Select a result to preview

Model Answers for Unit 1

These are all essays written by me; I took AS Level Politics (the year 1 content) by myself two years early (achieving the highest grade), and am now taking the A Level. These are some answers I have written overtime, with the feedback written by others!

Evaluate the view that pressure groups are more influential than corporations in influencing government policy (30)

Pressure groups are organisations that seek to apply pressure on those in government, to get their agenda/cause through the legislative agenda. Proponents of this argument argue that they are more influential than corporations in influencing government policy because they use methods of direct action to get media attraction, therefore making their cause/agenda more popular amongst the electorate, and thus more electorally advantageous for the government to side with. Nevertheless, this is an erroneous argument; the success rate of pressure groups varies tremendously, as, ultimately, some pressure groups never get close to government as they lack the ‘access points’ to enforce change (outsider pressure groups), whereas some do (insider pressure groups). Moreover, corporations have incredible influence on the economy, which thus bleeds through the government’s economic policies on a day-to-day basis, therefore making their influence one that is constant, rather than one that is based on a popular cause that may or may not find itself home within government.  Therefore, corporations are more influential as a whole, than pressure groups, in influencing government policy.

"Good introduction. Bit too much waffle though."

Proponents of this argument, albeit wrongly, argue that outsider pressure groups are more influential than corporations in influencing government policy. This is because they can use methods of ‘direct action’, such as civil disobedience, to increase ‘citizen-led’ engagement in the issue/cause (cause group) they seek to represent. Therefore, this may increase the popularity of the said cause these groups seek to represent. As a result, this may add additional pressure on those in power (in our system of representative democracy) to change the course of their legislative program, and to instead adopt the policies/ represent the interest/causes that these groups popularise. This is because, if not, any given incumbent government may become ever more unpopular as they rail against public opinion, increasing the chance that said government will not be re-elected at the next election. This can be exemplified by the campaign the Just Stop Oil pressure group led during 2023-2024 as it sought to end the licensing of new ‘oil and gas licenses’. Using methods of direct action, such as in 2023, when it threw paint on the Magna Carta (a form of civil disobedience), it garnered mass media attention with media covers from publications such as the Guardian. This increased the cause’s recognition amongst the electorate - and especially amongst those who resonated with the issue - such as those within urban areas such as London (where most of the protests occurred), who have proportionately more young people who are seen to be more sympathetic to progressive movements and ‘climate issues’ (in December 2025 for example, the Greens led YouGov’s polls on voting intentions amongst those aged 18-25). Consequently, Labour, which was seen to be the government in waiting, adopted this very policy in their manifesto. This could be seen to be a success of the very methods that Just Stop Oil used, as they indicated the support for these set of policies in the very areas that are Labour heartlands. Thus, this could be seen to support the idea that parties promote policies which are popular and electorally advantageous to them, as these very ‘safe seats’ were key to their 418 seat win in 2024. Consequently, this may support a view of democracy which is one where democracy is legitimate, and has a low democratic deficit, because parties promote policies which the public support, therefore promoting this blend of a mixture of direct and representative democracy in our society.

"I can see that you are sustaining your judgement by saying 'albeit wrongly', great. Good AO1, though you are a bit too assertive with your AO2, and with your link on Just Stop Oil with Labour voting intentions. Good link to the legitimate democracy idea."

Nevertheless, this is an erroneous argument; although this pressure group got support, this was merely an act of coincidence rather than of strategic election planning from the Labour party. This is because other pressure groups of similar nature have failed in their attempts to push forward policy, mainly because, ultimately, sovereignty lies within Parliament, and thus, the policy of incumbent governments does not lie within the hands of pressure groups, but within those that are elected in our representative democracy every ~5 years. This can be exemplified by the pressure group Liberty, an outsider pressure group which seeks to represent the civil liberty causes. In 2010-15, it failed to stop the use of secret courts by the Cameron government. This illustrates how governments do not rely on the strength of public opinion - which has, time and time again, favoured more civil liberties and has been against anti-terror legislation (such as self-ID and Digital-ID). This may be because MPs which comprise said governments rely on their own will, rather than the mere sentiment of public opinion, relying on the continuation of a stable society to be re-elected. Consequently, this may support the trustee model of government. Moreover, another parallel can be drawn from this from the failures of Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain in getting their pro-climate policies through government during the 2010-2024 years, showcasing the weakness of over-relying on direct democracy to enforce change. Furthermore, because governments rely on general public support to win elections because of our use of the first-past-the-post system (therefore they need plurality support in safe seats and minority seats), perhaps alienating themselves to a particular cause is not electorally advantageous, but electorally disadvantageous. This is because when governments tend to stick themselves to a cause, this can make them look ‘weak’ in the eyes of the establishment/media class, which has been used in the past to undermine governments (such as during the Liz Truss government, when media pressure help topple her leadership along with party infighting).

"Sustained, well-thought out judgement. Good link to sovereignty. Good link to civil liberties. Great link to first-past-the-post (I see you like to mention that a lot in your essays haha)."

Overall then, outsider pressure groups success rate dramatically varies, undermining the overly utopian portrayal of them as bastions of direct democracy. This is because sovereignty lies within Parliament, and therefore, with the will of MPs, who, instead of following public opinion, may ultimately follow their own logic and chain of reasoning - therefore supporting the trustee system of representative democracy rather than direct form of democracy. Moreover, governments may choose not to bow down to pressure to avoid them looking weak in the eyes of the media, and ultimately, the broader public.

"Sustained, well-thought out judgement."

Moreover, proponents of this argument, albeit wrongly, argue that insider pressure groups can successfully enforce change and apply pressure on those in government because they have a ‘voice’ within government. Therefore, this may allow them to better amplify the minority voice/cause they seek to represent, as they are close to the ‘levers of power’. Consequently, government may be seen as more flexible, where it can use its ‘doctors manifesto’ to change its legislative agenda in accordance with what is right per our pluralist vision of democracy (where minority voices are adequately represented), and, ultimately, what will get them re-elected at the next election. This could be exemplified by the BMA (an insider pressure group that represents doctors and nurses) successful use of litigation in overturning the Health Secretary’s power to withhold pensions from doctors who were being trailed for a crime, but who weren’t convicted yet. This was seen as a successful use of the court system to protect the individual rights of doctors, and a win against the ever increasingly unpopular ‘austerity’ programme that the Conservative government during these years was pursuing. Another parallel can be drawn from this, when the Conservative government withdrew from trade talks with the Canadian government during Rishi Sunak’s tenure, as they were unwilling to loosen their food regulations, which, if the deal went ahead and they didn’t, would’ve economically hurt 50,000 farmers. This occurred in part because of the pressure the NFU applied on the government, as many of its membership are rural farmers. This is significant as this represents a large part of the Conservative’s voter base (especially in the Blue wall), therefore strengthening the argument that, amongst a particular key group in society, if a policy is unpopular/popular, the government will shift its position (especially if it is based more on their doctor’s manifesto, rather than a manifest pledge - as governments typically do not break their manifesto pledges).

"Very good contemporary example on the NFU, great AO2."

Nevertheless, this is an erroneous argument; again, the fact that governments only listen to pressure groups that are electorally advantageous showcases their varying success rate, even if they use more formal means of action/ have contacts within government. For example, the NFU had many contacts during the Conservative’s 14 years in power, especially with those in government, such as former DEFRA minister (a key one for rural farmers) Michael Gove, who even said he was a “voice for the NFU in government”. Moreover, the impacts of this can be devastating during a transferal of power between parties in our representative model of democracy, as very quickly, these insider pressure groups can change status to an outsider pressure group once their contacts in government become irrelevant and are no longer in close proximity with the levers of power. This can be exemplified by the imposing of inheritance tax on farmers during the 2024 Budget. Despite this being economically disadvantages for rural farmers, farmers are not a key demographic for Labour, as they are mostly comprised within the Blue Wall (a Conservative heartland). Therefore, this supports a model of democracy which isn’t pluralist and legitimate (as governments listen to those who are electorally advantageous), and which has a large democratic deficit. This is because insider pressure groups can quickly lose relevancy. Moreover, this disproves the blanket statement that they are ‘more influential’ than pressure groups. This is further supported by the fact that other pressure groups, which may be more advantageous to this new Labour government, have become more influential, such as the BMA (as doctors and state employees are a key demographic for Labour). It’s pay rise win for junior doctors (22% pay rise) in 2025 showcases their influence on government, especially because, during the years of 2010-2024, they were not as significant, especially as prior to Labour being in office, they had lose their pay dispute with the Tories. Consequently, any win they did have was usually during court appeals, more formal methods of action which are useful in showcasing the government’s ineptitude (rather than simply making a policy popular). Consequently, this only results in a ‘democratic overload’, where the overuse of pressure groups creates volatile political atmosphere ad governments rely on pressure groups, rather than the voice of public opinion. Thus, when governments change, who they listen to changes.

"Great paragraph, but where's your mini-paragraph? Did you blank out here??"

Lastly, proponents of this argument may argue that corporations themselves are less influential than those within government as the managers that comprise most large corporations represent ‘vested interests’, rather than the court of public opinion, making government less likely to listen to them. This could be exemplified by the fact that, in 2022, the government introduced an Energy Profits Levy on major oil and gas companies, despite intense lobbying. This is mainly because the court of public opinion had railed against these very companies, as energy prices had skyrocketed due to many external factors, such as the Ukraine War. This even sparked a campaign during the month of October, where people said they ‘were not going to pay their energy bills’. Consequently, this levy went against the lobbying of companies like Shell and BP, who said that this act would’ve deterred investment. Therefore, despite this, the government still imposed the bill, showcasing how public opinion is crucial to the government’s legislative agenda. Moreover, their ability to lobby was severely weakened because of the passing of the Transparent Lobbying Act during the Cameron era, which requires MPs declare that they have encountered lobbyists, and thus has weakened the power of ‘backdoor deal style lobbying’, therefore weakening vested interests/the established classes from majorly impacting the governments legislative agenda for their own pleasure.

"Good paragraph, rather theoretical, and great AO2."

Nevertheless, this is an erroneous argument; corporations have monumental impact on the economy, from SMEs, to big businesses, and they can put their weight behind a political party at the next election, influencing their employees on who to vote for. Moreover, their impact on the economy means that policies can indeed deter investment, making governments hyper aware of what policies they implement, and what ones they don’t. For example, in 2020, Conservative chancellor Rishi Sunak introduced a £400bn economic recovery programme that was to help businesses who would’ve had reduced revenues during the pandemic, by making sure the government was going to pay 80% of employee salaries. This was a major display of the government’s shift towards a Keynesian-style economic system, where they intervened in the economy due to the external pressures at hand. But nevertheless, this also shows the government’s ability to intervene to help businesses, as they represent a large part of the economy and help maintain the status-quo. This is because, without this support, corporations would’ve been severely damaged by the economic struggle during the time - having to pay the sole wages of employees despite the government mandating that people ‘stay at home’. Moreover, this is further supported by the fact that, during the same time, the government launched a £2bn programme for small and medium sized businesses, showcasing that, no matter what, corporations small and large always have more influence over the government in dire situations or in situations which require state intervention. Furthermore, shortly after this, the government began a policy that was known as ‘eat out to help out’ to further support the economic recovery of businesses. Combined, this may showcase how governments elected in modern society are more moderate than ever, and thus rely on the support of middle/upper-class voters to win in minority seats and to thus win elections, because this intervention highlights the business-oriented view that successive governments have. A parallel can even be drawn from this New Labour-esque era the Conservatives adopted in their policies, to 2024, where the Labour government held an investment summit to drive investment in the UK, getting billions from companies such as Amazon. This is significant as it showcases the ‘give and take’ relationship governments have with corporations, as the governments ability to ensure political stability is linked to the corporate entrepreneurial ability to increase economic growth (which is one of Keir Starmer’s current main missions), and to incentivise investment and thus to improve the living conditions of ordinary people, who the government rely on to be re-elected.

"Decent paragraph, but you make no direct link to lobbying. Would've been nice to see a quick little link to the Owen Patterson/ Greensil scandal!"

Overall, the latter view provided here is the most significant one. This is because corporations have an incredible impact on the UK economy, which pressure groups simply do not have. Therefore, this incentivises the government, and the treasury, to orient policies not based on the popularity of pressure groups, but instead, based on corporate lobbying and vested interests. Consequently, this showcases the irrelevancy that pluralist democracy seeks to represent in 2026, as ultimately, representative democracy does not prioritise consistent ‘check-ins’ on public support, but instead, relies on the logic and will of those within cabinet and within government.

"Good interim judgement."

In conclusion, corporations are more important than pressure groups in terms of influencing government policy. Although pressure groups can be successful at times, their success rate varies on many factors, therefore invalidating this blanket-statement. Furthermore, corporate influence on the UK economy dramatically influences the UK government and the treasury as ultimately it is the majority of the workforce that corporations, small and large, employ. Therefore, when the government does use its doctors mandate to change policy, it usually does so based on the will of corporate vested interests, and lobbying.

"Good conclusion, well-thought out, sustained judgement!"

Note:

"Great AO1. Your AO2 is also splendid, although you are slightly repetitive at times. Good AO3, but it would've been nice to see a bit more balance by mentioning a counter to the Transparency Lobbying Act."

25/30, Level 5 ✅