Politcs - Uk politcs: democracy and participation

Representative democracy

citizens choose others to represent them, making important decisions on their behalf

Social representation

• political space should be broadly representative of the population it represents

• a microcosm of society as a whole

• Burnham cabinet = 12/23 female so proportional to 51% of uk population, 22% private education 3x general population

representation of national interest

• issues of national interest may clash with issues important top their consituency

• e.g locals may oppose building new airport for noise and pollution but brings national interest of economic growth

constituency representation

• represent whole constituency issues like public service

• represent individual constituents, e.g mistreated by NHS or miscarriage of justice

• issues can arise when MP doesn’t align their beliefs or opinions with the constituencies

Party representation

• in public party MPs must support the parties manifesto

sectional representation

• APPG (All party parliamentary group) meet to discuss particular issues to do with their topic

• APPG’s regularly examine issues

• this can also be done by pressure groups but MP’s play a role too

Causal representation

• bodies not representing people but instead causes e.g environmental issues

• largely carried out by pressure groups

advantages of representative democracy ?

• only practical system in larger modern state

• parties bring coherence to political system, both gov and opposition would be disorganised without the parties which provide leaders and policies

• parties provide choice of representation to the public, views from left right and centre

• minority rights protected by the first past the post system which keeps extremist views from parliment

• elections allow the public to keep MP’s accountable (every 5 years)

• politicians better informed than general public 85% in university

Disadvantages of representative democracy

• if MP holds a safe seat they are unlikely to loose it, leads to complacency from MP’s so less inclined to follow wishes of constituents

• parliament not reflective of society

• hard for smaller parties to get elected even if they have lots of support e.g UKIP won 3.8 million votes and only got 1 MP

• party infighting undermine the coherence of the political system

• The practicality of using representatives instead of referendums leads to disengagement with politcs

• Mps are generalists not experts and their views are often dictated by party whips meaning they often are not following the actual wishes of their constituents and instead what the party wants (not true representation)

Direct democracy

a form of democracy in which individuals express their opinions themselves and not through representatives

Referendums

• method of direct democracy

• everyone vote yes or no on a policy issues

• should give a policy decision legitimacy however faces issues (people often don’t know about them or have enough information)

Recall petitions

• allows constituents to remove MP’s

• MP must either break the rules of the Commons so that they are suspended for 10+ days or be convicted of providing false election expenses claim OR commit a crime that brings a custodial sentence under a year (over leads to immediate seat loss)

• Then a petition is opened in their constituency for 6 weeks, if 10% or more sign then the Mp looses their seat and a by-election is called (the candidate can potentially stand again)

Advantages of direct democracy

• encourages popular participation in politics by expecting people to take their duties as citizens seriously

• people making the decisions themselves give them legitimacy

• can break a dead lock in the political system

• purest form of democracy, the popular will is clearly heard

Disadvantages of direct democracy

• impractical in large, heavily populated nations and is very time consuming

• some issues may be too complex and people may not be or feel qualified enough so will discourage votes

• open to manipulation by the cleverest most articlulate speakers who will persuade people to their view point

• will of people not mediated so minority views often silenced

Scottish parliament Referendum

• 1997

• Parliament: Yes = 75%, NO= 25% , turnout = 60%

• devolution of power from Westminster but they still hold sovierenty

• plan for labour to win more support by having less people voting for SNP is they give them this devolution

Good Friday Agreement Refurendum (NI)

• 1998

• Yes = 72%, No = 28%, turnout = 81%

• ended most of the violence from the troubles

• only way to get people to do what the gov wanted

• everyone represented

• gave explicit approval of new gov from people

AV referendum

• 2011

• Yes = 32%, No= 68%, turnout = 42%

• change the voting system from first pass the post

• lots of people voted no as a protest against the lib dems during there conservative coalition

• additionally, AV system was no actually a system that people wanted and rather another alternative as AV was still not proportional

Brexit referendum

• 2016

• Leave = 52%, remain = 48%, turnout = 72%

• Nigel Farage led UKIP and the leave party

• David Cameron led remain party

• Many prime ministers resigned due to not being able to draw up a suitable deal with th EU

• lost of mis-information used

Ian Paisley Jr recall petition

• constituency of North Antrim

• 2018

• reason = not declaring visit to Sri-lanka paid for by the SL government, broke commons rule banning paid advocy

• % signing petition = 9.4%

• unsuccessful

• no by-election

Fiona Onasanya. recall petition

• constituency = Peterborough

• 2019

• reason = perverting course of justice (speeding) 3 months in prison

• % signing petition = 27.6%

• succesful

• by-elction called and labour retained seat (Lisa Forbes)

Christopher Davies recall petition

• constancy = Brecon and Radnorshire

• 2019

• reason = submitting face expense documents

• % signing = 19%

• succesful

• by election held Lib Dem won seat (Jane Dodds)

Margaret Ferrier recall petition

• constituency = Rutherglen and Hamilton west

• 2020

• reason = broke covid lockdown rules

• % signing = 15%

• succesful

• by election held and labour won (Michael shanks)

chartists

• a working class (1838-1857) campaigning for democratic reforms universal male suffrage based on peoples charter

suffragettes

• members of the wasp who used militant tactics to campaign for woman's right to vote

franchise

• qualifications that set out who has suffrage

Key advancements of franchise for class

• 1430: 40 shilling freeholders, law passed that set the franchise at own/rent property worth 40 shillings (1% can vote)

• 1867: Second reform act, property qualifications reduced in cities, all urban male workers can vote (13% vote)

• 1928: equal franchise act, property qualifications for woman abolished

key advancements of franchise in gender

• 1918: the representation of peoples act, woman over 30 allowed to vote if they met property qualifications

• 1928: equal franchise act, voting age for men and woman equalised at 21

key advancements of franchise in nationality

• 1535: welsh citizens can vote in English elections

• 1707/ 1801: Acts of the union, Scotland and Ireland unite with England and Wales , can vote

• 1918: subjects of British empire can vote

• 1979: European parliamentary election, UK allowed EU citizens to vote

key advancements of franchise in age

• 1969: the representation of peoples act, lowered voting age from 21 to 18

• 2015: Scottish elections act, lower voting age from 18 to 16 in Scottish local and parliamentary elections

• 2021: local government and Elections (Wales) act lower voting age from 18 to 16 for welsh elections

• 2024-26 : voting age in UK lower to 18, 1.7 million new 16-17 years olds can vote, may allow bank cards

The chartists aims

• first mass working class movement

• 1838 the Peoples Charter was drawn up for the London working Men’s association by William and Francis Place there aims were:

- all men have the right to vote

- voting take place by secret ballot

- parliamentary elections every year not every 5

- constituencies should be of equal size

- members of parliament should be paid

- property qualification for becoming an MP should be abolished

The chartists actions

• 1839 the Chartists petition presented to House of Commons with 1.25 million signatures but was rejected by parliament, provoked unrest which was quickly stopped by parliament

• another petition presented in 1842 with over 3 million signatures still rejected

• 1848 a final petition presented a mass meeting was held in London, authorities feared violence so came prepared with police and army but the unrest never happened, within a few years the movement was dying

• by 1918 5 of the chartists demands were achieved only elections being held every year was rejected (due to fears of lower particpation and inconvenience)

The suffragette aims

• Emmeline Pankhurst was founding member of the WSPU in 1903

• they were a highly organised group who aimed to get the vote for woman

• only women could join the group and they used both violent and peaceful methods to try and get the vote

The suffragettes action

• the WSPU used tactics both to cause disruption and civil disobedience such as the rush on parliament in 1908

• the lack of government action led to the suffragets under going more violent methods such has attacks on property this resulted in imprisonment and hunger strikes

• at outbreak of ww1 Emmeline Pankhurst turned attention to recruiting woman to war effort and lost of their work was put on hold to help the war effort

• Due to a large number of troops being disenfranchised during the war as you had to be in the country for 12 months prior to a general election and the growth of the Labour Party in 1918 all men and some woman were finally granted the vote

• 1918 Representation of the people act allowed woman over 30 who owned property to vote swell as allowing basically all men the vote

time line for vote at 16

• 2001, Lib dems make commitment to for votes at 16 in their manifesto for first time

• 2004, electoral commission writes a report but recommends keeping it at 18

• 2008, Julie Morgan (labour MP) brings forward a private members bill to lower age but it gets defeated in parliament

• 2014, 16-17 year olds allowed to vote in Scottish referendum

• 2015, Scotland allows them to vote in local elections and labour put it in their election manifesto, conservatives don’t support as they believe most 16-17 years olds are left leaning

• 2018, All Part Parliament Group on Votes at 16 formed, Conservative Sir Peter Bottomley is chair

• 2026, Bill introduced to parliament, process being completed

Arguments for vote at 16

• young people knowledgeable about politics, can be studied academically at 16/17 and a youth parliament

• young people have other rights at 16, can join army training, have sex ect

• having vote gives young people a say on issues that effect them like uni tuition

• having vote would mean more people participate in politics, 75% of 16 and 17 year olds voted in 2014 Scottish referendum

Arguments against 16 having vote

• young people lack necessary maturity and life experience to vote, many may have views determined by parents or friends

• some of the rights at 16 are limited like need parents permission to join army ect

• relatively few countries allow 16 year olds to vote, Austria and Brazil being rare examples

• scottish independence referendum had unusually high turnouts in all age groups so is it a fair example

History of prisoner voting campaign

• 1950, Article 3 of the European convention on human rights declares voting a universal right

• 2005, EU court of human rights declares UK’s blanket ban on prisoner voting as incompatible with the law

• 2006-9, Labour issue consulatations but nothing comes of it

• 2012, In fighting within the conservative government come saying not giving them right to vote brings bag image of UK but Cameron states it will never happen

• 2017, a compromise was made wit the ECHR which states prisoners on remand (awaiting trail), civil prisoners (not having paid fines ect) or prisoners living in the community have the right to vote

• 2020, SNP allows prisoners in Scotland serving under 12 months to vote

Arguments for prisoners voting

• prisoners do remain citizens while in jail and voting signifies there inclusion in society

• participation in democratic process would promote rehabilitation by encouraging prisoners to see themselves as citizens

• disenfranchisement is unlikely to be a deterrent

• prisoners already receiving their due punishment

Arguments against prisoners voting

• right to vote is a means of shaping society we live in but prisoners don’t live in open society and they lost their freedom by going to prison they are no longer a part of society

• giving prisoners right to vote reduces suffrage to a therapeutic tool

• those who have committed crimes serious enough to warrant going to jail do not have the moral authority to vote

• allowing prisoners to vote may skew the results of constituencies with large prisons like Wandsworth however only 90,000 prisoners in England and wales

What is a pressure group?

• seek to influence policy from outside the party (can still be MP’s but not to push a certain party agenda)

• often have a more narrow policy focus and their members come from a variety of political backgrounds

PG function : representation

• often represent views not covered by the main political parties such as Campaign for Nuclear disarmament

PG function : participation

• up to 50% of the UK citizens are members of a pressure group

• they organise petitions marches ect to advocate for their cause

• However membership does not necessarily mean participation, so ca;;ed ‘chequebook groups’ such as the national trust often aren’t actively political they might have 5 million members but most just joined for the houses

• arguably the same goal is achieved either way

PG function : education

• most of what the public know about politics come from websites leaflet ect made by pressure groups

PG function : policy making

• some PG are regularly consulted by the government when formulating policy like OFSTED

PG function : tension release

• in order for our society to remain peaceful people need a method of letting out their anger and PG allow them to do this

PG: sectional groups

• main aim is to represent the interest of their members

• they have a closed membership so you must be a certain person to join

• e.g national education union for teachers

PG: cause groups

• main aim is to promote a cause or principle that is not directly associated with self-interest

• they have an open membership so anyone can join

• includes charities such as NSPCC

PG: dual function group

• represent a section of society as well as a wider cause

• e.g. cancer research which aims to improve care for patients and research for the benefit for everyone

PG: insider groups

• have access to the government and are regularly consulted on issues

• operate inside the decision making process

• include high profile insiders: strong relations with ministers like British medial association

• prisoner groups: they depend on government funding and so cant say things against government

• Quangos: created by the government but operate independently of them like OFSTED they are publicly funded but independent

• Specialist groups: consulted on specific niche areas

PG: outsider groups

• have no direct access to decision making

• they may be outsiders by choice or not

• some are ideologically opposed too the government like Just stop oil

PG: threshold groups

• the status of some PG varied depending on which party is in power

• trade unions are ideological outsiders to the conservative

• UNITE refused to donate to Labour inn the 2024 election under Starmer but closer now with Burnham

think tank

• research organisation that produce information and opinions about policy

• some funded by government, some by political parties and some by private companies

lobbyists

• private individuals and organisations that act on behalf of companies, industries and pressure groups and other causes by seeking to influence gov in policy and law making

corporations

• large business organisations in UK that exist to make a profit + influence ministers and members of parliament to modify policy that affects there business and interests

positives of think tanks

• can be ideological rather than rooted in current reality

• independant

negatives of think tanks

• cherry pick information

• not democratic or politically neutral - to most people ‘academic’ means trustworthy so people will trust what they say even if its biased

• can be funded by parties

• elitist within groups

• are the ideas too ideological/ not realistic

Think tank examples

• Cente of Policy Studies and smith institute, influenced Conservatives (under Thatcher) shift toward opposition of state regulation

• Joseph Rowntree Foundation, social change and end of poverty, cited 157 times by gov in 2015-21 so high influence

• policy exchange, right wing think tank that Rishi Sunak worked for in 2014-15 before becoming an MP

Why are Lobbyists controversial

• cost a lot of money to hire a lobbying firm, estimate 2 billion spent on lobbyists each year, access too them comes at a price not easily afforded by average voter

• ‘Revolving door’ between politics and business where ex-politicans and civil servants often move into the private sector as lobbyists or advisors, in exchange for high salaries they offer to ‘grease the wheels’ off government or provide strategic advice of how best to run a business (e.g avoid most tax)

• serving politicians act as lobbyists for private companies, while not illegal for MP’s to have second jobs (e.g doctor lawyer ect) it is illegal for them to use power and access for benefit of others in return for payment, this has led to scandals

Lobbying scandals

• cash for questions 1996: Consrvates MP’s accused of accepting cash to ask specific questions in parliament, Neil Hamilton accused of accepting 2000£ from owner of Harrods

• Greenshill scandal 2020: former prime minister David Cameron reportedly paid 7m by greenshil capitol to use his contracts in gov to help get the company loans during covid pandemic, reportedly sent emails, phone calls and set up meeting with Bank of England, greenshil later gained loans worth 400million

low turnout impact: legitimacy of elected leaders

• high turnout means the winning party can be said to truly represent the people

• this gives them the legitimacy to make laws that affect peoples lives

• when only small section of society vote, outcomes may only reflect small sections of society

• if public question the govs right to rule it undermines trust in politics, this leads to lower turnout, toxic political discourse and even political violence

low turnout impact: mandate for policies

• high turnout gives specific form of legitimacy to winning parties manifestos

• can be legitmatly claimed that the parties manifesto policies were the preferred choice of the people

• for this reason the unelected house of lords does not attempt to block bills from the govs manifesto (Salisbury convention)

low turnout impact: accountability

• when more people participate leaders know they are being watched by a broad electorate (pressure groups, protests ect)

• this encourages them to govern responsibly and discourages corruption or policies only in favour of a small few

• however, lobbyists can use this to their own gain and some people join pressure groups not for this reason

low turnout impact: equity and fairness

• low turnout often affect marginalised groups the most

• the groups most likely to not vote include ethnic minorities, disabled and the young

• if these groups vote at lower rates their interests can be overlooked, leading to unequal representation and polices that don’t reflect the needs of the entire population

evidence for the UK having a democratic deficit

• every general election after 1997 has had a lower turnout than every general election between 1922-1997

• turnout for the first police crime commissioner elections in 2012 were 15%

• the lowest turnout in general election history was 59% in 2001 and 2024

• 1952 the conservatives had 3 million members but run 2022 it was only 131,000

• 1979 13 million trade union members but by 2022 it was only 6 million

• lowest election turnout was 49% in Kingston upon Hull east

evidence against the uk having a democratic deficit

• the number of charities has grown from 159,000 in 2000 to 169,000 in 2022

• Labour Party membership rose from 190,000 in 2014 to 552,000 in 2018, large influx of socialists joining in 2015 with Corben as leader

• general election turnout rose 4 elections in a row after 2001

• turnout for Scottish independence referendum in 2014 was 84%

Reasons for compulsory voting

• voting is a duty as well as a right, people should be enagaged with the process that affects their lives

• it would produce a parliament that is more representative of the uk as a whole

• politicians would have to run better campaigns and governments would have to frame their polices with whole electorate in mind

• voters do not have to vote for one of the candidates if they conscientiously cannot do so, still legal to spoil a ballot or could have a none of the above box

Reasons against compulsory voting

• compulsory voting might lead to participants simply voting for the first candidate on the paper of if they had to rank them they might simply vote 1,2,3 ect known as donkey voting

• undemocratic to force people to take part in something that should be matter of choice, not voting is a political statement

• compulsory voting would not stop politicians focusing their campaigns on marginal seats and neglecting safe seats where the outcome is predictable

• compulsory voting just papers over the cracks of low turnout and does not address the deeper reasons why people decide not too vote

Reasons for online voting

• higher turnout (being able to vote on your phone or computer would likely encourage people who just cba to vote)

• improved access (in more remote areas old or disabled people may not be able to access polling centre)

• prevent spoiled ballots (you could not accidentally spoil your ballot and it would prevent you from casting multiple votes)

• faster results and lower costs (wouldn’t need a small army of counters to tally votes as it would be done on a computer, this is cost saving )

reasons against online voting

• vulnerability to fraud (fears that electronic voting process would be more vulnerable to online attacks)

• less transparency (no longer be a paper trail of votes and it would be impossible to scrutinise ballot papers)

• digital exclusion (still a small proportion of society who don’t have a device but also issues of broadband in rural communities)

• prevent spoiled ballots (no option for none of the above so only way to register your opposition to all parties is a spoiled ballot no longer be possible )

What three things are human rights?

• universal - they apply to everyone with no exceptions

• fundamental - humans are entitled to them, cannot be removed

• absolute - must be fully upheld in all circumstances

civil liberties

• rights + freedoms that are recognised within a particular country and protect the individual from the state

In what ways are rights protected?

• legislation - government passes laws that enshrine certain rights in law

• courts - when asked, judges must adjudicate on whether the state (or fellow citizen) has infringed a persons rights

• pressure groupe - persuade the state to enforce/respect individual rights e.g. by bringing cases to courts

How does legislation protect human rights?

• the European convention on human rights allows individuals to take their government to an international court (European court of human rights in Strasbourg) if they believe it failed to uphold some fundamental rights

• 1998 the incoming labour government passed the Human Rights Act, didn’t bring in any new rights but for the first time its required UK courts to apply the conventions of ECHR in their judgments, however this is partially controversial and some people argue we should leave the ECHR and create a British bill of rights

Which human rights are absolute?

• right not to be tortured or treated in an inhumane or degrading way (article 3)

• right to be free from slavery or forced labour (article 4)

• right not to be punished for something which wasn’t against the law when you did it (article 7)

• abolition of the death penalty (article 1, protocol 13)

Reasons for the human rights act (1998)

• allows people in the UK to challenge government decisions in UK courts, using a process called judicial review instead of having to wait in turn for the ECHR where there is a backlog of 65,000 cases

• to avoid being taken to court and forced to change laws the gov takes the human rights implications of legislation into account (hence controversy of Suella Bravermans Illegal immigration Bill not being able to comply)

• act can be used to protect the most vulnerable of society (e.g press group help the aged were able to use article 8 (right to family life) to get Beryl Driscoll in a care home with her husband)

• the UK’s tough stance on human rights gives it the moral authority to critique other countries

Reasons against the human rights act

• some argue the act is a villain charter which is used by criminals to avoid punishment (e.g Abu Qatada suspected Jordan terrorist who used article 6 (fair trial) to prevent himself from being deported back to Jordan because there was evidence they used torture to gain confessions)

• the HRA gives UK judges the power to declare laws made by parliament incompatible with the ECHR, this challenges parliament sovereignty

• can be argued HRA weakens the freedom of the press because in a number of cases judges have seen to give art8 respect for a private life priority over art10, freedom of expression

• for nationalists the HRA means that the UK court must follow decisions made in EU courts and this is often described as foreign courts, although the UK sends judges to sit on it too

Role of courts in the HRA?

• claims about the denial of individual rights by the state are pursed by what’s called a judicial review

• judges can issue ‘quashing orders’ which overturn gov decisions

• however, judicial reviews are very expensive with legal fees often running into 10,000’s, cuts to legal aid have meant these are harder to access and get funding for (between 2015-19 applications fell by 44%)

• Judicial review and courts act 2022 limited the use of judicial review, especially in the cases of emergency reviews often used to delay the deportation of failed asylum seekers

Role of pressure groups with the HRA: 38 degrees

• Uk’s largest community based pressure group, claim to have 2 million members

• targets its efforts by directly and regularly appealing to its members for campaign priorities

• Success: plastic pollution- environmental charity started a bottle deposits petition which received 326,616 signatures which meant they were prominent in the national news and seen as instrumental for Micheal Goves decision to introduce bottle deposit machines at UK beaches

• criticisms: Mp’s have highlighted the nuisance nature of their online tactics like spam emails and burner accounts. others have described them as ‘alarmist"‘

Role of pressure groups with the HRA: the Fawcett society

• campaigns for woman’s rights, has many high profile supporters and is influential in raising profile of woman’s issues and of gender inequality

• success: gender pay gap- from 2018 UK employers with over 250 employees were required to report their gender pay gap and the all party parliamentary group on sex equality- the fawcett society was key in setting this up which debated the degree if female representation in parliament

• criticisms: campaign to highlight pay gap was criticised by business groups and statists authority for using misleading data, some have criticisms of the societys demands for quotas to resolve gender disparities

Examples of tensions between individual and collective rights

• Health protection regulations 2020: introduced first covid restrictions, threatened the individual right of assembly/association but protected the right to life

Judicial review examples

• TransActual UK: brought by transactual UK + young individual against former health secretary Victoria Atkins and minister of health in NI. challenging gov decision to ban puberty blockers for under 18’s. Unsuccessful and the ban was upheld by the high court

• Facial recognition technology: Brought by Ed Bridges (supported by Liberty) against the South Wales Police. It had been used on him during a peace protest, argued it was against human rights. The court of Appeal upheld his case and ruled that it was unlawful, led to stricter guidelines on facial recognition for all police forces in uk (e.g officers have to clearly document who they are looking for and the evidence they have that they will be in that area)

• NHS doctors: used judicial review to challenge gov PPE guidelines 2020 during covid, which they argued was leading to high death rates among medical workers. With support of BMA the judicial review forced the gov to withdraw their guidelines which recommended things such as re-wearing PPE or using out of date PPE

Legislation protecting/not protecting human rights?

protects:

• 2010 equalities act, protects on list of 9 protected characteristics, protects both the collective and individual rights

• equalities act is easy to use and well known and understood by people so it provides adequate protection as people can actually use it and will

doesn’t protect:

• due to parliamentary sovereignty the gov can pass laws which undermine particular rights, such as the Investigatory powers act which threatens article 8 right to private life or coronavirus act which threatens article 11 right to assembly

• collective right to life or security often prioritised over individual rights

• proposed British bill of rights suggests that the HRA is not super protected

Courts protecting/not protecting human rights

protects

• judicial review provides a legitimate method for people to challenge gov, open to groups and individuals

• e.g NHS doctors and facial recognition were successes

Doesn’t protect:

• fails to protect rights in practice, often expensive and inaccessible, new restriction will only make it harder

• e.g Trans actual case, borderline cases deferred back to ministers, arguably this is where the judicial reviews are most needed

pressure groups protect/don’t protect human rights?

protect:

• Liberty successfully challenged Braverman’s legislation to lower the threshold for police protest conditions, high court ruled the legislation unlawful and court of appeal dismissed the Govs appeal

• put public pressure on gov to change legislation that challenges peoples rights and this can sometimes lead to successful protection of rights

doesn’t protect:

• the gov can ignore pressure groups

• e.g liberties unsuccessful campaign against the investigatory powers act failed because the government believe that collective right to security is more important than the individual right to individual of privacy

• the mass infringement on right to privacy but its qualified so can be limited

• not protected as the gov can simply ignore them and they have no legal power