1) Democracy

Voting Crisis

The UK is currently facing a voting crisis, marked by a significant decline in electoral participation. Between 1979 and 1997, voter turnout averaged nearly 75%, but in recent years it has dropped to around 65%, with the 2019 general election seeing just 67%. This decline is especially stark among younger voters, with only 58% of 18–24-year-olds voting in 2017 and just 47% in 2019. Low engagement is also evident in newer forms of elections—such as Police and Crime Commissioner elections, which saw only a 27% turnout in 2016. A key factor contributing to this disengagement is dissatisfaction with representative democracy; many voters feel that no Member of Parliament truly reflects their political beliefs or values. In conclusion, falling turnout rates—particularly among young people and in local elections—suggest a growing disconnect between the electorate and the political system, raising serious concerns about the health and legitimacy of UK democracy.

NO Voting Crisis

While concerns about declining political participation remain, there are signs that electoral engagement in the UK may be improving. Turnout has recovered somewhat from its historic low of 59% in 2001, rising to 69% in 2017, although it fell slightly in 2019. Referendums appear to boost engagement when voters perceive that their vote will make a direct impact; for example, turnout reached 84% in the Scottish independence referendum and 72% in the EU referendum. In response to low youth turnout, some advocate for votes at 16, arguing it could raise political awareness and foster lifelong voting habits. However, critics suggest it may not resolve the issue, as disengagement may persist among younger voters. Similarly, while some believe more referendums would energize voters, as seen in the high participation for Brexit and Scottish referendums, the AV referendum in 2011 saw only 42% turnout, casting doubt on their effectiveness. In conclusion, although there are promising strategies to encourage participation, such as lowering the voting age or holding more referendums, each has limitations and may not fully resolve the deeper issues behind political disengagement.

Pressure group Crisis

The influence and engagement of pressure groups in the UK face significant challenges, with many experiencing a decline in active participation. While large-scale social movements like Black Lives Matter can mobilize widespread support, most traditional groups—such as the British Medical Association (BMA) or the National Union of Teachers (NUT)—struggle to translate their large memberships into active political pressure. Even newer, more radical groups can face similar issues. For example, Extinction Rebellion launched a high-profile campaign against the expansion of Heathrow Airport, staging protests and attempting to use drones to disrupt flights. However, while the campaign drew media attention, the number of active participants was relatively small, and the group struggled to translate their actions into long-term policy influence. This highlights a broader issue: despite public support for causes like climate action, sustained engagement and direct involvement often remain limited to a committed minority. These examples suggest that while pressure groups may occasionally spark bursts of activism, long-term participation remains a challenge, indicating that engagement is increasingly issue-driven, short-lived, and reliant on media visibility rather than mass involvement.

No Pressyre Group Crisis

Despite concerns over declining activism, it can be argued that there is no real crisis in pressure group participation. While not all members are actively involved, pressure groups continue to exert significant influence through lobbying, public campaigns, and media engagement. Groups such as Extinction Rebellion has established around 130 local groups in the UK and organized major events such as the “Big One” march in April 2023, which drew around 100,000 participants and environmental organisations like Greenpeace have successfully captured public attention and influenced political discourse. Digital platforms have also transformed activism, allowing people to engage in campaigns, petitions, and awareness-raising with minimal barriers to entry. Moreover, while traditional political party membership may have declined overall, political engagement has shifted rather than disappeared, with many citizens choosing to support single-issue causes or participate in informal political actions. In conclusion, rather than facing a crisis, pressure groups have evolved in how they mobilize support and influence change, adapting to a more digital and issue-focused political landscape.

Part Member Crisis

One clear indication that the UK is facing a participation crisis is the long-term decline in political party membership. In the early 1980s, around 4% of the electorate were members of a political party, but today that figure has fallen to roughly 1%, reflecting a significant disengagement from traditional forms of political involvement. Overall, the downward trend suggests that fewer people are willing to commit to political parties or play an active role in shaping policy through them. This decline weakens the connection between the public and the democratic system, and limits the diversity of voices influencing party decisions, reinforcing the argument that the UK is experiencing a participation crisis.

No Party Member Crisis

Another example that challenges the idea of a participation crisis in party membership is the rapid growth of the Green Party in recent years. Although still smaller than the major parties, the Green Party of England and Wales saw its membership rise from around 13,000 in 2013 to over 50,000 by 2015, and it reached approximately 75,000+ by the end of 2019. This growth was particularly noticeable during periods of increased public concern over climate change and environmental policy, such as the 2019 general election and the rise of climate activism movements like Extinction Rebellion. The increase in Green Party membership reflects how issue-based politics is driving people to engage with parties that align closely with their values. Rather than signalling disengagement, these shifts suggest that political participation is not in crisis but is evolving—becoming more fluid and responsive to specific, contemporary issues that resonate with voters.

• A pressure group is a collection of people who have the aim of changing or affecting government policy without ever trying to join the government, or who attempt to influence public opinion in one way or another.

• Size of PGs

Larger pressure groups often have a more significant impact on public opinion and can exert greater influence on government decisions. This is because methods such as protests and public demonstrations become more powerful and harder to ignore when backed by large numbers of people. A key example is the Snowdrop Campaign, which gained widespread support and successfully pressured the government into introducing stricter gun control laws following the Dunblane massacre—demonstrating how size can be a major factor in a pressure group’s success. Beyond influence, size also offers practical advantages: larger groups can raise more funds through membership fees, allowing for greater investment in advertising, campaigning, and infrastructure. For instance, the RSPCA benefits from its large membership base, enabling it to employ over 1,600 staff who help maintain its daily operations and ensure continued public visibility. These examples show that the size of a pressure group can directly enhance both its effectiveness and sustainability.

Counter point to size

size doesn’t mean anything without public support

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) was a large and well-organized pressure group that strongly opposed nuclear weapons, including the Trident program. Despite having a massive membership and staging high-profile protests throughout the late 1970s and 1980s e.g over 70,000 people chained them self, their influence on government policy remained limited. When Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, she was firmly committed to maintaining Britain’s nuclear deterrent and largely ignored CND’s demands. This was partly because public support for unilateral nuclear disarmament was relatively low, meaning the group lacked widespread backing from the electorate. CND’s failure to change policy despite its size shows that large membership alone does not guarantee political effectiveness. In conclusion, the case of CND highlights that pressure group size is not always enough to influence government decisions—public support, political context, and alignment with national interests all play crucial roles in determining a group’s effectiveness.

Outsider and Insider PG

The effectiveness of a pressure group often depends on whether it operates as an insider or outsider, which in turn is influenced by the group’s aims. Insider groups have close, regular access to government ministers and officials, allowing them to influence policy from within. These groups are typically seen as more credible and are often consulted on legislation—such as the British Medical Association (BMA), which regularly advises the government on NHS policy. In contrast, outsider groups operate without direct access and rely more on public campaigns, media attention, and protests to exert pressure. While they may lack formal influence, outsider tactics can be highly effective when the goal is to shift public opinion or raise awareness. A recent example is Extinction Rebellion, an outsider group that, through disruptive but high-profile protests, has forced climate change onto the national political agenda and pushed the government to make a climate emergency in 2019. In conclusion, the success of a pressure group is often shaped by its chosen strategy—whether working with the government or applying pressure from the outside—and this choice is largely determined by the nature of its objectives and the political environment.

Insider and Outsider no influence

While pressure groups can be influential, there are notable examples in the UK where both insider and outsider groups have failed to significantly influence government policy. The British Medical Association (BMA), despite its insider status and respected medical authority, initially campaigned for a complete ban on smoking in cars, citing serious health risks from second-hand smoke in enclosed spaces. However, the government resisted this broader proposal, and the BMA was ultimately only partially successful—securing a more limited ban in 2015 that prohibited smoking in cars only when children are present. This outcome highlights the limits of insider influence, especially when proposals are seen as politically or socially controversial. Similarly, outsider groups can struggle to achieve direct policy change. Extinction Rebellion, for example, has brought significant public attention to the climate crisis and climate emergency in 2019, yet its key demands—such as legally binding net-zero emissions by 2025 , have not been done. Therefore both insider and outsider groups can face major barriers to success, and their effectiveness often depends not just on access or activism, but on the political climate and willingness of the government to act.

Public opinion

Public opinion often plays a vital role in determining the success of pressure group campaigns, especially when it aligns with the group’s goals. A strong example is the campaign by Friends of the Earth for the Climate Change Act 2008. Through its “Big Ask” campaign, the group successfully mobilised public support to pressure the government into committing to legally binding carbon reduction targets. Widespread agreement about climate change, amplified by media coverage and growing scientific agreement, created a political environment in which ignoring the issue would have carried public backlash. This public pressure made it difficult for politicians to resist action, leading to the UK becoming the first country in the world to pass such a comprehensive climate law. Therefore showing if a pressure groups can successfully align public opinion—especially on issues of long-term public interest—their chances of influencing government policy increase significantly.

Public opinion have no influence

However, public opinion and support do not always guarantee the success of a pressure group campaign. A clear example of this is the Stop the War Coalition and the mass anti-Iraq War protest in 2003, which saw over one million people march through London in what was one of the largest demonstrations in British history. Despite the overwhelming public opposition to military intervention, the Labour government under Tony Blair chose to proceed with involvement in the Iraq War. This shows that even when a pressure group successfully mobilises public opinion and organises large-scale action, the government may still prioritise political alliances, strategic interests, or internal agendas over public sentiment. Therefore, while public opinion can be a powerful tool for pressure groups, it is not always decisive—ultimately, success depends on the government’s willingness to respond to that pressure.

anything to do with the House of Lords being bad

One argument in support of the UK needing urgent democratic reform is that part of our legislature, the House of Lords, is not elected.  The majority of peers are currently appointed as Life Peers, while 92 Hereditary Peers remain and there are also some Lords Spiritual. Consequently, a legislative chamber that plays a significant role in the passing of UK legislation is not democratically elected.  In 2024 the government suffered a series of defeats by the Lords of their Rwanda bill, a bill that has passed through all the necessary stages in the elected House of Commons, but was consequently delayed by the unelected House of Lords.  As such it can be seen that the current situation hinders democracy in the UK.

anything to do with the HoL being good

However, the stronger argument is that the House of Lords is not in need of urgent reform as it aids rather than hinders UK democracy.  Since the House of Lords Reform Act (1999), the vast majority, approximately 660, of Lords are Life Peers.  They are appointed for their wide ranging expertise in various fields, which they are able to bring to the debate.  Furthermore, the fact that they are unelected removes the threat faced by MPs of what voting against their party might bring.  It enables them to take a more pragmatic approach based on the facts in front of them.  Since the passing of the House of Lords Act (1949), Lords are only able to delay legislation for a maximum of 1 year and, in reality, it is rare that this happens with the last time being the Hunting Act (2004).  In addition, the Salisbury Convention ensures that Government Bills are not delayed by the Lords where that bill has been mentioned in the Government’s election manifesto.  These protections ensure that the Lords are able to effectively scrutinise legislation, holding the government to account on issues of key public importance.  At the same time they do not prevent the elected House of Commons from having the ultimate say ensuring legislation can be smoothly passed, in contrast to a situation where the second chamber was elected, which would likely result in gridlock.  It is therefore clear that while some reform may be desirable to further modernise the Lords, it is not the case that they are in need of urgent reform and they allow for a strong and stable government that is fully accountable to the electorate.