Mindmap
Democracy and Participation
Inhalt der Mindmap
Democracy and Participation
Pressure Groups
- Difference between a Pressure group and a political party
- PG don't seek government power whereas PP want to gain power
- PG don't have to make themselves accountable accept to their own m
- PG have narrow concerns
- PG are a loose organisation with supporters not members
- METHODS
- Lobbying MPs
- giving evidence to committees
- Brief them on issues of concern
- Professional lobby organisations may be used
- Insider groups- National Farmers Union , British Bankers Association
- NFU also offer the government the benefit of specialised knowledge in return for influence over policy
- Strikes
- BMA- insider status but strikes for junior doctors in autumn 2016. Outsider group tactic
- mobilises public opinion and shows the level of support to decision makers
- Publicity stunts and staging demonstrations
- Fathers for Justice- drew attention to themselves by wearing superhero costumes and standing on buildings
- Black Live Matter obstructed lights at London City Airport
- Lobbying MPs
- Reason for Success or Failure
- Size of pressure group and resources- if large it shows a large section of the public agrees and pursues the government
- Public Opinion- Snowdrop Campaign wanted to ban the use of handguns, public reaction was good because of Dunblane primary school 1996.
- Lack of Finance may restrict power. Environmental groups have seen their income fall as recession caused funds to drop
- Lack of members. They fall to recruit volunteers and publicise message to a wider audience.Government won't support group because it doesn't support the nations needs
- Groups can get backing online - 2016 38 degrees group got 321,437 online signatures to help persuade the government not to privatise the land registry
- Case Study: The BMA and the Ban On Smoking in Cars Carrying Children 2011-2015
- originally wanted a ban on smoking in cars even if no other passengers were present, Insufficient support so concentrated on campaigning for no smoking in cars carrying children.
- Labour peer introduced amendment to 2014 Children and Families Bill
- Supported by Asthma UK who they teamed up with to create advertisement
- Online tech was released to get support and gave members a web based form to personalise and send to their local MP
- Factors to achieve Aims: public support and government were willing to protect children as a vulnerable group, willing to focus on attainable goal, patient in getting public support
- originally wanted a ban on smoking in cars even if no other passengers were present, Insufficient support so concentrated on campaigning for no smoking in cars carrying children.
- Case Study: The Occupy London Movement
- October 2011- group protested in front of St Pauli cathedral and camped swell because believed corporate greed in the city of London was responsible for social inequality
- Success:
- attention drawn to cause and coalition governments spending cuts shunned. Senior Clergyman at St Paul's resigned agreeing with protestors and sympathy when police sent to clear camps
- SHORT TERM RESULTS
- Fail to achieve long term results
- Authorities did not allow protestors to settle anywhere else in London, movement objectives were too broad and represented general hostility to global capitalism with no practical and achievable goals
- Difference between a Pressure group and a political party
Rights in the UK
- The Development
- Magna Carta 1215- start of democracy and where are system is founded says we are equal
- Human Rights Act 1998- the right of life, right to a fair trial etc
- Equality Act 2010- brought together earlier pieces of legislation that sought to outlaw discrimination and unfair treatment. Made it illegal for anyone to discriminate on any grounds
- Does the HRA effectively protect rights and liberties in the UK
- Rights are entrenched in Statute Law
- Legislation has to comply with HRA and if legislation contradicts HRA it cannot be passed
- Citizens can access rights protection through UK based courts
- The act itself is not entrenched and therefor can be replaced
- The act cannot overturn primary legislation in parliament
- Act can be set aside e.g. derogation of the rights of terror suspects act 9/11
- Case Study: Abu Qatar Deportation Case and HRA
- 1994-2002 alleged that he established links with extremists in the UK,and made speeches justifying violence. Wanted him sent back to Jordan. Deportation fought for 8 years on grounds that he might be tried using evidence under torture which is a breach of the act. 2013 UK signed a treaty with Jordan pledging evidence would not be used. Flown back to Jordan and he was cleared of involvement in terrorist bombing plot in Jordan
- The Development
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- AS level Government & Politics Mindmap am Democracy and Participation, erstellt von Ceyda Ismail am 04/04/2018.
- Erstellt von
- Ceyda Ismail
- Aufrufe
- 26
- Bewertung