What are the most undemocratic pressure groups and why?

The UK is fundamentally a free society, is tolerant and made up of different cultures. Pressure groups are free to be active in this free society. In some ways, you can suggest that pressure groups can be undemocratic.

A pressure groups is a group that want to influence the government on a certain idea or policy. Pressure groups can be undemocratic because when influencing the cause or policy, it's only a minority that agree which means the majority are not involved or agree. This is undemocratic because  it's important that the idea of changed or considered has everyone envolved not just the pressure group. An example would this would more likely be a insider pressure group such as the BMA ( British medical association)

Another reason to why pressure groups could be undemocratic is that it is politically unequal. The argument against the pluralist image against pressure groups is that they are far from dispersing power more wider to normal people. Instead the power goes to the people already with it, giving them a greater amount of power. This reduces democracy and is a form of political inequality. An example of this is a trade union or charity.

why are some pressure groups more successful then others?

The reasons for why some pressure groups are more successful than others is due to their relationship with the government.  insider pressure groups have a large influence and understanding in policies related to their pressure group campaign. Being an insider pressure group such as the British medical association (BMA). The government may ask them fore their expertise on the ideology which can help the pressure group be influential. 

Insider groups may be more successful than outsider  groups in some ways because outsider groups do not have a strong relationship with the government. The reason outsider groups do not have a relationship with the government is because they normally campaign against something the government are discussing or have cut. An example of an outsider pressure group who do not have a relationship with the government is UK UNCUT.

Another reason to my why some pressure groups are more successful is because of there financial situation and organisation.  Pressure groups can receive money from membership fees and donations. Pressure groups that gain membership fees or donations are usually known to have  a higher success rate as they can spend more money on advertisng, research, campaigning or employing professionals. This can influence public opinion and the government, making the pressure group more successful.

This shows that  certain groups are more successful than others, for example, it shows that good relationships or money help a pressure group in being successful. 

Fathers for Justice

Farther for justice is a pressure group which campaigns against fathers rights in private family courts. The pressure group fights against cases in which stops the fathers legally seeing or having contact with their children. The statistic for children who live without a father in the UK is 1 in 3, on average in the uk's population equals around 4 million fatherless children. Fathers for justice say that daily, 200 kids lose contact with there fathers due to family situations involving their parents. 

A particular campaign which stands out in the pressure group for Father for justice is the superhero climb, which involved men dressed as supermen to climb up Buckingham Palace and Tower Hill in protest to campaign in what they believe in: equal rights. 

Fathers for justice is a outsider type of pressure group as they don't have a relationship with the government or work with them in any particular way, instead they protest against their rules. They are also a promotional pressure group in that the achievement of their objectives is not necessarily of direct professional or economic benefit to the members of the group.  

I personally think that the campaign is very successful, with millions of views on youtube, 35,000+ supporters and a good group I think the campaign is a really successful idea which supports a large support of people. 

What are the major similarities and differences within the Labour and conservative party?

Labour and the Conservative Party fall differently on the political spectrum. The Labour party, lead by Jeremy Corbyn are consider a left wing party. With Jeremy Corbyn as a lead of the Labour party it has been noticed that the party are starting to head far right. Compared to the Conservative party, lead by David Cameron which is sat in the right wing position on the political spectrum.

Trident is something which has recently shown a big difference within the two major parties. Labour party state in their manifesto that " replace Nuclear defence system trident with a sea based nuclear deterrent " This show the way that Labour want to reduce their budget deficit by decreasing Trident Compared to the conservative party which in their manifesto say " Retain trident and build a new fleet of nuclear submarines." The conservatives are saying this because they are considering the future towards the way the world is heading, there is constantly threats and ideas that there is going to be nuclear wars which the UK need to be prepared for. 

Another thing in which they parties disagreed with was the Referendum on Leaving the EU.  The tories are saying that a Referendum is a good idea as it gives the public a choice to make their decision and have a effect in the UK and show a form of democracy. They also say that the outcome would be good if either we leave or if we stay in the EU, yet step back from the EU instead of being fully involved. Contradicting this idea is the Labour party who say that they don't want a Referendum because its a ridiculous idea to leave the EU. The Labour party believe that the UK wouldn't be able to stand on its own without the EU's Support. 

A idea in which they do agree with is the " No rise in VAT, National Insurance and income tax " Although its surprising that the Tories want this as they are right wing and the usual ideologies that they agree with. The usual ideologies for the Right wing policies is that the economy is most important. 

In conclusion, the parties are very different. The majority of the ideologies on the manifesto are very different with different ideas. 

Does Jeremy Corbyn align himself more with traditional socialism or is he a social democrat?

Jeremy Corbyn, the current and new Labour Party leader has taken to storm in the UK. Although Jeremy Corbyn is a throwback to the dark days in the Labour Party, he now is one of the most famous names to appear in the Labour Party.

"We are a socialist party and socialism is the answer" rings round the Labour Party. But is Jeremy Corbyn really a traditional socialist? I would say no, I believe that Jeremy Corbyn is a social democrat. He is very critical of social inequality and poverty within the UK yet he always wants to tackle economic values. Jeremy Corbyn says that the attitudes of the Labours attitude are not good since Blair. He plans on changing that by being honest and truthful to the people.

Jeremy would say that equality is a really important ideology, it's important that it is important to tackle, the best way to do this is through increasing the economy. Which would make him a social democrat

Does Britain suffer from a Democratic deficit?

I would say yes, The UK have a huge problem when it comes to democracy, considering that the UK has had a huge decrease in political participation itself, the UK are struggling with many factors of democracy which many cities are starting to notice. Some of these problems lie with the House Of Lords which is unelected, The First Past The Post voting system which mean you do not need the majority to win the election (completely democratic I know!!) and the European Union which is also unelected and partisan dealignment where nobody feels represented by the MPs.

There are a few reasons to why there is a fall in political participation, all of the points about the reasons for the democratic deficit are reasons for the lack of participation yet so are other reasons. Citizens of the UK seem clueless about what goes on within parliament and this comes from the lack of education in which they have had in School. Increasing the education in schools about politics and current affairs will increase Political Participation when they turn 18 and are legally allowed to vote.

The Unelected House Of Lords is completely undemocratic. The fact that it is unelected shows that it is undemocratic. Although in 1958 and 99 the minimised the number of the passing down into the lordship as their "good" idea it is still undemocratic as the public do not actually get a say in the way they want to be represented. In 2000, the British Government decided to use an appointment panel, Who choses who can be appointed or not? a member of the public? Our representatives? No, of course not. That would be too democratic. instead we use people that have backgrounds in the type of industries that specialise in a certain subject or who have money and are at the top of the game. Although that might not be a problem for the UK to have specialists in subjects at the top of the chain, but how does that represent the "commoners" like us? Well to answer that question, it doesn't. This creates a democratic deficit as people just do not want to be involved in the British Government.

Imagine not having to get the majority of votes to win an election? Well in the UK you do not need the majority!! Just 20% of the votes like a candidate in a small area in Ireland can get you a seat. Democracy means Power by, for and of the people. For the candidate of 20% of votes, what happens to the 80% that did not feel that they were represented by that candidate. Well the FPTP system which the UK use in the General Election, is why this happens. Seems fully democratic.

The UK are really struggling in the Democratic deficit side. Things need to change to make this country more democratic.

Would a change in the voting system improve democracy in the uk?

Some would say that the voting system in the UK isn't the most democratic. For those who don't know the First past the post (FPTP) method which they UK have adopted. The  FPTP is a simple  electoral system in which the winning candidate only needs a plurality of votes i.e. one vote more than their leading opponent in order to win their seat.

Some say that the FPTP system isn't democratic because it might not show a fair representation of the votes cast of the area or the overall outcome. An example of this is that in the last General Election, UKIP gained 3,881,099 votes compared to the Scottish National Party gained 1,454,436  votes, yet UKIP had an outcome of 1 seat in the general election compared to the SNP who now has 56 seats controlling the majority of Scotland. See it doesn't seem fair? The system means that the majority doesn't mean it will be the overall outcome.

In 2011, there was a chance for the UK to change the voting system using a referendum. The new voting system was called "The alternative voting system". The Alternative voting system means that voters would order the candidates to who they would mainly want in. The problem with this voting system is that it isn't a proportional vote. Although this change didn't come in as it lost with a reasonable percentage. 

I would personally go for the change. I feel as that the FPTP system doesn't work and is out dated. There is upcoming smaller parties now and I don't think that the FPTP system just isn't a fair representation for what the UK  actually want.

Should the UK use more referendums?

Using more referendums in the UK has its advantages and disadvantages, which can level out to make it a heated discussion. A referendum is a general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision.

An advantage of using more referendums in the UK is the power which will be given to the people. Referendums allow people, such as the general public to speak in what they believe in. People can express certain views in a specific issue which can really change a issue within the United Kingdom. This can be seen as really good for the country, if the general public feel more involved in politics and what has to be said within the county, the laws and decisions will be less tough to please the whole public when it comes to the final decision making.

There are obvious ways in which using Referendums in this country can be a disadvantage. The wording or language used can be biased towards one side. The question for which is ahead of the referendum has to be neither for or against and the wording has to be accurate, which can be difficult. If it comes to not being accurate, this could trouble within the citizens involved within the referendum to make an impact on the decision. Another obvious thing in which can be a disadvantage for the country is the costs. Referendums to cost a lot of money. The economic state of this country isn't at its best at the moment, the country are having to make cuts, using more referendums will start to build up on the country and will lead to more and more trouble for the United kingdom. 

Using more referendums is a strong form of direct democracy. This means that citizens have a big influence on the decisions and new legislations. This is good for the people as they get a real and influential say in what they want and it can have a big impact on the country and the way it is run. 

The problem is, referendums really undermine the MP's, the people that us, the general public voted in. The people of the UK voted in the party for their district and who they want to lead in the General Election. This suggests that they agree with they agree in, so using referendums seems ridiculous if the majority say that they agree with the the leading party in which they elected in. Its completely understandable that the opposing voters for opposite parties would like to use referendums, as they can use what they wanted from the parties they agreed in to still make a impact. Referendums do not seem to work well with the job of the MPs as it shows the undermining of them. 

Although i think referendums are a good idea, I'm all for people having their say and power to the people, but there needs to be a point where there isn't to much power for the people. Leaving the job of what the MPs are supposed to be doing to them, instead of giving that power to the people which want to make huge decisions which they recently voted against. I think referendums need to be used in serious matters instead of for little matters that can be solved differently. 

Is the UK true democratic?

The  UK can be seen as democratic an non-democratic. The mixture makes it hard to see if the UK is truly democratic.

The system of  'first past the post' which is considered very outdated and many feel that there should be a rethink on a whole new voting system, in 2011 there was a referendum against the voting system, which had an outcome of 66% voted no against a change.The problem with 'first past the post' is that the bigger parties, such as Conservative and Labour are more likely to win the outright vote then smaller parties such as UKIP.

A way you could say that the country is democratic is that the UK get to vote, compared to some countries such as North Korea and China. The fact that the United Kingdom have the right to vote and chose the government in charge of the country every five years means that  the country shows part of what is said is the true meaning of democracy, Government of the people - which gives the opportunity for everyone to vote when eligible, Government by the people - meaning that the people make the important decisions and Government for the people which means whoever is representative is accountable to the people. Selecting the government in the general election every 5 years suggests that the country can be classed as democratic.

Another way you could say that the country is un-democratic is because the country creates division across the people. The parties which are mainly the most popular do not actually cover what the people in Britain want, they do not seem to cover everyone's needs which are being suggested and debated are not being listened to which means there is a division with in the country, suggesting it isn't democratic.

overall, you could say Britain are confused. They do not seem to know if they want to be democratic or not. but they way its being run at the moment seems to work. and with a few changes relating to the voting systems and the way that the parties make suggestions. Britain could be a very well structured political party. Even if they are not a true democratic country.

What happened in the recent General Election?

Some would say that the recent General Election was particularly dull. Which I completely disagree with, looking at the events which happened over the course and the build up to the day of General Election shows willing from each party and regions throughout the United Kingdom. Although you could say that the parties took their campaigning to different levels - some effect and some not quite so effective. 

Nigel Farage and his UKIP party were really showing a climax of interest across England. UKIP's main two ideologies was tackling immigration in the UK and leaving the European Union. This built up a lot of interest within the UK. Many individuals started to realise how immigration and the negative sides of the European Union effects their day to day lives. People considered UKIP as a joke of a party who was perceived racist towards immigrants who had entered the country illegally. Due to the success they had in the European elections, many expected UKIP to have a high following into the General Election. However, after the debates between party leaders leading up to the day of the General Election, many turned against UKIP when they struggled to answer and avoided many directed questions faced at them.

The recent Scottish referendum did not match up to the recent General election outcome. The Scottish Referendum suggested that Scotland did not want independence. The results of the General election suggest otherwise, the Scottish National Party who fight for national Scottish rights had 57/59 of the seats within Scotland. The Election in 2010 was filled with 41 seats taken by the Labour. In this General Election the SNP took over Scotland, dominating all the seats originally owned by Labour apart from one. 

The General Election is a clear example of the north south divide. Polls on social media shows that in the North East and North West of England would particularly struggle with living standards if The conservative party won, which they did. 

The overall outcome of the General Election lead to the Conservative Party winning with the overall amount of 331 seats. Although there was a fairly large gap between the 331 seats of the Conservative compared to the next highest Labour with 232 chairs. the voting margin was actually not that dissimilar, meaning that the results where fairly close. 

The country is wearing blue for the next 5 years.