Past Paper Questions

Overall Topics

Past Paper Questions

  • Evaluate the extent to which the Labour Party remains true to its traditional values and principles.

  • Evaluate the extent of internal divisions within the current UK political parties.

  • Evaluate the view that there is little in common between Conservative and Labour Party policies and ideas.

  • Evaluate the view that the major parties still remain the dominant force in UK politics.

  • Evaluate the view that the only political parties that matter in the UK political system are the Labour and Conservative parties.

  • Evaluate the view that state funding of political parties would be preferable to a situation in which a party can win a general election because it has more members and income than other parties.

Evaluate the extent of internal divisions within the current UK political parties.

Three paragraphs: Conservatives, Labour, Minor parties

LOA: broadchurch parties

Conservatives:

Despite having been the party in power since 2010, the Conservative party are hugely divided

shaped by historic divides e.g. One Nation, New Right, Thatcherism

more modern divides: influence of the six families, particular divides concerning European Research Group, Northern Research Group (empowered after the fall of the red wall) and popular conservatives

Although PopCon claim they aren’t targeting the new leadership of the Tories there are clear oppositions and divides, presenting Conservatives as ultimately divided

BUT

Limits to the extent of divisions allowed e.g. Lee Anderson’s ejection

European research group kept quiet since Brexit, except criticising Windsor framework → but this is because they achieved their aim, shows power of divisions, also been vocal over Rwanda Bill

Rwanda bill might appear as an area of policy where Conservatives are united: passed in Commons without support from any other party → BUT this bill also required whip enforcement, bribes and a tea party beforehand

Overall; significantly divided even on shared policy aims

Labour:

Might initially appear united

Starmer has moved party to the centre, has Angela Rayner as his shadow deputy PM so people who might oppose him instead work closely with him

Momentum (prominent faction) have said they are only going to focus on local government in 2023

Some calls for nationalisation of key industries from more left-wing party members, but generally united on economic issues

BUT

the extent to which Labour is united is relatively superficial

Significant divisions under Corbyn, claims of institutionalised antisemitism

Starmer expelled all people accused of antisemitism/challenging him from the party (e.g. Corbyn, Long-Bailey)

Furthermore, more recent divides of Israel-Palestine (Starmer’s policy has adapted), by-election of George Galloway as an ex-labour MP, criticised Starmer in his speech

November threats of resignation by around 14 shadow MPs (humanitarian pause versus ceasefire)

Whilst Labour appear more united, and prpbably will be with their upcoming hopes of winning an election, their unity is superficial and actually more divides

Minor Parties:

typically smaller and often single-issue tend to be more united

Green Party and Plaid Cymru have few internal divisions

BUT

larger ‘minor parties’ suffer significantly more divides

SNP → largest revolt in all 15 years of power over Transgender Recognition Bill 2022

Sturgeon’s resignation and arrest caused huge internal divisions

does growing size increase likelihood of divisions

Evaluate the view that state funding of political parties would be preferable to a situation in which a party can win a general election because it has more members and income than other parties.

LOA: Whilst the state funding of parties is not entirely unproblematic, it would be significantly preferable to a system where parties win general elections on the basis of membership and, more importantly, income. A shift towards state funding would reduce corruption, go some way to limit the two party dominance and allow for parties to prioritise equal representation of the public rather than select groups. As a result, regulated state funding would be a preferable system.

01: The current system of funding is most significantly problematic because it enables corruption.

Almost all political parties in recent years have been involved in scandals e.g. Tony Blair and Cash for Peerages 2006, Michael Brown and the LibDems, Lord Cruddas’ involvement in the HoL, cash for access etc

Not only do these scandals demonstrate the influence that wealthy individuals are able to exert over parties through funds and donations, but they also threaten democracy e.g. appointments to the HoL, a politically influential body, more serious Russian involvement in the Tory party (£2m, Russia Report policies, involvement in Brexit)

State regulated funding would limit the corruption within major parties and thus create a more stable democratic system, where individuals can’t influence policies and election results through personal funds

However, a reliance on state funding with regards to corruption and democracy is also not entirely democratic

Would mean that parties were reliant on the state for funds, giving huge power and influence to the party in government

Policies harming parties have already been created e.g. 2016 Trade Unions Act damaging Labour’s trade union income (Labour receive around £6m annually from the TU). If there were a system of state funding it would have to be regulated by an independent board

But these independent boards such as the electoral commission already exist, regulations would enable a better state funding

02: the current system based on membership and donations furthers the two party systems and contributes to limitations for smaller parties

currently, it is only the two major parties that receive significant donation money as they are the most likely to actually get into power, but this hurts the attempts of smaller parties to also increase their electoral appeal and win elections (2021 income of Labour was £45,000,000 versus Libdems at £6,000,000)

even current state funds are distributed based on seat share, meaning smaller parties are damaged (especially ones with disproportionately small seats e.g. Greens, UKIP in 2015, LibDems)

a system of state funding could reduce the unequal distribution of funds e.g. set a standard base fund, encourage smaller parties and shift balance away from two major parties

but systems used in other european countries actually contribute to a two party system

use of a system where public pay and the state matches funds, people would be less inclined to pay for smaller parties who won’t win

but actually smaller parties have growing numbers of members e.g. greens, so if membership fees were retained then beneficial system could be created, ultimate issue lies with FPTP

03: would enable parties to focus on electoral appeal through policies and entirely think about elections rather than how to get fundings, remove influence of individuals

policies like PPERA have begun to do this in limiting foreign influence but current system means that wealthy individuals are able to gain better political representation e.g. Medpro scandal in Conservatives during lockdown, shapes who the parties appeal to (focus on wealthy donors, trade unions etc rather than the wider public)

change to voting system would reshape how election campaigns and policies are presented, more equal playing field

But perhaps if parties no longer rely on public funds then they won’t feel as much pressure to appeal to the public

e.g. no need to appease members if you aren’t reliant on membership fees/trade unions whereas rn Labour relies on members for about 35% of its funds

but for parties lile the conservatives its individual donors that make up 65% of overall funds, not democratic

furthermore parties still need to appeal to the public in order to win votes, most essential part of an election

Evaluate the view that major parties still remain the dominant force in UK politics
Evaluate the view that minor parties have no political impact

Two party system but might be in agreements with other parties

Ultimately, only Labour or Conservatives appear like they are going to win

FPTP creates an average of 2 parties per parliament (compared to 3.3 or 4.5), and in electoral history, despite some power sharing agreements, the UK appears dominated by a two party system

Reinforced by the two parties being broadchurch parties, creation of a winner’s bonus also means that there tends to be a single party government

BUT

not always the case and power-sharing agreements have seen the rise of smaller parties

Libdem and Tory coalition in 2010, meant that Nick Clegg had to be deputy PM and some of the Libdems policies had to be enacted

Similar 2017 confidence and supply with the DUP, gave them £1 billion more in funding and no pressure around abortion/same-sex marriage

power sharing agreement between Plaid Cymru and Labour 2007-2011

smaller parties can form agreements with larger parties that allow them to exert some power and influence, as well as pursue their own policy ends. Even if they are unlikely to form a government themselves, they still have some influence over the governing party (but not always)

disproportionate representation but influence party policies

FPTP as a system tends to disadvantage minor parties and reduce their representation in politics

e.g. in 2015, UKIP won 12.6% of the vote but only one seat, and the Greens won voer a million votes but only one seat.

Contrastingly, the Conservatives won 36.9% of the vote but 50% of all seats, becoming the government

their reduced seat share means that these parties also have reduced electoral influence, as they make up less of parliament and are disproportionately under-represented

BUT

they can still influence the policies of major parties

e.g. Theresa May’s 25 year environment plan was based off of some Green Party policies

arguably UKIP had significant influence pushing for stricter immigration measures and Brexit

even though seat share might be limited, public support means that minor parties have some influence and may be able to exert this influence through policy change

BUT ultimately limited in what they can enforce, contingent on the support of the major parties and on the electorate wanting to vote for them

elected to other places in the UK but Westminster retains ultimate power

the process of devolution and presence of multiple layers of democracy (in a quasi-federal system) means that there are places apart from just Westminster that parties can be elected and exert influence

before the resignation of Nicola Sturgeon and the scandals around leadership of the SNP, they had a significant stronghold in Stormont, winning 56 out of 59 of the constituencies in 20__

Similarly, UKIP were elected to the European parliament in 2014 (beating Labour and Comservatives) and the brexit party were elected there in 2019.

The use of AMS in London Mayoral elections also allows for a more proportional system and representation

BUT

Westminster is where most political power is ultimately held, remaining fundamentally sovereign, and thus the inability of minor parties to exert influence here fundamentally limits them

SNP third biggetst party in Westminster but voting strength ultimately undermined, partly because of Labour’s unwillingness to work with them

voting strength is limited and what they can do is limited e.g. SNP stopped from passing trans healthcare legislation by SC