A-Level politics

update
Spring 2024 Issue 2

Contents:
UK POLITICS, 2019-2023: A CASE OF DEMOCRATIC BACKSLIDING
THE LEAST PRODUCTIVE CONGRESS: WHAT’S GONE WRONG?
THE SAFETY OF RWANDA BILL
THINKING ABOUT POLARITY
IDEOLOGICAL SCHISMS IN THE LABOUR PARTY
IDEOLOGICAL SCHISMS IN THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
THE HOUSE OF LORDS: A FLAWED INSTITUTION
CHANGING ALLEGIANCES: THE MPS WHO CROSS THE FLOOR

[Link]/politics
UK POLITICS 2019-23:
A CASE OF DEMOCRATIC BACKSLIDING?
by Andrew Mitchell
Edexcel Component 1 Democracy & Participation AQA 3.1 Democracy & Participation

‘Democracy’ can be quite a slippery political concept but, until relatively recently, most British
political commentators would have had no problem describing the UK as a democratic state
because it possessed the following features: free, fair and regular elections, universal suffrage,
electoral choice via a range of political parties, government accountability, high standards in
public life, pluralism within the media, pressure groups and individual rights.
Since 2019, however, there has been increasing concern that the UK has entered into a process of ‘democratic
backsliding’. In 2021, for example, the Democracy Index, produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU),
ranked the UK in 18th place with a score of 8.1 (out of a possible 10) and noted that the country was ‘edging
closer to a flawed democracy classification’. Two years earlier, the EIU placed the UK in 14th position on a
score of 8.52. More recent reports, notably UK Democracy Under Strain (Unlock Democracy 2023) and The
Future of Democracy in the UK (The Constitution Unit 2023) have also concluded that UK democracy is not
functioning properly. Some of their main findings are discussed below.

The Integrity of Elections

Critics have argued that three features of the 2022 provide the Electoral Commission (EC) with a ‘strategy
Elections Act, introduced by the Conservative and policy statement’. Numerous individuals and bodies,
government, threaten to damage the integrity of the including the EC Chair and the Public Administration and
electoral process. First, under this new legislation, Constitutional Affairs Committee, have argued that this
photographic voter identification is now compulsory for change subjects the EC to political interference and
UK general and English local elections (for more details, undermines its role as an independent regulator of the
see my article in A Level Politics Update Autumn/Winter electoral process. Third, the 2022 law permanently
2023 Issue 1). Opponents maintain that this measure enfranchised UK citizens living abroad, thereby removing
amounts to deliberate voter suppression since personation the 15-year cap on overseas voting. Many have voiced
at the ballot box is virtually non-existent in the UK and concerns that, by allowing overseas UK citizens to vote,
those most likely to fall foul of this new requirement the problem of ‘dark money’ (electoral campaign funds
belong to social groups that tend not to vote Tory. Second, that are not properly declared) is likely to increase.
the 2022 Elections Act permits government ministers to

Standards in Public Life

One of the most visible signs of ‘democratic backsliding’ in the years 2019-2023 was declining standards in UK public
life. Many high-profile cases involved senior government members and Tory MPs. The most prominent, of course, was
the collapse of Boris Johnson’s premiership in July 2022 because of his dishonest conduct concerning the Partygate
and Pinchergate scandals. A number of other cabinet ministers were either sacked or forced to resign during these
years due to their inappropriate behaviour, notably Health Minister Matt Hancock for breaking the Covid-19 rules (June
2021), Minister of State Gavin Williamson for sending abusive texts to a colleague (November 2022), Conservative
Party Chair Nadhim Zahawi for breaching the ministerial code over his tax affairs (January 2023) and Deputy Prime
Minister and Justice Secretary Dominic Raab for behaving aggressively towards officials (April 2023). Critics have also
argued that the government awarding process for medical supply contracts during the Covid crisis lacked transparency
and often resulted in substandard products. In particular, the use of government ‘VIP lanes’ to fast-track procurement
has led to accusations that companies (such as the one connected to Conservative peer Baroness Michelle Mone) with
links to ministers and former ministers were favoured with highly lucrative deals.

2 A-Level Politics Update Spring 2024

Political Rights
Many of those convinced that the UK has experienced democratic backsliding in recent years argue that political rights
regarding protest have also been undermined. Critics have focused on two measures introduced by the government
– the 2022 Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the 2023 Public Order Act. The 2022 measure empowered
the police to curtail protests which have a ‘significant impact on people or cause serious disruption to the activities of
organizations in the vicinity’. Opponents maintain this law effectively constrains the right to protest. The 2023 Act was
passed shortly before King Charles III’s Coronation and introduced new offences (e.g. locking on and interfering with
key national infrastructure) which prompted the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights to conclude that the
government was establishing a ‘hostile environment’ for those wishing to protest. On the day of the Coronation, this
law was controversially used to arrest and temporarily detain several anti-monarchy campaigners, notably Graham
Smith, the chief executive of Republic.

Central Government Control

Several commentators maintain since 2019 central government has been engaged in an undemocratic ‘power grab’
to strengthen its position within the wider political system. To support their case, proponents of this position point
to the 2022 Judicial Review and Courts Act, which limits the use of judicial review, as evidence that the Conservative
government is determined to alter the executive/judiciary balance of power in its favour. Another widely criticized
move was the repeal of the 2011 Fixed-Term Parliament Act (via the 2022 Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act),
which had restricted the PM’s ability call a snap election when circumstances favoured the government. Furthermore,
in 2021, the Commissioner for Public Appointments criticized the ‘campaign led from the top of the government’ to
secure the ‘appointment of political allies’ to senior public offices. Finally, questions have been raised about the nature
of UK democracy following a 2021 investigation which revealed that, since 1967, the monarch had been secretly
exempted from the provisions of over 160 laws to give Elizabeth II unique protected status as the owner of landed
estates.

Conclusion
Predictably, given the widespread evidence
of democratic backsliding since 2019, public
perceptions of the UK political system have
become more negative. For example, a YouGov
survey of over 4000 people, conducted in
September 2022, found that 52% were either
not very satisfied or not at all satisfied with
democracy in the UK (38% were either fairly
or very satisfied). In addition, some 66% felt
that the UK system of government could be
improved either ‘quite a lot’ or a ‘great deal’.
Only 27% considered that it ‘could not be
improved’ or ‘mainly’ worked well.

[Link]/politics 3
The least productive Congress...

WHAT’S GONE WRONG?

Edexcel Component 3a: 2 US Congress AQA 3.2 The Legislative Branch
by Patricia Shepherd

US Secretary of State for Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas was impeached in January
2024 by the House of Representatives. This was the first time that a sitting Cabinet member
has been impeached, on charges that he “wilfully and systemically refused to comply with the
immigration laws, failed to control the border to the detriment of national security, compromised
public safety, and violated the rule of law and separation of powers in the Constitution”.

Whilst this might seem like a symbol of checks and balances in operation, it is a symptom of a
deep malaise that is affecting Congress right now. Mayorkas was the subject of a highly partisan
attack by Republican representatives. The irony is that the person responsible for bringing the
proceedings immediately signalled his intention to resign from Congress the following day – even
he is giving up on it! Republican Rep. Mark Green of Tennessee stated ‘This place is so broken’
and complained about the inability to get anything done.
He is not alone: 23 Democrats and 21
Republicans have announced their
intention to retire in the November
elections this year.

4 A-Level Politics Update Spring 2024

What have been the problems for the 118th Congress so far?
1 They have achieved very little. Only 20 pieces of legislation made it through for Biden to sign by the end of
2023 – a remarkably low number1. Estimates suggest that it will be the least productive Congress ever, worse
than the so-called ‘Do nothing Congress’ of 2012-13 (49 pieces of legislation2), You have to look to the Nixon
era to see a first year of a Congressional session that is as low as 2023. Of the legislation passed so far, most are
uncontroversial and faced very little opposition, such as bills to rename Veterans Affairs clinics and minting a coin
to commemorate 250 years of the Marine Corps. Controversial legislation has stalled.
2 It is a situation of divided government: Republicans hold a slim majority in the House of Representatives, whilst
the Democrats just hold onto the Senate (with support from 3 independents who caucus, or vote, with them) and
there is a Democrat presidency. In contrast, Biden’s most notable legislation was passed in the 117th Congress
(2021-23), during which there was Democrat control (just) over both chambers. He was able to pass the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, legislate to provide semi-conductors, recognise gay marriage and
tighten background checks for gun sales, amongst others, in this arguably productive Congress.
3 There is unprecedented party infighting amongst the Republican party, which has made them a difficult party
to govern and has led to chaotic scenes in both chambers. There was even a physical ‘confrontation’ of elbowing
in the corridors of power! 2023 began with the historic (for the wrong reasons) battle for the Speakership of the
House – Speaker Kevin McCarthy faced an unheard of 15 rounds of voting to get the job. Right wing elements of
the party, the House Freedom Caucus, chose to block his election. In order to secure his appointment, McCarthy
had to do deals which included promises on taxation, giving important positions in the House Rules Committee
to the Caucus and a rule change which would mean that a single vote could oust the speaker…. And as a result,
McCarthy did not last long – ringleader Matt Gaetz put forward the ‘motion to vacate’ the Speaker in October
20233. He was ousted. This was the first time ever that a Speaker of the House of Representatives was removed
mid session4. Party infighting meant that for 3 weeks, Congress was left inactive as no one could decide on a
replacement. The new Speaker, Mike Johnson, was the 4th candidate to be selected. Whilst Congress did nothing,
the stakes could not have been higher as a deadline approached regarding the debt ceiling funding of federal
government – without this, the federal government would shut down.

1
118th Congress to be most unproductive in modern history
([Link])
2
The (really) do-nothing Congress - POLITICO
3
5 Ways Republicans Have Made History in the Wrong Way in the
Last Year ([Link])
4
House makes history, removes McCarthy as Speaker | The Hill

[Link]/politics 5
4 Increased partisanship and an inability to and it has since gone up to the House. As I write, the new
‘cross the aisle’ Speaker Johnson is meeting with Trump most probably to
Aside from law making, Congress has been busy with discuss this bill. Johnson states he does not intend to bring
hyper-partisan projects which seem to be designed to the bill to the floor of the House.
disrupt their opposition. Currently, President Joe Biden is Inaction has consequences and the Biden administration
being investigated for a possible impeachment by the House blames Congress for the fall of Adviivka in Ukraine.
Oversight, Ways and Means and Judiciary committees. This
concerns the business dealings of Biden’s son, Hunter and 5 Unsuitable candidates had tarnished the reputation
was only initiated by former Speaker McCarthy as part of his of Congress further
attempts to keep his job. Concrete evidence against Joe For the first time in over 20 years a member of Congress
Biden seems to be slight – academics argue this is different was expelled. He was Republican representative George
from previous impeachment inquiries5. Additionally, this Santos of the 3rd congressional district in New York, whose
Congress has seen the most ‘censures’ of members of background was colourful to say the least and was accused
Congress since 1870 – each was a Democrat and it could of wire fraud, money laundering and identity fraud, having
be argued that these are partisan attacks made easier by lied in order to be elected in the first place8. He has pleaded
the rule changes negotiated by the House Freedom Caucus. not guilty to the charges against him.
Votes in Congress have also been highly partisan with party Americans have long had a dim view of members of
line voting being a pattern of behaviour. According to Congress, but such behaviour only intensifies the negative
ABC News, Democratic Senators voted with Biden 99% view. Pew Research Center notes how negatively the public
of the time in 20236. Whilst more established Senators perceive Congress – an astonishing 72% are unfavourable;
such as Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska with a decline in favourability since 2018. Only 38% now
and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina were willing to believe that representatives care about their constituents,
cross the aisle 50% of the time (Graham voted mostly to down from approximately 50%. Only 36% believe that their
support nominations, Murkowski and Collins supported representatives are doing a good job, down from 47% in
legislation) most Republican newcomers to the Senate were 20189.
less willing to do so, only voting with Biden 19% of the
Therefore, Congress can only hope for a more productive year.
time. This suggests a highly partisan environment.
Who knows, representatives may be stirred into action by the
Republican entrenchment and unwillingness to support a
prospect of an election to prove to their constituents that they
Democrat president has been fuelled by the outside
are worthy of their jobs!
influence of Trump. He has openly criticised those who
support Democrat measures and uses social media to
‘persuade’ GOP members not to do so. This has most
recently been seen with funding for Ukraine and Israel
alongside border security measures. The original bill
combined these measures, with surprisingly tough border
security policies. However, Trump opposed this and his
Republican supporters in Congress followed suit by blocking
the bill. Version 2 has separated them out – but a reason
that Republicans now oppose the Ukrainian/Israel funding
bill is that it does not include border security! The funding
bill passed in the Senate 70 votes to 29 (showing the
split in the Republican party over the issue of Ukraine)7

5
Impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden -
Wikipedia
6
How often every member of Congress voted
with Biden in 2023 - ABC News ([Link])
7
US national security bill: what’s in it for
Ukraine and Israel and will it pass? | US
national security | The Guardian
8
5 Ways Republicans Have Made History
in the Wrong Way in the Last Year
([Link])
9
What people think are the biggest problems
with Congress and other elected officials |
Pew Research Center

6 A-Level Politics Update Spring 2024

REVISION FLASHCARDS
Ideal for revision on the go and to help you
test yourself and your mates!
Five revision flashcards packs now available covering:
• UK Politics & Core Political Ideas
• UK Government
• Government & Politics of the US
• Global Politics
• Political Ideas: Key Thinker Postcards

Order your revision flashcard packs by

scanning the QR code:

HELP YOURSELF TO SOME FREE

PERSONAL AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT!
Just login to your mytutor2u account and then enrol for free on any of these
self-paced courses.
Available courses include:
Enrol for FREE here by
• Transition to Sixth Form scanning the QR Code
• Study and Revision Skills
• Beyond Sixth Form
• Transition to University
• Employability Skills

[Link]/politics 7
THE SAFETY OF RWANDA BILL: PARLIAMENTARY
SOVEREIGNTY OR ELECTIVE DICTATORSHIP?
by Moyra Grant
Edexcel Component 2: 1 Constitution & 4 Relations Between Branches
AQA 3.1 Nature & Sources of the British Constitution, The Structure & Role of Parliament & The Judiciary

The chronicle of the UK government’s Rwanda policy began in April 2022 when Prime Minister
Boris Johnson and Home Secretary Priti Patel launched their plan to send asylum seekers
permanently to Rwanda (whether or not their asylum claims were ultimately found to be valid).
The government was trying to address rising levels of ‘irregular’ small-boat arrivals into the UK,
the rising costs of accommodating them, and rising hostility to them among some voters.

The UK signed an agreement with Rwanda - but it right to a fair hearing before a court - as well as
was merely a ‘memorandum of understanding’ rather other domestic and international laws, including the
than a legal treaty and it did not require parliamentary Refugee Convention and the UN’s ban on torture. This,
legislation, which displeased many MPs and peers. the government hopes, would almost entirely preclude
In June 2022, the government’s first attempt to potential court challenges to the government’s
deport asylum seekers to Rwanda was blocked by an Rwanda policy.
urgent interim injunction from the European Court of
For some MPs on the Conservative right, however, the
Human Rights (ECHR), to allow time for the UK courts
bill is still too weak. Robert Jenrick resigned his post
to consider the issues. In November 2023, the UK
as immigration minister, saying that the bill “does
Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Rwanda
not go far enough”. He, Suella Braverman and others
scheme was unlawful, partly because of Rwanda’s
fear further challenges from the ECHR and want
own questionable human rights record and also
to leave it altogether - but Rwanda itself opposed
because asylum seekers who were sent to Rwanda
that. In the end, though, only 11 Conservative critics
ran a high risk of being returned to their home country
(including Jenrick and Braverman) voted against
with its attendant dangers (a process known as
the bill on third reading in January 2024. The small
‘refoulement’). size of the rebellion highlighted the strength of the
In December 2023, the government signed a formal executive’s power and influence over its own MPs in
treaty with Rwanda - containing safeguards such as the Commons.
blocking refoulement - and introduced ‘emergency
So are the courts really the main threat to the
legislation’ to ratify it in the form of the Safety of
sovereignty of Parliament - or is it the control which
Rwanda Bill “to make the will of Parliament absolutely
a ‘majority’ government can usually exert over the
clear to the courts”. The bill compels all decision-
legislature from within?
makers, including judges, to treat Rwanda as a
safe country for deportations; clause 2 states that
“Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the
Republic of Rwanda as a safe country”. So Rwanda
would be ‘safe’ simply because Parliament says so.
As Thomas Cromwell is reputed to have said in the
sixteenth century, parliamentary sovereignty “could
turn man into woman”. The bill also gives ministers
the powers to disregard sections of the Human Rights
Act - including the right not to be tortured and the

8 A-Level Politics Update Spring 2024

Westminster’s disproportional first-past-the-post electoral system usually creates a majority-seat government
with a ‘mandate’ - authority - to enact its policies but without a majority of votes in the country. For example,
Johnson’s (2019) 80-seat majority over all of the other parties combined was won with only 44% of votes
cast in the country. Even Blair’s (1997) 179-seat majority was won with only 43% of the votes. Party loyalty,
party discipline and the ‘carrot’ of prime ministerial patronage combine to strengthen government power over
Parliament. In his 1976 Dimbleby Lecture, Conservative peer and former Lord Chancellor Lord Hailsham famously
coined the term ‘elective dictatorship’ to suggest that a majority-seat government - in effective control of a
sovereign Parliament, with an uncodified and flexible constitution which can be changed by a one-vote majority
in the Commons - can effectively push through almost any piece of legislation at will.
When the Safety of Rwanda Bill moved on to the Lords, moderate Conservatives were among its most vocal
critics. They feared that the executive’s determination to prohibit any judicial review of deportations threatened
the ‘rule of law’ itself. Conservative peer and former Lord Chancellor Kenneth Clarke said that the bill sought
to redefine reality “by overturning a finding of fact by the Supreme Court”. It was, he said, as if Parliament was
being asked to redefine dogs as cats, or black as white. He (nearly) invoked Hailsham’s famous phrase, saying:
“I always fear, as time goes by in my career, echoes of the warnings that Quintin Hailsham used to give us
all about the dangers of moving towards an elected dictatorship in this country”. Preventing any further
consideration of the issue by the courts is, said Clarke, “a very dangerous constitutional provision”.
There was no mention of the Rwanda plan in the Conservative Party’s manifesto and therefore the Salisbury
Convention did not apply, enabling Liberal Democrat peer Lord German to propose a rare amendment to block the
bill entirely on the grounds that “the bill places the UK at risk of breaching our commitments under international
law”. However, even the majority of sympathetic peers rejected this, arguing that the government could use the
motion to blame the House for the bill’s failure. Labour (who have said that they would repeal the law) abstained,
with Labour peer Lord Coaker saying, “There is a proper role for this House, and we believe that is to scrutinise
and amend but not to block”. The limited power of the unelected Lords is seen by many advocates of reform to
contribute to the ‘elective dictatorship’ of the executive. The Lords proposed a number of amendments to the bill,
all turned down by the Commons. Further government defeats in the Lords delayed passage of the bill still further.
In summary, the Safety of Rwanda Bill raises big questions, and may provoke a prolonged constitutional battle,
over the relations and the balance of power between all three branches of the UK state - Parliament, government
and courts. Meanwhile, a general election is looming. Whether a single asylum seeker will ever be flown to
Rwanda remains to be seen.

[Link]/politics 9
THINKING ABOUT POLARITY
What is the emerging structure of the international system,
and why does it matter? by Ollie Riley
Edexcel Component 3b: 4.3 Polarity

Between 1989 and 1991, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War brought
the international system to what Charles Krauthammer famously termed the ‘unipolar moment’.
The United States was the sole superpower and would, for a time, be free from the usual
constraints of great power politics. As President George H.W. Bush and his National Security
Advisor, Brent Scowcroft, reflected in their book A World Transformed (1998):
‘We were suddenly in a unique position, without experience, without
precedent, and standing alone at the height of power. It was, it is, an
unparalleled situation in history, one which presents us with the rarest
opportunity to shape the world and the deepest responsibility to do so
wisely for the benefit of not just the United States but all nations.’1
Since then, however, international politics has arguably undergone another transformation away from unipolarity and
toward a different structure. The nature of the emergent international order is a matter of intense debate among
international relations scholars.
Polarity refers to how power is distributed in the international system. Some argue that we are moving toward a
multipolar world (one with three or more great powers). Others contend that China’s rise and the increasing security
competition between the PRC and the United States suggest a bipolar structure (a system with two great powers vying
for hegemony). Finally, some scholars argue the international system is still unipolar because the United States’ hard
power capabilities continue to outstrip those of its nearest rivals.
This article has two main aims: the first is to explore the debate about the current nature of the international
system, including the theoretical and empirical claims underpinning each argument;
the second is to explain why the polarity question is important by examining
how the distribution of power affects the likelihood of conflict.

10 A-Level Politics Update Spring 2024

Toward Multipolarity
Given that realists define power in terms of a state’s strong economic growth has allowed India to improve its
ability to use material capabilities (military and economic) military whilst spending less on defence as a percentage
to exercise coercive control over another state, it makes of GDP.6 India also seems determined to maintain an
sense for realists to derive their conclusions about polarity autonomous and non-aligned foreign policy, suggesting
from data about these factors. it aims to become a great power in its own right. For
Realists point to how the attempts by the United States example, India participates in the Quadrilateral Security
and its allies to fight terrorism and promote liberal Dialogue (known as The Quad) with the U.S., UK and
democracy abroad during the unipolar era – most notably Australia, but also maintains close ties with Moscow (it
in Afghanistan and Iraq – turned into disastrous “forever has increased oil imports from Russia since the invasion
wars” that drained public finances and depleted the United of Ukraine, which it refused to publicly condemn) and is
States’ military-industrial base. According to Brown a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
University’s Costs of War Project, the post-9/11 conflicts Another key piece of data for assessing the distribution
in the Middle East cost the U.S. Treasury $8 trillion and of power is the share of global GDP among states. In this
directly resulted in the deaths of nearly 1 million people2. regard, the data suggests a shift away from unipolarity.
Meanwhile, emerging powers have strengthened and are Since 2000, the United States’ share of global GDP has
increasingly confident in challenging the United States. fallen from 20% to 15% whilst China’s has risen from
Chief among these countries is China. China’s annual 7% to 19%. India’s share of global GDP has also risen
military spending is estimated to have risen from around from 4% to nearly 8%.7
$10 billion in 1990 to $290 billion in 2022.3 Despite this And then there is Russia. Many realists, most notably
massive increase, China’s military spending as a John Mearsheimer, argue NATO’s post-Cold War
percentage of its GDP has actually fallen from 2.5% to expansion into Eastern Europe - which the United States
1.6%, owing to miraculous levels of economic growth.4 encouraged to solidify its hegemony - paradoxically sped
Arguably, China’s newfound military strength is being up the return to a multipolar world because it threatened
reflected in an increasingly bellicose foreign policy. Russia, causing Moscow to strengthen its military and
For example, the PRC has been accused of militarising become more belligerent. This was exemplified by
islands in the South China Sea and threatening to forcibly Russia’s invasions of Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014
reunify Taiwan with the mainland. and then the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
India’s annual military spending has also skyrocketed Mearsheimer blames Russia’s aggression on the West’s
from around $11 billion in 1990 to $81 billion in 2022, refusal to take Moscow’s security concerns seriously
meaning it is now the fourth biggest spender on defence during the unipolar era.8 The view that ‘revisionist’ great
behind the United States, China and Russia.5 Like China, powers like Russia and China are pushing back against
U.S. hegemony is reflected in recent official White House
documents highlighting America’s need to adjust to the
‘re-emergence of long-term strategic competition
between nations.’9

[Link]/politics 11
In contrast to realists, liberal scholars (sometimes called Back to bipolarity?
liberal institutionalists) focus on how power is exercised Despite the growth of emerging powers and regional
through and within international institutions. For liberals, institutions, it can be argued that the international system
in a world characterised by interdependence, even the only has two great powers: the United States and China.
most powerful countries cannot solve collective action The 2022 U.S. National Security Strategy suggests that
problems on their own; thus, the cooperative mechanisms this is the view held in Washington, declaring that China
provided by international institutions are a crucial part of is ‘the only competitor with both the intent to reshape
any discussion of where power lies. the international order and, increasingly, the economic,
It is for this reason that scholars such as Anne Marie diplomatic, military, and technological power to do it.’11
Slaughter argue that the European Union should count As evidence that the world is bipolar, one could highlight
as a major power.10 The EU leads on norms relating to the gap between the U.S., China and the next competitors.
climate and the regulation of big technology firms; the China spends more on defence than Russia, India and
Euro is now the world’s second-largest reserve currency Saudi Arabia combined, and its GDP is over double the
behind the U.S. dollar and the political unity provided combined total of its fellow BRICS members (Brazil,
by the European Union arguably makes it a stabilising Russia, India and South Africa).12 Taken together, the
force in a continent that has historically been savaged by United States and China account for around 35% of
inter-state conflict. Believing that regional institutions like global GDP and 53% of global military spending.
the EU might count as poles in the international system
reflects a more nuanced understanding of power as What might a bipolar system with the United States and
comprising “soft” elements that realists typically ignore. China as the two dominant states mean for the prospect
of war and peace? Realists such as Cliff Kupchan have
Liberals might point to the growth of other international argued that the emerging international order resembles
institutions as evidence of multipolarity. For example, that of the Cold War; the United States and China are
the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank - founded in engaging in an intense security competition, but the
2016 with its headquarters in Beijing - challenges the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation will deter both sides
dominance of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and from provoking conflict with one another.13 Similarly,
the World Bank in global economic governance. The John Mearsheimer and Kenneth Waltz both argued that
Association for South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) also bipolar international systems are the least war-prone
has an increasingly important role in managing geopolitical because achieving mutual deterrence is easier and the
tensions in Asia and fostering deeper economic integration, chances of miscalculation are fewer in a world with only
as does the African Union in its continent. two great powers.14
If the international system is becoming multipolar, what However, other realists have suggested that a U.S.-China
might this mean for the prospect of peace and war in rivalry carries a huge risk of direct conflict. For example,
international politics? Most realists believe that multipolar Graham Alison of Harvard University coined the term
systems are the most war-prone because the greater the “Thucydides Trap” to describe the historical tendency for
number of great powers, the more opportunities there new great powers and existing hegemons to become
are for one state to feel threatened by the capabilities extremely suspicious of each other’s intentions and
of its rivals. In other words, security dilemmas between eventually engage in war.15 The increasing animosity
states are more common in a multipolar system. For between China and the U.S. over numerous issues
liberals, the stability or instability of a multipolar system (notably Taiwan, freedom of navigation, trade and human
is indeterminate; much depends on the level of economic rights) suggests the past may have worrying prescience
interdependence between states and the effectiveness of for the U.S.-China relationship.
international institutions in mitigating security competition
and fostering cooperation instead.

12 A-Level Politics Update Spring 2024

Liberals, however, highlight how the deep
economic interdependence between the United
States and China disincentivises war. The value
of trade between the U.S. and China totalled
$758.4 billion in 2022, meaning conflict would
be hugely detrimental to both countries’ economies.16
By contrast, the economic interaction between the
United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War
was very minimal. Moreover, China has benefitted from
its partial integration into the so-called ‘liberal international
order’; its entrance into the World Trade Organisation in 2001,
for example, was a key moment in the acceleration of China’s
export-led growth. Therefore, one might question whether a
radical revision of the international order would be in Beijing’s
interests.

Still unipolar?
Finally, there is a small number of academics who argue that
the international system is still unipolar, with the United States
as the hegemon. The most prominent scholars espousing this
view are Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth of Dartmouth College.
Brooks and Wohlforth are realists who are sceptical about the narrative
of U.S. decline, pointing out how the U.S. is still in a pre-eminent
position militarily and economically.17 For example, they note how
American military spending is still higher than the next ten countries
combined and U.S. defence spending as a percentage of the total
global spend has only fallen slightly from around 46% in 1990 to 40%
in 2020.18 In the economic realm, where the United States and China
are more closely matched, they claim the U.S. is still in a dominant
position given its advantage in high-tech sectors.

[Link]/politics 13
 Brooks and Wohlforth also claim that states are not successfully balancing against the U.S., which would be the case
if it were a multipolar or bipolar system. Instead, they note how ‘almost all the world’s real alliances bind smaller
states to Washington’. For example, whilst China still only has one official security ally (North Korea), the United States
is extending its alliance commitments. The ever-presence of NATO, the start of the AUKUS nuclear security partnership
with Australia and the UK, and the deepening security ties the U.S. is forging in Asia with the likes of Japan, South Korea
and Vietnam are evidence of this.
However, the unipolar argument rests on the view that multipolarity or bipolarity requires great powers in the international
system to have roughly equal capabilities. Most commentators agree that this definition is too demanding. To be
considered a ‘pole’, a great power must have the ability to exert significant influence on geopolitics in key regions -
matching the material capabilities of the strongest state is not necessary to do this.

Summary
The international system we inhabit in 2024 is undoubtedly
very different to the one that emerged at the end of the
Cold War. The U.S. no longer stands alone at the height of
power, but there is still disagreement about the kind of order
that is emerging. Much of the debate revolves around
theoretical disagreement over what it means to exercise
“power” in international politics. Liberals are willing to focus
on the “soft” elements of power exercised within international
institutions, whilst realists confine their analysis to nation-
states’ military and economic capabilities. However, even
though realists derive their conclusions about the distribution
of power from ostensibly objective data, they can’t agree on
the polarity question because there isn’t a clear definition
of what it means to be a great power. The implications of
changing polarity on the likelihood of war are also up for
debate. Ultimately, what may matter more for the prospect
of peace is not the distribution of power between states but
the quality of their relations – whether states characterise
each other as enemies to be competed against or partners
whose cooperation is needed to solve the pressing problems
of the world.

14 A-Level Politics Update Spring 2024

References and further reading
1
Bush, G.H.W. & Scowcroft, B. (1998). 2
Brown University Costs of War 3
Stockholm International Peace 4
Stockholm International Peace
A World Transformed. New York: Project (2023) Available at: https:// Research Institute (SIPRI) (2023). Research Institute (SIPRI) (2023).
Random House [Link]/costsofwar/costs Yearbook: Armaments, Disarmament Yearbook: Armaments, Disarmament
and International Security. and International Security.

5
Stockholm International Peace 7
[Link] 8
Mearsheimer, J. (2014). Why the 9
Department of Defense (2018).
Research Institute (SIPRI) (2023). datamapper/PPPSH@WEO/OEMDC/ Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault: National Defense Strategy of the
Yearbook: Armaments, Disarmament ADVEC/WEOWORLD The Liberal Delusions That Provoked United States of America.
and International Security. Putin. Foreign Affairs, 93(5), 77-89.

0
Slaughter, A. (2023). The Long United States National Security
11
International Monetary Fund (2024).
12
Kupchan, C. (2022). Bipolarity is
13

Unipolar Moment? Debating American Strategy 2022. GDP Based on PPP, share of world. Back: Why It Matters.
Dominance. Foreign Affairs, 102(6),
163-166.

14
Mearsheimer, J. (1990). Back to 15
Allison, G. (2015). The Thucydides Office of the United States Trade
16 17
Brooks, S.G. & Wohlforth, W.C.
the Future: Instability in Europe After Trap: Are the U.S. and China Headed Representative (2022). China Trade (2023). The Myth of Multipolarity:
the Cold War. International Security, for War? The Atlantic. September 24. and Investment Summary. American Power’s Staying Power.
15(1), 5-56. Foreign Affairs, 102 (3), 73-91.

World Bank (2023). Military

18

expenditure (current USD).

[Link]/politics 15
IDEOLOGICAL SCHISMS IN THE LABOUR
PARTY by Moyra Grant
Edexcel Component 1: 2.2. Established Political Parties AQA 3.1 Political Parties & 3.3 Socialism

Old Labour New Labour

Labour has been a divided party ever since its creation After four successive general election defeats, Tony
in 1900, because it was founded by a diverse range Blair’s New Labour marked another ideological shift to
of organisations - including moderate trade unions the right, in pursuit of middle-class voters who were, by
and socialist groups such as the Fabians - with quite then, the largest socioeconomic group in the UK. Blair
different aims. Early figures such as Sidney and Beatrice did away with Clause 4, and the party’s 1997 manifesto
Webb were left wingers (often called ‘democratic - of which Anthony Giddens was a leading architect -
socialists’), endorsing Clause 4 of the party’s 1918 declared, “New Labour is a party of ideas and ideals but
Constitution with its commitment to common ownership not of outdated ideology. What counts is what works.
and the redistribution of wealth. The first majority The objectives are radical. The means will be modern.”
Labour government of 1945-51 was perhaps the most After a huge election win in 1997, Labour’s Third Way
‘socialist’ one, nationalising a range of big industries shunned radical economic redistribution but did enact
and creating the NHS and welfare state. However, in radical constitutional reforms such as the Human
the post-war economic boom and ‘consensus politics’ Rights Act, devolution and Lords reform. Blair won three
of the 1950s to 1970s, Labour pursued more moderate consecutive general elections - by far Labour’s most
‘social democracy’ (promoted by Cabinet minister successful period in electoral terms - but he was mired
Anthony Crosland), seeking to reform capitalism through in controversy over the 2003 US/UK invasion of Iraq.
Keynesian mixed economics rather than to remove it In opposition following the 2010 and 2015 elections,
altogether. After the ‘winter of discontent’ and Labour’s Labour elected radical socialist Jeremy Corbyn as leader.
1979 defeat, they elected radical left-wing leader However, after some gains in 2017, the party suffered
Michael Foot - whose 1983 manifesto was described by another bad defeat in 2019 - the ‘Brexit election’ - losing
fellow MP Gerald Kaufman as “the longest suicide note over 40 traditional ‘red wall’ seats to
in history”. The party lost that election badly. Boris Johnson’s Conservatives.

Starmer’s Labour Party

Keir Starmer became leader in 2020 and is now widely seen as moving the party rightwards again,
perhaps beyond post-war social democracy and more towards New Labour’s Third Way - so far, with
substantial success in by-elections and opinion polls.
Social democracy Third Way
• Revisionism • Neo-revisionism
• Collectivism • Social inclusion
• Progressive reform • Innovation and modernisation
• Mixed economy capitalism • Market capitalism
• Taxation and redistribution • Public-private partnerships
• Equal opportunities • Educational opportunities
• Enabling state • Market state
• Welfare • Workfare - a hand up, not a hand out
• Pro-trade unions • Pro-business

Starmer has moved against the left of his party, removing the party whip from Corbyn and barring him
from standing as a Labour candidate at the next election over accusations of antisemitism. Other left-
wing candidates have also been barred; and Labour frontbenchers were forbidden from joining public
service strikers on the picket lines in 2023, angering many trade union allies. Former Blair adviser Pat
McFadden is now shadow Cabinet Office minister and national campaign coordinator, crucial roles
ahead of this year’s general election.

16 A-Level Politics Update Spring 2024

Policy U-turns
Starmer has also made numerous policy
U-turns from the ’10 pledges’ he made
during his 2020 leadership campaign
based on “the moral case for socialism”.
These are some of the promises he has
abandoned:
• The £28 billion per year green
investment pledge
• Restoring the cap on bankers’
bonuses
• Raising the 45p top income tax rate to 50p
• Abolishing and replacing Universal Credit
• Abolishing the two-child benefit cap
• Scrapping private school charity status
• Abolishing student tuition fees
• Reform of the Lords
• Reform of social care
• Re-entering the EU single market and
customs union and - in the dim and distant
days of the 2019 manifesto - holding another
referendum on EU membership.
These policy shifts have angered the left of
the party, including socialist factions such as
Momentum (while Conservative Michael Gove
has called Starmer ‘an inveterate invertebrate’).
Starmer, however, is pragmatic rather than
ideological, probably less concerned about
accusations of ‘flip-flopping’ and more concerned
to neutralise Conservative attack-lines of ‘high
tax, high spend’.

[Link]/politics 17
 Current policy divisions
Economy
Labour’s 2019 manifesto pledged to nationalise energy, water, railways, Royal Mail and other key industries. The
party now plans to renationalise only the railways. It also plans to replace the National Minimum Wage with a
‘genuine living wage’ that takes into account the real cost of living. It is still committed to scrapping ‘non-dom’
tax status - which pleases all wings of the party by addressing a perceived injustice and also bringing in more
tax revenue. Labour also promises to offer all workers basic employment rights regardless of their employment
status, to end ‘fire and rehire’ practices, ban the use of zero-hour contracts and boost collective bargaining rights.
However, at a 2024 conference packed with business leaders, Starmer said, “We are the party of business”.

Law and order

The 2019 manifesto opposed the ‘austerity’ cuts in police numbers and pledged to reverse them. Starmer - former
Director of Public Prosecutions - has pledged to get 13,000 more police on the streets, halve knife crime, halve
levels of violence against women and girls, unblock the courts and bring in a ‘proper victims’ law’.

Welfare
In addition to the U-turns outlined above, the party is now arguing for more, rather than less, private provision in
the NHS. Also, the 2019 manifesto promised to freeze the state pension age at 66; the party under Starmer has not
reaffirmed this position.

Foreign Affairs
Left-wing MPs are largely pro-Palestinian, whereas the leadership backs UK/US government support for Israel
over the 2023 Hamas attacks and has angered some MPs by refusing to call for a ceasefire. One Labour MP had
the whip removed for saying Gaza should be remembered as a genocide on Holocaust Memorial Day; another had
to apologise for saying that PM Sunak had “the blood of thousands of innocent people on his hands” over Gaza.
Labour had already been losing significant support from formerly loyal British Muslim voters due to its perceived
inaction on Islamophobia. That said, attitudes towards Israel are now hardening on all sides over the scale of
deaths and hardship in Gaza.

Conclusion
The Labour leadership is keenly aware that many voters
mistrust it on fiscal responsibility, and they also remember
leader Neil Kinnock’s misplaced hubris on the eve of the
1992 election; hence Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeve’s
iron discipline on spending pledges and Starmer’s repeated
exhortations to his MPs to avoid any complacency about the
forthcoming election.
The strategy seems to be working: the polls have put Labour
ahead by about 20% for over a year, and the party has had
huge by-election wins in several former Conservative safe
seats. Even many over-65s - traditionally solid Conservative
voters - are drifting towards Labour. Former Tory donors,
such as millionaire entrepreneur Richard Walker and property
tycoon Nick Candy, are now backing Labour. The party’s shift
to the right under Starmer has infuriated his left wing, but he
sees that as the acceptable price of electoral success.

18 A-Level Politics Update Spring 2024

IDEOLOGICAL SCHISMS IN THE
CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Edexcel Component 1: 2.2. Established Political Parties
by Moyra Grant
AQA 3.1 Political Parties & 3.3. Conservatism

Traditional Conservatives
The Conservative Party used to do just what it said on the tin: it sought to conserve traditional institutions, property
ownership, ways of life and the ‘natural’ organic hierarchy in society, on the grounds that - as Michael Oakeshott has
said - humans need familiarity, not risky forays into the unknown.
One-Nation Conservatives
One-nation conservatism is the largely pragmatic response of traditional conservatism (since the late nineteenth
century) to threats of social instability when inequality in society becomes too great and creates what PM Benjamin
Disraeli described as “two nations”. It is a form of paternalist, benevolent welfarism (whether from church, charity or
state). As Disraeli put it, “When the cottages are happy, the castle is safe”. This strand was prominent in the post-war
1950s-1970s era of ‘consensus politics’ when the Conservative Party pragmatically accepted the Keynesian mixed
economy, Labour’s nationalisations, welfare reforms and the new NHS. The One Nation group in the party today is
probably the largest faction, with over 100 MPs, but it is usually less vocal and vigorous than the many, smaller New
Right factions.
New Right neo-conservatives
The rise of the New Right since the 1980s has divided conservative thought. Neo-conservatism is - like traditional
conservatism - organic, mistrustful of human nature and keen to maintain the sovereignty and stability of the state
and society. However, its response to possible social unrest is not paternalist but authoritarian. This entails punitive
law and order, combative foreign policy (e.g. Thatcher in the Falklands conflict), Euroscepticism and unease about
multiculturalism. These MPs have been most enthusiastic about Brexit, and they often also want to leave the ECHR.
As strong advocates of ‘traditional Victorian family values’, they opposed PM Cameron’s socially liberal reforms,
notably the legalisation of gay marriage. Current Tory leadership frontrunner Kemi Badenoch - described by the BBC
as the “anti-woke darling of the right” - is a supporter of the UK’s ‘hard’ Brexit; and she opposes the net zero target,
identity politics and gender-neutral toilets. Although she denies manoeuvring against Sunak behind the scenes, she
is a member of a WhatsApp group of fellow MPs called ‘Evil Plotters’.
New Right neo-liberals
Again, the clue is in the name. All the above strands of thought view society as a collective organic entity, but
neo-liberalism derives from classical laissez-faire liberalism and sees society as an individualist ladder of
competitive economic meritocracy. It favours privatisation and deregulation, low taxation, low public
spending and low welfare, with market competition in health and education sectors. At the
launch in 2024 of a new, neo-liberal party faction called Popular Conservatives
(PopCon), MP Jacob Rees-Mogg said - wrongly -
“What underpins every view of every Conservative is
that we put the individual first, not the collective”.

[Link]/politics 19
Another key member, MP Liz Truss, called her government’s plan to ban disposable vapes “profoundly unconservative...
an extension of the nanny state”. Neo-liberalism coexists with neo-conservatism to create the New Right paradox
of the ‘free economy, strong state’.
Sunak’s Conservative Party
Rishi Sunak became leader in 2022 after a period of party turmoil following the Brexit referendum, and was the fifth
consecutive Conservative PM in six years. Despite an apparently comfortable parliamentary majority, he has struggled
to keep his party united, and it has been falling in the polls.
Policy U-turns
Sunak has made numerous policy U-turns - including more than one on his net zero targets - largely to appease the
warring factions of backbench MPs, especially those on the right:
• Delayed the ban on new fossil-fuelled cars and boilers until 2035.
• Dropped plans to fine landlords who fail to upgrade their properties to energy efficiency standards.
• Scrapped the northern leg of high speed rail link HS2.
• Abandoned the 2019 manifesto promise of no increases to any main taxes; this Parliament has overseen the
highest tax burden in 70 years.
• Ditched the promise of mandatory house-building targets.
• Ditched the ban on onshore wind turbines.
• Ditched the ‘Brexit bonfire’ promise to review or scrap all 2,400 EU laws in the UK.
• Dropped the promise to ban ‘conversion therapy’ (which seeks to change a person’s sexual orientation).
• Reduced the earnings threshold for British citizens to bring foreign dependents to live in the UK.
This last one will help to keep skilled workers in the UK but has angered right-wing neo-conservative factions such as
the New Conservatives and the Common Sense Group. All these policy shifts have prompted Keir Starmer to call him
‘the blancmange Prime Minister’.

Current policy divisions

Economy
The costs of both Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic have, says the party leadership, necessitated more spending
cuts and put in doubt big tax cuts. Councils’ budgets have been cut and some of them are verging on bankruptcy.
Big infrastructure projects planned by PM Johnson - notably HS2 - are being scaled back. Neo-liberals are
ambivalent: they like the spending cuts in themselves, but dislike the negative impact on businesses. One-nation
influence is evident in the rising National Minimum Wage.

Law and order

The Conservatives have long been seen as the ‘party of law and order’, but public spending cuts since the
Cameron/Osborne ‘age of austerity’ have generated police shortages, growing backlogs in the courts and prison
overcrowding. There has been a raft of new, neo-conservative legislation on public order, including more
constraints on public protests and heavy penalties for pulling down, defacing or simply climbing on public
statues.

Immigration
Neo-conservatives, in particular, want big cuts in both legal and illegal immigration, despite its many
economic benefits from a neo-liberal perspective. Sunak has therefore vigorously pursued Johnson’s plan
for the permanent deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda, and he (unsuccessfully) made “stop the boats”
one of his five key policy pledges for 2023. Some one-nation Conservatives have criticised the lack of
compassion implied by this policy, which has further divided the party.

20 A-Level Politics Update Spring 2024

Welfare
The NHS is in a state of crisis with record waiting lists and staff shortages, for which the government blames the
pandemic and striking staff. PM Johnson’s “plan” to fix the long-term crisis in social care did not materialise.
The Universal Credit payments for people on low incomes are regarded by some one-nation Conservatives as
inadequate in preventing poverty. However, they are happy that the government has maintained the protective
‘triple lock’ on state pensions (not least, to please their most reliable voters).

Foreign Affairs
For most Conservatives, there is no going back on the UK’s ‘hard’ Brexit, and the government has been seeking
new trade deals around the world. They have strongly backed Ukraine against the Russian invasion - though
its costs are a concern to neo-liberals. They strongly backed Israel after the Hamas incursions in 2023, but are
increasingly anxious about Israel’s strategy of attack in Gaza. They are awaiting the outcome of the US presidential
election in November 2024, albeit with growing concerns about both Biden and Trump.

Conclusion
PM Sunak’s personal popularity has fallen, from a high as Chancellor
‘dishy Rishi’ during the 2020-21 giveaway Covid furlough scheme,
to a low of -40% in 2024. Many MPs on the right are blaming him
personally for the party’s consistently low polling, and some are
quietly contemplating whether to replace him even before the general
election. At the time of writing, 60 Conservative MPs have declared
that they will be standing down at the next election. There are
predictions that, if the Conservatives lose the election, the party will
move further to the right. Party unity seems a distant prospect.

[Link]/politics 21
The House of Lords

A FLAWED
INSTITUTION?
by Andrew Mitchell
Edexcel Component 2: 2 Parliament
AQA 3.1 The Structure & Role of Parliament

22 A-Level Politics Update Spring 2024

Most people are familiar with the argument that the House of Lords
should be reformed because, as an appointed and partly hereditary
body, it is essentially undemocratic and, like the Commons, should be
elected. However, politics students need to be aware that criticism of
the upper chamber is much more wide-ranging than this. Opponents
of the House of Lords point to six fundamental flaws related to its size,
cost, unrepresentative features and association with patronage. They
are discussed below:

The House of Lords is too big

The size of the UK upper house is not regulated by law. Currently, the House of Lords has 792 members (March 2024),
making it the second largest chamber in the world and, according to critics, a rather bloated body. Only Communist
China’s National People’s Congress, with 2,977 members in 2023, is bigger. Furthermore, since each change of UK
government results in new appointments to the Lords (through the honours system), the membership of the upper
house will keep increasing. Opponents of the ‘super-sized’ Lords also point out that other developed democratic
nations possess much smaller upper chambers, notably the French Senate (349 members), the German Bundesrat
(69 members), the Spanish Senate (266 members), the Italian Senate (205 members) and the Japanese House of
Councillors (248).
The House of Lords is too costly
A related criticism, obviously linked to the size of the Lords, is that the cost of running the upper house in its present
form places an unacceptable burden on the taxpayer. Peers are entitled to claim a tax-free daily attendance allowance
of £342 (plus certain travel expenses) each time they are present in the chamber. Consequently, large sums are drawn
from the public purse to cover these costs. From April 2019 to March 2020, for example, £17.7 million was paid out
in allowances and expenses to members of the Lords. During this period, each upper house claimant received, on
average, £30,687.
The House of Lords is not representative:
1 an unelected chamber
The most common criticism levelled at the House of Lords is that it
is unelected and so the UK electorate cannot directly determine the
composition of the upper chamber in the legislature. As a result,
opponents maintain, the House of Lords lacks democratic legitimacy,
promotes privilege and entitlement through the continued presence
of 92 hereditary peers and cannot properly exercise its revising and
scrutinizing functions. Indeed, critics point out that, when the
Commons and Lords are taken together, 56% of those sitting in
parliament are unelected. Among the 82 free democracies (as
classified by Freedom House), just 12 states, including the UK, have
appointed upper houses. The rest have directly or indirectly elected
second chambers or else operate unicameral systems.

[Link]/politics 23
The House of Lords is not representative:
2 geographical imbalance
One often overlooked feature of the upper chamber is that it is geographically unrepresentative of the UK as a whole.
A survey of the Lords, conducted in 2022, found that over half (55%) of the peers with identifiable places of residence
are based in London, the south-east and the eastern counties. In stark contrast, barely 6% of peers live in the Midlands.
At the time of the survey, some 250 peers had not divulged their place of residence. This regional imbalance in the
composition of the House of Lords has left many parts of the UK significantly underrepresented. To redress this, critics
have called for the Lords to be replaced with a territorial second chamber which better reflects the nations and regions
of the UK.
The House of Lords is not representative:
3 ‘pale, male and stale’
Critics also argue that the House of Lords is unrepresentative because it is socially skewed towards particular groups
in the UK. Older white males predominate. At present, the average age of a peer is 71 and, as a 2020 investigation
revealed, some 451 members of the upper chamber were in their 70s, 80s or 90s, whereas just 30 peers were under
50. Furthermore, women are underrepresented in the Lords relative to UK society in general since over 7 out of 10
members of the upper chamber are male. Similarly, there are only 55 peers (6.6%) with an ethnic minority background
even though the 2021 Census indicates that 18% of the UK population falls into this category. Many have argued that
a reformed upper house, elected by Single Transferable Vote, would address the geographical and social imbalances
evident in the Lords.
The House of Lords and the problem of patronage
Finally, opponents maintain that the Prime Minister in particular, and, to a lesser extent, the other party leaders, are
able to reward political loyalists with life peerages through the honours system. Presently, some 29% of peers were
politicians before being elevated to the Lords (most of these are former MPs) and 8% of upper chamber members
were previously political staff or held senior party positions. Numerous party donors have also been given life peerages.
The Electoral Reform Society argues that this form of patronage is problematic because it treats membership of the
House of Lords as a political ‘pay off’ and lacks any form of democratic oversight. The appointment of very young life
peers (such as Carmen Smith and Charlotte Owen) in recent honours lists, for example, raises the prospect that they
will be able to legislate for 50-60 years in the Lords without any public accountability for their decisions.

Conclusion
Although the perceived deficiencies of the House of Lords
are widely acknowledged, in recent decades reform of the
upper chamber has made little headway. There are two
fundamental reasons for this lack of progress. First, many
Conservative MPs and peers oppose reform of the Lords on
the grounds of tradition and argue that it fulfils its role as a
revising and scrutinizing body effectively. Second, there is
little consensus among those who wish to replace the
House of Lords. Some reformers champion a fully appointed
chamber, others propose an elected body and a third group
prefer a partly-appointed, partly-elected upper house. In
2000, Tony Blair called for an upper chamber ‘more
representative of our diverse society’ – this is still some
way off.

24 A-Level Politics Update Spring 2024

GIVE YOUR A-LEVEL
POLITICS REVISION
A BOOST
with this self-paced, bumper online revision
course, packed full of videos activities
and advice

Start your revision

by scanning this
QR code:

[Link]/politics 25
CHANGING ALLEGIANCES:
MPS WHO ‘CROSS THE FLOOR’
Edexcel Component 2: 2 Parliament AQA 3.1 The Structure & Role of Parliament
by Andrew Mitchell

On March 11, 2024, amid a blaze of media publicity, Lee Anderson, the MP for Ashfield and
former Tory deputy party chairman, switched from the Conservatives to Reform UK. In so
doing, Anderson became the 38th MP since the 2019 general election to change their party
affiliation and thus ‘cross the floor’ of the Commons. This high-profile defection illustrates
an interesting, if relatively uncommon, aspect of MPs’ behaviour.
How do MPs switch political parties? How often do MPs change allegiance?
The UK political system permits MPs to switch their party Since 1979, 200 MPs have changed their political
allegiance whenever they like, as long as the leadership affiliations in the Commons, either by resigning from the
of their new preferred party will accept them. MPs who do party (43%) or having the whip withdrawn (56%). This
this are said to ‘cross the floor’ because they usually move feature has been particularly marked during periods of
from the government to the opposition benches (or vice heightened political division in parliament, such as the
versa) in the Commons. However, they remain the chosen early Thatcher era (1979 – 83) when 31 MPs switched
representative of their constituency because, under the their party allegiances and the immediate post-Brexit
first-past-the-post system, individual MPs, not parties, years (2017 – 19) during which there were 60 instances
are elected to parliament. of shifting affiliations in the Commons. In February 2019,
three Conservative and eight Labour MPs (including Anna
Why do MPs change their political affiliation? Soubry, Heidi Allen, Chuka Umunna and Chris Leslie)
MPs ‘cross the floor’ for a variety of reasons, including defected to form Change UK, a short-lived centrist pro-EU
disenchantment with the political direction of their party, political party. Seven months later, Boris Johnson’s
having the party whip withdrawn, a growing affinity with government withdrew the whip from 21 Conservative
another party and personal ambition. In 2022, for example, MPs (including Kenneth Clarke, David Gauke, Justine
Christian Wakeford, the Conservative MP for Bury South, Greening, Caroline Nokes, Dominic Grieve and Rory
switched to Labour because of a growing disillusionment Stewart) for voting to delay the UK’s official departure
with Boris Johnson’s leadership of the Tory government. date from the EU. A parliament-by-parliament breakdown
Lee Anderson’s recent decision to jump ship to reform is given below based on figures provided by the House
came after he had lost the Conservative whip in February of Commons Library.
2024 for making remarks which were widely condemned
as Islamophobic. If a member loses the party whip or is
suspended from the parliamentary party, they can also sit
as an independent MP. Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott,
for example, who lost the Labour whip in 2020 and 2023
respectively, have chosen this option.

Changes in MPs’ allegiances in the Commons since 1979

1979 1983 1987 1992 1997 2001 2005 2010 2015 2017 2019
-1983 -1987 -1992 -1997 -2001 -2005 -2010 -2015 -2017 -2019 -2024
31 1 7 15 8 10 15 11 4 60 38

26 A-Level Politics Update Spring 2024

What are the consequences for MPs who leave their party?
There are no formal rules under the UK political system to compel an MP who switches political allegiances to stand down
or contest a by-election. This is because MPs are directly elected to represent their constituencies and, as such, they can
continue to fulfil this role either as an independent or under a different party label. Lee Anderson, for instance, explicitly
ruled out a by-election in Ashfield after defecting to Reform UK on the grounds that it was an unnecessary expense with a
general election due soon. Private members bills, introduced in the Commons by Chris Skidmore (2011) and Anthony
Mangnall (2020), attempted to make a by-election a legal requirement if an MP changed parties but neither proposal
passed. Occasionally though, MPs who ‘cross the floor’ have re-contested their seats in by-elections for their new party.
The last time this happened was in 2014 when two Conservative MPs who defected to UKIP (Douglas Carswell and Mark
Reckless) were successfully returned for Nigel Farage’s party at by-elections in their constituencies.

Conclusion
Some MPs who switch allegiances go on to enjoy an
extended parliamentary career. The most notable recent
example is Alan Howarth, a Conservative MP and Tory
minister, who switched to Labour in 1995. He was
re-elected as a Labour MP in 1997 and subsequently
served as a minister under Tony Blair. More often though,
MPs who change their political affiliations tend to stand
down or lose their seats at the next election, as happened
to the founders of Change UK in 2019.

[Link]/politics 27
Join the tutor2u Politics
team for an

A-LEVEL POLITICS
CINEMA WORKSHOP
TO HELP GET YOUR
GRADE IN 2024
Hundreds of A-Level Politics students
attend tutor2u cinema workshops every
year. Join Duncan, Ciara, Clive and the team
for an intensive day of core topic revision
and exam technique. Every attendee on the
Grade Booster workshop also gets a fantastic
online support course too, along with a big
discount on all tutor2u A Level revision
resources.

GRADE BOOSTER 2024

(23 & 26 April 2024)
For Year 13 students taking the Edexcel
specification.
Don't miss the final workshops in London.

Scan the QR code to

discover more about what
we cover on the Grade
Booster and to book your
places.