(A)
What is a "catch-all" political party?
(B)
What's an example of a party in the UK that is
not a "catch-all" party?
(C)
Why is it not
a "catch-all" party?
See pp. 38 and 59-62 in What You Need to
Know
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This response to #10 arrived from the great expanse of the Internet:
"A 'catch-all' political party is a term devised in the 1960s to describe a new type of political party that plays down ideology in favor of slogans, telegenic candidates, and the like. In short, a “catch-all” party tries to gain as many different people as possible, in order to gain the most amount of votes.
"In the UK, the Labor Party is typically not viewed as a catch-all party, since it did not try to gain different votes by appealing to a great range of people. However, the current party in power, the Conservatives formed a coalition with the Lib Dems and tried to appeal to a great variety of people in order to gain people and win the election. The Labor Party is currently the shadow government and does not try to appeal to the majority."
========================
The definition offered here in response to part A is a good one. It matches the definitions in most textbooks quite well. It earns the one point possible.
In Part B, the identification of a British Party that is not a "catch-all" party is clearly the Labour Party. Earning the point for the identification is dependent upon the explanation offered in part C.
The explanation in part C accurately describes the actions of a party that is not a "catch-all" party as not appealing to a great range of people. However, the assertion that the Labour Party does not appeal to "a great range of people" is outdated. In the past it was true, but since Tony Blair's leadership of "New Labour," the party has tried to appeal to all people based on its competence, ideas, and the charisma of its leaders. (Oh, poor, charisma-less Gordon Brown.)
If this response had identified the pre-1997 Labour Party explaining that it was an ideological party appealing for votes only from workers and socialists, it might earn credit.
However, the question "What's an example…" is in the present tense and the rubric identifies the UK Independence Party, the British National Party, and (with explanations) Sinn Fein and Plaid Cymru as parties that are not "catch-all" parties.
This response earns 1 point (for the definition) out of 3 possible.
Another response flew in on the wires of the Internet:
"Catch-all parties refer to the political party that plays down ideology in favor of slogans in hopes of getting the votes and support from the widest spectrum of citizens as possible.
"The most common non-catch-all party is the Liberal democrat party. It is not a catch-all party because it is the product of the Liberals and the Social Democrats merging together. Although the size is huge, they have never won more than fourteen seas between 1945 and 1979.
"They have earned many votes, not because the voters supported the Liberals but because the voters were originally Conservative or Labour supporters but felt that they no longer supported their party, so they voted for their rivals, as in this instance is the Liberal Democratic party.
"They don't try to appeal to a wide spectrum of voters, but because they are a merger between two parties, it is somewhat more restricted in ideas and unessential views than a single party with clear objectives."
==================
The definition here is barely adequate, but it is adequate. It earns a point.
The example chosen of a non-catch-all party is the Liberal Democratic Party. Earning a point for the identification is dependent upon the explanation of how it falls outside the definition of a catch-all party.
The argument is that it's a party created by a merger of dissidents from other parties and that it hasn't been very successful. (If that was true, David Cameron would not have a Lib Dem deputy PM.)
Indeed the merger that created the Liberal Democrats sought to carve out the great middle ground of British politics because the Conservatives had become so backward and Labour had become so radical. The politicians who created the Lib Dems sought to win elections by marginalizing their main opposition. In doing so, they sought votes from the broad, moderate middle of the spectrum of British politics.
If you look at the rubric mentioned above, there were 4 parties mentioned as examples of non-catch-all parties. The Lib Dems were not on the list.
This response earns 1 point out of 3 possible.
Another response came from the mysterious Internet:
"A 'catch-all' political party is a party that tries to appeal to every single group of people, despite their civil societies and different interests. A 'catch-all' political party is a party that tries to appeal to every single group of people, but they do hold a large percentage of the votes.
"Examples of non- 'catch-all' parties are the labour and conservative parties. Although both have been leaning toward a "third way" recently, they hold strong to their traditional views: the labour party focuses on union groups and providing for the working class in examples such as health care, while the conservatives focus on the upper class or more elite group of the British population.
"Both the labour party and the conservative party are not catch-all parties because they do not try to appeal to all groups of society, gender, and economical status. They instead focus on one specific group (whether that be by economic status, gender, or place in society)."
========================
The definition in this response is confusing. "A 'catch-all'… party… tries to appeal to every single group of people…" ? That seems to be the definition of a "catch-all" party, but what comes next?
"… but they do hold a large percentage of the votes." (Do or do not hold a large percentage of the votes? Since an exam reader can only read the words on the page and not the words in the writer's mind, in this case, the sentence supports the definition.)
In most countries with competitive elections, the "catch-all" parties are the largest and most successful. (Greece and Israel are notable exceptions.)
Then the writer goes on to identify the Labour and Conservative parties in the UK as "non- 'catch-all'" parties. You'd have to go back to pre-Tony Blair, pre-Third Way times to make that argument about the Labour Party, and the Conservative Party has competed successfully for votes from a broad range of socio-economic groups in the UK for a long time. There aren't enough "upper class" voters to elect Margaret Thatcher or any other Conservative PM.
This response earns 1 out of 3 possible points.
From the wilds of the great Internet came this response:
"a) A catch-party is a party that compromises and changes its political ideals and ideologies to best appeal to the public for good election results.
"b)Scottish National Party
"c) They adhere to their ultimate agenda to create an Scottish state independent of the UK’s unitary system, and they are unlikely to compromise that goal to appeal to the public."
=========
This response earns 3 of a possible 3 points.
While the SNP was not on the rubric, two other regionalist parties were and the explanation of why the SNP was chosen as an example is on the mark. It should be obvious that the SNP is not seeking votes from people outside of Scotland.
Post a Comment