Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Elections and Reform (Political Parties (Why are parties successful?…

- - - - Ted Heath, Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson - nationalisation of gas, electricity and steel, the NHS, welfare state, high taxes, paternalism, full employment, Keynesianist economy, with saving in economic boom with high taxes, and spending in depression with low taxes.
    - - Neo Liberal economics such as free market capitalism, private sector in public services and cutting benefits, increasing personal responsibility, whilst taxes were kept relatively low. Modern liberal social policies, with education, crime and the NHS all targeted under Blair.
  - - - Gained 3.9 million votes in 2015, with 1 MP
      - Stands for
        
        Leaving the EU
        
        Taking back control of trade, fisheries
        
        Hard and quick Brexit
        
        Restricting immigration
        more grammar schools
        
        scrapping Green taxes
        
        spending more on the NHS
    - - FPTP encourages two party system - 82% vote in 2017, from 67% in 2005
      - Sometimes? Lib Dem and DUP? Devolved assemblies, and UKIP pressure
    - - Anti establisment feeling
      - Class dealignment
      - Devolution and PR
  - - - Membership fees
      - Individuals
      - Businesses
      - Organisations
      - Short money - taxpayers money given to the opposition - for every vote and MP they gain
    - - Leaflets, advertising
      - Employment
      - A base / office
      - A 'battle bus'
      - campaigning costs
    - - 2000 political parties, elections and referendums act
      - Introduced the Electoral Commission which supervises spending
      - £30,000 max per constituency
      - Donations from £5000 to a national party or £1000 to a direct constituency had to be publicly declared, with donators on the electoral role to be eligible to donate
    - - Yes?
        
        crucial part of democracy
        
        would reduce unfairness
        
        avoid problems of buying influence
        
        would encourage parties to campaign for every vote if money was allocated per vote
      - No?
        
        would this erode the independence of parties?
        
        larger parties have worked to increase their funding
        
        would remove peoples freedom to donate
        
        would people want their money to go to parties they oppose?
- - - - 1 vote is FPTP constituency and another vote is for a party, who have a list and depending how many votes they get, can nominate candidates from this list to top up their seats proportionally. If a party wins lots of votes but no seats, they will gain seats this way. It also adds the strong constituency link of FPTP.
      - There are varying amounts of proportionality in the different assemblies, with Scotland being 56% FPTP votes, and Wales assembly seats being 66% FPTP. Smaller parties still don't do as well as under proper PR
  - - - Voters choose preferentially from a list of candidates in a multimember constituency. To be elected a candidate needs to get over a certain threshold, and once this is achieved the other votes for this candidate are redistributed according to their next choices. Unpopular candidates also have their votes redistributed sometimes, in order to fill the remaining seats
      - It is very proportional and allows for smaller parties to grow, and the people to be better represented due to higher voter choice. However there are low constituency links, with rival groups sometimes governing constituencies together. Areas may be neglected due to the MP thinking other people may represent them, and the 2nd/3rd choices may be unwanted or the least disliked
  - - - Used for EU MEPs as it is very proportional. It is more likely to produce better results for smaller parties, so better representation. People may feel as if they are being better represented due to having more MEPs from the parties they like. However, it means there are a lot of fragmented votes, with many different parties gaining power. The party list is also closed, so the candidates may be very unpopular but mot held to account, with yes men following the party lin
  - - - It means the winner has a clear majority sand the peoples support, with smaller parties also doing well. It also allows for constituencies to be kept the same, with strong links to the constituents. However it is not proportional and not suitable for choosing a government, but good for mayor elections etc
  - - - More likely not to have a clear winner, therefore power is shared and more views are taken into account. Devolved assemblies usually have stable coalitions with power not changing regularly. NI have a forced coalition due to GFA, while Scotland have minorities or coalitions using smaller parties such as Greens for support
    - - All devolved assemblies have to negotiate to get a bill passed due to there being no majority - SNP had to give into Con/Lab pressure over youth unemployment. Labour is the main party in Wales but is unable to gain a majority, while the GFA encourages working together in NI, avoiding adversarial relationships.
    - - In Scotland especially, the assemblies have been able to implement their own policies including abolishing tuition fees - the Lab/Lib coalition. This better represents the people of the country
    - - The PR system is more representative so means the assembly may become more representative/multi party. Smaller parties with more radical ideas are able to have power, and this encourages reform, whilst encouraging people to voice their true opinions
    - - AMS, List and STV allow for more amount of votes, AMS giving 2 and STV and List allowing the voter to rank preferentially. Also, smaller parties are encouraged, and this allows for further voter choice