Politics Review volume 21 number 2

Expand your knowledge — get the best grade

Volume 21 Number 2 November 2011

Divided government

in the USA

Constitutional reform

Is the coalition

delivering?

Politics at uni Life as a cabinet minister Interview with Jeremy Hunt MP

www.philipallan.co.uk/magazines

Information Editorial board Eric Magee Editor Anthony J. Bennett Deputy editor

In this issue

2

Kay Moxon Assistant editor Philip Lynch Higher education adviser

Samott/Fotolia

Ian Richards Online editor

How to subscribe For details of prices and ordering information go to www.philipallan.co.uk/magazines or contact Turpin Distribution, Pegasus Drive, Stratton Business Park, Bedfordshire SG18 8TQ tel: 01767 604974, fax: 01767 601640 e-mail: custserv@turpin-distribution.com For enquiries about access to PoliticsReviewOnline e-mail: customerservicemags@philipallan.co.uk

Electoral systems: what’s best for Westminster?

PoliticsReviewOnline

For editorial enquiries e-mail: magazines@philipallan.co.uk

Go online now…

Use your personal access details on the back page

Published by Philip Allan, an imprint of Hodder Education, an Hachette UK company, Market Place, Deddington, Oxfordshire OX15 0SE. www.philipallan.co.uk All website addresses in the magazine are correct at the time of going to press.

Cover image: Getty Images © PHILIP ALLAN UPDATES 2011 ISSN 0959-8480 Publishing editor: Cathy Harrison Artwork: Toast Design Consultancy Printing: Ian Allan Printing Ltd, Hersham The paper on which Politics Review is printed is sourced from managed, sustainable forests.

Policy disagreements: what issues divide the coalition?

PowerPoints UK update: are select committees effective?

Divided government in the USA

David Cameron on multiculturalism A guide to the primaries in the USA Book reviews

Volume 21

Number 2

November 2011

2 Which electoral systems are best for Westminster?

Ron Johnston

6 UK update Philip Lynch

7 AS focus on…

The mandate and coalition government

14 Helping you gain success at AS and A2

Monkey Business/Fot

olia

Philip Lynch

8 Coalition government: a new era of constitutional reform?

Philip Norton

12 Interview Jeremy Hunt MP Ian Richards

14 Success at AS AQA: Unit 1 Paul Fairclough

16 Divided government: strength or weakness of US politics?

Anthony J. Bennett

Politics

e-review Look out for Politics e-review: a topical article and activities by Ian Richards e-mailed FREE to registered subscribers in October, December and March.

Register for your e-review today at www.philipallan.co.uk/magazines

20 Politics at uni Why study politics?

Jonathan Tonge

21 US update Edward Ashbee

22 A2 focus on...

Redistricting in the USA Katie Shapiro

24 Conservatives and Lib Dems: closer than we thought?

Kevin Hickson and Ben Williams

28 Achieve at A2 Edexcel: Route C Jonathan Vickery

30 Socialism: revolutionary or evolutionary?

Moyra Grant

Student conferences… …and intensive revision weekends.

See www.philipallanupdates.co.uk

34 Highlights US media Kay Moxon

Interlight/Fotolia

Which electoral systems are best for Westminster?

Ron Johnston Is first-past-the-post the best electoral system for the House of Commons if coalition government is increasingly likely in the future? If the House of Lords is to be wholly or partly elected which electoral system would be most appropriate? Ron Johnston considers the options and explains their pros and cons Many British politicians and electors prefer MPs representing single-member constituencies as a community’s sole representative.

I

n any design process, form should follow function — in other words, you decide what a building, for example, is for before planning its size, shape and internal structure. The same principle should apply to national constitutional arrangements, including the choice of electoral systems.

But the UK has neither a written constitution nor a set procedure for constitutional change. Parliament decides, as with the decision to hold a referendum on changing from first-past-the-post (FPTP) to the alternative vote (AV) to elect the House of Commons, and the forthcoming decision on whether the House of Lords should become an elected chamber. Changes to the form are being proposed without discussion of function. We are deciding the electoral system for one House before even debating the nature of the ‘to-be-reformed’ second.

The functions of the Commons and Lords There are currently no strong arguments to alter substantially the current constitutional settlement regarding the roles of the two Houses: ■ The House of Commons is pre-eminent. Governments are formed there and general elections hold them to account every 5 years.

2

The House of Lords has very little absolute power, though it must approve any decision to delay a general election. Its role is to scrutinise legislation and suggest amendments. It cannot insist on changes and if the two Houses fail to agree the Commons eventually prevails.

The reformed House of Lords is more assertive in scrutinising legislation. It believes it has greater legitimacy despite having no elected mandate and if it were replaced by a (perhaps partially) elected chamber this level of assertiveness could well increase. Given this functional structure, what is the best electoral system for each House?

■

Electing the House of Commons Many British politicians and electors prefer MPs representing single-member constituencies as a community’s sole representative. Two main single-member constituency systems are available (Box 1) — first-past-thepost (FPTP) and the alternative vote (AV).

FPTP vs AV It is often claimed that FPTP elections are likely to result in a single-party majority government, whereas those held using AV are unlikely to. But at most recent UK Politics Review

TopFoto

Exam context This article is essential reading for AS students. It focuses on the following aspects of the specifications:

Edexcel Unit 1 Debating electoral systems

AQA Unit 1 The role of elections in a democracy

OCR Unit F851 Electoral reform in the UK

Exam focus Using this article and other resources available to you, answer the following questions.

1 If FPTP is the best electoral system for the House of Commons, why is it not good enough for all other UK elections?

2 Should the House of Lords be wholly or partly elected and, if so, which electoral system should be used and why?

general elections the winning party has gained a larger share of the seats than votes. There have been majority governments despite no party winning even 50% of the votes — a ‘winner’s bonus’. Recently, Labour has benefited much more from this advantage than the Conservatives.

The Liberal Democrats have always been substantially under-represented.

Clear-cut results are now increasingly unlikely. Some claim that FPTP is now no longer ‘fit for purpose’. Unless one of the two largest parties has either close to 40% of the votes and/or a substantial lead over its main opponent, majority government is unlikely.

AV would not change that; nor would it have changed the outcome of most of the previous UK general elections.

Indeed, unless one party gets at least 45% of the first preference votes and perhaps a substantial share of the second preferences too, single-party majority government is unlikely under that system.

So single-party majority government may be a feature of the past. In a three-party system the smallest party will probably hold the balance of power. If coalition government is to become the norm, why not use an electoral system — proportional representation (PR) — which ensures that parties are represented in the House relative to their electoral strength?

PR There are two main objections to PR. One is that PR, such as closed list elections (Box 1), will produce a fragmented House with many small (perhaps ‘extreme’) parties represented and potentially influential there. Look at Holland, the critics say. The number of parties represented can be limited, however, by: ■ using relatively small constituencies — in a constituency returning six MPs, for example, a party needs 14% of the votes to gain a single seat there November 2011

Prime minister David Cameron speaking during ‘prime minister’s questions’ in the House of Commons, July 2010

Box 1 Types of electoral system First-past-the-post (FPTP) Single-member constituencies. Electors have one vote each and candidates with most votes win.

Alternative vote (AV) Single-member constituencies.

Electors rank-order candidates. If a candidate has more than 50% of the first preferences he/she is elected, otherwise the candidate with the smallest number of first preferences is eliminated and his/her second preferences are allocated to the other candidates. This progressive elimination continues until either one candidate has 50% or there are only two remaining candidates, when the one with most support is declared elected.

Closed list PR Multi-member constituencies. Electors indicate their favoured party. Parties are allocated seats according to their proportion of the votes in the constituency. Parties determine who will fill those seats.

Open-list PR Multi-member constituencies. Electors indicate their favoured party and, if they wish, their favoured candidate(s) within that party. Parties are allocated seats according to their proportion of the votes in the constituency, and their candidates with most individual support occupy those seats.

Some claim that FPTP is now no longer ‘fit for purpose’.

Single transferrable vote (STV) Multi-member constituencies. Electors rank - order candidates, and similar procedures are applied as under AV to identify those candidates with greatest support.

Multi-member proportional (MMP) Electors have two votes. Their first vote is cast in a single-member constituency, and the seat is allocated according to FPTP rules. The second vote is cast in a multi-member constituency, and the closed list PR procedure is used to allocate the remaining seats (either regionally or nationally) so that the overall distribution of seats (including those elected under FPTP) reflects each party’s share of the second vote total.

AV+ The same as MMP except that the elections in the single-member constituencies are conducted using AV rather than FPTP.

3

TopFoto

Should the House of Lords be wholly or partly elected?

■ having a national or regional threshold below which If the House no party can gain seats — many countries set it at around of Lords’ role 5%, as in Germany; in Turkey it’s 10% is legislative The second objection is that PR systems break the exclusive links between individual MPs and scrutiny – constituencies, although the Irish case demonstrates advising the this is not always so. Mixed electoral systems such as government multi-member proportional (MMP) (Box 1), used in Germany, New Zealand, Scotland and Wales, have a but not substantial proportion of MPs elected from single-member contesting constituencies and the remainder from national or it – a regional lists. representativeThe choice constituency There are two clear options: link is 1 Retain single-member constituencies. FPTP may deliver unnecessary. single-party majority governments, but the allocation of

4

seats relative to votes is unpredictable and inconsistent across parties and elections — something that AV would not resolve.

2 Accept the likelihood of coalition government so use a PR electoral system, with constraints to ensure that the party system in the House is not too fragmented, and perhaps retaining the constituency link for many individual MPs by using MMP.

Electing the House of Lords If the House of Lords’ role is legislative scrutiny — advising the government but not contesting it — a representative-constituency link is unnecessary. However, it may be desirable for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales — and perhaps the English regions — to each have a number of representatives proportionate to their populations. Nor should one party have a majority as the Politics Review

case for wide representation is strong. Furthermore, the electoral system should make it as easy as possible for individuals without party affiliations — or whose appeal to the electorate goes beyond party — to win seats.

PR systems Most PR systems involve list elections (Box 1). In closed lists, voters simply indicate their preferred party, and seats are allocated relative to vote shares; the party decides who its elected members are. This substantially limits voter choice and would give parties control over Lords membership. In open list elections, electors can indicate not only their preferred party but also, within it, their preferred candidate(s); they influence which of the party’s candidates are allocated its seats, but they cannot indicate support for candidates from more than one party. Open lists still give the parties considerable power in candidate selection, though independents can stand against them — as they can in closed list elections too.

Single transferrable vote (STV) A system that gives voters greater choice over who is elected, irrespective of party, is the single transferrable vote (STV) (Box 1). This system is already used for all elections in Northern Ireland other than those to the House of Commons, as well as Scottish local government elections. STV tends to allocate seats proportional to parties’ vote shares. It differs from all other systems by allowing voters to indicate their preferred candidates across as well as within parties. Voters can, if they wish, give their first preferences to a candidate from one party and their second to a candidate from another (or to an independent).

Impact on composition of the Lords A proportional electoral system would almost certainly mean that the party composition of the House of Lords differed from the House of Commons — especially if the latter were elected by FPTP or AV. How different would partly depend on the frequency and timing of elections.

One suggestion is that peers would be elected for 15-year terms (with no re-election), with one-third retiring every 5 years, on the same day as a House of Commons election.

Although the partisan composition of each quinquennial cohort of Lords would probably be close to that of the Commons elected that day, the overall composition of the House might not be.

What if both elections are not held on the same day, either by design or because of an early dissolution of the lower house? Lords elections could then become what political scientists call ‘second order contests’, with high abstention rates and minor parties garnering many ‘protest votes’ as electors express discontent with government policies. At the 2009 European Parliament elections, for example, UKIP was the second largest party and the Greens and the BNP each had two MEPs elected, but turnout was only 35%.

November 2011

Table 1 Scenarios of possible outcomes of FPTP elections to the House of Commons based on recent results

Scenario 1 Labour vote share

>36%

Conservative vote share

At least 3% less than Labour

Likely outcome

Labour majority

Scenario 2 Conservative vote share

>37%

Labour vote share

At least 8% less than Conservatives

Likely outcome

Conservative majority

Scenario 3 Conservative vote share

In the lead but <38%

Labour vote share

>28%

Likely outcome

No party with overall majority

Scenario 4 Labour vote share

In the lead and >40%

Conservative vote share

<35%

Likely outcome

Labour majority

Finally, a claimed strength of the current House of Lords is that its members — especially the crossbench life peers, who have no party affiliations or whips — include individuals with a wide range of expertise and experience that is valuable in legislative scrutiny. This could be lost with a fully-elected House where parties dominate, hence arguments that perhaps 20% of seats be reserved for unelected peers, nominated by a non-partisan commission.

The choices The British constitution has been changed quite considerably since 1997 (a trend that is likely to continue) but usually in an ad hoc manner without much evidence of ‘joined-up thinking’. Electoral systems are part of that change, exemplified by the referendum on whether AV should replace FPTP for House of Commons elections — a resounding ‘no’ — and the anticipated debate on electing the House of Lords. This debate over an electoral system for the House of Lords is imminent. But we have already decided — without a full discussion of all the options, let alone an opportunity to choose among them — how we want to elect the House of Commons. What a pity we did not start with a discussion of functions first and then what electoral systems best fit into the desired structure. Will we ever have that full discussion? Is it in the politicians’ interests?

Ron Johnston is professor of geographical sciences at the University of Bristol. His main area of research is electoral and political geography.

5

UK

update

Philip Lynch examines the AV referendum and constituency boundary changes

T

he decisive ‘no’ vote in the referendum on the alternative vote (AV) held on 5 May 2011 means that the simple plurality (first-past-the-post) electoral system will continue to be used for elections to the House of Commons. More than two-thirds of those who voted in the referendum rejected AV: ■ A clear majority against AV was recorded in every region of the UK (Table 1), although the ‘yes’ vote was higher in those areas where alternative electoral systems were already used by voters for elections to the devolved assemblies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and the London Assembly.

■ Only ten of the 440 local counting areas — six in London, two in Scotland, plus Oxford and Cambridge — registered a majority in favour of AV. ■ The ‘no’ vote was 70% or higher in 210 areas.

Turnout across the UK was 42%, but was just 32% in London which was the only region in which local or devolved elections were not being held on the same day.

Opinion polls showed that attitudes to AV were linked to party identification.

According to a Guardian/ICM poll conducted on 2–3 May, only 12% of Conservative supporters said they would vote ‘yes’ to AV compared to 71% of Liberal Democrat supporters, while Labour supporters were split, with 41% intending to vote ‘yes’ and 59% ‘no’. Support for AV was significantly higher among those aged between 18 and 24 than older voters, but gender and social class made little difference to voting intentions in the referendum.

The referendum campaign AV is a majoritarian rather than proportional electoral system. Had it been used for the 2010 general election, it is likely that the Liberal Democrats would have won an additional 32 seats and the Conservatives would have 22 fewer, thereby making a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition more likely.

6

A referendum on AV was part of the coalition agreement between the Conservatives, who oppose electoral reform, and the Liberal Democrats, who favour proportional representation. The coalition agreement obliged the parties to support legislation on a referendum on AV (although some 20 Conservative MPs defied the whip) but allowed them to take opposite sides during the campaign. Labour leader Ed Miliband backed AV but many in his party opposed it. The referendum result was a major setback for the Liberal Democrats, whose key goal of electoral reform is now a distant prospect. The campaign group No2AV’s targeting of Nick Clegg also strained relations within the coalition.

Supporters of referendums argue that they have an educative effect, improving popular understanding of political issues.

There was scant evidence of this during the AV referendum as both sides made dubious assertions. No2AV exaggerated the costs of AV and there was little evidence to support its claim that extreme parties were more likely to win seats under AV. Claims from Yes2AV that AV would reduce the number of safe seats and make MPs work harder were equally dubious. Even the argument that under AV, every MP would have an overall majority in their constituency was problematic because voters would not be required to rank candidates, meaning that the winner could only claim majority support from those who expressed a full set of preferences.

Constituency boundaries The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 will reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600 at the next general election. This will require a redrawing of constituency boundaries, with the boundary commissions now required to ensure equality in the size of constituencies.

Constituency size may not vary from a uniform UK electoral quota of some 76,000 people (the total UK electorate divided by

Table 1 AV referendum result by region

Region

Yes (%)

No (%)

Northern Ireland

43.7

56.3

London

39.5

60.5

Scotland

36.4

63.6

Wales

34.6

65.4

South West

31.3

68.7

Yorkshire and Humber

31.3

68.7

North West

30.2

69.8

South East

29.7

70.3

East of England

29.0

71.0

East Midlands

28.7

71.3

West Midlands

28.5

71.5

North East

28.1

71.9

United Kingdom

32.1

67.9

596) by more than 5%. Four constituencies are exempted from this rule: two on the Isle of Wight, Orkney and Shetland, and Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Western Isles). Seats in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will no longer have significantly fewer voters than those in England.

Equalising the size of constituencies is intended to address the electoral system’s bias to Labour. Seats won by Labour in recent elections have, on average, fewer voters than Conservative-held seats because the former are more likely to be in urban areas and have smaller populations.

Labour’s vote is also more effectively distributed because: ■ the Conservatives are more likely to pile up surplus votes in safe seats ■ Labour wins a higher proportion of seats with small majorities — and turnout is lower in Labour seats Changes to the size of constituencies will not address these issues. Labour and, particularly, the Liberal Democrats will nonetheless lose a higher proportion of their current seats than the Conservatives.

Politics Review

AS focus on…

T

he doctrine of the mandate states that the victorious party in a general election has the authority to implement the policy programme it presented to voters. The pledges in a party’s election manifesto give voters a good idea of what it will do if elected, and voters expect the winning party to deliver on them once in office.

A related element is that a government should not introduce major policy changes unless they have been presented to the electorate. Labour claims that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government formed in 2010 does not have a mandate to introduce major reform of the National Health Service, which the Liberal Democrats had opposed. In its 2011 report on the formation of the coalition, the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee rejected assertions that the coalition lacked democratic legitimacy. It noted that, as no government has won a majority vote since 1935, the mandate has long been problematic. The coalition parties together secured a majority of votes in 2010, but no one had specifically voted for a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.

Coalition programme The Programme for Government includes commitments drawn from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos, but both parties also dropped pledges. It also includes some policies (e.g. a referendum on the alternative vote) that had not featured in either manifesto.

The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee accepted that a policy commitment in a coalition agreement does not have the same mandate as a manifesto pledge, unless it featured in the manifestos of both coalition parties. Coalition policies not included in the manifesto of either party have the same authority as those policies of November 2011

a majority government that did not feature in its manifesto.

Parliamentary accountability Parliament’s role in holding the government to account (e.g. through proper consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny of policy proposals) has become more significant given that the coalition programme was not presented to voters. The coalition has already found it difficult to get some proposals through Parliament because of backbench concern about compromises made in the coalition agreement. Secretary of state for health, Andrew Lansley, for example, had to rethink his proposals for NHS reform.

According to the Salisbury-Addison convention, the House of Lords should not oppose or inflict ‘wrecking amendments’ on a government bill that puts into effect a manifesto pledge. This has come under strain since the removal of most hereditary peers and the Conservative majority in the upper House. Liberal Democrat and crossbench peers voted against Labour legislation on identity cards, arguing that a party that had secured just 35% of the vote in 2005 did not have a mandate to pursue significant constitutional reform. Peers may again feel that the convention should not constrain their actions given the limits of the coalition’s mandate.

Electoral accountability Coalition government poses two key questions about the accountability of political parties to voters. First, if policies are developed by a coalition, how can voters identify which party should be held responsible for particular policies? This may be especially difficult if a policy emerged as a result of significant compromises, or had not featured in the manifestos of either party. This has not, however, been a major problem in those elections to the Scottish

Speedfighter/Fotolia

The mandate and coalition government Parliament and Welsh Assembly that followed a period of coalition government.

The second question is, if coalition is a likely election outcome, to what extent can voters know how their vote will shape the formation of the government? If coalition policies emerge from cross-party bargaining, a manifesto may no longer be a clear guide to what a government will do. If there is a series of hung parliaments, Vernon Bogdanor argues, the danger is that ‘there is a gap between the principle of parliamentary government — that a government is responsible to parliament — and the principle of democratic government, that a government is responsible to the people’ (Bogdanor 2011).

Parties could partially resolve this by reaching a formal pre-election agreement with another party, or indicating which of their rivals they would be prepared to enter coalition with and which they would not.

They might also identify which of their manifesto pledges are non-negotiable. In the 2010 election campaign, Nick Clegg identified four priorities and stated that ‘the party which has got the strongest mandate from the British people will have the first right to seek to govern’, but did not specify whether this meant most seats or most votes.

Further reading Bogdanor, V. ‘Westminster must not become a House with no windows’, Guardian, 2 February 2011, http://tinyurl.com/4a9b6lb House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee Lessons from the Process of Government Formation after the 2010 General Election, 4th Report, 2010– 11, HC528, The Stationery Office.

Philip Lynch is the higher education adviser for Politics Review and a member of its editorial board.

7

TopFoto

Coalition government A new era of constitutional reform?

Philip Norton The Liberal Democrats insisted that substantial constitutional reforms were included in the coalition agreement as a condition of their entry into coalition government with the Conservatives. Much of this reform ran into trouble, not just from the Labour opposition but also from some supporters of the coalition. Philip Norton reviews developments and raises doubts about a new era of constitutional reform

T

he defeat of the Labour government in the general election of 2010 brought to an end an era of constitutional change that was unprecedented in modern British history. The changes were notable not only for their number but also for the fact that they were not the product of any coherent view of constitutional change. Each change had been advocated on its individual merits and not on the basis of a particular view of the constitution that the government wished to achieve. The approach to constitutional change

8

Exam context This article is essential reading for AS students. It focuses on the following aspects of the specifications:

Edexcel Unit 2 Reforming the constitution

AQA Unit 2 Constitutional change

OCR Unit F852 Constitutional reform

Politics Review

The coalition’s views on constitutional reform The uncertain result of the general election of 2010 produced an unusual outcome in the form of a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. This had major implications for constitutional change.

The Conservative Party was not inclined towards supporting radical change. It favoured the traditional, or Westminster, approach to constitutional reform (Norton 2010, p. 263). It saw the Westminster system of government as fundamentally sound. It was not against some adjustment to the existing arrangements, designed to strengthen rather than destroy, but it was not inclined to give priority to changing the nation’s constitutional arrangements.

The Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, did give priority to constitutional change. They were longstanding adherents to the liberal view of the constitution (Norton 2010, pp. 262–63). They viewed the existing constitution as too centralising, vesting power in the centre at the expense of the individual. In their eyes, the constitutional system was broken. They favoured a new constitutional settlement for the UK, with a radical agenda including a new electoral system, fixed-term parliaments and a wholly elected second chamber.

These two mutually exclusive positions created difficulties in the negotiations between the two parties.

Electoral reform proved a particular sticking point. The Conservatives were committed to the existing first-pastthe-post system of electing MPs. The Liberal Democrats wanted a system of proportional representation. The negotiations almost floundered on the issue. It was only resolved when the two party leaders, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, got together and Cameron agreed to hold a referendum on a new electoral system. The compromise was to hold the referendum on the issue of the alternative vote, a non-proportional system but one in which electors ranked their preferences.

Though the Liberal Democrats preferred a system of proportional representation, the concession was sufficient for them to agree to enter the coalition. They were seen as getting the better of the negotiations when it came to constitutional reform. The result was agreement to introduce bills providing for a referendum on the alternative vote, fixed-term parliaments and a largely or wholly elected House of Lords. Had there been a Conservative government, none of these would have appeared in the government’s programme. Although the Conservative manifesto had included a commitment to work towards finding a consensus on a largely or wholly elected second chamber, David Cameron had made clear November 2011

that he regarded it as a ‘third-term issue’ — in other words, something for the distant future.

The result was thus not one that had been anticipated prior to the general election. Instead of a Conservative government pursuing a very different stance to that of the Labour government, the nation ended up with a coalition government that adopted an approach which was similar to that of the Labour government: that is, pursuing an agenda of constitutional change, but not one based on any coherent view of the type of constitution that it wished to achieve.

The formation of a coalition government had major implications for constitutional change.

The coalition agenda The first year of the new government witnessed the introduction of three major bills designed to deliver on the coalition’s agenda of constitutional reform, as well as work on achieving an elected House of Lords.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill This bill delivered on the agreement to hold a referendum on the alternative vote. It also included provision to reduce the size of the House of Commons to 600 (from 650) and move more towards equalising the size of constituency electorates.

Labour members of both Houses viewed the provision to equalise constituency sizes as an attempt to harm Labour’s interests, given the number of small inner-city seats held by the party. Labour peers used the opportunity in the House of Lords — where, unlike in the Commons, TopFoto

was essentially bottom up: that is, the product of disparate and discrete change. It was not the product of a top-down approach: that is, having a clear view of the type of constitution that was considered best for the UK and with changes being made in order to achieve that constitution.

Ballot papers being sorted for the referendum on AV in May 2011

9

Exam focus

European Union Bill

Using this article and other resources available to you, answer the following questions.

This bill represented a nod in the direction of changes favoured by the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrats agreed to support a measure that provided for any further transfers of power from nation states to the EU to be subject to referendums. The bill gave effect to this agreement. There were some doubts expressed as to whether the bill would actually result in many or any referendums being held.

1 What does Philip Norton mean when he describes Labour’s constitutional reforms (1997–2010) as ‘bottom up’ rather than ‘top down’?

2 What differing views did the two coalition parties have on constitutional reform?

3 What were the provisions of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill?

4 What prime ministerial power did the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill seek to remove?

5 What has the coalition government done about House of Lords reform?

6 What happened in the AV referendum?

7 How has Anthony King described the current state of the UK constitution? Why does he reach this conclusion?

there are no timetable motions to limit debate — to speak at length on the bill. As the government was keen to hold the AV referendum on 5 May 2011, there was a need to pass the bill quickly. In the event, the Lords passed the bill in time to meet the government’s timetable.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Andy Dean/Fotolia

This bill provided for a fixed term of 5 years, removing the prime minister’s discretion to request an election within a 5-year period. The only occasions on which the date could be brought forward were in the event of a government losing a vote of confidence or two-thirds of MPs voting for an early election. Attempts to reduce the fixed-term from 5 to 4 years, and to make it apply only for the existing Parliament, were resisted by the government.

House of Lords reform The coalition set up a working group of front-benchers drawn from all three main parties to work on a draft bill for an elected second chamber. The draft bill was to be published by December 2010, but did not appear until May 2011. It provided for a 300-member House, with either 80% or 100% of the members elected by a system of proportional representation, each serving for a single fixed term of 15 years. An accompanying White Paper revealed that much had yet to be decided, including whether to opt for the 80% or 100% elected option.

The government committed itself to sending the draft bill to a joint committee of both Houses for pre-legislative scrutiny. The committee is not expected to report before February 2012. As and when the bill itself is introduced, it is widely expected to clog up the parliamentary timetable, with extensive opposition expected in the House of Lords.

A survey carried out by The Times (31 May 2011) found overwhelming opposition among peers to the proposals.

Running into trouble The referendum on AV was characterised by a badtempered campaign, each side accusing the other of making misleading claims, and it resulted in a substantial ‘No’ vote (Table 1). The result caused tensions within the coalition — David Cameron having campaigned for a ‘No’ vote and Nick Clegg having supported AV. Liberal Democrats complained that the ‘No’ campaign had exploited Nick Clegg’s unpopularity. Despite the negotiations in 2010 having favoured the Liberal Democrats on constitutional issues, the party had failed to achieve its goal of a change in the electoral system.

Doubts were also raised as to whether the government would achieve its aim of an elected second chamber. The government’s draft bill was introduced on 17 May 2010 and received a hostile reception from MPs as well as peers.

The government claimed that the position of the House of Commons would remain unchanged, but doubts were Table 1 Referendum on the alternative vote

10

Voting for the introduction of AV

No. of votes

% of votes

Yes

6,152,607

32.09%

No

13,013,123

67.87%

Turnout

41.97% Politics Review

expressed as to how the primacy of the Commons could be maintained in the event of the other chamber being elected.

It is widely expected that if, following pre-legislative scrutiny, a bill is introduced, it will clog up much of the parliamentary session, jeopardising the opportunity to get other measures through. It was also reported that the chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, had drawn attention to the fact that the coalition agreement did not commit the government to getting the bill through, but only to bringing forward proposals for reform.

Conclusion The first year of the coalition government saw a substantial body of constitutional legislation being introduced. Much of it ran into opposition, not only from the Labour Party but also from some coalition supporters.

Conservatives in particular were not enthusiastic about much of the legislation. However, discontent switched to the ranks of the Liberal Democrats in the wake of the outcome of the AV referendum.

There were consequently tensions within the ranks of the coalition. Although the government had pursued the agenda agreed in the coalition negotiations, the nature of the compromise meant that neither side was likely to be happy with the eventual outcome.

Following the changes achieved under the Blair government, Anthony King characterised the constitution as being, descriptively, ‘in a mess’ (King 2007, p. 345).

The coalition, the product of a compromise between parties holding mutually exclusive positions, has pursued constitutional change but in doing so has not brought coherence to the constitution of the UK. The constitution continues to change, but the ultimate destination remains far from clear.

References and further reading Bogdanor, V. (2011) The Coalition and the Constitution, Hart Publishing.

King, A. (2007) The British Constitution, Oxford University Press.

Norton, P. (2010) ‘The changing Constitution’, in B. Jones and P. Norton, Politics UK (7th edition), Longman.

Norton, P. (2011) ‘The Con-Lib Agenda for the “New Politics” and Constitutional Reform’, in S. Lee and M. Beech (eds) The Cameron-Clegg Government: Coalition Politics in an Age of Austerity, Palgrave Macmillan.

The first year of the coalition government saw a substantial body of constitutional legislation being introduced.

Philip Norton (Lord Norton of Louth) is professor of government at the University of Hull and a Conservative peer.

£11.99 Just £9.59 with your 20% off voucher (see September issue)

Aiming for A*?

Philip Allan Updates publishes key resources for students looking to achieve the very best grades in A-level government and politics Exam Revision Notes provide ready-made notes on all the key topics in UK and US government and politics, written by an examiner, to kick start your revision.

£12.99 Just £10.39 with your 20% off voucher (see September issue)

November 2011

Advanced Topic Masters explore the issues in more complex A-level topics to help you practise key skills of analysis and evaluation

Visit www.philipallan.co.uk today for information on all the titles in each series and simple online ordering, or contact our customer services department on 01235 827827

11

TopFoto

interview

Jeremy Hunt MP Jeremy Hunt speaking at the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham, October 2010

J

eremy Hunt MP, secretary of state for culture, Olympics, media and sport, answers questions about his life as a cabinet minister in the coalition government.

Life as a new cabinet minister IR What has surprised you the most about running a government department and sitting in cabinet?

JH My biggest surprise at my first cabinet was to be sitting alongside Liberal Democrats — and finding how much we agreed on! I was fortunate to have had the DCMS (department for culture, media and sport) shadow brief for 3 years so I already had a good idea of what the department was like. The biggest challenge that I’ve had to negotiate so far — and this goes for a lot of cabinet ministers — was the spending review. While we had to make some extremely tough decisions we managed to protect many of the frontline services such as those offered by the British Library.

IR When planning the cuts last year as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) what specific areas of DCMS spending were you most keen to safeguard and which did you think were more dispensable?

JH Whenever you are faced with cuts in spending, the temptation — and the easy option — is to salami slice budgets. From the start we decided to take a more strategic approach. Our main priority was to protect the frontline services such as the National

12

Museums, and frontline arts and sports bodies. We wanted to focus our savings on quangos, which we felt either duplicated work or whose remits had expired, and on cutting back on excessive admin. I think the resulting 15% cut to frontline services in the arts, heritage and sports sector proved that this approach was much better…it is important that all our sectors increase their funding base so they can be more financially secure in future. That is why we have returned the lottery to its four original good causes and are working hard to encourage philanthropic giving in the UK.

Cabinet government IR Have we seen the revival of cabinet government since May last year?

JH We have seen a major move away from the ‘sofa’ government of the previous administration back to cabinet government.

I think that this would have happened under a full Conservative government but the fact that we are in a coalition does mean that there is more debate at cabinet level — which is a good thing.

IR Rather than ‘cabinet government’ is it more accurate to say that we have government by coalition committee with most decisions made at the sub-cabinet level?

JH Cabinet committees are a way of reducing the burden on the cabinet — the National Security Council is a perfect

example of this. We have actually reduced the number of committees and all major policy decisions are discussed at a full cabinet. But sometimes you can give fuller discussion to an issue at sub-committees which is why I think they have an important role.

Coalition relations IR What distinctive qualities or contributions do Lib Dem ministers bring to the coalition?

JH I don’t have any Lib Dems in my department but I do work very closely with Don Foster who is the Lib Dem spokesman on DCMS issues. His experience and insight has made an invaluable contribution to policy making and I am sure that his coming from a different political tradition adds to that.

IR Is decision making across government slower with the Lib Dems on board (because of the need for greater negotiation over decisions)?

JH No. The coalition has put into place a number of radical policies over the last year and so I don’t think anyone can say that we have been dragging our feet over the need for change.

IR What aspects of coalition policy are you most and least comfortable with?

JH The AV referendum has obviously been the biggest confrontation between the two parties but I think that most Politics Review

Conservatives recognised that this was a price of not getting an outright victory at the general election. Deficit reduction is of course the central objective of the coalition but the fact that we have been able to tackle the reform of the public sector — such as our reform of schools and the welfare system — is something that I am proud of.

The Conservative Party IR You are perceived to be a Cameron loyalist and party moderniser — what defines David Cameron’s brand of conservatism?

JH A belief that if you really care about the socially disadvantaged, you need to do everything in your power to make sure we have a strong economy and strong society that allows us to offer them the support they need.

IR What do you take the Big Society to mean, and why has it failed to be fully understood or embraced both during and since the election?

JH My definition of the Big Society is a belief that in order to tackle the deep-seated problems we face we will be more successful if we harness the energy, ideas

and enthusiasm of ordinary citizens than if we believe the state can solve every problem.

I think that the trouble we’ve had in communicating it stems from the fact that it is all-encompassing strategy. While it drives a lot of policy initiatives — from mutualising post offices to the Big Society Bank — it is called different things by different people. As the PM recently said, ‘You can call it liberalism. You can call it empowerment. You can call it freedom. You can call it responsibility. We call it the Big Society.’

Taking on Vince Cable’s job IR How did you find out that you were to take on some of Vince Cable’s mediarelated responsibilities after his remarks about having ‘declared war’ on the Murdoch family?

JH I was having a Christmas lunch with my parliamentary staff when I received a phone call from Number 10 — unfortunately it made for a rather abrupt exit!

And finally…

IR Have you overcome the recent embarrassment of it being revealed that

you don’t understand the off-side rule in football?

JH I’m not sure that many football fans do either. However I do admit that when I first took over the DCMS brief I was pretty clueless about the technical aspects of football. One of my New Year’s resolutions was to become a qualified referee. I’ve passed the theory but am still trying to arrange an examiner to watch me ref a full game, so keep an eye out for me on the pitch!

IR When it comes to moving post, what other departments of government interest you the most and why?

JH I hope that I am able to continue in my current role so that I can witness the delivery of a successful Olympic and Paralympic Games.

IR Where do you see yourself politically in 10 years’ time?

JH Put simply, I don’t know. A week is correctly called a long time in politics so a decade must be an eon!

Jeremy Hunt MP was interviewed by Ian Richards who teaches politics at Charterhouse and is the online editor of Politics Review.

HANDBOOK ●

●

●

All the terms you need to know for the very best grades Clear concise entries, related terms and examiner’s tips Written by a leading examiner and author

Plus the whole book online, with additional exam support and a desktop widget for definitions at the click of a mouse! £9.99

Just £7.99 with your 20% off voucher (see September issue)

Visit www.philipallan.co.uk/a-z today for information on all the titles in the series and simple online ordering, or contact our customer services department on 01235 827827

November 2011

13

success at AS Moritz Wussow/Fotolia

AQA Government and Politics Unit 1: A good 25-mark answer analysed T

his article focuses on the demands of the 25-mark ‘mini essay’ questions that appear on Unit 1 papers.

Specification and examination The specification content for Unit 1 (GOV1) is divided into four distinct topics. Each topic on the paper is examined by a series of three questions, worth 5, 10 and 25 marks respectively. A short extract accompanying each topic provides the context for the 5-mark question, as well as offering material that will help you tackle the 10-mark question. The 25-mark question, our focus in this article, is not based on — or directly linked to — the extract.

These 25-mark questions are, in effect, mini essays. The question will normally offer a short quotation (often a sentence outlining a particular point of view) followed by any one of a number of command words or instructions (e.g. ‘discuss’, ‘assess the accuracy of this view’, ‘to what extent would you agree with this view?’).

How much do you need to know in order to answer 25-mark questions?

It is important to remember that you need to know more than is set out explicitly in the specification. The reference to ‘strengths and weaknesses of electoral systems used in the UK’, for example, would also require

14

you to know how the various systems work.

Likewise, the reference to the ‘likely effects of electoral system on party system’ would necessitate an understanding of different types of party system. It is important that you think about what the specification content implies, as well as what is explicit.

Where you are unsure, you should approach your teacher who will be able to give you further guidance, either from his/her own experience or from the guidance provided for teachers on the AQA website.

How should you approach 25-mark questions?

As these questions are essentially mini essays, the most effective responses will have some kind of logical structure (i.e. a clear sense of direction). In answering such questions it is important, therefore, that you take a few moments to think before you start writing in order to identify exactly which factors or issues you intend to address in your answer. You should aim to deal with around three main elements or themes thoroughly in the time available (around 20–25 minutes).

It is important to define key terms early on in your answer. You should also pay close attention to the ‘command word(s)’ in each question (e.g. assess, evaluate, discuss).

Such words give you a clue as to precisely what you need to do in your answer. For

Box 1 25-marker checklist ■ Have you focused on the question from the very start of your answer?

■ Have you clearly defined any key terms that appear in the title?

■ Have you imposed a clear structure on your discussion (i.e. identifed three or four areas and dealt with them in a systematic and logical fashion?)

■ Have you written in a balanced and authoritative style, as opposed to one which is too subjective and ‘chatty’?

■ Have you integrated political theory and examples together, rather than favouring one at the expense of the other?

example, a question asking you to evaluate the case against electoral reform will require a different kind of answer from one which asks you to discuss the arguments for and against.

Striking the right balance between the relevant political theory and supporting examples is also important if you are to achieve the higher levels on the mark scheme. Many candidates write answers that are overly theoretical and lacking the necessary evidence in support. Other answers simply consist of one example after another, strung together without any real sense of argument or direction.

Remember that each paragraph should address a separate analytical point — one element of your argument — and each point Politics Review

should be supported by at least one example.

When going through practice answers as part of your revision it may be helpful to refer to the 25-marker checklist provided in Box 1.

Remember also that there are different marks available for different assessment objectives (Table 1).

A 25-mark answer analysed Having examined the theory, we can now move on to consider an answer given in response to a real GOVP1 25-mark question.

‘The use of referendums in the UK since 1997 has done little to strengthen democracy.’ Discuss.

A-grade answer Read through Olivia’s answer and the accompanying commentary.

A referendum is where an issue is put to a public ballot, usually in the form of a ‘yes’/‘no’ question. Many argue that such devices do not strengthen democracy and there are several reasons for this view. First, critics argue that referendums lead to the electorate getting tired of voting and so decrease turnout (so-called ‘democratic overload’). In Switzerland, for example, an average of four referendums are held per year, yet in a referendum on arms exports in 2009 only 53% of those eligible turned out. The 2010 AV referendum in the UK saw an even lower turnout at 42%. Thus people argue that the many referendums since 1997 have led to low turnout, which threatens democracy as it means that only a small percentage of the electorate are making important decisions. In London, the referendum on whether or not to have a London mayor and assembly saw a turnout of less than 40% and even though there was a clear ‘yes’ vote many therefore argued that such a low turnout did not provide a sufficient mandate for such a major change to be implemented. Thus many argue that low turnout undermines democracy.

Examiner: This is a focused opening paragraph. Olivia defines the term ‘referendum’ reasonably well and offers developed discussion of her first main argument, integrating theory and supporting examples well. There is a lot to be said for getting ‘stuck in’ to the answer from the outset in this way, though a more formal introduction might have helped Olivia impose a clearer structure on the discussion to follow.

Second, critics argue that the increased use of referendums since 1997 undermines parliamentary sovereignty. In the UK democratic

November 2011

Table 1 Assessment objectives on 25-mark questions Knowledge and understanding AO1 (11 marks)

Analysis and evaluation AO2 (8 marks)

Communication AO3 (6 marks)

Level 4

10–11 marks

7–8 marks

5–6 marks

Level 3

7–9 marks

5–6 marks

3–4 marks

Level 2

4–6 marks

3–4 marks

2 marks

Level 1

1–3 marks

1–2 marks

1 mark

system, Parliament is, in theory, sovereign and is the ultimate decision maker. Referendums are not, many argue, the way in which UK democracy is supposed to work because we usually abide by the Burkean model of representative democracy. Thus one might argue that the increased use of referendums has done little to strengthen democracy.

Examiner: Olivia makes good use of theory here, though the point about representative democracy could be further developed, with an example perhaps.

However, others argue that democracy has been strengthened. First, they say that increased use of referendums has resulted in increased participation. Before 1997, the only national referendum was in 1975 on staying in the EEC and other referendums were few and far between. These were the only times when the electorate was able to formally express their views between elections. After 1997, however, people were able to let their views be known on devolution. Although the Labour Party had already promised more devolution in its 1997 general election manifesto, the referendum was said to have strengthened its mandate.

Thus many argue that the increased use of referendums has strengthened democracy.

Examiner: Although the word ‘discuss’ does not mean that you need to devote the same amount of time to dealing with the ‘case against’ the proposition as you spend on the ‘case for’, it is helpful to try to develop at least one point on each side of the argument. Note Olivia’s use of the word ‘however’. Using language in this way to highlight a distinct shift in the essay makes it easier for examiners to reward you on AO2 and AO3.

Referendums are also, in their very nature, many argue, more democratic than having elections alone. Direct democracy means people feel that they have more of a say in policies and hence democracy is strengthened. For example, many argue that recently the people of Wales wanted more power for their devolved institutions, even though David Cameron is himself instinctively anti-devolution. Thus a referendum on giving the Welsh Assembly primary legislative powers

in some areas was held and it was approved.

The AV referendum saw a decisive ‘no’ vote, with only ten constituencies saying ‘yes’, and this, people argue, strengthened democracy by allowing people more say in politics. Without the AV referendum, the government might have just put AV in place anyway, but the ‘no’ vote meant that FPTP will stay. Hence, people argue that the very nature of referendums means that their increased used since 1997 has strengthened democracy.

Examiner: While it would be wrong to think that more recent examples are always better than older ones, Olivia’s awareness of two referendums held so close to the date of her examination — and her ability to offer analysis of their outcomes — is impressive.

In conclusion, low referendum turnouts in recent years are an issue when considering how far such devices have strengthened democracy.

However, democracy means ‘people power’ and as the electorate have indeed had more say on issues since 1997, democracy does appear to have been strengthened.

Conclusion Olivia develops a number of points on each side of the debate and makes effective use of examples throughout. Though her response would benefit from a formal introduction — and a little more development on one or two of the points made — she has done enough to get to the top of Level 3 on AO1 and AO2 and make it into the bottom of Level 4 on AO3. The final mark awarded was: ■ AO1: 9 marks ■ AO2: 6 marks ■ AO3: 5 marks giving her 20 of the 25 marks available.

Paul Fairclough is deputy head at Casterton School, having been a head of politics for many years. He is an experienced principal examiner at AS and A2, and the author of a number of Philip Allan Updates titles, including AS UK Government & Politics (3rd edition) with Philip Lynch (ed. Eric Magee).

15

Visions of America, LLC/Alamy

Divided government Strength or weakness of US politics?

Bill Clinton addressing a campaign rally in Denver in 1992

Anthony J. Bennett Anthony Bennett explains the what, how, why and when of divided government

D

ivided government is the term used in the USA to refer to the situation in which one party controls the presidency while the other party controls Congress. In other words, one party controls the executive while the other party controls the legislature. Of course, this could not occur in the UK as the executive is always controlled by the party which controls the House of Commons.

Exam context

How does divided government come about in the USA?

Unit 4A The relationship of Congress with the executive branch

Divided government can occur in the USA because the executive and the legislature are elected separately. It may even occur when the elections are held on the same day. On 5 November 1996, for example, voters re-elected Democrat Bill Clinton to the presidency but elected Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate.

It can also occur as a result of the mid-term elections, held 2 years into the presidential 4-year term. In November 1992, Americans elected Democrat Bill Clinton to the presidency as well as Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress. But 2 years later, in the 1994 mid-term

16

This article is essential reading for A2 students preparing for US units. It focuses on the following aspects of the specifications:

Edexcel Unit 4C The factors influencing the relationship between Congress and the presidency

AQA OCR Unit F853 The presidency: relations with Congress

elections, party control of both houses switched to the Republicans.

Why does divided government occur?

Two factors enhance the chance of divided government: ■ an increasing number of independent voters ■ an increased occurrence of split-ticket voting Back in 1952 when polling of voters’ party identification began, only 22% of voters identified Politics Review

Table 1 Divided government (in red), 1969–2012

Years

Presidency

Senate-House

Years

Presidency

Senate-House

1969–70

R

Dem-Dem

1991–92

R

Dem-Dem

1971–72

R

Dem-Dem

1993–94

Dem

Dem-Dem

1973–74

R

Dem-Dem

1995–96

Dem

R-R

1975–76

R

Dem-Dem

1997–98

Dem

R-R

1977–78

Dem

Dem-Dem

1999–2000

Dem

R-R

1979–80

Dem

Dem-Dem

2001–02

R

†R-R/Dem-R

1981–82

R

R-Dem

2003–04

R

R-R

1983–84

R

R-Dem

2005–06

R

R-R

1985–86

R

R-Dem

2007–08

R

Dem-Dem

1987–88

R

Dem-Dem

2009–10

Dem

Dem-Dem

1989–90

R

Dem-Dem

2011–12

Dem

Dem-R

themselves as independent. By 1992 that figure had almost doubled — to 38%. The more voters who do not identify strongly with one of the two major parties, the more voters are likely to vote ‘split-ticket’ — that is, voting for Democrat and Republican candidates for different offices at the same election. In 1952, only 13% of voters were split-ticket voters; by 1972, that figure had risen to 30%.

One slight complication: it is possible for party control of Congress to be divided, with the Democrats controlling one house and the Republicans the other.

This is the situation following the 2010 mid-term elections: a Democrat president with a Democrat Senate but a Republican House — what we might call a divided Congress.

When has divided government occurred?

In the 44 years between January 1969 and January 2013 there will have been 22 years of divided government, 12½ years of one-party (united) government, and 9½ years when control of Congress was divided (Table 1).

It is also highly likely that we shall re-enter the era of divided government following the 2012 elections. So in modern-day US politics it is clear that divided government is the norm. Is this bad news or good news? Is divided government a weakness or a strength of the US political system?

What are the weaknesses of divided government?

Divided government — so the conventional wisdom goes — brings gridlock and partisan bickering: ■ Republican president Richard Nixon was forced to resign by a Democrat Congress.

■ Nixon’s Republican successor Gerald Ford lasted only 2½ years and is remembered most for his 48 vetoes and the 12 that Congress overrode.

November 2011

TopFoto

† January–June 2001: R-R; June 2001–December 2002: Dem-R

In modern-day US politics it is clear that divided government is the norm.

President Ronald Reagan giving a speech from the Oval Office

Exam focus Using this article and other resources available to you, answer the following questions.

1 What is divided government?

2 Why does divided government occur?

3 How often has divided government occurred since 1969?

4 How, according to the author, do the presidencies of Nixon, Ford and Clinton illustrate the weaknesses of divided government?

5 Why is divided government ‘even more problematic in an era of increased partisanship’?

Divided government — so the conventional wisdom goes — brings gridlock and partisan bickering.

6 How did the passage of Obama’s healthcare reform in 2009–10 illustrate the weakness of united government?

7 In contrast, what was the strength of Reagan’s 1986 tax reform and Clinton’s 1996 welfare reform?

8 How does divided government improve congressional oversight of the executive branch?

17

TopFoto

president Ronald Reagan (president, 1981–89) could attract significant support for his policies from the large number of conservative Democrats in Congress. Although Reagan’s Republicans never ‘controlled’ the House in terms of numbers, Reagan could often build a winning coalition of Republicans plus conservative Democrats to give him effective political control of the House. Divided government was still workable, but no longer. With the collapse of the Solid South, the Democratic Party has become a far more ideologically cohesive liberal party with far fewer Democrats prepared to support a Republican president’s policies. And the Republican Party has become a far more ideologically cohesive conservative party with fewer ‘moderate’ Republicans prepared to support a Democrat president’s policies. All this makes divided government much more problematic.

What are the strengths of divided government?

A rally in support of President Obama’s healthcare reform, September 2009

When Republican president Ronald Reagan was faced with divided government in his last 2 years, he had a well-qualified Supreme Court nominee — Robert Bork — rejected by the Senate and faced an overly-zealous congressional investigation of the Iran-Contra affair.

And if we needed further examples of the weakness of divided government, then the Clinton years provided some choice examples: the partial federal government shut-down of 1995–96; the impeachment and trial of the president in 1998–99.

A further point to keep in mind is that divided government may be even more problematic in an era of increased partisanship. Three decades ago, Republican

■

18

So what are the strengths of divided government? First, it provides an incentive to the ‘out party’ (the party that does not control the White House) to help the ‘in party’ succeed. When one party controls both branches, the out party members have no incentive at all to get anything done. This is what we saw during the first 2 years of the Obama presidency (2009–10) when the Democrats had control of the White House and both houses of Congress. The Republicans just walked away. When healthcare reform passed in the House (219–212), all 178 Republicans voted ‘no’; when it passed in the Senate (60–39), all 39 Republicans present voted ‘no’. Only the Democrats ‘owned’ healthcare reform.

Divided government brings a second strength. Because both parties need to agree to pass legislation, it has to be written in such a way as to appeal to the middle ground: the centre-right of the Democratic Party, the centreleft of the Republican Party, and that one-third of the electorate who call themselves independents. That was the strength of Reagan’s tax reform passed in 1986, and of Clinton’s welfare reform passed in 1996. They were both the products of divided government and they were both reforms that appealed to ‘middle America’ rather than just Red or Blue America.

Not only may divided government lead to better legislation but it may also lead to more effective oversight of the executive branch. The danger during periods of united government is that Congress acts more like a lapdog than a watchdog when playing its oversight role. The difference between congressional oversight under united and divided government was clearly on display when George W. Bush’s Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress after the 2006 midterm elections. Between January 2003 and December 2006, the Republican majority in Congress pretty much gave the president a free ride. But once the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007, everything changed. ‘The watchdog growls’ headlined an article Politics Review

in the National Journal (March 2007). The new House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, John Dingell, immediately began an investigation of the way the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was conducting studies of new drugs for the US pharmaceutical market:

legislation which is framed to appeal to middle and moderate Americans rather than the vocal extremes; and it may lead to more effective oversight of the executive branch. As James Ceasar and Andrew Busch commented over a decade ago (Losing to Win: The 1996 elections and American Politics):

I promise those in charge of HHS and any other department that chooses to deny this committee the information and access to bring proper and needed oversight, as is our responsibility, that they will not succeed. There is an easy way to be investigated and there is a hard way, and I can assure all and sundry, the hard way is not the better way.

The concept of divided government has begun to go from negative to positive. After these elections, there was none of the usual chorus of laments in the press against divided government. President Clinton, who campaigned in 1992 on the pledge to ‘end gridlock’, asked voters in 1996 to allow him to be the agent of gridlock, checking the Republicans in Congress. For their part, Republicans came to conclude that their bid for the presidency was doomed and began arguing that a Republican Congress was necessary to prevent Bill Clinton from having a ‘blank check’.

Dingell’s committee then proceeded to send a letter to a pharmaceutical executive demanding: the names and contact information for all employees involved in a drug study; all e-mails relating to the study over a 28-month period within the company, to other companies, and to the Food and Drug Administration; and all documents related to meetings with FDA officials.

Conclusion

Add 16 years to the dates, and change ‘Clinton’ to ‘Obama’, and you may yet have a fairly accurate description of the 2012 elections. But do voters really choose divided government because they like both parties or because they fear the excesses of both of them?

So maybe the conventional wisdom that divided government is a weakness of the US political system is in need of re-examination. It incentivises cooperation and compromise between the parties; it may produce

Anthony J. Bennett is deputy editor of Politics Review and author of A2 US Government & Politics (3rd edition) published by Philip Allan (www.philipalan.co.uk).

Not only may divided government lead to better legislation but it may also lead to more effective oversight of the executive branch.

Be an expert in all your A-level subjects!

Did you know we publish all these A-level magazines to help you get the grades you need?

From as little as £2.50 an issue, each magazine includes a digital edition of each new issue PLUS free online resources!

Go to www.philipallan.co.uk/magazines for: ●● ●●

All the latest information on each title Simple ordering options, including subscriptions sent straight to your home

Alternatively, contact our customer services department direct on 01767 604974.

November 2011

Quote offer code 2089311 when you subscribe for a chance to win £25 worth of itunes vouchers!

19

Yuri Arcurs/Fotolia

politics at uni

Why study politics?

T

he number of students taking politics as an A-level or as a university degree has increased rapidly in recent years. This column provides information on this rise and outlines what university admissions tutors in politics are looking for, amid evergrowing competition for places. It also indicates the core components of degrees in politics.

A fast-growing discipline Politics is now the fifteenth most popular university discipline in the UK. Its popularity continues to grow. By 2009, politics had acquired the largest number of students — 33,910 — of any social science discipline.

Should you decide to study politics at university, you will form part of a broadbased community. Of the 33,910 politics degree students in the UK in 2009, 24,875 (73%) were UK residents, 3,985 (12%) were from elsewhere in the European Union and 5,050 (15%) came from overseas. Among domestic students, there were more males (14,580) studying politics than females (10,295), but the gap has narrowed in recent years.

The growth in university applications to study politics also reflects a rapid rise in the subject’s popularity at A-level. Politics is the fifth fastest growing A-level subject.

Why study politics?

Studying politics is a great way to develop our understanding of the decision-making processes that affect our daily lives. It enhances our comprehension of the ideological and practical rationale behind the choices made by elite decision makers and electors. In learning about politics, we gain knowledge of what shapes our world and understand better the choices available to political leaders and the constraints upon what they can decide. We are better able to grasp the dilemmas apparent in national and

20

international relations and their impact on our security.

While interest in the subject is a much better reason to study politics at university, there is certainly financial advantage to holding a politics degree. In 2009, the average starting salary for a politics graduate was £20,877, placing such graduates in the top quartile for non-vocational degrees and almost in the top-third of starting salaries for all graduates. Employers respect the range of skills acquired by politics graduates, which include research of topics and sources; analysis of evidence and argument; oral and written communication of ideas and argument; innovative learning via role play and discovery of new sources of information; use of information technology skills; and, in some cases, work experience, via, for example, parliamentary placements.

What will I study?

Politics degrees vary in content but many will contain at least some of the elements listed in Box 1.

What are politics admissions tutors looking for?

One impact of the growth in popularity of politics has been that entry grades have risen steeply over the last few years, as competition for places has increased.

Oxbridge interview candidates, but few other institutions do. Good predicted grades are crucial in facilitating offers. Taking politics at A-level is obviously very useful, but admissions tutors are aware that, even now, not every sixth form or college offers the subject. If this is the case, you should say so on your UCAS form. History or sociology A-levels are other useful subjects to take if you wish to study politics.

All university tutors want to see a good command of written English, with a UCAS form free from spelling errors. A serious

Box 1 Core components of degrees in politics ■ UK politics: reflecting the social, economic and constitutional change throughout the polity in the past century.

■ Comparative and European politics: the UK is closely connected to the EU and other countries in Europe. Often courses encourage language studies and exchange studentships.

■ Comparative and international politics: how other states organise their law and decision making is another area of study, sometimes incorporated into regional studies, including languages.

■ Political theory: this subject connects with the earliest people who studied politics: the Greeks, the Enlightenment philosophers and modern thinkers like Marcuse and Gramsci.

■ Public policy: this approach investigates how major national policies are made and implemented.

■ Elections and parties: parties are the vehicles of political ideas and elections the vital occasions when voters exercise their occasional power.

■ International relations (IR): this subject involves the study of foreign policy and international actors like the UN and non-governmental organisations.

interest in politics needs to be evidenced.

Which politics events (conferences, meetings, broadcasts) have you attended — and why? Have you contacted any MPs and in what context? Which politics books appeal to you — and why? You need to show that you really want to study politics and that you have some understanding of what such a degree may involve.

Jonathan Tonge is professor of politics at the University of Liverpool and vice president of the Political Studies Association of the UK. Politics Review

US

update

Edward Ashbee considers President Obama’s handling of the debt ceiling crisis

I

n economic downturns most governments borrow on a large scale. They generally have little choice. Tax revenue tends to fall and there are additional demands for expenditure. In the USA, the federal government faced particular difficulties in the most recent economic downturn: ■ During the years preceding the crisis there had been tax cuts while at the same time expenditure levels were increased significantly.

■ When the crisis hit, there were efforts to revive the economy through, for example, the $787 billion fiscal stimulus (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) passed by Congress in February 2009.

What is the ‘debt ceiling’?

In the USA, significant long-term increases in federal government borrowing require Congressional assent. In other words, lawmakers must raise the ‘debt ceiling’ (the maximum amount that can be borrowed). In the past, the process attracted relatively little attention or serious controversy. Indeed, the ceiling was increased on 74 occasions between March 1962 and 2011. Ten of these increases took place from 2001 onwards during the Bush and Obama presidencies (Sahadi 2011).

The debt ceiling crisis Despite this history, the debt ceiling took on a new significance in the wake of the November 2010 mid-term elections. First, the Republicans secured a majority in the House of Representatives. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the Tea Party movement, which had propelled the Republicans to electoral victory, put government spending levels at the top of the political agenda. From its perspective, deficits and debt were the consequence of excessive expenditure by federal government. Large-scale government spending, the movement and its allies argued, drained resources away from the private sector and thereby delayed economic recovery.

For their part, the Democrats increasingly accepted that the budget deficit had to be reduced and that steps in this November 2011

direction should be taken in the short term as well as the longer term. Nonetheless, there were fears among many Democrats that a process of deficit reduction would disproportionately hit those at the lower end of the income scale who depended, disproportionately, on government provision. There were also concerns that if government spending was reduced, overall aggregate demand levels would fall, thereby worsening US economic difficulties.

There was a further difference between Democrats and Republicans. For many Democrats, if the budget deficit was to be reduced, there had to be tax increases (particularly for those at the highest end of the scale) as well as expenditure cuts.

In contrast, the Republicans, under pressure from the Tea Party movement, were against tax rises. Taxation levels were, they argued, already at a level where they threatened individual liberty and business prosperity.

The deadline for an increase in the debt ceiling was 2 August. From then on, the federal government would be unable to meet all its obligations unless there was an increase in the ceiling, according to treasury secretary Tim Geithner. In these circumstances, a default seemed more than possible. There were fears that faith in US Treasury bills (through which the federal government raises the funds that it requires) would be weakened and the USA’s triple-A credit rating (assigned by companies such as Standard & Poor’s) would be reduced. As investors lost confidence, there would be upward pressure on interest rates and borrowing costs would rise. This would add yet more burdens to the economic difficulties that the country already faced.

The crisis continued until the final moment. Some Republicans, particularly those most closely associated with the Tea Party movement, opposed any increase in the ceiling. The Republican leadership, however, accepted that an increase was unavoidable but insisted that such an increase had to be tied to expenditure reductions. There would be no tax increases.

Agreement was reached just 48 hours ahead of the deadline. It included: ■ spending cuts amounting to more than the increase in the debt ceiling ■ the establishment of a Congressional committee to agree longer-term budget cuts amounting to at least $1.5 trillion over the coming decade (with incentives to ensure that the commitment fulfils its remit) ■ a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution There was some opposition from the Democratic left as well as the Republican right. In the House of Representatives, 95 Democrats and 66 Republicans voted against the bill. In the Senate, it was opposed by seven Democrats and 19 Republicans.

Where did the debt ceiling crisis leave President Obama?

Initial comment was not kind to him.

It was not, some commentators said, a ‘compromise’ because only the president had given ground. Despite the deal, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the US credit rating from AAA to AA+. In response, the president struck a strident note: ‘Markets will rise and fall, but this is the United States of America.

No matter what some agency may say, we’ve always been and always will be a AAA country’ (quoted in Foster 2011).

Nonetheless, in the wake of the deal, polls showed that just 34% approved of Obama’s handling of the economy (PollingReport.com 2011). Such figures are dangerous for a president seeking re-election.

References and further reading Foster, S. (2011) ‘Obama: “We’ve always been and always will be a AAA country”, MSNBC — First Read, http://tinyurl.com/3wuq3pm National Public Radio (2011) Transcript: Obama’s State Of The Union Address, National Public Radio, 25 January, http:// tinyurl.com/5sjewqk PollingReport.com (2011) President Obama and the Obama Administration, http:// tinyurl.com/c2jrnf Sahadi, J. (2011) ‘Debt ceiling FAQs: What you need to know’, CNNMoney, 18 May, http://tinyurl.com/3sv77sq

21

3d brained/Fotolia

A2 focus on…

Redistricting in the USA R

focused inevitably on the federal Congress.

Fewer column inches were devoted to the Republican Party’s victories at state level.

These wins have crucial implications for the process of redistricting.

The decennial census in the USA took place in 2010 so newly Republicancontrolled legislatures now have important leverage in the current process of redistricting. Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican State Leadership Committee, has claimed that between 15 and 25 congressional seats are now more likely to remain Republican or switch from the Democrats after redistricting.

Why is redistricting such a crucial issue in 2011?

Tactics and examples of partisan redistricting

Media reports following Republican successes in the 2010 mid-term elections

Leaving the process to politicians makes the possibility of manipulation of district

President Obama favours changing the redistricting process

Vidura Luis Barrios/Alamy

edistricting is the process by which US congressional district boundaries are redrawn following the decennial US census. The process of redistricting in the USA is unlike that in the UK where the UK’s independent Boundary Commission decides constituency boundaries. It seems somewhat of an anomaly that in the USA the vital process of determining the position of congressional district lines is the responsibility of state legislatures in the vast majority of cases. Only seven states (for example, Arizona and New Jersey) have independent or bipartisan bodies with sole responsibility for redistricting.

lines for electoral gain (gerrymandering) inevitable. The advent of hi-tech computer programmes has made this even more of a problem. While the Supreme Court has ruled that districts within a state should have a similar population total (on average just over 700,000 people in 2012), computer mapping systems are designed to create the most favourable mix of voters within a district and ensure success for a given party.

There are three principal methods of manipulating district lines: ■ spreading like-minded voters across multiple districts to dilute their voting weight in each (cracking) ■ concentrating like-minded voters into one district to reduce their weight in other districts (packing) ■ the system of bipartisan gerrymandering where political parties collude to maintain the status quo and thereby protect incumbents Table 1 provides case studies of states which have been subject to accusations of partisan gerrymandering.

Prospects for reform Limited state-initiated reform of the redistricting process has taken place. Most recently, California approved Proposition 11 at the 2010 elections, which will give future responsibility for drawing congressional districts to an independent commission.

This may lead to some future reversal of the incumbent advantage (noted in Table 1) in this state.

At a federal level, a leading proponent of reform of the redistricting process has

22

Politics Review

Table 1 Examples of partisan gerrymandering

State

Example of partisan gerrymandering

Outcome

Pennsylvania

After the 2000 census, Republicans were concerned that districts had become too competitive. They began a campaign to redraw the districts in a way which favoured them.

Despite Democrat opposition, the Republican plan was implemented with only a few small changes.

California

Through a process of bipartisan gerrymandering following the 2000 census, Democrats and Republicans agreed a system to entrench their incumbents’ positions.

In the subsequent 2004 elections there was no change of political party in any of the district-elected offices at either the state or federal level. The pressure group, Common Cause, estimated that Californian redistricting led to a decrease in competitive races by more than 55% (Designer Districts — Safe Seats Tailor Made for Incumbents, April 2005).

Texas

Controversially in Texas, Republicans changed district boundaries in 2003, following state legislative wins in 2002, rather than as a response to a decennial census.

In 2006, the Supreme Court invalidated the creation of the state’s 23rd district (League of United Latin American Citizens v Perry). However, it upheld the overall state redistricting plan and, in particular, it accepted that states were free to redraw boundaries whenever they wanted (i.e. not just following the decennial census).

been former Democratic Congressman John Tanner. He bemoaned the fact that in the USA ‘the politicians choose their voters instead of the other way around’ and proposed the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act of 2009. This would have reduced the role of state legislators in drawing up congressional district boundaries and would have created a bipartisan redistricting panel in each state.

However, these legislative efforts were unsuccessful and Tanner has now stood down from Congress.

Interestingly, Obama picked up the redistricting issue in his much publicised appearance on John Stewart’s Daily Show prior to the 2010 mid-terms. He argued that changing the redistricting process was essential for the creation of a less polarised electorate. However, persuading any newly-elected Republican controlled state legislatures to cede the power of changing district boundaries is likely to prove an ambition too far for the president.

Katie Shapiro teaches government and politics at Highgate School, London.

magazinesonline Are you getting the most from your magazine?

Free resources Did you know?…as part of your subscription to this magazine, you also get free additional resources online?

Register today for revision exercises, weblinks, podcasts, Powerpoints and notes all linked to the articles in each issue. ●● Go to www.philipallan.co.uk/magazinesonline ●● Register your details, with a user name and password of your choice ●● Log in with your code and keyword from the back cover of this issue

Online archives

My magazines

Archive

Online archives of back issues are available for all our A-level magazines.

Go to www.philipallan.co.uk/magazines for: ●● 100s of articles from digital versions of back issues ●● Simple, accessible and comprehensive search ●● Unlimited access for staff and students ●● Annual subscriptions for everyone to share, from as little as £64!

Register today at www.philipallan.co.uk/magazinesonline November 2011

23

TopFoto

Conservatives and Lib Dems

Closer than we thought?

Kevin Hickson and Ben Williams At leadership level the two coalition parties appear close, but the extent to which this extends to the rest of the two parties is open to dispute. Kevin Hickson and Ben Williams consider the ideological traditions within both parties to answer the question: are they closer than we thought?

T

he 2010 general election resulted in a hung parliament. In the wake of this inconclusive electoral outcome, there followed several days of intense negotiation between the parties. Some senior figures in the Labour Party hoped that it would be possible to remain in power through an agreement with the Liberal Democrats. Long seen as a party of the centreleft, the Liberal Democrats were seen to have more in common with Labour and many within New Labour had hoped to form a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;progressive allianceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; with the Liberal Democrats after 1997.

However, the parliamentary arithmetic meant that a coalition between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats was the most likely outcome and, eventually, a formal deal was announced between the two parties.

Following successful negotiations for a coalition

24

agreement between the two parties between 5 and 11 May 2010, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg became deputy prime minister and several cabinet and middle and junior ranking ministerial positions were given to the Liberal Democrats. The agreement included some shared policy

Exam context This article is essential reading for AS students. It focuses on the following aspects of the specifications:

Edexcel Unit 1 Party policies and ideas

AQA Unit 1 Political parties

OCR Unit F851 Political parties

Politics Review

commitments, but also some areas where it was agreed that the two parties could disagree — the reform of the electoral system was one such area. It was agreed that the coalition would hold a referendum on the issue but that the two parties could campaign on different sides.

Exam focus

The impact of a coalition government

2 Why did the rainbow coalition fail to materialise?

Prior to the general election some argued that a coalition government would be weak as a result of trading off respective manifesto commitments to the point where there would be agreement. Some argued that a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition would contain too many ideological and policy differences to last. This has resulted in occasional speculation about imminent resignations and splits.

However, the striking thing about this particular coalition is the apparent degree of unity, at least among the elites within both parties. Far from being moderate, the coalition has been radical. Both David Cameron and Nick Clegg were said to prefer a formal long-term coalition as opposed to a temporary political accommodation, and this has given the arrangement more stability than many anticipated.

This arrangement won the broad support of both parties’ MPs, in the short term at least following the uncertain outcome of the 2010 election. Perhaps more crucially, it also won initial wider public support among the voters of both main parties. This meant that the coalition took office with a degree of goodwill from the electorate following a period of political uncertainty (Box 1).

In order to explain how this coalition government came about, it is necessary to explore both the longer-term ideological traditions within both parties and the more recent developments, which point to some fusion between the ideologies of the two parties at the top, albeit with considerable tension lower down. We shall look at each party in turn, beginning with the Conservatives.

3 What does Box 1 tell us about public support for the coalition in May 2010?

Conservatives: one nation conservatism to New Right and back again?

One nation conservatism The dominant ideological position within the Conservative Party after 1945 was one nation conservatism. This was the belief that the state could achieve economic and social progress through a Keynesian commitment to full employment and the welfare state. It was generally liberal on social issues and more internationalist, especially in terms of its attitude towards European integration. It was conciliatory to the trades unions and wanted to create a unified society rather than one based on class conflict. In this it shared much in common with Labour, and the term postwar consensus has been used to describe British politics after 1945.

New Right conservatism By the 1970s one nation conservatism was under strain in the face of mounting economic and industrial relations November 2011

Using this article and other resources available to you, answer the following questions.

1 Explain the terms progressive alliance and rainbow coalition.

4 Explain the term ‘one nation conservatism’.

5 In what ways was ‘New Right conservatism’ different?

6 How did David Cameron set about rebranding the Conservative Party?

7 Distinguish between ‘classical liberalism’ and ‘social liberalism’.

8 What was the significance of The Orange Book?

Some argued that a ConservativeLiberal Democrat coalition would contain too many ideological and policy differences to last.

9 What reasons do the authors give for ‘the significant degree of ideological fusion’ between Cameron and Clegg?

Box 1 Support for the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, May 2010 64% of all voters supported the new coalition government as the ‘right way forward’ following a hung parliament.

■ 87% of those who voted Conservative in 2010 supported this agreement.

■ 77% of those who voted Liberal Democrat in 2010 supported this agreement.

■

Source: ‘Tory/Lib Dem coalition wins public approval in ICM poll’, Sunday Telegraph, 15 May 2010

problems. Margaret Thatcher was elected leader of the Conservative Party in 1975 and became prime minister in 1979. She was committed to a very different form of Conservative ideology. This was termed the New Right and it represented a new type of conservatism that reacted against the postwar ‘years of consensus’ (which lasted approximately 1945–75).

The New Right was committed to undoing the postwar consensus, to defeating the trades unions and restoring a free-market economy and greater economic liberalism.

There would be a retraction of the welfare state, and as time went on the Thatcher governments became more eurosceptic. The New Right combined both free-market liberals and social conservatives, who wanted to take a more nationalistic stance and be tough on welfare claimants, among others, whom it claimed were sponging off the state.

After the 1997 general election defeat, the Conservative Party became more hard-line on many of these issues, notably Europe. Although some believed that this was a populist stance, the party continued to lose general elections against New Labour, suggesting that such a ‘tough’ brand of ‘Thatcherite’ Conservatism was no longer as popular as it once was. Eventually, the dilemma before

25

TopFoto

of the Liberal Party, from which the Liberal Democrats would later emerge, was that of classical liberalism, with a central commitment to sound finance, limited government and free-market economics. Following the decline of the Liberal Party prior to the Second World War, many classical liberals left the Liberal Party. Classical liberalism was closer ideologically to the Conservatives, and some people even referred to Margaret Thatcher as a Gladstonian liberal.

Social liberalism The dominant tradition for the party during the twentieth century was one of social liberalism.

Social liberals believe that the state, through economic management and welfare provision, can increase the freedom of the individual. The party therefore came to be seen as being on the centre-left of British politics, ideologically much closer to Labour than to the Conservatives.

‘Orange Book’ liberalism

Charles Kennedy was the only Liberal Democrat MP who did not vote in favour of the coalition agreement

the Conservative Party was highlighted neatly in the phrase from the senior Conservative MP, Theresa May, who in 2002 said that for many people the Conservative Party was seen as the ‘nasty party’.

The task for David Cameron was to shed this image by ‘detoxifying’ the Conservative brand.

A more liberal form of conservatism?

The task for David Cameron was to shed this image by ‘detoxifying’ the Conservative brand. He embraced ‘new’ issues such as the environment. He remained firmly eurosceptic, but ensured that this was not the divisive issue it once was. He also said that the Conservative Party would defend civil liberties, in a similar vein to the Liberal Democrats. His would be a more liberal form of conservatism.

This apparently new, more caring and compassionate conservatism would remain sceptical of the central state and much more favourable to free markets. It would also seek to encourage more local and voluntary provision of welfare, as evident in the promotion of the Big Society agenda during and after the 2010 general election.

Liberal Democrats: classical liberalism to social liberalism and back again?

Classical liberalism Going back to the time of Gladstone (prime minister, 1868–74, 1880–85, 1886 and 1892–94) the tradition

26

The dominance of social liberalism within the Liberal Democrats was finally challenged by the publication of The Orange Book in 2004. This publication, edited

by David Laws MP (one of the key negotiators with the Conservatives after the 2010 general election) argued strongly for a policy more sympathetic to markets and economic liberalism while being more critical of the state.

Although the social liberals attempted a fight back, the younger generation of more centre-right MPs were given a significant boost when Nick Clegg, who had contributed to The Orange Book, became leader of the Liberal Democrats. This was following a series of leaders, Paddy Ashdown (1988–99), Charles Kennedy (1999– 2006) and Menzies Campbell (2006–07), all of whom had been closer to the Labour Party. Indeed, Kennedy was the only Liberal Democrat MP who did not vote in favour of the coalition agreement, opting to abstain instead.

So-called ‘Orange Book’ liberalism would seek to encourage more local and voluntary provision of welfare.

Hence, inadvertently, the contributors to The Orange Book advocated a similar policy stance to the one that would be advanced by the Conservatives under Cameron from late 2005 onwards.

Ideological fusion in the coalition government?

This article has suggested that there is a significant degree of ideological fusion between the leadership of the two coalition partners. Hence, it is not just that Cameron and Clegg appear to get on at a personal level, or even that there was no realistic parliamentary alternative to a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition that explains the phenomenon of a radical coalition politics in Britain. Some commentators such as Cowley Politics Review

and Kavanagh have suggested that Cameron and Clegg’s degree of compatibility has been influenced by the fact that both became parliamentarians during a period when the Labour Party dominated Parliament (Cameron in 2001, Clegg in 2005). Both therefore had common ground in opposing government policies during a sustained period of Labour government.

It seems that, at the elite level, the two coalition parties may be closer than we thought. However, the extent to which this extends to the rest of the two parties is open to dispute. For the Conservatives, there is a disillusioned right wing who blamed Cameron for not securing an overall majority in the 2010 general election.

His message of the Big Society is held to be especially unclear and they fear he is making too many concessions to the Liberal Democrats. This factor has the potential to unsettle and destabilise the coalition.

For the Liberal Democrats, the cost of entering this coalition may be even greater. They have tried to justify policies which they had previously campaigned against, notably the rise in university tuition fees. They have slumped in the opinion polls and appear to have lost considerable numbers of party members and potential voters to the Labour Party. Their future survival has also been questioned, and in March 2011 they finished a humiliating sixth place in the Barnsley Central by-election.

Meanwhile, there are many Liberal Democrat MPs who are much closer to the once-dominant social liberal position within their party who are critical of the decisions taken by their leaders in the coalition government. The future of the Liberal Democrats will depend on how long the coalition lasts, how well the government tackles the financial deficit and how well it recovers its overall focus in time for the next general election.

It seems that, at the elite level, the two coalition parties may be closer than we thought.

Further reading ‘The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition deal: full text’, Guardian, 12 May 2010, http://tinyurl. com/2uux8mk Bale, T. (2010) The Conservative Party: From Thatcher to Cameron, Polity Press.

Cowley, P. and Kavanagh, D. (2010) The British General Election of 2010, Palgrave Macmillan.

Hickson, K. (ed.) (2009) The Political Thought of the Liberals and Liberal Democrats since 1945, Manchester University Press.

Kennedy, C. ‘Why I couldn’t support Clegg’s deal with the Tories’, Observer, 16 May 2010.

Kevin Hickson is senior lecturer in British politics at the University of Liverpool. Ben Williams is completing his PhD in politics at the University of Liverpool.

The most up-to-date, top-selling textbooks ●

●

●

●

●

Just £21.99 each

Comprehensive and authoritative topic coverage Suitable for all exam boards Key political concepts illustrated and explained Complete coverage of the UK 2010 General Election, the 2008 US elections and the new administrations Exam board key concepts clearly explained 20% off with your voucher from the September issue

Visit www.philipallan.co.uk to order online and view sample pages, or contact our customer services department on 01235 827827

November 2011

27

TimeHacker/Fotolia

achieve at A2

Edexcel Government and Politics Route C: How to succeed in US politics The Supreme Court of the USA

A

s an examiner, it’s always a bit depressing marking the answers of students who have clearly not performed as well as they could have done. Often if they had paid attention to a few basic points of exam technique it would have made a significant difference to their final mark.

This article gives you some tips on how to improve your exam technique. It includes general advice relevant to all exam questions, as well as specific advice for answering the essay questions and short answer questions that appear on Edexcel’s A2 papers.

General advice Answer the question If there is one single rule for producing a good answer that applies to any sort of question set, it is to answer the question.

Many students go into exams with rehearsed answers to questions they hope will appear, and if they then see one term of that question on the paper in front of them, e.g. pressure groups, they reproduce their prepared answer with little regard for what the question is actually asking. Many students seem to believe that if they write for six or seven sides and overwhelm the examiner with enough knowledge, they must be doing something right, when the reality is that often they are not.

28

To avoid making this mistake, keep using the key terms of the question in your answer.

Often the first sentence of a paragraph (and it could be every paragraph) is the best place to include them. It is helpful to do this because: ■ it reassures the examiner that you know what question you are supposed to be answering ■ it reminds you to keep focusing on the question So, if the question is ‘The president is limited to the power to persuade. Discuss.’, keep referring to ‘the power to persuade’, and begin each paragraph ‘A further example of the power to persuade is….’ or ‘A source of power not dependent on persuasion is…’.

Knowledge is important Knowledge is awarded marks under assessment objective 1 (AO1). Your knowledge forms the building blocks of your answer — if you don’t have many blocks, or if they’re of doubtful quality, then your ability to construct a successful answer is going to be limited.

The key here is to supplement what you learn from your textbooks with examples from what you are reading about in the papers and watching on the news. The availability of US newspapers and news channels has transformed the study of US

politics for UK students in the last few years, and to do well it helps if you use them as much as possible.

The use of a recent example can instantly lift the quality of an answer. For example, if you were writing about the power of the president, and making the point that the president now uses his power as commander-in-chief to deploy the armed forces with as much or as little input from Congress as he chooses, President Obama’s use of force in Libya in March of this year would be highly relevant evidence and, if discussed intelligently, would be highly rewarded.

Evaluate the points you make A useful maxim is ‘Write a lot about a little’, meaning that it is better to discuss a few examples fully rather than run through a long list. One of the features that AO2 marks are awarded for is evaluation of individual points (‘micro’ evaluation). In other words, as well as knowing things, you have to be able to assess their significance. This is more highly rewarded at A2 than at AS. In the case of the action in Libya, you could devote a substantial paragraph to discussing the significance of President Obama’s choice not to seek congressional authorisation, how far it accorded with, and how far it was a departure from, previous Politics Review

presidential actions, and why Congress did not choose to hold a vote of its own. A discussion of this sort would score high AO2 marks.

Essay questions Essay questions will always be set in a form which requires you to justify a point of view.

If the question is ‘Does the Supreme Court have too much power for an unelected body?’ you need to show why your answer — yes or no — is right, and why the alternative answer is wrong.

Structure First, you need an introduction, where you set out what your view is. An essay is not a magical mystery tour, and it should be obvious throughout which direction it is going in. If the conclusion comes as any sort of surprise, then the preceding discussion has not been structured clearly enough.

The simplest and often the most effective way to structure your argument is to divide your essay into two halves: ■ in the first half, set out the arguments for your side of the case ■ in the second half, show why the arguments advanced for the other side are weaker Sometimes students structure their answers as a series of points and counterpoints — handled well, this can be effective, but it is easy for the argument to lose direction and for the reader to have the sense that the essay is running furiously on the spot rather than progressing to a conclusion.

It is important to remember that throughout the essay you are arguing for one side over another, not just presenting two conflicting points of view. In the second half of the essay, you should not simply explain the arguments of your ‘opponents’ but also expose their flaws. For example, in the case of the power of the Supreme Court, a frequently used argument is that the court needs to act because legislatures are too passive. If you were arguing that the Supreme Court does have too much power, then you would need to show why this is not a good argument, for example by pointing out that rights created by the court are often not regarded as legitimate, and can give rise to further problems. A standard but effective formula for beginning this sort of paragraph is: ‘It is sometimes argued that… (brief explanation of opponent’s point).

However,… (your counter-argument).’

November 2011

Evaluation and synopticity In putting together a coherent argument and looking at both sides of the case, you will be scoring marks for both the other half of AO2 (‘macro’ evaluation) and synopticity.

Synopticity means showing awareness of two different approaches, and arguing for the merits of one over the other. It can sometimes be a useful shorthand to give these approaches the labels of ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ but this is not essential, and in many answers it would not be appropriate.

A further way of scoring marks for evaluation is to discuss the significance of the evidence you’re presenting. For example, in an answer on the restraints on the power of the Supreme Court, many students will refer to the court’s inability to enforce its decisions, and use as evidence the slow pace of desegregation in the South after the Brown decision. As important as Brown is in the history of the court, the case was heard nearly 60 years ago, and it may be significant that there is no comparable, more recent example — part of your evaluation would be to acknowledge the age of the evidence, and the effect it has on the point being made.

Short answer questions General advice 1 The specification requires you to answer three short answer questions, but in every exam a surprisingly high number of students leave the third answer sections in the answer booklet blank. It is stating the obvious to say that if you do not answer a question, you really are throwing marks away.

2 Give some thought to the extent of your knowledge on the topics that are being asked about before choosing your questions. In 15 minutes, you should be aiming to write four or five reasonable length paragraphs, and if your only knowledge of, for example, ‘pork barrel politics’ is a vague definition, you’ll probably be better off with another question.

3 You don’t need an introduction for a short answer. Many students waste time outlining the points they then go on to make a second time in the main part of the answer — the same points can’t be rewarded twice.

Question styles Explain the factors that…

A typical short answer question is ‘Explain the factors that limit the electoral impact of minor parties’. This type of question invites a list of relevant factors.

Give your answer a clear structure by giving each factor a separate paragraph.

■ Indicate the relative significance of each of your points. For example, if you begin your first paragraph ‘The first and most significant reason third parties…’ you instantly start to clock up AO2 marks for micro evaluation.

■

How influential is…?

A different structure is required by a question of the sort ‘How influential is the left within the Democratic Party?’ This question falls naturally into two halves: ■ the first half explaining ways in which the left is significant ■ the second half explaining ways in which it isn’t It’s not an essay, so you don’t need to advance a particular position throughout, and you certainly don’t have to bring in what the ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ positions might or might not be, but a short conclusion summarising where the weight of evidence rests rounds the answer off neatly.

An important tip is to pay close attention to the wording of the question: to take this ‘influence of the left’ example — it is phrased in the present tense, ‘is’, and so is looking for evidence from the present and the recent past, e.g. the Obama presidency and the Democratic Congress from 2006, not a historical sweep over the last century.

How and why…?/What is…and why…?

A third sort of question is split explicitly into two halves, for example, ‘How and why do pressure groups attempt to influence the Senate?’ Here, it is clearly important to address both halves, not precisely 50:50, but both need to be tackled reasonably fully.

Somewhat in contrast is a question of the sort ‘What is affirmative action, and why has it been criticised?’ For the first part, which asks for a definition, one short paragraph is sufficient. The rest of the answer should be devoted to the second part.

Conclusion Exam technique is an important part of exam success. If you follow the advice given here you should be well on your way to improving yours. Good luck in your exams.

Jonathan Vickery is an experienced senior examiner.

29

TopFoto

Socialism Revolutionary or evolutionary?

Moyra Grant Moyra Grant explores the revolutionary and evolutionary aspects of socialism and asks if, in any of its forms, it has a viable role in the twenty-first century There is no point in searching the encyclopaedias for a definitive meaning of socialism; it has none, and never could.

Anthony Crosland, The Future of Socialism, 1956

Socialism is defined by its opposition to capitalism — an economic system of private ownership for private profit.

G

iven that the ideology of socialism can be associated with people as diverse as Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin and Tony Blair, it is clearly one of the most wide-ranging of all political philosophies. Socialism is defined by its opposition to capitalism — an economic system of private ownership for private profit. The core beliefs of socialism — that humans are naturally altruistic, that collectivism enhances social harmony and that equality is the prerequisite of social justice — are probably as old as mankind itself. However, socialism flourished most vigorously in the nineteenth century, as industrial capitalism in Western Europe reached its height, with all its attendant inequalities and deprivations. Socialism in various forms has emerged and evolved throughout the twentieth century, with varying degrees of success. Whether it has a viable role in the twenty-first century is a matter of debate.

Broadly, socialism can be revolutionary or evolutionary in its means and methods. These, in turn, have to some extent shaped and modified its ends and goals.

Revolutionary socialism Nineteenth century socialism sought the complete overthrow of the prevailing capitalist economic and political system by a mass uprising of the industrial working class who, daily, suffered the exploitation, degradation and poverty generated by the free market.

30

Karl Marx (1818–83)

Exam context This article is essential reading for A2 students preparing for political ideologies units. It focuses on the following aspects of the specifications:

Edexcel Unit 3B Socialism

AQA Unit 3B Socialism

OCR Unit F854 Liberalism and socialism

WJEC Unit GP3b Socialism

Exam focus Using this article and other resources available to you, answer the following question.

1 Is socialism, whether revolutionary or evolutionary, a dead duck?

Give reasons to support your answer.

Revolutionary socialism can be subdivided into two types: ■ ethical or utopian socialism ■ scientific socialism or Marxism

Utopian socialism Utopian socialism of the early nineteenth century advanced an ethical critique of capitalism as competitive, divisive, oppressive and cruel. It perceived socialism to be morally superior because humans are essentially social and cooperative creatures with the capacity for compassion and even perfectibility.

Politics Review

Many utopian socialists, such as Robert Owen (1771– 1858) and Charles Fourier (1772–1837), established experimental communities, with varying degrees of success. Left-wing anarchists such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–65) were also labelled by their critics — notably Marxists — as utopian socialists.

Marxism Whereas utopian socialists advanced an idealistic (emotional and moralising) critique of capitalism, Marxism advanced a materialistic (economic and objective) critique of capitalism. Marxist theory provided a ‘scientific’ analysis of historical and social development based on empirical observation, rational logic, objectivity and determinism. Marxism did not engage in wishful thinking or moral value judgement but, instead, predicted that the overthrow of capitalism would be the inevitable outcome of its own inbuilt contradictions.

Dialectical materialism Dialectical materialism was the label which Engels (Marx’s friend and colleague) applied to Marx’s theory of progress through economic conflict. Marxism is materialist (i.e. it sees economic factors as primary). It examines the course of human history and argues that progress throughout human history is created by economic — especially class — conflict. ‘The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle’, wrote Marx in the Communist Manifesto. Marxism perceives history as a series of economic stages of society — from primitive communism, through ancient society and feudalism to capitalism. Each stage (except the first) involves two main classes: ■ the bourgeoisie — the owners of the means of production ■ the proletariat — the workers Box 1 outlines Marx’s theory of progress through economic conflict.

Revolutionary socialist theory flourished in the nineteenth century when the working class did not have the vote and the parliamentary, ballot box route was not an option. However, in the twentieth century, so-called Communist regimes took the form of statist, command economies and dictatorial political regimes — such as Stalinism in the Soviet Union — not least because they happened in the wrong places at the wrong times (namely, in underdeveloped, pre-capitalist economies).

Evolutionary socialism In the late nineteenth century, the franchise — the right to vote — was extended to the working class. Some socialists, therefore, adopted a new political strategy.

Prominent among them was Sidney Webb (1859–1947), a British social reformer who asserted the ‘inevitability of gradualism’. This suggested that evolutionary — that is, parliamentary — tactics would eventually lead to the democratic triumph of socialism over capitalism (Box 2).

November 2011

Box 1 Marx’s theory of progress through economic conflict ■ The bourgeoisie take the surplus value created by the proletariat, as the only possible source of profit (since only labour creates new value).

■ This entails exploitation, and hence unavoidable conflict of interests between the two main classes.

■ This, combined with inevitable, repeated economic recessions and crises, will eventually make the workers aware of the fact that the system is only serving the interests of the minority ruling class.

■ The workers will then rise up in revolution to overthrow capitalism and create a transitional phase of rule by the majority proletarian class.

■ When all industry is collectively owned, classes will, by definition, have been abolished and communism will have been achieved.

This analysis of human progress through economic conflict, said Marx, is not wishful thinking but scientific determinism — that is, it is inevitable.

Box 2 Parliamentary socialism Parliamentary socialists believed in the ‘inevitability of gradualism’ because they believed that the sheer arithmetical logic of political democracy favoured socialism: ■ The working class constituted a numerical majority and would therefore become an electoral majority.

■ They would vote for socialist parties because socialism was the ‘natural home’ of the working class.

■ Once in power, socialist parties would implement socialism peacefully and constitutionally.

Sidney Webb wrote the original Clause 4 of the UK Labour Party constitution (1918) which asserted the goal of common ownership: To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

Democratic socialism Early evolutionary socialists such as Webb remained fundamentalist in their goals. They still sought the complete overthrow of capitalism, but via the ballot box rather than by revolution. However, because their means and methods had changed to operate through the institutions and structures of the state, their vision of socialism also changed and became more statist. Equality of ownership meant extensive state nationalisation rather than direct takeover of the factories by the workers.

Equality of outcome meant high taxation by the state of the most wealthy and extensive state welfare for the less well off.

Revolutionary socialist theory flourished in the nineteenth century when the working class did not have the vote.

31

lazypit/fotolia

The ideology of socialism can be associated with Tony Blair’s New Labour

Crucially, therefore, evolutionary socialists revised their analysis of the state. Rather than seeing it as an irredeemable tool of the ruling class, they came to see it as a potential vehicle for progressive socialist advancement and reform. The Marxist notion — that the state would ultimately ‘wither away’ in a Communist society of direct workers’ ownership, control and egalitarian democracy — was replaced by a vision of state ownership, control, intervention and regulation on behalf of the poor and dispossessed. In sum, the adoption of the evolutionary road to socialism resulted in the redefinition of socialism itself.

However, the parliamentary, statist vision of socialism was not always popular even with working-class voters.

It was often seen as inefficient, bureaucratic, impersonal and restrictive of freedom, choice and personal autonomy.

Meanwhile, postwar Western capitalist economies flourished and appeared to be delivering the goods in terms of increasing standards of living, consumer choice, educational and work opportunities, political and social rights and freedoms and sheer fun. These economies were also changing shape: traditional blue collar industries were declining and the white collar service sector was growing.

The traditional working class was diminishing in number, and the middle classes were increasing in number.

This meant that socialist parties had to redefine themselves in order to win elections. In effect, they had to abandon socialism.

Social democracy Post-Second World War socialist parties, therefore, abandoned fundamentalism for revisionism. They no

32

longer sought to abolish capitalism but merely to reform it, seeking a balance between the economic efficiency of market capitalism and the ethical appeal of state socialism. This produced ‘social democracy’: a mixed economy which combined private and state ownership with moderate welfare and a more liberal emphasis on equality of opportunity, rather than the far-reaching socialist goal of equality of outcome. However, even this ceased to win elections in the 1980s.

The third way The ‘third way’ was a slogan which sought to locate a yet more right-wing position between free market capitalism and state socialism. The slogan and concept was originally devised by the Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini in the 1930s. It was implicitly developed in postwar social democracy and explicitly adopted in the 1990s by neorevisionist movements such as US Clinton’s Democrats and UK Blair’s New Labour. It was, to most observers, a quite incoherent and opportunistic mix of market capitalism combined with communitarian liberal rights and responsibilities, with a dose of social authoritarianism thrown in.

Thus parliamentary socialism slid inexorably to the right during the twentieth century, abandoning most of its core values and principles along the way. Box 3 lists some of the reasons why evolutionary socialism failed.

The future?

The journey of socialism outlined above highlights how far it has travelled from its revolutionary and egalitarian roots to an accommodation with capitalism and its Politics Review

Box 3 Why did evolutionary socialism fail?

The failure of evolutionary socialism can be explained by many factors: ■ the shrinkage of the working class as an electoral force ■ the capacity of capitalism to ‘deliver the goods’ (such as improving working-class living standards) ■ the bias of the capitalist state against socialism ■ the entrenched power of business interests, particularly in a globalised capitalist system

attendant moral values. This begs the question of whether — as journalist Peter Kellner has put it — socialism is not an ‘-ism’ but a ‘-wasm’. Former Conservative UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher professed her determination to ‘kill socialism’ — and perhaps she succeeded. Is socialism — whether revolutionary or evolutionary — a dead duck?

Perhaps not. Condemnations of market capitalism have not disappeared; indeed, they have intensified with the recent banking failures and resulting economic recessions and political agendas of spending and welfare cuts, which are hurting the less well off while the bankers and politicians continue to prosper. There have been growing and active protests against globalised free market capitalism, with its implications for poverty and debt in less developed countries, and pollution, militarism and

neo-imperialism in the developed world. Broader concepts of inequality (e.g. of race and gender) and broader arenas of exploitation (e.g. of the environment) are being addressed by these growing anti-capitalist movements in recent years. Meanwhile, socialism’s moral values of altruism, cooperation, egalitarianism and sheer decency endure.

That said, the transformation of revolutionary communism from Marxist democracy to Stalinist dictatorship, and the bureaucratic and bossy nature of evolutionary socialism, both imply that socialism is irredeemably statist and, therefore, top-down, oppressive and restrictive of freedom, choice and personal autonomy. Hence the widespread disillusionment with centralised state socialism, whether revolutionary or evolutionary.

However, it may be that new forms of socialism — less statist and more genuinely egalitarian, liberating, democratic and internationalist — could yet emerge from disillusionment with capitalism in the twenty-first century. Perhaps the essential division is not between socialist methods — revolutionary or evolutionary — but between socialist models — statist or libertarian.

Socialism’s moral values of altruism, cooperation, egalitarianism and sheer decency endure.

Moyra Grant is senior tutor in politics at Mander Portman Woodward Sixth Form College, London, and is a senior examiner and author.

Clear focused revision for your best possible grade

NEW

Written by senior examiners including Neil McNaughton and Paul Cordey, these full-colour guides are the essential study companions and revision guides for Edexcel Government and Politics.

from August 2011

Each guide includes all you need to know to prepare successfully for your unit exams: ●

●

●

clear guidance on the content of the unit, with topic summaries, knowledge check questions and a quick reference index examiner’s advice, so you are clear about what is being asked in the exam and the skills you need to show exam-style questions, with graded student responses, so you can see clearly what is required to get a better grade

Not doing Edexcel? Don’t worry, there are also Student Unit Guides for AQA, as well as Edexcel A2 units.

Visit www.hoddereducation.co.uk/student-unit-guides today for information on all the titles in the series and simple online ordering, or contact our customer services department on 01235 827827

November 2011

£9.99 Just £7.99 each with your 20% off voucher (see September issue)

33

Lazypit/Fotolia

highlights

US media

T

he 1st Amendment to the US Constitution asserts that: ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech or of the Press.’

This shows that the framers of the Constitution recognised the important role that a free press plays as a guardian of US democracy.

An integral part of a functioning democracy is that people are able to make informed choices and decisions. However, in spite of a politically free media it is debatable whether US citizens are exposed to the fair and balanced reporting that would enable them to make a reasoned choice at the time of elections.

The average American spends about 8 hours a day with print and electronic media. While newspaper circulation has declined over the past two decades the importance of television news (especially cable) has grown, as has readership of blogs (which are virtually all, by their very nature, partisan).

A liberal bias?

Conservative critics of the media have long claimed that a systematic liberal bias exists across the media, including national newspapers, influential magazines such as Newsweek, network news channels such as ABC and NBC and cable channels such as CNN and MSNBC. A study published in 2005 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics

by Tim Gorseclose of UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri and Columbia found that of the 20 news outlets studied, 18 scored to the left of the average US voter, with CBS Evening News, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times prominent among those with a left-wing bias. Of the print media, USA Today was viewed as the most centrist. However, whether this survey itself was impartial has been challenged, and progressives have claimed that the constant barrage of accusations of liberal bias has made the mainstream even more conservative just to prove that they are not liberal.

In the freest press on earth, humanity is reported in terms of its usefulness to US power.

John Pilger, New Statesman, 20 February 2001

and social trends. He is closely associated with the Republican Party and in a 2008 poll by Zogby International was voted the most trusted news personality in the nation.

Despite its slogans: ‘Fair and balanced’, ‘We report. You decide’, the Fox News Channel is viewed by many as the most high-profile advocate of conservatism on US television. Owned by Rupert Murdoch’s global News International media group, Fox is the number one rated cable news channel, and according to Public Policy Polling in 2010 is the most trusted television news channel in the country. Some of its most controversial commentators include Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck (who eventually proved too extreme even for Fox) and Sean Hannity; but Republican politicians, Mick Huckabee and Sarah Palin, are also Fox presenters.

I challenge anybody to show me an example of bias in Fox News Channel.

Rupert Murdoch, Salon, 3 January 2001

A corporate bias?

All the large newspaper, radio and television networks are privately owned, and increasingly in large concentrated blocks, by global media organisations. They are driven by the profit motive and therefore by the need for advertising revenues. Not only will this pattern of ownership inevitably result in few stories challenging the market-based economic orthodoxy, but it can result in a deterioration of news quality. The market only rewards the number of viewers, not how informed the viewers were or how good the analysis was. Programming is therefore uncontroversial, light and non-political in order to create a ‘buying mood’.

This ‘lowest common denominator’ reporting probably goes a long way towards explaining the significant lack of foreign affairs coverage in the US media. Moreover, any foreign affairs coverage that there is tends to be ‘USA-centric’ and remarkably one-sided — most notably there is little objectivity to be found regarding the ‘Islamic threat’ or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A conservative bias?

The Daily Show: a backlash?

There is little doubt that most of the mass circulation US media have a conservative bias with respect to economic affairs. Arguably, that merely reflects the free market ethos of US society more generally. More controversial is any socially conservative bias in the media. Talk radio became a hotbed of conservatism in the 1990s.

The biggest name in talk radio is probably Rush Limbaugh, who passionately delivers conservative, frequently incendiary (and what some have claimed to be racist) commentaries on issues in the news

With the express purpose of highlighting the inanity of US news coverage the satirical Daily Show on Comedy Central has made its creator and presenter John Stewart, a self-proclaimed ‘fake journalist’, a national — and to a large extent, global — figurehead.

It is suggested that the Daily Show is now the major source of news for those Americans aged 18–25 and its lampooning of biased, dumbed-down reporting might mark a change in US production and consumption of news media.

Access PoliticsReviewOnline at www.philipallan.co.uk/magazinesonline

Associated subscribers use these codes