To what extent does the evidence contained in these sources support the viewpoint above (20)

The first component of the first part of the viewpoint states, “ the democrats clearly won the 2012 elections by convincing defeating the Republicans at every level.”

Source A helps to show this by providing information from presidential elections. It shows that the democrat candidate clearly won the presidential election as they had 332 electoral college votes compared to the republicans 206 electoral college votes. Source A also shows that Obama won with just over 50% of the votes in comparison to Mitt Romney’s 47.2% of the votes. 

This is supported by evidence that can be found in Source B which identifies election data for the senate. This evidence shows that the democrats defeated the republicans in order to keep control of the senate by winning 55 seats opposed to the Republicans 45 seats, this therefore meant that the democrats were able to gain 2 seats to increased their majority.

Source B further highlights data from the 2012 election within the House of Representatives. The data shown in source B shows that while the democrats gained 8 seats within the House of Representatives they were still overshadowed by the Republicans. This meant that the republicans won the election of House of representatives therefore beating the democrats with 234 seats compared to the democrats 201 seats. 

Considering both the presidency and the senate elections we can say that the democrats clearly won the 2012 election, although in some aspects of the share of the vote within the presidential election this may not be seen as convincing. However while the democrats did gain seats within the House of Representatives the democrats did lose the House of Representatives.

The second component of the first part of the viewpoint to the performance of the democrats in 2012 being almost as impressive as in 2008.

This is shown by evidence in source A as it provides information in relation to the presidential election. This is because in 2008 the democrats won the presidency by a larger margin than in 2012. Thus meaning that the democrats had a greater share of the votes by getting 52.9% of the votes and winning by a larger margin in the electoral college votes by 365 to 172 compared to the republicans 332 to 206.

Linking in with this is evidence provided by source B which identifies election data for the Senate. The evidence shows that the democrats had a stronger performance in 2008 as they elected a higher number of senators electing 59 senators compared to the republicans 55. The democrats also gained more seats in the House of Representatives, gaining 8 in 2008 compare to gaining only 2 in 2012.

Source B further highlights data for the elections held within the House of Representatives. The data from source B shows that the democrats easily won in the House of Representatives during 2008. This was because the democrats had 257 members compared to the republicans 178 members. The democrats also gained 21 members in 2008 in the House of Representatives compared to the 8 members gain they won in 2012, when they didn’t win the House of Representatives. 

Upon analysis, within every aspect the performance of the democrats was far less impressive than in 2008. This was because in 2012 they got a smaller share of the votes in the presidential election as well as winning a smaller amount of the electoral college votes. Furthermore in 2012 the Democrats had a smaller majority in the senate and won less seats than they did originally in 2008, they further lost the House of Representatives in 2012 against the republicans with having fewer seats won. 

Overall the democrats clearly won the senate in 2012 and also won victory in the presidential election even though Obama just won with only over 50% of the total votes. However it is apparent that Obama did convincingly win the electoral college votes. While on balance the democrats did lose the House of Representatives to the republicans, therefore showing a defeat against the democrats. Therefore overall upon further analysis it cannot be said that the democrats convincingly defeated the republicans at every level; while they were victorious at certain levels but not all, in addition the presidential election also being seen as in matters not to be convincing due to the share of the votes with the republicans.

In evaluation the performance of the democratic party was marginally less impressive than their performance in the 2008 presidential race as they got less votes and won by a smaller margin in the electoral college votes than previously in 2008. In terms of the senate and the House of Representatives they too won less seats than they originally did in 2008 and gained less. During the 2008 race the democrats won all 3 elections however during the 2012 race the democrats won only 2. Therefore overall it can be stated that the democrats 2012 performance was not impressive as it was a worse performance than the 2008 one as they lost the House of representatives to the republican party therefore only winning the presidency. 

The first component of the second part of the viewpoint states that, “In the 2012 presidential election Barack Obama defeated his Republican opponent Mitt Romney by decisive margins across every area”. This is shown in source C which gives information showing the regions. Obama beat Romney with immense ease in both the east and the west even though he did get less than half of the votes in the west. Obama beat Romney by a smaller margin in the Midwest however easily defeated him in the south. 

Further evidence provided by source C gives information relating to communities. This information shows that Obama defeated Romney easily within the big as well as the mid-size cities, however Romney beat Obama when it came to towns and suburban or rural area votes. 

Therefore Obama’s support was at its strongest in the east and Midwest regions as well as winning the west. Obama marginally won Americas mid-sized cities even though Romney still beat Obama in the south, rural areas. Therefore this cannot be considered as Obama defeating Romney decisively across all areas. 

The second component of the second part of the viewpoint states that “in the 2012 presidential election Barack Obama defeated his republican opponent Mitt Romney by decisive margins in all sections of society.” Source D provides evidence for this by giving information relating to gender. It is shown that Obama won female voters by a sizable 55% margin to Romney’s 44%. However on the flip side Romney beat Obama when it came to male voters by a lesser margin of Romney having 52% of male voters compared to Obama’s 45%. 

Source D withholds further significance as it provides key information in relation to age. For example, the source shows that Obama won all of the 3 voter groups under 40 by extensive margins by winning 18–24-year old’s 60% to just 36%. However in return Romney did win all of the three voter groups aged 40 and above. Romney’s performance was best served with the 65 plus voters winning 56% of voters compared to Obama’s 44%. 

Furthermore Source D continues to provide vital information in relation to ethnicity. Obama won the black, Hispanic, and Asian votes by massive margins, for example winning the black vote of an impressive 90%. However on balance Romney did do better than Obama with white voters by winning 20% more of white voters. 

Finally source D shows information in relation to income. Obama defeated Romney with immense ease with those whose income was below $50,00 by winning them by over 30% more. However Romney did win all of the voter groups whose income was $50,000. 

Overall Obama’s biggest support was from women, ethnic minorities, young voters, and low-income groups. However this could not be considered as Obama defeating Romney decisively in all sections of society as there were many groups such as whites which Obama did not win. 

The third component of the second part of the viewpoint states that “the Republican candidate in 2016, Donald Trump, performed significantly better among all voter groups compared to Mitt Romney in 2012.”. Evidence of this is provided by source D and source E where both sources provide information in relation to gender. During 2016 Trump won the majority of male votes with 53% and received 42% support from females. Whereas during 2012 Romney got 52% support from males and 44% support from females. 

There is also evidence from source D and source E which provide data about age. During 2012 Romney performed stronger among voters aged 18-24, 30-39 voter and 65 plus voters than Trump, however Trump performed better in the voter age groups of 25–29-year old’s and 50–64-year old’s than Romney. Although both Romney and Trump did receive similar levels of support from 40–49-year-old voters.

Further evidence from sources D and E reveal information relating to ethnicity. In comparison to Trump Romney received better support from white voters than Trump, however Trump performed better than Romney among Black, Hispanic, and Asian voters. However among different groups Romney performed better in comparison to Trump. 

Evidence from sources D and E provide relevant information regarding income. Trump had a better performance than Romney among those whose income was under $50,000 to be specific $30,00. Trump also had a better performance than Romney in the income bracket of $200-249,999, however Romney succeeded trump in all the other income brackets. 

Overall Trump did show some success as he did do better in some voter groups compared to Romney such as males, the poorest and some ethnic minority groups and age groups. However in other voter group it can be obviously seen that Romney performed much better in 2012 than Trump did in 2016.

The viewpoint states that Barack Obama defeated his republican opponent, Mitt Romney by decisive margins in every area and aspect. Obama decisively defeated Romney in the East and the West, however the margin in the Midwest was much slimmer and although Obama still won he only won by 5% therefore not winning decisively. In the South Obama was easily defeated by Romney, therefore we cannot say that Obama defeated Romney in every area. Furthermore Obama decisively beat Romney when it came to mid-sized and large cities although Obama did marginally lose to Romney when it came to rural and suburban areas and was then largely defeated by Romney in votes from those living in towns. Therefore in conclusion Obama did not defeat Romney decisively in every area due to losing to opponent Romney in certain areas. Overall making the statement incorrect.

Additionally, the viewpoint states that Obama decisively defeated Romney within all sections of society. While Obama did score decisive victories among ethic minorities, poor income groups, young vote, and females Romney crushed Obama with having the most support from every age group over 40%. Furthermore Romney defeated Obama among male and white voters as well as beating Obama with those whose income is $50,000 and above. Due to this, we cannot say that this section of the statement is correct therefore making it incorrect. While Obama did defeat Romney in certain voter groups Romney did defeat Obama in others. 

The rational choice model evaluates the way in which citizens are most likely to vote based off of their own rational self-interest. Essentially voters are treated as through consumers who will vote for a specific party based off of who they believe will improve their personal experiences the most. A key factor of the model is the perceptions they have on economic competence of certain political parties such as taxation rates. For example, the conservative party is viewed to be much more capable with dealing with public finances during the 2015 general election comparison to the Labour party. Furthermore this was a key aspect of the conservatives success of winning the 2015 general election. This is important in explaining voting behavior as the rational choice model because its key focus is on more short-term factors such as the economic therefore they are more likely to vote based off of what they believe to benefit them at the time based of the different parties manifesto, meaning that the voters part of the rational choice model will back one party in particular continuously. However the rational choice model tends to only really be effective and prevalent in countries where the electorate have higher levels of education and more education. Overall in evaluation some argue that parts of the electorate who follow the rational choice model tend to be more knowledgeable upon different factors and less likely to end up being influenced by their family or by social networking. 

The rational choice model is also based off of people voting for the party which will make them better off. One of the main factors that electorates part of the rational choice model consider most is the state of the economy. The state of the economy is a short-term factor as it changes and alters from every election. For example if the economy is doing well under a specific party it would only be rational for the voter to vote for the party who is responsible and in charge of the economy that is doing so well. This is important as politicians are able to use this to their advantage. For example both Gordan Brown and Tony Blair who were both accused of making a pre-election boom. Therefore if people have sitting money or businesses they are more confident if government are keeping employment steady then more likely to vote for the incumbent in order to keep the economy going well. The model also assume that people are motivated by money and the possibility of making as much money as possible which has then allowed the construction of formal and predictive models of human behavior. This is important as due to the theory of this model parties are having to work much harder in order to try and secure modern voters support due to voters becoming less attached to political parties creating “floating voters”. However it could be argued that the rational choice voting model is rather relevant as people commonly will vote for the parties which bets suits them and that will benefit them the most, as this model promotes the voting behavior that is influenced by a combination of the parties track record, election manifesto and the party’s track record and players. Overall the rational choice model helps to explain voting behaviors as those part of the model are less likely to vote off of class, age, ethnicity, or gender but instead to vote for who will benefit them and their family the most. 

All of this considered younger voters are less likely to be influenced by parties whose key focuses are based on elderly care, pensions, and childcare. Instead they are more likely to be motivated who has policies that will impact their immediate lives such as helping to buy property or university tuition fees, instead of what may impact them in the future. However as their lives change and things begin to settle down their voting principles or motivations may change as well. This is important because if an individual lives in an area of high crime, unemployment, or immigrants these factors could sway and impact the way they decide to vote , this is because they will want to find a political party which specifically targets their issues and what they want rectified about their community. There has recently been an increase in ‘catch all’ parties which has led to emphasis on issues, campaigns, leadership, and competence. Many have argued that this is a positive thing as it has led to an increase in independent voting. For example in during the 2015 UK general election campaign 34% of the voters said that they might change their vote before election day in comparison to the 1992 general election where only 18% said they may change their vote showing a colossal increase.  However specific studies may have overestimated the impacts in which the media influence due to individuals tendency to try and seek out information that agrees with their preexisting views. Overall the rational choice model is able to explain voting behavior through is sizeable pros and cons. It has been proven multiple times that people will vote for who and what will benefit them the mist yet they cannot make rational choices based off of nay biased information, therefore for the rational choice model to work effectively it relies on the public having unbiased mass media and to have a well versed politically aware society. 

To what extent is the rational choice model more relevant in explaining voting behaviour than other models in the UK today? (20)

There are three different types of models which voters are seen to be part of the models are the rational choice model, the sociological model, and the party identification model. Each of these models is designed so that every voter falls into one of the categories which then helps other to identify and understand each voters voting behaviour. This essay will evaluate the usefulness of each of the rational choice, sociological and party identification models. This essay intends to argue that the rational choice model is the most relevant model when explaining voting behaviours.

The rational choice model of voting behaviour identifies those who vote based on their own rational self-interest by voting for the party which they believe will best benefit them. One of the key aspects that those who vote withing the rational choice model is the economic dependence of the government and how they have handled peoples or businesses money. For example during the 2015 general election it can be argued that the conservatives were more appealing to the rational choice model as they were seen to have handled public finances much better than the Labour party had in 2015. This means that the rational choice model is effective in explain voter behaviour as it is speculated that voters will votes based off of what will make them better off in the near by future and not in the long-term future. The key factor of economy is a short-term factor and therefore it changes every election therefore is the economy is doing well under a certain party it would only be rational for to vote for that party who is responsible for the economy’s current success. Although this does mean that voters are less likely to support just one party as their views on the party’s are constantly changing. However the rational choice model tends to only really be effective and prevalent in countries where the electorate have higher levels of education and more education meaning that this cannot account for all voters and their behaviours across the globe as it isn’t based off of gender, age, ethnicity, or party identification instead the sole benefit their vote would bring just them and their family. Overall the rational choice model is effective in explain voter behaviour to a certain extent as the rational choice model of voting behaviour assumes that people are motivated by money and by the possibility of making profit. This has allowed it to construct formal, and often predictive models of human behaviour.

Another model is the sociological model which voters vote upon due a psychological attachment they have to certain political parties. According to this model politics is based upon social cleavage, predominately politics is a matter of group interests. The concept of social cleavage was first established in the 1960s by key thinkers Lipset and Rokkan. Before the 1980s people were seen to vote on class, which ended up suggesting that we are able to guess which party someone has voted for based upon their class for example ABC1 were more likely to vote for conservatives and C2DE were more likely to vote for labour. However post 1980 there has been significant evidence of class de-alignment. For example, the independent reported in October of 2018 that one of the most remarkable features of GE17 was that Labour could no longer be seen as mainly working class and I fact there was hardly any class difference between both Labour and Conservative. This is significant in showing voter behaviour as previously in history class was a very important deciding factor on which party to vote for however this is no longer the case suggesting that maybe in recent years that people are not identifying with class so closely as they once did. However a survey conducted by YouGov showed that 9 million ABC1 people believed that they were working class and 5 million C2DE people believed that they were working class. This highlights how the sociological model fails to explain voter behaviour because people do not understand the IPSOS MORI classification this suggests that it is becoming increasingly difficult to comment specifically that class has a distinct part in measuring voter behaviour, making the sociological model ineffective in explain voter behaviour. Overall the sociological model of voting is effective to a certain extent when explaining voter behaviours as the model suggest that people are now more motivated by their own social, economic, or religious morals instead of by their, previously stated, class alignment. This means that they are more likely to vote for whichever MP or party best reflects these meanings.

Finally the party identification model suggests that voters are more likely to vote upon their long-term attachment to a specific and preferred party. Research has established that someone’s party identity are strong prompts in showing one’s attitudes and voting behaviours. partisans tends to show their repeated support for a particular party even if the party’s policy or candidates happen to change. These string personal ties that one may feel to a party can also have many benefits for the party as not only does it mean that they shall have their repeated support but also that they may even carry out work such as campaigning for them. Further research has also shown that many people have already made up their mind up on who they will vote for before the political parties’ campaign has even begun. This is important in helping to show how the party identification model is able to show voter behaviour as often people choose their decision upon historic family traditions or positions that their family may have had over many a years. However the partisan links are similar to the voter’s identification with social class, religion, and denomination, meaning that there is a clear overlap of both the party identification model and the sociological model in a voting term. This is because someone’s social class and family are prominent factors for the voters voting behaviour for both of the models. Overall upon evaluation I believe that the party identification model is a relevant factor in describing voter behaviour to a certain extent because psephologists have demonstrated that between the 1950s-1970s voting behaviour heavily linked in with many social factors such as age, class and gender and therefore social factor was one of the most important factors when those people were casting there votes, and often these morals we carry about social factors are inherited by our family.

In conclusion I believe that all the models are relevant in explaining voter behaviour, however I believe that the rational choice model is the most relevant.  This Is because although the rational choice model can only be fully effective on a country if that have a highly intelligent electorate, the model is extremely effective as it. The sociological model is also effective to a certain extent as it is able to create distinct links between things such as age and votes as for example, during the Brexit vote almost all social classes of 18–34-year-olds voted to stay. However on balance the sociological model is less effective because certain aspects that effect the model, for many have become unclear meaning that the model is unable to identify is the reason they believe the voter has voted may not be correct and instead it may be because they have been confused by these certain aspects. Finally the party identification model was once highly effective because there was a very clear and direct link between individuals and a party due to how their family has voted or how loyal their support is, however, this is becoming increasingly ineffective as more and more people are moving away from voting how their family votes and instead begin to vote for who would best benefit them, therefore making them part of the rational choice model.

Compare the impact of grassroots campaign management strategies and the use of media strategies on the electoral performance of political parties during election campaigns (12)

Usually traditional grassroots campaign strategies are conducted through email, mail, and phone calls. This is done to try and encourage individuals to turn out and vote in a general election, by election, referendum etc. this is the longest outstanding method of campaigning, however the use of grassroot strategies is in decline due to new upcoming technologies events are still put on to canvass for marginal seats. An example of this was the general election in 2017 where 100,000 people used MyNearestMarginal which is a left-wing political organisation. Therefore showing that using grassroots as a method of campaigning is still relevant as it creates an opportunity for the party and its supporters to come together in order to target marginal seats. Although the Conservative party won the 2017 General election with 45.4% of the votes, they did end up losing 13 seats in parliament, however the Labour party gained their 13 seats. This then means that it can be argued that Labour’s efforts of targeted canvassing overall withheld a significant impact on their electoral performance and how they did in the election. Furthermore Momentum held weekly weekend campaigning in areas which the seats were vital in their electoral success such as Croydon central. Therefore it can also be argued that die to this mass campaigning on the weekly helped the Labour party to gain those 13 seats because of their tireless efforts to target marginal constituencies to try and get them to vote labour.

The use of new technologies as a form of political campaigning has dramatically increased within recent years. This involves using social media as a means of reaching out to the electorate to try and convince them to vote a certain way. This is usually done through popular social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram as it allows politicians to directly engage with people. This method was used by Best for Britain who were aiming to keep the conservative party out of power. This led to them spending a whooping £187,417 on 128 Facebook adverts in only a 30-day time period during the 2019 general election. However on the flip side the conservative party ended up spending £2.1 million on Facebook ads throughout the entire campaign. This shows that currently the use of new technologies and media as a campaigning stagey is very prevalent as it spends money on social media adverts that that reach anyone nationwide. This has been largely effective as phones are now an everyday essential to Brits and means that these adverts can constantly access their target markets through refinements and personal preferences via the apps. During the final week of the 2019 general election the conservative party sent 2500 live Facebook adverts out which in comparison the Labour party only sent out 250. Showing how by the use of new technologies and media this may have helped the conservative party win the 2019 general election with 43.6% of the overall votes through its significant impact on their campaign.

The Labour party created the new idea of ‘New Labour’, which in practise has had a massive impact on labours electoral performance. The ideas of New Labour was to take a more centrist point of view on their 1997 manifesto which aimed to try and gain support from the middle class while still withholding their important working class core values. This new approach for labour, overall was very effective as this was a more conservative policy which then did help labour to win the middle class’s votes who once believed certain labour stances were too lenient. Blair also won support from the middle class as they wanted to create an ‘all-in-schooling’ system which made schools more inclusively, which ultimately won support as the middle class and working class wanted a good educational system. Overall ‘new labours’ conservative-esque policies massively helped to win the middle classes support as they wanted to be able to keep hold of the money they have earned which these policies allowed. However while this encouraged the middle class to vote this also helps to keep the working classes votes, this was because this heavily encouraged the working class to work extremely hard in order so they can keep more of their money they have earned. In evaluation the adaptation of these ‘new labour’ ideas was effective because they led to electoral success which ultimately ended up winning the 1997 general election, as Blair ended up winning 43.2% of the votes and a massive majority of 179 seats.

Another dominant idea of the labour party is ‘Corbynism’, which has also impacted Labour’s electoral success. In many ways Jeremey Corbyn has made himself very difficult for other MPs to trust and favour but especially because he is Widley known as a committed socialist and religious back bencher. While his committed socialism has made it hard for his fellow MPs to be loyal to Corbyn his core value of socialism has also made him a much less attractive candidate to the middle- and upper-class voters. One of his policies within his 2019 manifesto was to hold a second EU referendum which furthermore decreased Corbyn’s popularity as this made hm unfavourable to the majority who did vote for Brexit. Due to Corbyn wanted to hold a second EU referendum, which was disregarding the outcome of the previous referendum was something which made many people believe undermined and was disrespectful to British democracy and Corbyn should’ve respected the outcome. Corbyn also wanted to nationalise some of the key UK industries such as BT and royal mail. However this was very radical and regressive move for the middle class and business owners. This created fears of socialism which ultimately turned away these groups of voters. These socialist policies included in Corbyn’s manifesto played a massive part in Labours defeat in the 2019 general election as they only own 33% of the overall vote, allowing Johnston to win a large majority. Resources did show however that Corby failed to win little to any support from the middle class as only 29% of the AB social class voted for labour, it can be suggested that this may have been the outcome as Corbyn’s polices may have been to socialist in nature. However labour failed to in a majority in any social class, which helps to show the full effects of dealignment which can help to suggest that Corbyn’s socialist policies were not the reason for labours failure.

A final dominant idea of the labour party was the ‘third way’ which underpinned the New Labour and instead bringing the market model to specific government-run services, which could enable aroused interest across the western world. This was to try and help excel the economy and by improving the economy, the third way helped to support Blair’s and Brown’s credibility and their goal to keep the conservative party out of any sort of power for a generation. The new labour’s introduction of the third way was effective as it was a response to the ending of a post Thatcherism consensus which had overpowered the UK and spread across the world throughout the cold war era.

To what extent do the dominant ideas of political parties have an impact on their electoral performance?

Two significant ideas that have existed within the Labour Party are ‘New Labour’ under Tony Blair and ‘Corbynism’ under Jeremy Corbyn. Tony Blair was successful consistently in his elections, while Jeremy Corbyn never achieved an election victory and was decisively beaten in the 2019 election. Each of these ideas did have a significant impact on the outcome of their respective elections, however it is also evident that the ideas of Corbynism were not the sole cause of Jeremy Corbyn’s failure, as larger issues over his own personality and an unclear campaign strategy are just two other factors which played a hand in his defeat. Two significant ideas that have existed within the Conservative party are ‘One-Nationism’ founded by Benjamin Disraeli and ‘Thatcherism’ under Margaret Thatcher. It is clear that One-Nationist policies and Thatcherist policies did result in electoral success for the conservatives, however Thatcher’s victories were also a symptom of the political climate at the time of the elections.

New Labour is perhaps the idea that has had the largest impact on electoral performance for the Labour party. In his 1997 manifesto pledges, Tony Blair adopted a more centrist approach to try and win support from the middle classes while maintaining support from Labour’s core working class voters. This approach was very successful, allowing him to achieve a landslide victory in his election. One of his 1997 manifesto pledges was that his party would be “tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime”. This policy is clearly a more conservative approach and this helped Blair win support from middle class voters who believed the traditional Labour crime stance to be too lenient. Another one of Labour’s pledges in this election was a move towards ‘all-in schooling’. This increased inclusivity appealed to all sections of society, particularly towards middle class and working class voters who want access to a good education system. His pledge to increase education spending also helped win support from these voters. He also promised to cap the basic and top rates of income tax. This conservative-esque policy also helped win support from the middle class voters who wanted to keep hold of the money they had earned. This kind of policy also helped encourage working class individuals to work hard so that they may keep more of their own money. It is clear that these policies did lead to electoral success, as Tony Blair won 43.2% of the vote with an enormous majority of 179 seats. According to Ipsos MORI, Labour was successful amongst both male and female voters and won in every age category. This shows that his strategy of appealing to all section of society did lead to his success. The data also shows that Blair made significant ground in the AB social class rating (the only area where Blair did not win) and this resulted in an increase of 12% of these voters for Labour and a decrease of 15% for the conservatives. This clearly illustrates how effective the New Labour policies were at appealing to middle class voters. Overall it is clear that Blair’s New Labour did play a huge role in his election victory in 1997. Appealing to all sections of society, most importantly the middle class, helped him win seats from the Conservatives and win Labour its biggest majority in history. 

Corbynism is another idea of the Labour party which impacted electoral performance. Jeremy Corbyn had always been a committed socialist and a rebellious back bencher. This made it very difficult for him to earn loyalty from his fellow MPs. His socialist stance is at the heart of Corbynism and this makes him far less attractive to many middle and upper class voters. Perhaps his main policy in the 2019 election was to hold a second EU referendum. This did not appeal to those who wanted Brexit, which already eliminates around half of the voters according to recent opinion polls. Disregarding the outcome of the previous referendum is also something that many voters felt undermined democracy in Britain as they felt that the results of the Brexit vote should be respected. His pledge to campaign neither for or against Brexit in this referendum was also an unclear and arguably harmful strategy, especially compared to Boris Johnson’s “Get Brexit Done” mantra which is much more accessible to voters. Another more socialist policy of Jeremy Corbyn was the nationalisation of several key industries, for example the National Grid, BT, Royal Mail. This would reverse the privatisation campaigns of Margaret Thatcher and others that started in the 1980s. This seemed like a very radical and regressive move for many middle class voters and business owners. Fears over socialism from this policy clearly turned away these voters. Abolishing the charitable status of Private Schools is another policy which did not appeal to the middle classes or other aspirational members of society. This socialist policy realistically only makes private schools more exclusive. These policies did play a role in Corbyn’s stunning defeat in the 2019 election, winning only 33% of the vote. This allowed Boris Johnson to secure a very large majority. Here the data shows that Corbyn clearly failed to win support from the middle class voters, winning only 29% of the vote from the AB category. This shows that his policies were perhaps too socialist in nature. However, Corbyn also failed to win in any of the other social class categories. This shows the full effect of class de-alignment and makes the point that his socialist policies were not the only reason for his failure. Characterised as untrustworthy and even communist by the media, Corbyn was increasingly unpopular with most voters. He also failed to categorically deny claims that he was antisemitic which made it even harder for voters to trust him. His failure to clearly state what side of the Brexit campaign he was behind also made his stance very unclear to voters, many of whom were attracted by Johnson’s simple pledge to get it done. Therefore it is clear that while Corbynist policies did play a role in the 2019 defeat for Labour, other key issues such as Brexit and his own personality perhaps played an even larger role in securing his defeat. 

One key idea of the Conservative party is One-Nationism. This idea was first espoused by the Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli in the 19th century in his book ‘Sybil’ (or ‘The Two Nations’). This aimed to reduce the social chasm between the working class and the more advantaged members of society and bring everyone together to form ‘one nation’. Like New Labour, one-nationism adopts a more centrist approach and appeals more to the working class voters than the other branches of Conservativism. In the run up to the 2015 general election, David Cameron advocated several one-nationist policies. One of these policies was to cut income taxes for those working 30 hours a week on minimum wage. This attempts to help these working-class individuals, allowing them to earn more money. The Queen’s speech stated that Cameron’s party would “adopt a one-nationist approach, helping working people get on, supporting aspiration, giving new opportunities to the most disadvantaged and bringing different parts of our country together.” This clearly displays one-nationist principles, clearly saying that it aims to reduce the effects of the social chasm. The Ipsos MORI data for this election does show that 27% of DE voters voted for the Conservative party, and this likely contributed to his total of 36.9% compared to Labour’s 30.4%. It is likely that these working class voters switched to voting Conservative due to these one-nationist policies and this makes it clear that one-nationism does lead to electoral success for the Conservative party. 

Thatcherism is another significant idea of the conservative party which led to electoral success for Thatcher in the 1979 and 1983 elections. Thatcher served as Prime Minister from 1979 to 1983 and during this time advocated several policies which are now referred to as Thatcherist. One of these policies was to cut taxes. This clearly won her support from the middle and upper classes of society who wanted to keep hold of the money they had earned. This method incentivised hard work but also encouraged inequality within society. This clearly led to her electoral success in 1979 as she won 59% of votes from AB voters and 41% from C voters, contributing to her landslide majority of 44%. One of her major policies leading to her 1983 victory was privatisation. This resulted in Government-run industries being given to individuals to run, leading to increased efficiency. For example, BT was privatised in 1982. This attracted middle class voters who believed in the profit motive and those who wanted the country to be better run. This did likely contribute to her second landslide of 43% to 28%. Therefore it is clear that Thatcher’s policies did lead to electoral success for the conservative party. However, other factors did play a role in both of these election victories. The 1979 election was shadowed by the ‘Winter of Discontent’ - a severe winter which coincided with worker unrest and strikes with volatile Trade Union movements. Thatcher’s victory here was likely due to the previous Labour leader James Callaghan’s failure to deal with these problems effectively. This turned many voters towards Thatcher as a stabilising force within Britain. The 1983 election was preceded by the Falklands war. This contributed massively to Thatcher’s success here because it turned her from a relatively unpopular PM before the war to a victorious hero who cleverly drew upon British patriotism to achieve her largest victory. Therefore her policies were effective at winning support, but it is also clear that other events preceding the two elections made an even larger impact on her performance. 

In conclusion, the key ideas of political parties often have very large impacts on electoral performance. New Labour is perhaps the best examples of this, where Blair’s centrist policies clearly increased his favour with the middle class voters, massively contributing to his victories. One-nationism within the conservative party also led to increased support from middle and working class voters, showing that this conservative version of centrism was also very effective. However, it is likely that both New Labour and One-Nationism represent political pragmatism in a deliberate attempt to win votes rather than ideologies in their own right. Corbynism within the Labour party also had a detrimental impact on the performance of Labour in the 2019 election. Socialist policies did scare away middle class voters. However there were clearly larger issues at play in this election which may have impacted the results even more than Corbyn’s ideas did. Thatcherism is very similar in this respect, though Thatcher’s policies combined with the political landscape at the time as well as the Falklands victory led to her success rather than failure. Therefore it is clear that the key ideas of political parties do have huge impacts on the performance of parties at elections, however other issues at hand do play a large role as well. 

250-word synopsis of Thatcherism

The main idea of Thatcherism is that is was the government’s job to remove regulation and planning of businesses and peoples life and instead to try and replace that with a free market with a small state. This would then mean that the government would only provide people with the absolute bare essentials of realm and defense of currency but after that everything was to be left to the individuals themselves to exercise their own rights and responsibilities while the government tried to make sure that no inflation would occur. Thatcherism would also reject the state ownership of businesses and would also reject the socialist central planning. Another key central idea of Thatcherism was the need for low taxation, while the previous government labor had increased the income tax on the high thatcher wanted to cut this from 80% to only 40% of the highest rates and cut the basic income tax rate to 25%. 

Compare the effectiveness of the Executive in making policy in two political systems you have studied. (12)

Both the UK and US are effective in policy making through their distribution of their power. The US and UK both have many powers such as powers of patronage, passing laws and fiscal powers. The Fiscal powers that the UK and US hold are very important and one of these powers includes the decision of one of these is the yearly national budget. The UK government announces the budget publicly after it has already been decided which means that the public can only accept the budget and do nothing about it. This helps to make the UK government to be influential because with economic policies because they do not have to consult the main opposing party, Labour or any party meaning there is no restriction on the PM economical matters. For example last year the British budget has been massively affected as there was the largest cash increase of £33.9 billion since WW2 per year until 2024 for public services. The US also has an annual national budget, however unlike the UK the budget has to be proposed by an executive and then has to be voted upon, meaning for a budget approval there needs to be a cross-party agreement. This therefore places significant restrictions on the president’s fiscal powers. Therefore If a budget is not approved by the beginning of the new financial year, a government shutdown is triggered. An example of a shutdown was when the US faced the longest government shutdown in American history from late December 2018 to January 2019 which resulted in lasting 35 days. the shutdown cost the US economy overall $11 billion, as well as temporary shut down of quarter of all government activities.

The UK and the US are also effective in making policies through their function of policymaking and how easy it is to act upon these policies. For a bill to be passed as law in the UK it has to be first created by the government before being proposed to the house of commons for its first and second readings before going onto the committee and report stage before its final third reading. The bill is then passed onto the house of lords which follows the same process. The bill is then considered for amendments before finally being sent to the crown for the royal assent before it is finally passed as a bill and voted on by the public. For example, the UK parliament passed the human rights act in 1998 in order to protect every British citizen. However it is difficult for the legislative to pass laws if the Prime minister has the majority of seats in the house of commons, making it harder for the executive to act upon these policies. For a law to be created in the US it has to first be introduced as a bill by an assigned legislative number then a speaker of the house sends it to a committee. While at the committee they discuss what they do and don’t like about the bill, suggests any possible changes before voting to accept or reject the changes. The bill is then passed onto congress where congress and the senate debate and propose amendments for the bill. Then they vote on the bill before it is finally passed to the president who decides to pass or approve and if approved it s signed and becomes law. This makes it more difficult for the president to get their laws passed as they can also be blocked such as budget blocks. However the president is able to issue executive orders which allows them to get around consulting other political representatives when it comes to legislature.

Finally the UK and the US government are effective in making policies through the relationship between the executive and the legislative, such as between the president, the Prime minister, and their supreme courts. The US supreme court is made up by the president but is able to scrutinize the actions of the executive branch, the president by interpreting actions, through judicial review. They are also able to scrutinize the executive through the decisions of lower courts or presidential executive orders even weather of not it is unconstitutional or not. For example Donald Tump was ‘at battle’ with the supreme court over calls foe him to disclose his personal finance records. However the court refused to side with him and his argument that Trumps presidency can protect him from any form of investigation. The British supreme court has a lot of power with being able to hold the government to account and being able to scrutinize them. A prime example of this is when in August of 2019 parliament was ordered to be progued by the Queen upon the Prime Minister’s, Boris Johnston’s, advice. Parliament was the suspended between September 9^th – September 12^th until the state opening of parliament on October 14^th. Parliament had been suspended for 5 weeks and then only reconvened 17 days before the UK was set to leave the European Union on October 31^st, meaning that this was seen by many opposition politicians as a controversial and unconstitutional attempt by Boris Johnston to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of his Government's Brexit plans in the weeks leading up to Brexit.

• Knowledge points (facts)

.  The Prime Minister is elected through the popularity of their party; If one political party has a majority in the Commons, then the leader of that party will be appointed Prime Minister and act as the chairman/woman of the Cabinet

.  The President, elected separately from Congress, is its political head.  He/she is advised and assisted by a Cabinet, but all Executive power is his/hers and they are in no way their equals

.  The President, as the most high profile single politician in the US, is able to set the tone for the legislative programme

.  Lack of Presidential control over Congress significantly limits the President’s power in the legislative process

Government Bills are presented by and in the name of, the Secretary of State in charge of that Department and they are responsible for steering it through the legislative process

.  Since 1992, only eight legislative votes have been lost by the Crown and no complete Government Bill has fallen

Crown is able to implement legislation and policies as it sees fit, but it is limited by the need to cooperate with professional interests and local government

The President’s extremely public and central role as the figurehead of the US government makes it easy for he/she to be blamed in times of crises

• Knowledge points (explanations or specific examples)

The most important of these is the annual State of The Union Address, which President Obama used to announce the introduction of Obama-Care among other things

Affordable Care Act, President Obama achieved health care reform, but it did not include provision for the Federal Government, which was part of his original plan

Much like the President, they are able to voice their proposed agendas through speeches such as the annual State Opening of Parliament where these are outlined by HM the Queen.  

1979-1997, a majority of Scottish MPs favoured devolution, but the Crown was able to prevent any relevant Bill from being legislated on

15 Departments, 60 Agencies and staff of some three million civil servants in the Presidency work to implement Presidential decisions, within the limits of Congressional laws

For example, Ron Davies, the Secretary of State for Wales resigned after controversy surrounding his private life.  However, there have been instances where MPs have been able to avoid resigning

explains Obama’s prioritisation of health care reform and economic recovery, while President Bush prioritised defence and national security, and education reform.

the Prime Minister is expected to provide national leadership in the sense of crisis management when the Head of State cannot do so

• Analysis points (comments on the knowledge, comments that highlight importance, significance, comparison, differences, viewpoints etc

the President is able to write Bills through the office of legislative affairs and also has significant veto powers.  A President will find a member of Congress and a Senator willing to table to the Bill

there is no guarantee that Congress will pass a Bill in the form that the President would like as members of both chambers have their own political agendas.

the President has superior power, as he is able to influence the legislative agenda, the President is not able to decide the outcome of the process

Prime Minister in the legislative process allows legislative supremacy of the crown as they are able to ensure their Bills will be passed through Parliament

Although technically the US President has more power individually, it is arguable that the supportive nature of the UK Parliament towards the Prime Minister reinforces his power to implement legislation and participate effectively in the decision making process.  

This effectively extends beyond Parliament, as the media will expect the Minister to answer for their department’s work.  Part of this convention outlines that a Secretary of State should resign if their department has caused or overseen a significant policy or administrative failure

.  It would be fair to say that the President’s power as a overall political leader is limited by the amount of responsibility he holds surrounding events that are outwith his control, such as natural disasters.  In the UK, however, the Prime Minister does not have to act as the Head of State as this position is filled by HM the Queen

The Prime Minister has far more power over legislation as he is the majority party leader, resulting in his Bills and policies being supported through Parliament.  In terms of implementing legislation and policy, the difference comes down to the different nature of the two Executives

250-word synopsis

The overall argument of this essay is that the UK prime minister has more overall power than the US president. This is because anything that they want to get through parliament they get fully supported upon and due to their party having the most MPs this means that they will be able to get a majority vote to pass the bill because of their whips. Because of this it re implements the PM’s ability to legislate while also, still being able to participate within the politics themselves. While the American president does have this much power because they have a lot less support as they are only a single person and not an entire party. The president is still advised by congress however they can vote and act against them as unlike the Prime Minister the president doesn’t have the power of whips. Overall while on the outside the president had much more power when evaluated the reality is that the British Prime Minister has much more power.

Compare the passage of legislation in two political systems you have studied. (12)

One passage of legislation that both the UK and the US have is through their ability to pass legislation. In the UK, for a bill to be passed to become a law it first has too bought into parliament and proposed to the house of commons so their can be a first and second reading of the bill. The bill then goes through the committee and report stage before the bill goes back into parliament for its final third reading. The bill is then passed onto the house of lords which follows the same first and second reading, the committee and report stage and then the final third reading. The bill is then submitted for the consideration of amendments and is then sent to royal assent to be read and approved before finally becoming a bill. An example of a bill that has been passed as law through the British parliament is the human rights act of 1998. However this makes it difficult for the legislative to pass bills if the prime minister has the majority of seats in the commons. For a bill to come law the bill is assigned a legislative number before it gets sent to a committee by a speaker of house. The committee then talks about what they like and don’t like about the proposed bill, they then suggest any changes before they choose whether to accept or reject any changes that are made. The bill is then sent to congress where the house and senate debate the bill and then propose amendments, both the house and senate then vote ‘yay’ or ‘nay’. Then finally for the bill to become a law it gets sent to the president approves or passes the bill before signing to approve the bill as a law. An example of this is when congress did the 13^th amendment to abolish the slave trade and the use of slaves. This is a good ability to pass law because it is more difficult for the president to get their laws passed and they can be blocked such as the budget. However the president can issue executive orders which allows them to get around consulting other political representatives when it comes to making laws.

Another passage of legislation that both the UK and US is through how the parliament and congress can scrutinise the government to influence the government. The UK government can get scrutiny through Prime minister’s question time which is held every Wednesday at noon for 30 minutes. PMQ is used for other MPs to ask the PM and government to justify any recent actions or behaviours. PMQ is effective as it can force change as MPs can ask anything, for example Theresa May suffered so much scrutiny that she was forced to drop the 55p universal credits phone lie charge. Scrutiny can also be served shadow cabinets which are the government opposing party so currently in the UK the labour party where the shadow leader is Kier Starmer, which follows the work done by the government departments. Shadow cabinets are good as they show absence of this form of close scrutiny. The US can be scrutinized through congressional oversight, where they prevent waste, fraud, abuse and protecting rights and civil liberties. They are useful because they are ‘implied’ powers by a ‘necessary and proper’ clause of the constitution. This helps to form key elements of the system of checks and balances of power among the three branches of government. This is done through means of consulting with or getting reports directly from the president. This is effective scrutiny of executive scrutiny by their legislatives often is improved with the use of media platform because of their own, however the UK are not that public in the scrutiny.

Finally both the UK and US have roles and influences of committees. The UK has select committees, which are also a form of scrutiny. Select committee’s check up on the work that is done by the government. They bring in experts, collect evidence and get public opinions on different issues and situations before presenting it to the different government departments. Select committees are effective because the government take up about 35%-40% of recommendations that are made by select committees. However select committees are mostly made up from MPs which makes them less effective, and the government doesn’t have to take their advice. The US has committee hearings such as the Clinton Benghazi, which are always advertised on tv. The congressional committees are legislative sub-organizations. All together there are 250 sub-congressional and congressional committees for all the different functions. the committees are made up of congress members who can join the 3 types of committees, standing, select or special and joint. They have many duties including gathering information, identifying policy problems, and proposing solutions. Overall it can be argued that the US legislative branch is effective in this area because of the coverage which could be argued to heighten democracy as it really does visibly hold the government to account.