This section has a selection of student answers to GovP1 and GovP2. Scroll down to view each answer.
Pressure Group Essay Model Answers
(With grateful thanks to Erin Minogue and Sam Sayer)
ANSWER 1
Explain the term social movement
A social movement is a leaderless online group that has many of the characteristics of a pressure group as it often fights for a particular cause or challenges the government on a given issue. They are different to pressure groups in that they are often transient. Anonymous and Occupy are examples of a social movements. They are leaderless, established through social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, and organise anti-austerity protests in capital cities around the world.
Identify and explain two factors that might explain the rise of social movements in recent years.
Firstly, the growth of the internet and social media platforms has contributed to the rise of social movements, such as the Arab Spring, in recent years. The extract identified “Facebook and Twitter” as platforms that the UK Uncut movement thrived upon. Due to the expansion of the internet, twenty-four hour news, and the widespread use of social media people are more likely to discover new causes and ideas that they would previously not have discovered. This helps explain the growth of social movements. The expansion of the internet and social media has provided a large platform of communication for groups with similar interests. This increases the awareness and participation of people who share the aims of the cause and further contributes to the growth of social movements.
Another factor which explains the growth of social movements is the acceptance of ‘catch all’ mainstream political parties for “government spending cuts”. This programme of austerity, against the backdrop of the 2008 banking crisis, has led widespread criticism amongst the population, with many people venting their frustration online. An example of this is the anti-austerity march held in London by the social movement Anonymous. This general displeasure at public sector spending cuts is therefore a factor in the rise of social movements because they offer an outlet for citizens to vent their frustration towards the government.
“A pressure group’s chances of success will be shaped largely by the nature of its core aims.” Discuss.
There are many different pressure groups and success may mean different things to different groups. For example cause groups, as first identified by J.D. Stewart, might measure success by the number of people, including the government, who became aware of and supported their cause. The Snowdrop campaign after the Dunblane massacre is one such group. Sectional groups, on the other hand, might regard success through improvement in the well-being of their members. Trades unions would fall into this category. There are therefore a number of factors, other than a group’s core aims, that contribute to their success. These include the methods used by the group, public and media sympathy, the group’s status in relation to the government, the size of membership, and the financial backing of their organisation.
It can indeed be argued that a pressure group’s chances of success can be affected by its core aims. This is because the government is only likely to recognise pressure groups if their aims align with the beliefs and values the government holds. For example, the pressure group ASH witnessed support for its anti-smoking campaign because it accorded with the principles held by the Department of Health. Reducing smoking was also likely to reduce the burden on the NHS. This clearly demonstrates that a pressure group’s core aims do largely shape its chances of success.
However, it can also be argued that some pressure groups are still successful even if the government is also not fully supportive of their core aims. For example, Joanna Lumley’s backing of the Ghurkha campaign against Phil Woolas’s immigration Bill under the Brown government meant that the government reversed their decision and fulfilled the campaign’s aims. This is an example of how celebrity endorsement can also lead to success, in this instance helping to win the support of the opposition parties, and that core aims are not necessarily the most important factor to success.
Alternatively, public sympathy and the media can be argued as the most important factor influencing pressure group success. For example, the Snowdrop campaign elicited media coverage and public sympathy, leading the government to respond by amending handgun laws. Similarly, Fathers4Justice, were very much an outsider group in the typology of Wyn Grant, but were able to win some public sympathy and raise awareness of their cause. This arguably led to the courts apparently being more sympathetic to fathers in their rulings. This illustrates the importance of public sympathy.
The methods used by pressure groups can also influence their chances of success. Frustrated by their status, outsider groups often resort to direct action or even civil disobedience, which rarely achieves success. The Stop the Iraq War campaign, a mass membership group, marshalled over three million protesters into Hyde Park in 2003, but this did not change the war. Similarly CND, another mass membership organisation which engages in marches and demonstrations have been unsuccessful. Arguably, the Save the Newchurch Guinea Pig Campaign, which used extreme direct action, failed to end animal testing, although the farm involved in the case eventually closed. The fact is that governments are unlikely to engage with groups who use direct action, particularly if it borders on being illegal, as they cannot be seen to condone such action.
Finally, the status of a pressure group in relation to the government can be argued to be a vital factor in their success. This was the point made by Wyn Grant in devising his typology. Insider groups, such as the BMA, are more likely to be involved in policy networks and to take full advantage of access points than outsider groups like the Fuel Protestors or Fathers4Justice. The BMA is a wealthy, middle-class, high status pressure group, recognised for being a core insider, and regularly consulted by the government. It is interesting to note, however, that recently even the BMA has felt compelled to adopt direct action tactics (marches, demonstrations) because of their frustration with current government policy.
In conclusion, the core aims of pressure groups is one of the most important factors and will largely shape its chances of success. This is because governments cannot accommodate groups whose aims are at odds with their own. However, other factors such as the status of the group and the degree of public sympathy are also significant in determining a pressure group’s success.
ANSWER 2
Explain the term ‘direct action’
Direct action is a set of methods used by pressure groups when more conventional methods of influencing the policy-making process are not working. Direct action comprises a plethora of different strategies and might even involve civil disobedience in the form of blockades, sit-ins, or other strategies designed to attract media attention and raise public awareness on an issue. It is a visible and direct approach generally adopted by outsider pressure groups and born out of frustration with the government. An example of a pressure group that widely used direct action methods was Fathers4Justice who have chained themselves to landmark buildings and flour-bombed the House of Commons.
Explain why insider groups were traditionally seen as having greater influence over policy than outsiders.
The insider/outsider typology was devised by Wyn Grant in the 1980s. He asserted that groups with insider status were more likely to be successful than outsiders. One reason why insider groups have been seen to have greater influence over government policy is because, as the extract states “they are recognised by the government as being representative of certain interests”. This applies to core insiders such as the BMA (British Medical Association) who are regularly consulted on healthcare policy. These groups are seen as "credible" and more articulate than outsider groups, who resort to direct action and civil disobedience and are “outside the political loop” and sometimes “reject cooperation”. Their aims are more likely to accord with the values held by the government and they are more likely to have wider access to the decision-makers through policy networks, therefore having greater influence over policy direction.
Another reason why insider groups may have a greater influence over policy is because they can offer government specialist expertise on a given subject and therefore may be consulted on relevant policies. This applies to groups such as the WWF (World Wildlife Fund), who can offer specialist knowledge to government on related issues. They are known as ‘specialist insiders’.
“Pressure groups are a vital part of democracy in the UK because they ensure that all citizens have a political voice”. Discuss.
Pressure groups are organisations which seek to influence decision makers rather than to gain power for themselves. They represent a wider range of views in society and can be seen as a vital part of pluralist, liberal democracy. Many represent competing or countervailing interest, such as the Countryside Alliance and the League Against Cruel Sports over the issue of fox-hunting, or the TUC and CBI. However, some can be seen as internally undemocratic and elitist, and ‘serpents that strangle efficient government’. This essay will consider to what extent they are a vital part of democracy and provide a political voice for all.
The concept of pluralism suggests that pressure groups are a vital part of a democratic society as they represent a wide variety of interests and viewpoints. Particularly in an era of “catch all” parties, pressure groups enhance democracy by representing the views of those who aren’t represented by the major parties. For example, those with pro-life views are not represented by any of the mainstream political parties and therefore groups such as Life or the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children can represent their views.
Another way in which pressure groups are a vital part of democracy is because they provide an avenue for participation, especially between general elections. As membership of political parties decreases, membership of pressure groups increases – for example the National Trust has approximately 4 million members compared to 300,000 for Labour. This would suggest that people are more passionate about single issues and seek to influence government on these issues.
Pressure groups may also play a vital part in democracy by moderating the views of more radical members. This occurs because, through structured participation, members feel like their views are being heard and represented. They are therefore less likely to turn to illegal action to articulate their viewpoint.
However, it could be argued that pressure groups do not necessarily enhance democracy due to elitism. This argument has been proposed as the government is more likely to look favourably on more articulate pressure groups with highly skilled membership. This is evidenced by the fact that both the BMA and the Law Society are considered to be core insiders in the Wyn Grant typology. Also, despite the large membership and large public awareness generated by certain pressure groups, outsider groups are unlikely to have large influence or any effect at all on government policy. This is evident as in 2003 the pressure group “Stop the War Coalition” organised a protest march against the war in Iraq which, according to the organisers, was attended by 3v million people. However, it had no effect on government policy.
Another reason why pressure groups might not be considered vital to democracy is because they have been called “serpents that strangle efficient government” by former Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd. This is because if governments are being lobbied on a particular issue then they are less able to deliver ‘joined-up’ government and deliver on manifesto promises. Also, if pressure groups are consulted then this adds another level to the policy making process.
Pressure groups might not be seen as enhancing democracy as certain groups have internal structures that are very undemocratic. They cannot therefore be seen as genuinely representing all their members’ interests. An example of this would be Greenpeace, often criticised for its lack of internal democracy, and Fathers4Justivce, whose self-styled leader Matt O’Connor ran the organisation in a very autocratic manner.
Overall, whilst there are arguments both for and against the statement that pressure groups are a vital part of democracy and ensure all citizens have a political voice, the evidence is mixed. But in a pluralist society it is necessary for there to be many different avenues to represent people’s viewpoints and therefore pressure groups do play vital democratic role, particularly in articulating the voice of minorities, offering a further chance for all to participate in politics, and allowing a wide range of opinions to be aired.
ANSWER 3: Maryam Hassan
Evaluate the factors which can result in some pressure groups being more successful than others.
Pressure groups are single issue groups which seek to influence government rather than strive for power for themselves. In attempting to influence decision makers at whatever level of government, some are clearly more successful than others. This is due to a number of factors.
In categorising pressure groups, there are two main typologies and these might provide a clue as to what makes a certain group successful. In the 1960’s, JD Stewart identified the cause/sectional typology. Cause groups are those which have open membership and which promote a particular issue. Some cause groups are more successful than others and this is due in part to the strategies they use. For example, the Greenham Common Protestors used civil disobedience to try to prevent the siting of cruise missiles at an RAF base. They stayed near the site for 20 years but were unsuccessful in their aims. This demonstrates that civil disobedience is unlikely to persuade government who cannot seem to be condoning or even acknowledging such actions.
Other cause groups might be more successful. ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) was successful in winning its campaign to prevent smoking in public places. Winning public sympathy is important in winning cause group success. This was also true of Snowdrop which fought for gun control in the wake of the Dunblane massacre.
Equally, some sectional groups may enjoy more success than others, although the group may wax and wane over the years. Sectional groups have closed memberships and fight for the interests of their members. In the early years of the Wilson’s first Labour government, the TUC was successful in influencing government economic policy, being invited for ‘beer and sandwiches’ at Number 10. However, in the later Wilson years and particularly in the Thatcher years, The TUC’s influence waned and unions such as NUM (National Union of Miners) became less successful in influencing the decision makers. This is apparent in the programme of pit closures by Thatcher.
In the 80’s, Wyn Grants insider/outsider typology became the orthodox model for categorising pressure group success. Indeed, this model may be more revealing of pressure group success as it describes the status of such groups. Outsider groups are much less likely to succeed. For example the mass membership of the Stop the Iraq War coalition had no impact on government policy despite having a turnout of 3 million in Hyde Park. Some outsider groups which secure celebrity endorsement and therefore media publicity and public sympathy may prove more successful. Joanna Lumley’s support for the Ghurkha Campaign was instrumental in their success. Again, outsider groups using illegal civil disobedience methods are likely to fail such as Fathers 4 Justice,
Well-resourced groups, whether insider or outsider, sometimes enjoy success. Greenpeace, an ideological outsider, has been partly successful in limiting Japanese whaling. However, insider groups, particularly if they are well resourced are much more likely to succeed. This is because the government chooses to work with them. Historically, the BMA fits into this category, enjoying a position in policy networks partly derived from the socio-economic backgrounds of its members and their links with decision makers. However, in recent months, the BMA is openly challenging the government and has been forced to adopt strategies more commonly associated with frustrated outsider groups, such as strike action.it is interesting to note that the BMA is trying to secure public sympathy, which as noted above s another ingredient to success.
Pressure groups with clear aims also stand a greater chance of success. This was evident in the campaigns of ASH and Snowdrop and it is apparent that the lack of clear aims of social movements such as Occupy and Anonymous contribute to their lack of success.
In conclusion, a variety of factors make some pressure groups more successful than others. Their willingness to engage with government, the socio economic background of their key players, their resources, status and aims all signal a greater chance of success. On the other hand a refusal to cooperate with government peacefully and their inability to pursue effective legal challenges means some pressure groups can be unsuccessful.
Pressure Group Essay Model Answers
(With grateful thanks to Erin Minogue and Sam Sayer)
ANSWER 1
Explain the term social movement
A social movement is a leaderless online group that has many of the characteristics of a pressure group as it often fights for a particular cause or challenges the government on a given issue. They are different to pressure groups in that they are often transient. Anonymous and Occupy are examples of a social movements. They are leaderless, established through social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, and organise anti-austerity protests in capital cities around the world.
Identify and explain two factors that might explain the rise of social movements in recent years.
Firstly, the growth of the internet and social media platforms has contributed to the rise of social movements, such as the Arab Spring, in recent years. The extract identified “Facebook and Twitter” as platforms that the UK Uncut movement thrived upon. Due to the expansion of the internet, twenty-four hour news, and the widespread use of social media people are more likely to discover new causes and ideas that they would previously not have discovered. This helps explain the growth of social movements. The expansion of the internet and social media has provided a large platform of communication for groups with similar interests. This increases the awareness and participation of people who share the aims of the cause and further contributes to the growth of social movements.
Another factor which explains the growth of social movements is the acceptance of ‘catch all’ mainstream political parties for “government spending cuts”. This programme of austerity, against the backdrop of the 2008 banking crisis, has led widespread criticism amongst the population, with many people venting their frustration online. An example of this is the anti-austerity march held in London by the social movement Anonymous. This general displeasure at public sector spending cuts is therefore a factor in the rise of social movements because they offer an outlet for citizens to vent their frustration towards the government.
“A pressure group’s chances of success will be shaped largely by the nature of its core aims.” Discuss.
There are many different pressure groups and success may mean different things to different groups. For example cause groups, as first identified by J.D. Stewart, might measure success by the number of people, including the government, who became aware of and supported their cause. The Snowdrop campaign after the Dunblane massacre is one such group. Sectional groups, on the other hand, might regard success through improvement in the well-being of their members. Trades unions would fall into this category. There are therefore a number of factors, other than a group’s core aims, that contribute to their success. These include the methods used by the group, public and media sympathy, the group’s status in relation to the government, the size of membership, and the financial backing of their organisation.
It can indeed be argued that a pressure group’s chances of success can be affected by its core aims. This is because the government is only likely to recognise pressure groups if their aims align with the beliefs and values the government holds. For example, the pressure group ASH witnessed support for its anti-smoking campaign because it accorded with the principles held by the Department of Health. Reducing smoking was also likely to reduce the burden on the NHS. This clearly demonstrates that a pressure group’s core aims do largely shape its chances of success.
However, it can also be argued that some pressure groups are still successful even if the government is also not fully supportive of their core aims. For example, Joanna Lumley’s backing of the Ghurkha campaign against Phil Woolas’s immigration Bill under the Brown government meant that the government reversed their decision and fulfilled the campaign’s aims. This is an example of how celebrity endorsement can also lead to success, in this instance helping to win the support of the opposition parties, and that core aims are not necessarily the most important factor to success.
Alternatively, public sympathy and the media can be argued as the most important factor influencing pressure group success. For example, the Snowdrop campaign elicited media coverage and public sympathy, leading the government to respond by amending handgun laws. Similarly, Fathers4Justice, were very much an outsider group in the typology of Wyn Grant, but were able to win some public sympathy and raise awareness of their cause. This arguably led to the courts apparently being more sympathetic to fathers in their rulings. This illustrates the importance of public sympathy.
The methods used by pressure groups can also influence their chances of success. Frustrated by their status, outsider groups often resort to direct action or even civil disobedience, which rarely achieves success. The Stop the Iraq War campaign, a mass membership group, marshalled over three million protesters into Hyde Park in 2003, but this did not change the war. Similarly CND, another mass membership organisation which engages in marches and demonstrations have been unsuccessful. Arguably, the Save the Newchurch Guinea Pig Campaign, which used extreme direct action, failed to end animal testing, although the farm involved in the case eventually closed. The fact is that governments are unlikely to engage with groups who use direct action, particularly if it borders on being illegal, as they cannot be seen to condone such action.
Finally, the status of a pressure group in relation to the government can be argued to be a vital factor in their success. This was the point made by Wyn Grant in devising his typology. Insider groups, such as the BMA, are more likely to be involved in policy networks and to take full advantage of access points than outsider groups like the Fuel Protestors or Fathers4Justice. The BMA is a wealthy, middle-class, high status pressure group, recognised for being a core insider, and regularly consulted by the government. It is interesting to note, however, that recently even the BMA has felt compelled to adopt direct action tactics (marches, demonstrations) because of their frustration with current government policy.
In conclusion, the core aims of pressure groups is one of the most important factors and will largely shape its chances of success. This is because governments cannot accommodate groups whose aims are at odds with their own. However, other factors such as the status of the group and the degree of public sympathy are also significant in determining a pressure group’s success.
ANSWER 2
Explain the term ‘direct action’
Direct action is a set of methods used by pressure groups when more conventional methods of influencing the policy-making process are not working. Direct action comprises a plethora of different strategies and might even involve civil disobedience in the form of blockades, sit-ins, or other strategies designed to attract media attention and raise public awareness on an issue. It is a visible and direct approach generally adopted by outsider pressure groups and born out of frustration with the government. An example of a pressure group that widely used direct action methods was Fathers4Justice who have chained themselves to landmark buildings and flour-bombed the House of Commons.
Explain why insider groups were traditionally seen as having greater influence over policy than outsiders.
The insider/outsider typology was devised by Wyn Grant in the 1980s. He asserted that groups with insider status were more likely to be successful than outsiders. One reason why insider groups have been seen to have greater influence over government policy is because, as the extract states “they are recognised by the government as being representative of certain interests”. This applies to core insiders such as the BMA (British Medical Association) who are regularly consulted on healthcare policy. These groups are seen as "credible" and more articulate than outsider groups, who resort to direct action and civil disobedience and are “outside the political loop” and sometimes “reject cooperation”. Their aims are more likely to accord with the values held by the government and they are more likely to have wider access to the decision-makers through policy networks, therefore having greater influence over policy direction.
Another reason why insider groups may have a greater influence over policy is because they can offer government specialist expertise on a given subject and therefore may be consulted on relevant policies. This applies to groups such as the WWF (World Wildlife Fund), who can offer specialist knowledge to government on related issues. They are known as ‘specialist insiders’.
“Pressure groups are a vital part of democracy in the UK because they ensure that all citizens have a political voice”. Discuss.
Pressure groups are organisations which seek to influence decision makers rather than to gain power for themselves. They represent a wider range of views in society and can be seen as a vital part of pluralist, liberal democracy. Many represent competing or countervailing interest, such as the Countryside Alliance and the League Against Cruel Sports over the issue of fox-hunting, or the TUC and CBI. However, some can be seen as internally undemocratic and elitist, and ‘serpents that strangle efficient government’. This essay will consider to what extent they are a vital part of democracy and provide a political voice for all.
The concept of pluralism suggests that pressure groups are a vital part of a democratic society as they represent a wide variety of interests and viewpoints. Particularly in an era of “catch all” parties, pressure groups enhance democracy by representing the views of those who aren’t represented by the major parties. For example, those with pro-life views are not represented by any of the mainstream political parties and therefore groups such as Life or the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children can represent their views.
Another way in which pressure groups are a vital part of democracy is because they provide an avenue for participation, especially between general elections. As membership of political parties decreases, membership of pressure groups increases – for example the National Trust has approximately 4 million members compared to 300,000 for Labour. This would suggest that people are more passionate about single issues and seek to influence government on these issues.
Pressure groups may also play a vital part in democracy by moderating the views of more radical members. This occurs because, through structured participation, members feel like their views are being heard and represented. They are therefore less likely to turn to illegal action to articulate their viewpoint.
However, it could be argued that pressure groups do not necessarily enhance democracy due to elitism. This argument has been proposed as the government is more likely to look favourably on more articulate pressure groups with highly skilled membership. This is evidenced by the fact that both the BMA and the Law Society are considered to be core insiders in the Wyn Grant typology. Also, despite the large membership and large public awareness generated by certain pressure groups, outsider groups are unlikely to have large influence or any effect at all on government policy. This is evident as in 2003 the pressure group “Stop the War Coalition” organised a protest march against the war in Iraq which, according to the organisers, was attended by 3v million people. However, it had no effect on government policy.
Another reason why pressure groups might not be considered vital to democracy is because they have been called “serpents that strangle efficient government” by former Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd. This is because if governments are being lobbied on a particular issue then they are less able to deliver ‘joined-up’ government and deliver on manifesto promises. Also, if pressure groups are consulted then this adds another level to the policy making process.
Pressure groups might not be seen as enhancing democracy as certain groups have internal structures that are very undemocratic. They cannot therefore be seen as genuinely representing all their members’ interests. An example of this would be Greenpeace, often criticised for its lack of internal democracy, and Fathers4Justivce, whose self-styled leader Matt O’Connor ran the organisation in a very autocratic manner.
Overall, whilst there are arguments both for and against the statement that pressure groups are a vital part of democracy and ensure all citizens have a political voice, the evidence is mixed. But in a pluralist society it is necessary for there to be many different avenues to represent people’s viewpoints and therefore pressure groups do play vital democratic role, particularly in articulating the voice of minorities, offering a further chance for all to participate in politics, and allowing a wide range of opinions to be aired.
ANSWER 3: Maryam Hassan
Evaluate the factors which can result in some pressure groups being more successful than others.
Pressure groups are single issue groups which seek to influence government rather than strive for power for themselves. In attempting to influence decision makers at whatever level of government, some are clearly more successful than others. This is due to a number of factors.
In categorising pressure groups, there are two main typologies and these might provide a clue as to what makes a certain group successful. In the 1960’s, JD Stewart identified the cause/sectional typology. Cause groups are those which have open membership and which promote a particular issue. Some cause groups are more successful than others and this is due in part to the strategies they use. For example, the Greenham Common Protestors used civil disobedience to try to prevent the siting of cruise missiles at an RAF base. They stayed near the site for 20 years but were unsuccessful in their aims. This demonstrates that civil disobedience is unlikely to persuade government who cannot seem to be condoning or even acknowledging such actions.
Other cause groups might be more successful. ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) was successful in winning its campaign to prevent smoking in public places. Winning public sympathy is important in winning cause group success. This was also true of Snowdrop which fought for gun control in the wake of the Dunblane massacre.
Equally, some sectional groups may enjoy more success than others, although the group may wax and wane over the years. Sectional groups have closed memberships and fight for the interests of their members. In the early years of the Wilson’s first Labour government, the TUC was successful in influencing government economic policy, being invited for ‘beer and sandwiches’ at Number 10. However, in the later Wilson years and particularly in the Thatcher years, The TUC’s influence waned and unions such as NUM (National Union of Miners) became less successful in influencing the decision makers. This is apparent in the programme of pit closures by Thatcher.
In the 80’s, Wyn Grants insider/outsider typology became the orthodox model for categorising pressure group success. Indeed, this model may be more revealing of pressure group success as it describes the status of such groups. Outsider groups are much less likely to succeed. For example the mass membership of the Stop the Iraq War coalition had no impact on government policy despite having a turnout of 3 million in Hyde Park. Some outsider groups which secure celebrity endorsement and therefore media publicity and public sympathy may prove more successful. Joanna Lumley’s support for the Ghurkha Campaign was instrumental in their success. Again, outsider groups using illegal civil disobedience methods are likely to fail such as Fathers 4 Justice,
Well-resourced groups, whether insider or outsider, sometimes enjoy success. Greenpeace, an ideological outsider, has been partly successful in limiting Japanese whaling. However, insider groups, particularly if they are well resourced are much more likely to succeed. This is because the government chooses to work with them. Historically, the BMA fits into this category, enjoying a position in policy networks partly derived from the socio-economic backgrounds of its members and their links with decision makers. However, in recent months, the BMA is openly challenging the government and has been forced to adopt strategies more commonly associated with frustrated outsider groups, such as strike action.it is interesting to note that the BMA is trying to secure public sympathy, which as noted above s another ingredient to success.
Pressure groups with clear aims also stand a greater chance of success. This was evident in the campaigns of ASH and Snowdrop and it is apparent that the lack of clear aims of social movements such as Occupy and Anonymous contribute to their lack of success.
In conclusion, a variety of factors make some pressure groups more successful than others. Their willingness to engage with government, the socio economic background of their key players, their resources, status and aims all signal a greater chance of success. On the other hand a refusal to cooperate with government peacefully and their inability to pursue effective legal challenges means some pressure groups can be unsuccessful.
The link between social class and voting behaviour: how to answer a 10 mark question in GovP1.
(With grateful thanks to Becky Johnson and Becky Wade)
ANSWER 1
Psepholosists use the study of social class to see how it affects voting behaviour. Classes A&B are the managerial jobs, usually the Conservative’s core vote, while classes D&E are the skilled manual labourer jobs and are Labour’s core vote. Classes C1 and C2 are known as ‘middle England’; vital to any party if they want a realistic chance of winning an election.
During the period 1945-1970 Britain went through a period of voter alignment. This is when social class was the most important long term factor which affected voting behaviour, alongside other, less important primacy factors such as ethnicity and gender. An example of this is from the 1950s when turnout was over 80% and 90% of these voters either voted Conservative or Labour, mostly along class lines. This proves, as Peter Pulzer states in the extract, “class is the basis of British Party politics”. However, there was a small group of deviant voters at this time, which could be middle class Labour voters whose voting may have been influenced through working in the public sector, and working class Conservative voters who split into two groups – aspirational and deferential voters.
From the 1970s onwards, Britain has gone through a period of dealignment, and voter volatility became much more apparent. Short term, or recency factors, such as party policies, party image, leader image and the media all became much more significant to deciding how someone voted. During the 1980s the manual labour, manufacturing industries went into decline and Labour lost its core votes, causing the party to go into a long period of instability and difficulty. Tony Blair became the new Labour leader in 1997 and realised that Labour needed to appeal to ‘middle England’ to get back into power, leading to his ‘New Labour’ earning the nickname ‘champagne socialists’ as they move to the centre ground.
Looking at statistics from the 2010 election, 39% of the A/B class voted Conservative and 40% of the D/E class voted Labour, which illustrates the fact that whilst short term factors have become more significant to voting behaviour, long term factors such as social class are still very apparent today.
ANSWER 2
Psephologists study social class as a factor that influences voting behaviour. They use the Registrar General’s classification to identify how these classes vote. The A&B classes tend to be in the managerial jobs and are the core vote for the Conservative party, whereas D&E are labourers and are the core vote for Labour.
The years of 1945-1970 are known as the period of alignment, where voting behaviour is very easily predictive. During this time there was class alignment where voters voted in line with the class expectations shown in the Registrar General’s classification. For example, in the 1950s here was an 80% turnout with 90% of these voting either Conservative or Labour based on their social class. However, there were deviant voters who voted against class expectations, but these were very few. This shows that, as Pulzer says in the extract, “class is the basis of British politics”.
On the other hand, from the 1970s onwards, there was a period of dealignment where voter volatility, unpredictable voting, was very common. This was recognised in the Rational Choice model by Hilde Himmleweit. During this period there are no deviant voters as social class doesn’t have as much of an impact as it used to. The extract shows that the A&B classes still mainly vote Conservative and the D&E classes still mainly vote Labour. This demonstrates that although the impact of social class on voting behaviour has decreased it still has some impact.
GOVP2 (Parliament) 10 mark ANSWER 3
Using your own knowledge as well as the extract, identify and explain two arguments in favour of adversarial politics as practised in the House of Commons. (10 marks)
The Westminster Parliament is often said to be characterised by adversarial politics. This is due in part to the layout of the House of Commons in which the two main parties sit directly facing each other in a combative arrangement. As it says in the extract, this is a House organised to conduct a public battle, albeit a non-violent one, between supporters of the governing party and the opposition. It has produced what has been called some observers call ’ya-boo’ politics, or what Davis Cameron has referred to as ‘Punch and Judy’ politics, particularly during Prime Minister’s Questions. However, adversarial politics of this nature can have some advantages.
Firstly, this type of politics clearly sets out the agenda of both of the two main parties. The UK party system is characterised by a duopoly of the Conservative and Labour parties, further enhancing the likelihood of adversarial engagement in the Commons. In the adversarial exchanges between the parties it becomes clear what their policies are on a given issue. For example, there have been recent clashes over taxation and over the funding of post sixteen education. Media coverage of these exchanges help inform the public about the relative policies of the parties and help them judge the strength of their arguments.
Secondly, adversarial politics often reinforces a unified and coherent opposition which helps provide effective scrutiny of the government. Events such as PMQ serve to reinforce party identity among MPs and to strengthen partisan positions. However, this is not always the case as was evident in Hilary Benn’s intervention in the debate on the bombing of Syria. Although a free vote, his speech did highlight a schism within the Labour opposition. It may also be said that, with its limited resources, the opposition could never be sufficiently informed to provide effective criticism of government policy.