise parties and to boost fairness in elections, such as changing the electoral system to one whereby proportionality is the principle (or more so the principle) that decides who gets how many seats in parliament (this argument is very storng in my view based on how the second argument against is also strong and this just adds to that because parties aren't given money by all tax payers but instead can gain support and exposure based on the expectation that exposing and funding parties will have a much* higher chance of them gaining seats from it - it, by that logic, also incentivises political participations from the bottom up beause people will feel that campaigning for parties will actually mean that they'll get more seats, especially** for the smaller parties that basically have not much hope at all under a first past the post system)

I hope that helps you out a bit (took me like 40 minutes to write but oh well, I like politics!) I've used a **** load of parentheses too so you'll have to look past that.
0
reply
username1987655
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#5
Oh my god thank you so much - you put soooo much effort in and it has really helped me !!!! Thank you!!!! You're a lifesaver not to mention incredibly kind
0
reply
username1987655
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by Jimbo Jones)
I've just edited in some points in my last message - I've got 2 areas that can answer that question but as for more nuanced areas I'm not too sure - I don't know your module syllabus here and I'm just going from my knowledge in general

"to what extent do political ideologies differ"? that's an A2 question, isn't it? oh wait, funny: I've just realised something: I was doing a levels when we did a level exams at the end of the first year and a2 exams at the end of the second year. that was quite a while ago and to be honest I think the current format of doing all the exams in one yea is pretty intense. okay, so, I'll try and answer this question for you, given the fact that I am assuming that the political ideologies here are liberalism, conservatism, socialism and anarchism (right?)(maybe feminism and multiculturalism are also "ideologies" here in your syllabus? you'll have to let me know). generally, to do well includes these kinds of points based on point-evidence (if there is anything relevant or empirical to link in)-explanation (or "conclusive/evaluation"] and to sprinkle your paragraphs with quotes from political thinkers.

AGAINST (they don't much differ):
1) liberalism and conservatism both see the actor of politics as being a self-serving individual. "methodological individualism" or rational choice theory is the school of thought which sees the individual of society as "an economic man" (as adam smith suggests) and is guided by market forces (an invisible hand which seems to lead to moral consequences of society, i.e. if everybody follows their self-interest, they end up improving society through their efforts towards their particular area of skill). from this, they both value the institution of private property and economic liberty (capitalism, free markets or "laissez faire" economics, lower taxes and so on).

2) liberalism and socialism both value a kind of "equality" (and if we're discussing feminism and multiculturalism, you can obviously say the same for those with liberalism/socialism). while it is obvious how socialists value equality (perhaps a kind of equality of outcome in the sense that people in the community become more equal based on their holdings of wealth and property via taxes and policies of nationalisation of things like utility industries and resources for education or health and so on), liberalism values equality before the law. this kind of equality is individual equality, not collective equality. "social liberals" (i.e. william beverage, T. H. Green, john rawls, etc) are more left wing in their approach to liberalism (in contrast to classical liberals) in that they are open to the idea of things like keynesian economics (whereby the government intervenes to invest in the economy in certain ways to prevent unemployment or the boost the economy, which is what capitalism is known to do until a crisis, when times are bad and to reduce that spending when the economy is better), more welfare and more equality of opportunity. equality of opportunity is kind of the bridge between liberalism and socialism in an economic sense in that it is a kind of individual equality (not collective) but it is a form of equality that is economic (as it involves resources) and not merely something like an equality of rights to things like free speech, justice, protections and so on. we might even* say that conservatism is in favour of equality in that "one nation conservatism" made popular by people like disraeli and the post war conservatives like macmillain ran upon the idea that a cohesive national society was best retained and stabilised against the threat of socialist revolutions by reducing the kinds of conditions that led to it (poverty and divisions between classes). this meant that to stimulate a more moral society, and to uphold "tradition" of a democratic capitalist nation, some aspects of social spending (or "socialism" in the more social liberal sense) would be seen to be necessary, which appeals to "equality" in that way.

3) liberalism and anarchism both question the role and value of authority (or authoritarianism) in that while liberalism is in favour of "limited" (or minimal) government" (thomas referson, for instance, said "that government which governs least governs best) and murray rothbard (and anarcho-capitalist) flipped this around a bit and said "that government is best which governs not at all"]

4) socialism and conservatism, to some extent, have some relatively large value placed within the role of authority when it comes to (in the case of conservatism) the organic, cohesive and national society, and (in the case of socialism) the community involving wealth and property (they want a state to endorse common ownership and higher taxation which requires more authority). for conservatives, the common good is secured by a state which directs the public morals and gears people away from particularly harmful vices (i.e. drugs, sex, etc) and towards virtue (perhaps religion, charity, family, etc). socialism on the other hand appeals to a kind of economic, not civil or social authoritarianism in the sense that it aims to direct people into good economic relations, such as less poverty, more economic equality through progressive or "aggressive (classist)" taxation, or simply increasing equality of opportunity through better schools and so on. overall, this authority that socialism and conservatism values is in the interests of the community, not the individual; conservatism sees the individual not as atomised in the perspective of their right wing sister ideology (liberalism) but rather as aggregated; they have consequences on the lives of others that are inseparable socially. socialism values the community in the sense that the individual cannot be valued if they are not looked at in the context of their class and their class interests (although this is more marxist and less generally "socialism" i.e. bernstein's democratic/evolutionary/"parliamentary" socialism, or

5) human nature in liberalism and socialism can be said to be similar in the sense that they see it as a plastic or at least improvable aspect of humanity. for example, john locke (basically the granddaddy of liberalism) saw the individual as a blank slate (or, in latin, a "tabola rasa"]. he thought that the individual was neither naturally good or naturally bad but will become either based on his social environment. this will make people, if they are exposed to moral upbringings, to have a very free and liberated existence free (mostly) of crime, immorality and so on. socialism, on the other hand, sees human nature perfectable in that socialism, requiring a regard for the good of the society over the self, requires a kind of reconditioning of man. marx, for example, thought that individuals were only selfish because they had grown up in a capitalist superstructure (which is basically the social aspect of a society, i.e. religion, culture, media, the arts, philosophy, science, etc) where the hegemony (as antonio gramsci called it) of capitalist prestige was dominant. therefore, this meant that socialist politics can nurture human beings to be more social, sharing and altruistic people.

6) in a way, liberalism and socialism are both utilitarian (geared towards maximising pleasure). liberalism does this via civil society (freedom) whereas socialism does this through economics ("spreading the wealth around"]. liberalism, however, sees the individual as a personal utility-maximiser whereas socialism doesn't actually (in many cases, at least) justify socialism through that kind of "methodological individualist" approach but rather one based on something akin to "we are socialists because we're good people, not selfish pleasure seekers". however, the more casual the socialist, the more they will justify oscialism based on the consequences for society (i.e. pleasure) - social democracy, for example, and mixed economics (this is from people like antoni crosland who thought that the best way to help the poor was the utilise the best aspects of capitalism - wealth generation - and the best aspects of socialism - wealth redistribution; this is what led to the politics of new labour).

FOR (they do differ)
1) however, liberalism is against conservatism (sort of) in that it has a more principled approach to capitalism; conservatives value capitalism through economic pragmatism, tradition, society's flourishing and so on. liberalism is filled with ideologues that value individualism and capitalism through a very philosophical lens. for example, ayn rand's philosophy was based on how it is moral to be selfish and hence capitalistic. to a lesser extent, kant is kind of like this because he believed that no individual ought to exploit another individual as if they are merely a means to an end (as opposed to an end in themselves: a moral utility, not a moral agent) - therefore, individuals ought to strive towards their own ends, not others', so long as they can see the act itself as being moral in a universal way. john stuart mill's and john locke's philosophy of capitalism was more based on a rights-based approach ("natural rights" of life, liberty and property* for locke, and the "harm principle" (commonly called the non-aggression principle) of J. S. Mill). in that sense. on the other hand, conservative and neoliberals (basically conservative but liberal in the field of capitalism) are more results driven and less principle driven when it comes to capitalism and the market. for example, people like

2) quite obviously, liberalism+conservatism and socialism are very different in the sense that one of them tends to be very right wing, the other is very left wing. one is capitalist (mostly), and one is socialist.

3) liberalism (and definitely anarchism!) is often anti-tradition whereas conservatism is pro-tradition. liberals (i.e. hume, thomas paine, some of the US founding fathers like jefferson, ayn rand, etc) are quite anti-religious, or at least pro-secularism (separation of church and state) whereas conservatives like edmund burke (and probably many others; I can't remember many conservative thinkers as there were quite a lot fewer of them compared to the other ideologies; "chesterton" and "oakshott" come to mind but I don't know if they talk about religion; chesterton calls tradition a "democracy of the dead" so that might be relevant when it concerns the apparent wisdom of past institutions like religion) believe that tradition is good and revolution (like the french revolution) is bad and destructive in some cases. anarchism tends to be very anti-clerical and conservatism tends to be very pro-clerical. liberalism is usually just pretty secular.

4) some ideologies can even be said to be *extremely* different from within, such as anarchism (and feminism). in the case of anarchism, ultra-liberals (anarcho-capitalists) see the state being bad because it is a violation of individual's natural rights (rothbard's view, and perhaps robert nozick's view - those two both view taxation as theft). however, ultra-socialism (anarcho-collectivism, or anarcho-communism ("mutual aid"]) absolutely oppose that view and people like proudhon think that private property*, not taxation (perhaps the opposite thing entirely), is "theft" instead. people like bakunin even think that private property itself as an institution is how governments begin as people with money can buy political power from people; if you pay somebody to be your henchman or your soldier, then you can take over people's villages, cities, countries and so on. I don't know how much this view might actually answer the question though because it is "an ideology" not "aspects of an ideology" (which is what this bit is)

...

as for whether parties should be state funded

FOR
1) it gives parties a more equal chance of appealing to the public not in a plutocratic (wealth-based) manner whereby it is wealth that decides whether parties can get exposure and hence victory prospects or not. there is some sense in the viewpoint that politics shouldn't be "bought and sold" but rather based on freedom of speech and discussion. a marketplace of ideas ought to be the mechanism by which elections flourish, not "pay to win". parties getting state funding then mean that they will competing on an equal* playing field (not necessarily a different one for small parties that need the support when the large ones do not, as I will explain next]

2) it particularly is helpful towards political parties that are very small and dispersed with regards to their support base (i.e. UKIP and the greens). in a first past the post system which is institutionally unfair towards these smaller parties (I would claim, at least), small parties particularly will need all the exposure that they can possibly get because they tend ot have much less wealth than the larger parties, but not necessarily "worse" policies; labour has lot of money given to them by the big trade unions (because the labour party was originally the party *of* the trade unions, and they want more pro-union policies, i.e. better minimum wages, better working conditions and so on, typically something that labour are more likely to give them) or big corporations (because the big corps. will want less taxation and regulation, which the tories are more likely to support). therefore, it is good for the kinds of parties that sometimes can't actually afford to compete with the more resourced parties like labour/conservatives. with state funding of parties (or state aid for parties during campaigns, TV ads, etc!)

AGAINST

1) there is an argument that parties that are unpopular (and "small"] do not deserve money because if they were actually popular then they would already have a lot more money (this is kind of a paradox in my opinion though because if they're small, they'll not get exposure, and if they don't get exposure, they'll be small (rinse and repeat!).

2) some people might philosophically oppose the idea that their hard earned money is going to be given to parties that they might vehemently oppose. they might say that it is their right as a citizen to be free from politics and to be free from even voting if they so wish. this is more of an argument of freedom and less one of a kind of "fairness" to parties (this fairness being anti-state intervention, as I've written about in the paragraph above)

3) there are better solutions to helping equalise parties and to boost fairness in elections, such as changing the electoral system to one whereby proportionality is the principle (or more so the principle) that decides who gets how many seats in parliament (this argument is very storng in my view based on how the second argument against is also strong and this just adds to that because parties aren't given money by all tax payers but instead can gain support and exposure based on the expectation that exposing and funding parties will have a much* higher chance of them gaining seats from it - it, by that logic, also incentivises political participations from the bottom up beause people will feel that campaigning for parties will actually mean that they'll get more seats, especially** for the smaller parties that basically have not much hope at all under a first past the post system)

I hope that helps you out a bit (took me like 40 minutes to write but oh well, I like politics!) I've used a **** load of parentheses too so you'll have to look past that.
Yeah the ideology thing was about right but meant to speak about political promises but don't worry about it 😊😊😊 Thanks for the info !!!
0
reply
Jimbo Jones
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by MediaROCKS)
Yeah the ideology thing was about right but meant to speak about political promises but don't worry about it 😊😊😊 Thanks for the info !!!
"political promises"? what do you mean? I can have a go at that one if you want? what was that question about?
0
reply
username1987655
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by Jimbo Jones)
"political promises"? what do you mean? I can have a go at that one if you want? what was that question about?
The question my teacher set was to what extent are political parties policies- like manifesto pledges e.g labour will freeze energy bills (mainly 2017 manifesto pledges) similar ? But don't feel you need to have a go by any means- you've done more than enough !!!!
0
reply
Jimbo Jones
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by MediaROCKS)
The question my teacher set was to what extent are political parties policies- like manifesto pledges e.g labour will freeze energy bills (mainly 2017 manifesto pledges) similar ? But don't feel you need to have a go by any means- you've done more than enough !!!!
ahh, well that's quite a gigantic question, theoretically speaking. or a tiny one. you could just say "the labour party have become very different to the conservative party because they are now "socialist" like governments were back in the 70s whereas the conservatives have remained committed to generally a thatcherite approach to politics". or you could go through every little possible difference between each party and analyse it in detail

I would say that saying that the parties are different is clear in these ways:
1) economics (more taxes and more spending; renationalisation, housing, uni fee abolition, more spending on the NHS, etc - this is potentially a massive area to discuss but it's all based on the same category of "economics"!)
2) immigration (no caps on migration to be implemented)
3) much more liberal on the question of a second scottish referendum (something the tories wouldn't consider)

but similar in these ways:
1) they are, like the tories, also committed to brexit (while the lib dems are not, by contrast) - they just differ on their support for the single market (because the labour party seem to be much less considerate towards the policy area of immigration)
2) they also want to renew trident (and formerly jeremy corbyn didn't like this idea)
3) even though they want a lot more intervention from the state in an economic way, they don't seem to want more social intervention in a way akin to the tories

with this question, that's generally all I'd be able to say really because it's not very specific - if it was me I would discuss not only policy aims (i.e. all that stuff about the economy) but also the general party principles and the support bases of each respective party here - say that the conservatives are moderately in favour of free trade internationally, a thatcher-style free market and a slightly more nationalistic approach to politics/immigration, whereas the labour party are now a socialist party (in a western context) who are more internationalist by contrast. the support base for the conservatives, as usual, is generally older people, the rural england population, entrepreneurs, etc and labour's support base are generally the young (like students), northerners, big city residents, ethnic minorities and "poor people"
0
reply
username1987655
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by Jimbo Jones)
ahh, well that's quite a gigantic question, theoretically speaking. or a tiny one. you could just say "the labour party have become very different to the conservative party because they are now "socialist" like governments were back in the 70s whereas the conservatives have remained committed to generally a thatcherite approach to politics". or you could go through every little possible difference between each party and analyse it in detail

I would say that saying that the parties are different is clear in these ways:
1) economics (more taxes and more spending; renationalisation, housing, uni fee abolition, more spending on the NHS, etc - this is potentially a massive area to discuss but it's all based on the same category of "economics"!)
2) immigration (no caps on migration to be implemented)
3) much more liberal on the question of a second scottish referendum (something the tories wouldn't consider)

but similar in these ways:
1) they are, like the tories, also committed to brexit (while the lib dems are not, by contrast) - they just differ on their support for the single market (because the labour party seem to be much less considerate towards the policy area of immigration)
2) they also want to renew trident (and formerly jeremy corbyn didn't like this idea)
3) even though they want a lot more intervention from the state in an economic way, they don't seem to want more social intervention in a way akin to the tories

with this question, that's generally all I'd be able to say really because it's not very specific - if it was me I would discuss not only policy aims (i.e. all that stuff about the economy) but also the general party principles and the support bases of each respective party here - say that the conservatives are moderately in favour of free trade internationally, a thatcher-style free market and a slightly more nationalistic approach to politics/immigration, whereas the labour party are now a socialist party (in a western context) who are more internationalist by contrast. the support base for the conservatives, as usual, is generally older people, the rural england population, entrepreneurs, etc and labour's support base are generally the young (like students), northerners, big city residents, ethnic minorities and "poor people"
Thanks again, i know what to add now and how to expand on this and use these ideas to conjure my own points. Thanks a lot!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Has your education been disrupted this academic year due to the pandemic?

Yes (116)
86.57%
No (18)
13.43%

Watched Threads

View All