The seats which could decide the next election

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25726270

A guide to life in a marginal constituency http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25664580

BBC News - Conservatives lose boundary review vote from Jan 2013

Videos on various Unit 1 topics including democracy and elections.

Click here:
http://www.parliament.uk/education/online-resources/videos/

Enhancing Dermocracy: Digital voting in post-Sandy USA

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20211167

Why a visit to a school persuaded me that young people aged 16 to 18 should have the vote - Matthew Parris in the Spectator

Matthew Parris in the Spectator Let me guess most readers’ reaction to news that Alex Salmond has arm-twisted Westminster into allowing 16- to 18-year-olds in Scotland to vote in the 2014 Scottish referendum on independence. I bet the reaction resembled mine. Annoyance. The very thought! As to the assurance that this concession will be temporary, and pressure will not build to make the change permanent, I’d reply (with many of you): ‘Nonsense!’ So, being on my way to speak at a well-regarded state secondary school in Wells, the Blue School, and hearing the news about Scotland, I decided to test the water. I was there to speak to 16- to 18-year-olds: some 200 of them. I could explore not just their opinions, but their reasoning. I arrived in Wells not without prejudices of my own: first (as I say) a visceral bias against lowering the voting age. Second, an assumption that the boys and girls would be substantially in favour of the move. Third, a suspicion that such young and naive citizens might struggle to express many cogent arguments at all, one way or the other. I was wrong on all three counts. They were against the idea. And they debated this among themselves with such cogency that I concluded that these young men and women ought to have the vote, whether or not they wanted it. Let me give you a short summary of our debate. I began by explaining the Scottish proposal, then asking for a show of hands: who was in favour of 16- to 18-year-olds getting the vote? And who was against? The voting was substantially against: about 70/30, I reckon. At the end of our discussion (during which I never expressed an opinion of my own) I conducted a second vote, on a slightly different question: who among them — assuming they did get the vote before 18 — would actually want to use it?On the threshold of a world into which they were to plunge, they were asking what kind of a world they’d like it to be The vote was substantially in favour! This time about 60/40. One can only guess how these two results might be reconciled. Some may have felt that even if they didn’t want the right to vote, they’d use it if they had it. Fair enough: I use my totally undeserved Freedom Pass. But I did sense that many had simply changed their minds. Why? I think it was the experience of hearing each other venturing intelligent and fair-minded opinions on the subject, and realising that such views were as good as anyone else’s. Among the opinions against, one young man felt that few teenagers in his position supported themselves and most depended on their parents. Wouldn’t such adolescents be unduly influenced by their parents’ opinions? I thought to myself (but did not say) that a comparable argument was once advanced against the idea of women voting. Another wondered whether it might be possible to distinguish between adolescents who knew something of, and already had some stake in, society, and those who did not. I thought (but did not say) that restricting the franchise to property owners was once defended on a similar basis. Others felt that if they could marry at 16 and be sent abroad to fight at 18, they should be entitled to vote. But many more subtle arguments than these were expressed. ‘Maybe politicians would listen to us more, and ask for our views, if they knew we had a vote,’ said one girl. ‘Lots of things that affect us, or will affect us, are decided by the MPs our parents elect,’ said someone else. ‘Tuition fees, for instance. Shouldn’t we be involved in voting for or against these policies?’ ‘Me and my circle of friends,’ argued another young woman, ‘do know enough, and take enough interest, to have a say. But I suppose lots of teenagers don’t.’ ‘Yes,’ I thought (but did not say). ‘I often feel the same about my own sixty-something age-cohort.’ More than one of my audience expressed the view that the political ignorance of many young people was not necessarily an argument for depriving them of political power: giving them the vote would cause many to take more interest in politics. ‘After all,’ said one, ‘we’re students. We have the time and the facilities to learn about current affairs — perhaps more than people who have to go out to work for a living all day.’ I listened with increasing respect to these students. At first not many volunteered to speak, but by the end there were plenty, stimulated by each other’s points of view. By their debate they persuaded me — and maybe persuaded themselves — of their fitness to take part. Their contributions were as informed as those of an equivalent group of citizens ten or 20 years older. And (curiously) more public-spirited. I thought of all the nursing homes I’ve canvassed as a Conservative candidate and the countless occasions on which I’d been confronted by a grumpy old face, and the question — always the same question — ‘What are you going to do for me, then?’ Even on tuition fees, not one of the young people at the Blue School framed their opinions around his or her own material advantage, and how it might be served by politics. Nobody is totally without self-interest but it was striking that few were starting from self-interest; they were discussing what would be best for all. So, to me, the very argument most often advanced against letting younger students vote — that they have no stake — was becoming an argument in favour: they were dispassionate, disinterested (in the old-fashioned sense); they took an altruistic view. On the threshold of a world into which they had yet to plunge, before becoming distracted by the struggle for personal survival, they were asking what kind of a world they’d like that to be. I left the Blue School relaxed about the idea of lowering the voting age. It would be good to hear today’s politicians talking with and to such an audience. It might bring a little maturity into our politics.

EU membership debated in Parliament

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20085437

BBC News - Newsnight - Smaller Commons 'would hit Lib Dems'

BBC News - Newsnight - Smaller Commons 'would hit Lib Dems':

'via Blog this'

Can UK democracy be enhanced? Votes at 16?

BBC News - Viewpoints: Can 16- and-17-year olds be trusted with the vote?

BBC News - Welsh referendum: Voters give emphatic Yes on powers

BBC News - Welsh referendum: Voters give emphatic Yes on powers:

'via Blog this'

British Politics: The basics

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/education/online-resources/printed-resources/Find_Your_Way_KS5_resource_LR.pdf


'via Blog this'

Should we hold referendums more regularly?

Lord Winston gives his opinion HERE.

What are the funcitons of referendums and what was the 2011 AV Referendum?

Good brief explanation here
http://www.parliament.uk/education/online-resources/parliament-explained/referendums/

After the AV referendum: a view from the 'yes' and 'no' camp

Lord Tyler is a Liberal Democrat Peer who campaigned for a 'yes' vote in the alternative vote referendum - he wanted the voting system in UK general elections to change from first past the post to AV.
In this video, he has one minute to answer the question: 'What do you think the outcome of the alternative vote referendum means for the future of British politics?' Watch his response HERE.

Lord Winston is a Conservative Peer who was against changing the voting system in general elections from first past the post to the alternative vote.
In this video he has one minute to answer the question: 'What do you think the outcome of the AV referendum means for the future of British politics?' Watch his response HERE.

Do referendums help politicians make difficult decisions?

Should referendums be held more regularly? Lord Tyler explains why he thinks politicians should avoid calling a referendum because there is a difficult decision to make. VIDEO HERE.

Lords Reform update June 2012

The Telegraph lays into Labour but also Tories and LDs over House of Lords, saying that the current proposals and debates is more about party political posturing than getting reform right. See here.

Miliband calls for referendum on Lords reform.

House of Lords reform: riven coalition prepares for testing bill http://gu.com/p/38h5v

% of seats in Parliament as of Feb 2012

Unit 1 and Unit 2 revision: House of Lords and Referendums

The issue over the last couple of weeks boils down to three new developments:

• The threat of Tory resignations if Cameron pushes ahead with Clegg's proposals (80% elected etc.). Cameron is at odds with most of his own Tory MPs, as he says he's in favour of Lords reform, whilst they are largely against. Even some cabinet ministers are hinting that Lords reform could be a resignation issue. The other issue is whether or not Cameron should whip his Tory MPs into voting for Lords reform or whether it should be up to the individual MPs. Some say that around 80 Tory MPs will vote against the proposed reforms when the time comes to vote on legislation.
• The question of whether or not a referendum should be held over whether or not Clegg's proposals should be put into action. A parliamentary committee will report on Monday (23/4/12) that a referendum should be held on the issue. Many Tory MPs agree, hoping that most people can be persuaded that reform is necessary and expensive (like AV campaign). However, Miliband is also in favour of a referendum. Clegg says that the coalition already has a democratic mandate for Lords reform as it was in both coalition parties' manifestos before the last election, and therefore a referendum is not needed. Unit 1 retakers should take note of this referendum possibility.
• The issue of whether or not the coalition can survive it's disagreements over Lords reform. See this blog for a brief analysis...and here.

The three issues are interwoven. 

What the coalition agreement says about Lords reform HERE.

This weekend has seen some excellent coverage in The Guardian and the Telegraph (as usual).

Guardian:

• Article on coalition splits over Lords reform
• Article on cabinet tensions
• Against reform article
• In favour of reform editorial

Telegraph:

• Article on Conservative party tensions over Lords reform.
• Article about junior ministers threatening to resign over Lords reform.
• Miliband gives his reasons for supporting a Lords reform referendum.
• Lib Dem Lord Oakeshott hits out at Tory MPs against Lords reform saying they should "grow up" and remember the coalition agreement.

Anyone hoping to get a decent Unit 2 (or Unit 1 retake) grade will be reading these articles and taking notes on arguments and controversies, party positions and splits within parties.

Should the coalition's Commons reforms be passed? Boundary changes

Audio panel interview on arguments for/against the proposed Commons boundary changes. HERE

Polly Toynbee in critical mode (as per...) HERE

MPs prepare for Boundary-geddon HERE

Scottish referendum: easy?

Why the Scottish referendum date matters | Martin Kettle http://gu.com/p/362nf