[ { "id": "E372", "paper": "Paper 1: UK Politics; Paper 2: UK Government", "name": "Andy Burnham Wins the Makerfield By-Election 2026: A Route Back to the Commons and a Leadership Threat", "topics": "By-elections; Party leadership; Labour Party; First Past the Post; Prime Minister and the executive", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "On 18 June 2026 Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, won the Makerfield by-election with about 55 per cent of the vote, beating Reform UK into second place by more than 9,000 votes.", "ao1_long": "The seat had been left vacant so that Burnham could return to the Commons, because Labour's rules allow only a sitting MP to stand for the party leadership. His win came after a poor Labour showing in the May 2026 local elections and a letter signed by more than 100 Labour MPs calling on Keir Starmer to step down. Under Labour rules a leadership challenge needs the backing of about a fifth of the parliamentary party, around 81 MPs.", "ao2_short": "It shows how a popular figure from outside Westminster can use a by-election to position themselves against a sitting Prime Minister inside the governing party.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Political parties and leadership selection: a live example of how Labour chooses and removes leaders, and of the weight of the wider party and elected mayors relative to the leadership. Use 2 - Prime Minister and the executive: it shows the limits of a PM's authority when their own party turns against them, comparable to the pressure that removed Thatcher in 1990 and Johnson in 2022. Use 3 - By-elections and FPTP: a heavy win on a strong swing shows how by-elections signal party strength and volatility between general elections.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2026, "example_type": "Election result", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Party leadership selection and the limits of PM authority", "secondary_uses": "By-elections and electoral volatility; the power of metro mayors; intra-party democracy", "key_statistic": "Burnham about 55% of the vote; Reform UK second; majority over 9,000", "related_concepts": "Party leadership; Mandate; Intra-party democracy; By-election", "linked_organisations": "Labour Party; Reform UK", "common_misunderstandings": "Students may treat a by-election landslide as proof of a coming general-election result; by-elections often show protest or local effects that do not carry over.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E373", "paper": "Paper 1: UK Politics", "name": "Aberdeen South By-Election 2026: Conservatives Gain From the SNP for the First Time in Scotland Since 1967", "topics": "By-elections; Voting behaviour; Party system; Scottish politics; First Past the Post", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "On 18 June 2026 the Conservatives won the Aberdeen South by-election, with Douglas Lumsden taking 49.5 per cent of the vote and pushing the SNP into second place.", "ao1_long": "The seat was vacant after the SNP's Stephen Flynn resigned to sit in the Scottish Parliament. Lumsden won with a majority of about 6,000 votes on a turnout of 37.4 per cent. It was the Conservatives' first gain at a Scottish by-election since 1967 and was won from third place at the previous election. Reform UK finished third on about 9 per cent, below its national poll share.", "ao2_short": "It points to SNP decline and a partial Conservative recovery in parts of Scotland, while suggesting Reform's national polling does not translate evenly into seats.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Voting behaviour and the media: a sharp swing in one seat shows how local factors, the candidate and turnout shape outcomes between general elections. Use 2 - Party system and multi-party politics: it complicates the picture of Reform as the main challenger and shows the SNP's grip on Scotland loosening. Use 3 - Electoral systems: under FPTP a party can win comfortably on under half the vote, and by-elections can land far from the national trend.", "core_example": "FALSE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "https://www.pollcheck.co.uk/by-elections/aberdeen-south", "source1_title": "PollCheck - Aberdeen South by-election 18 June 2026", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2026, "example_type": "Election result", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "SNP decline and Conservative recovery in Scotland", "secondary_uses": "By-elections and volatility; the limits of Reform's national polling; FPTP", "key_statistic": "Conservative 49.5% (14,308); SNP 28.6%; Reform 8.6%; majority about 6,050; turnout 37.4%", "related_concepts": "By-election; Swing; Party system; Devolution", "linked_organisations": "Conservative Party; Scottish National Party; Reform UK", "common_misunderstandings": "A single by-election gain is not proof of a national Conservative revival; it reflects local conditions and low turnout.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E374", "paper": "Paper 1: UK Politics", "name": "Votes at 16: The 2026 Bill to Lower the UK Voting Age", "topics": "Franchise and suffrage; Democracy and participation; Electoral reform; Voting behaviour", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In June 2026 a government bill to lower the voting age to 16 for UK general elections cleared its report stage in the House of Commons.", "ao1_long": "The change would extend the Westminster franchise to around 1.5 million 16- and 17-year-olds, bringing UK general elections into line with Scottish Parliament and Senedd elections, where 16-year-olds have voted since 2016. Supporters argue it builds lifelong turnout and engagement; opponents question the consistency of the age of majority and whether 16-year-olds are ready to vote. The bill still had to complete its remaining Commons and Lords stages.", "ao2_short": "It is the clearest current test of how far the franchise should extend and of the arguments for and against widening participation.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Franchise and democracy: a direct, current example for essays on whether the franchise should be extended, set against historic widenings in 1918, 1928 and 1969. Use 2 - Democracy and participation: it speaks to debates about turnout, civic education and the health of UK democracy. Use 3 - Reform and party interest: critics note younger voters lean left, so the change also raises the question of parties altering the rules to suit themselves.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2026, "example_type": "Legislation", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Whether the franchise should be extended", "secondary_uses": "Participation and turnout; devolution and policy divergence; partisan motives in electoral reform", "key_statistic": "Around 1.5 million 16-17 year olds would gain the vote", "related_concepts": "Franchise; Suffrage; Age of majority; Participation", "linked_organisations": "Labour Party; Electoral Commission", "common_misunderstandings": "16-year-olds already vote in some UK elections (Scotland and Wales); this extends it to Westminster rather than being a wholly new idea.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E375", "paper": "Paper 1: UK Politics", "name": "Return to the Supplementary Vote for Mayors and PCCs 2026", "topics": "Electoral systems; Electoral reform; Majoritarian systems; Mandate; Devolution", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In 2026 the government moved to switch elections for mayors and police and crime commissioners in England back to the Supplementary Vote, reversing the change to First Past the Post made by the Elections Act 2022.", "ao1_long": "The Supplementary Vote lets voters mark a first and second choice; if no candidate wins more than half of first preferences, all but the top two are eliminated and second preferences are redistributed. The 2022 Act had switched these contests to FPTP, which critics said let mayors win on a minority of the vote. Returning to SV is meant to give winners a broader mandate.", "ao2_short": "It shows how the choice of electoral system shapes the mandate a winner can claim, and how governments change the rules to suit their aims.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Electoral systems and their effects: a clean contrast between FPTP and a majoritarian system, useful for essays on whether FPTP should be reformed. Use 2 - Mandate and legitimacy: SV pushes winners closer to majority support, strengthening their claim to a mandate. Use 3 - Reform as a political choice: switching systems back and forth shows electoral rules are decisions made by governments, not neutral machinery.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2026, "example_type": "Current affairs / policy proposal", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "FPTP versus majoritarian systems and the case for reform", "secondary_uses": "Mandate and legitimacy; electoral rules as political choices; local and regional democracy", "key_statistic": "", "related_concepts": "Supplementary Vote; First Past the Post; Majoritarian system; Mandate", "linked_organisations": "", "common_misunderstandings": "SV is not proportional; it is a majoritarian system that still elects one winner per contest.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E376", "paper": "Paper 2: UK Government; Paper 1: UK Politics", "name": "Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill 2026: Public Ownership and Fast-Track Legislation", "topics": "Legislative process; Parliament; Nationalisation; The role of the state; Core ideologies", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In June 2026 the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill passed its Commons stages and reached second reading in the House of Lords, giving ministers power to take a steel company into public ownership where they judge it to be in the public interest.", "ao1_long": "The bill was fast-tracked to protect British Steel, owned by the Chinese firm Jingye, on grounds of the economy, national security and critical infrastructure. Fast-tracking compresses the normal stages and cuts the time for scrutiny in both Houses. It followed earlier government intervention to keep the firm running.", "ao2_short": "It is a current example both of how Parliament makes law and of the deeper argument over how far the state should own and direct industry.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Parliament and the legislative process: it shows a bill moving through the Commons and Lords stages and the trade-off fast-tracking makes between speed and scrutiny. Use 2 - Core ideologies: state ownership of industry sits at the heart of the divide between socialism and the free-market thinking of conservatism and liberalism. Use 3 - The state and the economy: it illustrates modern arguments for intervention on strategic and security grounds, alongside rail (Great British Railways) and energy (Great British Energy).", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2026/june-2026/steel-industry-bill-set-for-lords-second-reading/", "source1_title": "UK Parliament - Steel Industry Bill set for Lords second reading", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2026, "example_type": "Legislation", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Parliament and the legislative process", "secondary_uses": "State intervention and ideology; fast-track legislation and scrutiny; economic policy", "key_statistic": "", "related_concepts": "Nationalisation; Legislative process; Fast-track legislation; Public ownership", "linked_organisations": "British Steel; House of Lords; House of Commons", "common_misunderstandings": "Nationalisation is not unique to socialism in practice; governments of different stripes have intervened for strategic reasons.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E377", "paper": "Paper 2: UK Government", "name": "Starmer's 2026 Authority Crisis: Ministerial Resignations and a Leadership Challenge", "topics": "Prime Minister and the executive; Collective responsibility; Cabinet; Party management; Political parties", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "By June 2026 Keir Starmer faced a serious challenge to his authority, with more than 100 Labour MPs calling for him to step down and a wave of ministerial resignations, including over defence spending.", "ao1_long": "Resignations included the Health Secretary Wes Streeting in May and, in June, figures at the Ministry of Defence in a dispute over spending. Andy Burnham then won a by-election that allowed him to return to the Commons and potentially stand for leader, which under Labour rules needs the support of about 81 MPs. Starmer said he would fight any challenge.", "ao2_short": "It shows how a Prime Minister's power rests on holding the confidence of their own party, not just a Commons majority.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Prime Minister and the executive: a current example of the limits of prime-ministerial power and the importance of party management, comparable to Thatcher in 1990 and Johnson in 2022. Use 2 - Cabinet and collective responsibility: repeated resignations show ministers using exit to signal dissent and the strain this puts on collective responsibility. Use 3 - Political parties: it illustrates how the parliamentary party and intra-party democracy can constrain or remove a leader.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2026, "example_type": "Case study", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "The limits of prime-ministerial power and party management", "secondary_uses": "Collective responsibility and resignations; intra-party democracy; cabinet government", "key_statistic": "More than 100 Labour MPs called for Starmer to go; about 81 MPs needed to trigger a challenge", "related_concepts": "Collective responsibility; Prime-ministerial power; Party management; Confidence", "linked_organisations": "Labour Party; Ministry of Defence", "common_misunderstandings": "A large Commons majority does not make a PM secure; authority can collapse if the parliamentary party withdraws support.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E378", "paper": "Paper 1: UK Politics; Paper 2: UK Government", "name": "Palestine Action Proscription Upheld by the Court of Appeal 2026", "topics": "Pressure groups; Rights and civil liberties; Direct action; Judiciary; Counter-terrorism", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In June 2026 the Court of Appeal ruled that the government's decision to ban the direct-action group Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation was lawful.", "ao1_long": "Palestine Action used disruptive direct action against arms companies. The government proscribed it under terrorism law, making membership and support criminal offences. Campaigners challenged the ban as a disproportionate restriction on protest and free expression; the Court of Appeal upheld it. The case sits on the line between protest and proscribed activity.", "ao2_short": "It shows the tension between the right to protest and the state's power to restrict groups in the name of security.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Pressure groups and methods: a current case on the limits of direct action and when disruptive protest crosses legal lines. Use 2 - Rights and civil liberties: it tests the balance between freedom of assembly and expression and security-based restrictions, useful alongside the Human Rights Act. Use 3 - The judiciary and the executive: courts reviewing a ministerial ban show judicial scrutiny of executive power, even where they uphold the decision.", "core_example": "FALSE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2026, "example_type": "Court case", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Protest rights versus security restrictions", "secondary_uses": "Pressure-group methods and effectiveness; judicial review of the executive; civil liberties", "key_statistic": "", "related_concepts": "Direct action; Proscription; Civil liberties; Judicial review", "linked_organisations": "Palestine Action; Court of Appeal", "common_misunderstandings": "Proscription targets one group's designation; it does not make all pro-Palestinian protest unlawful.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E379", "paper": "Paper 3: US Politics", "name": "United States v. Hemani 2026: A Unanimous Second Amendment Ruling on Drug Users and Guns", "topics": "US Supreme Court; Civil rights and liberties; Second Amendment; Constitutional interpretation; Judicial review", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "On 18 June 2026 the US Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in United States v. Hemani that a federal law banning unlawful drug users from owning a gun violated the Second Amendment as applied to the defendant.", "ao1_long": "Writing for the Court, Justice Gorsuch applied the historical-tradition test from the 2022 Bruen ruling, finding that early American laws against 'habitual drunkards' were not close enough to justify the ban. Justices Jackson and Sotomayor concurred but criticised the Bruen framework as unworkable. The ruling shows the Court continuing to widen gun rights, but doing so unanimously and across the usual ideological lines.", "ao2_short": "A rare unanimous ruling that crosses the usual 6-3 split is strong evidence when judging how political the Supreme Court really is.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - The Supreme Court and judicial review: it shows the Court striking down a federal law on constitutional grounds and the weight of precedent (Bruen, Rahimi). Use 2 - Civil rights and liberties: a current Second Amendment case for essays on gun rights and the protection of liberties. Use 3 - How political is the Court: a 9-0 result that does not follow party lines complicates the claim that the justices simply vote their politics.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/court-sides-with-challenger-to-law-banning-drug-users-from-possessing-guns/", "source1_title": "SCOTUSblog - Court sides with challenger to law banning drug users from possessing guns", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2026, "example_type": "Court case", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "How political the Supreme Court is", "secondary_uses": "Second Amendment and gun control; judicial review and precedent; constitutional interpretation", "key_statistic": "Decided 9-0; majority opinion by Justice Gorsuch", "related_concepts": "Second Amendment; Judicial review; Originalism; Precedent", "linked_organisations": "US Supreme Court", "common_misunderstandings": "A unanimous result does not mean the justices agreed on reasoning; several wrote separately and criticised the Bruen test.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E380", "paper": "Paper 3: Global Politics; Paper 3: US Politics", "name": "The 2026 US-Iran War and Ceasefire Deal: Hard Power and Great-Power Diplomacy", "topics": "Power and developments; Conflict and security; Hard and soft power; The role of state actors; US foreign policy", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In June 2026, after a short war involving the United States and Iran, the two sides signed a deal on 17 June intended to end the conflict within 60 days, brokered with Qatar and other mediators.", "ao1_long": "The conflict centred on Iran's nuclear programme and disruption around the Strait of Hormuz. The signing of the deal eased markets and brought oil prices down, and a US naval blockade was reported lifted. The episode combined the open use of hard military and economic power with diplomacy and third-party mediation to end the fighting.", "ao2_short": "It is a current example of hard power, the limits of international institutions and the role of leading states in managing conflict.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Power and developments: a clear case of hard military and economic power shaping outcomes, useful against arguments about soft power and interdependence. Use 2 - Global governance and its limits: a deal driven by states and mediators rather than the UN shows the limits of formal institutions in security crises. Use 3 - The role of the United States: it tests claims of US decline by showing Washington still able to shape outcomes in a key region.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2026, "example_type": "Case study", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Hard power and the limits of global governance", "secondary_uses": "US power and decline debates; energy security and the Strait of Hormuz; third-party mediation", "key_statistic": "Deal signed 17 June 2026; aim to end the war within 60 days", "related_concepts": "Hard power; Soft power; Sovereignty; Global governance", "linked_organisations": "United States; Iran; Qatar", "common_misunderstandings": "A ceasefire deal is not the same as a settled peace; such deals are often fragile and conditional.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E381", "paper": "Paper 3: Global Politics", "name": "Israel-Hezbollah Lebanon Ceasefire 2026: A Fragile US-Mediated Truce", "topics": "Power and developments; Conflict and security; Global governance; The role of state actors; Non-state actors", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "On 19 June 2026 Israel and Hezbollah agreed to renew a ceasefire in Lebanon, mediated by the United States, Qatar and Iran, after Israeli strikes killed at least 47 people in the south.", "ao1_long": "The truce followed a flare-up that began with a Hezbollah attack and Israeli strikes across southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley. Early reports said Israeli fire continued past the deadline, leaving the agreement fragile from the start. It was tied to wider efforts to wind down conflict in the region.", "ao2_short": "It shows how outside states can broker ceasefires they did not start, and how fragile such deals are when fighting continues on the ground.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Power and developments: a current case of conflict and the difficulty of ending it, useful for essays on hard power and security. Use 2 - Global governance and mediation: a deal driven by states (the US, Qatar and Iran) rather than the UN shows where real influence over conflict lies. Use 3 - The limits of agreements: continued strikes after the deadline show the gap between signing a ceasefire and actually ending violence.", "core_example": "FALSE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/19/israel-continues-attacks-on-lebanon-despite-agreeing-to-ceasefire", "source1_title": "Al Jazeera - Israel continues attacks on Lebanon despite agreeing to ceasefire", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2026, "example_type": "Case study", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "The fragility of ceasefires and the role of mediators", "secondary_uses": "Hard power and conflict; the limits of the UN; non-state actors such as Hezbollah", "key_statistic": "At least 47 people killed in southern Lebanon before the truce", "related_concepts": "Ceasefire; Non-state actor; Mediation; Sovereignty", "linked_organisations": "Israel; Hezbollah; United States; Qatar", "common_misunderstandings": "Hezbollah is a non-state actor as well as a political force; the conflict is not simply one state against another.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E382", "paper": "Paper 1: UK Politics", "name": "Reform UK's 2026 Polling Lead and the Fracturing Party System", "topics": "Party system; Voting behaviour and the media; Opinion polls; Political parties; Two-party system", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "By mid-2026 Reform UK led national voting-intention polls, with a YouGov poll on 14-15 June putting Reform first on 24 per cent and Labour and the Conservatives tied on 19 per cent.", "ao1_long": "The Greens stood close behind on around 15 per cent and the Liberal Democrats on 13 per cent, leaving the two traditional main parties level with each other and well behind Reform. This followed Reform's breakthrough in the May 2026 local elections. Polls are snapshots, not predictions, and FPTP can blunt the seat impact of evenly spread support.", "ao2_short": "It is strong current evidence that the UK two-party system is weakening and that party loyalty has become more fragmented.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Party systems: a clear case for essays on whether the UK still has a two-party system, with four or five parties now competitive. Use 2 - Voting behaviour and the media: it raises the question of how far to trust opinion polls and what they add to our understanding of support. Use 3 - Electoral systems: evenly spread support under FPTP may not convert into seats, as Reform found in 2024, linking polling to system effects.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/54977-voting-intention-14-15-june-2026-ref-24-lab-19-con-19-grn-15-ld-13", "source1_title": "YouGov - Voting intention 14-15 June 2026", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2026, "example_type": "Statistical data", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Whether the UK still has a two-party system", "secondary_uses": "Reliability of opinion polls; partisan dealignment; FPTP and seat conversion", "key_statistic": "YouGov 14-15 June 2026: Reform 24%, Labour 19%, Conservatives 19%, Greens 15%, Lib Dems 13%", "related_concepts": "Party system; Partisan dealignment; Opinion poll; Two-party system", "linked_organisations": "Reform UK; YouGov", "common_misunderstandings": "A polling lead is not a seat lead; under FPTP evenly distributed support can produce far fewer seats than the vote share suggests.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E383", "paper": "Paper 2: UK Government", "name": "England's 2026 Local Government Reorganisation: The End of the Two-Tier System", "topics": "Local government; Devolution; Multi-level governance; The uncodified constitution; Public services", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In 2026 the government set out the biggest reorganisation of English local government in 50 years, replacing the two-tier system of county and district councils with unitary authorities in many areas.", "ao1_long": "The two-tier system splits services between county councils, for example social care and education, and district councils, for example housing and bins. The reform merges these into single unitary councils, often alongside new strategic mayors covering larger areas. Supporters say it cuts duplication and clarifies accountability; critics warn about lost local identity and the disruption of reorganisation.", "ao2_short": "It shows devolution and local government as a moving, contested part of the UK's uncodified constitution rather than a fixed structure.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Devolution and local government: a current example of how power below Westminster is organised and reorganised, useful for essays on devolution within England. Use 2 - Multi-level governance: pairing unitary councils with strategic mayors shows the layering of local, regional and national power. Use 3 - The constitution: large structural change by ordinary legislation illustrates the flexibility of the UK's uncodified constitution.", "core_example": "FALSE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2026, "example_type": "Devolution", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Devolution and the reform of local government in England", "secondary_uses": "Multi-level governance; the flexible uncodified constitution; strategic mayors", "key_statistic": "Described as the biggest reorganisation of English local government in 50 years", "related_concepts": "Unitary authority; Two-tier system; Devolution; Metro mayor", "linked_organisations": "Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government", "common_misunderstandings": "This is reorganisation within England, not the same as devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E384", "paper": "Paper 3: US Politics", "name": "Rucho v Common Cause 2019: Partisan Gerrymandering Ruled Non-Justiciable", "topics": "US Supreme Court; Elections and representation; Gerrymandering; Federalism; Judicial review", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In 2019 the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Rucho v Common Cause that claims of partisan gerrymandering are political questions federal courts cannot decide.", "ao1_long": "Chief Justice Roberts, for the majority, said there was no clear legal standard for judging when partisan map-drawing goes too far, so the issue must be left to Congress and the states. The dissent warned this leaves voters with little protection against parties entrenching their own power through district boundaries.", "ao2_short": "It shows the Supreme Court limiting its own role and leaving a major democratic problem to the elected branches and the states.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - The judiciary and judicial restraint: a clear example of the Court declining to act, useful against the claim that it is always activist. Use 2 - Elections and representation: gerrymandering distorts representation, and the ruling lets it continue unless states act. Use 3 - Federalism: it pushes responsibility down to state courts and legislatures, several of which have since acted.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2019, "example_type": "Court case", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Judicial restraint and the limits of the Supreme Court", "secondary_uses": "Gerrymandering and representation; federalism; the political-questions doctrine", "key_statistic": "Decided 5-4; majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts", "related_concepts": "Gerrymandering; Judicial restraint; Political question; Federalism", "linked_organisations": "US Supreme Court", "common_misunderstandings": "The Court did not approve gerrymandering; it said federal courts cannot police it, leaving the issue to states and Congress.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E385", "paper": "Paper 3: US Politics", "name": "Shelby County v Holder 2013: The Supreme Court Guts Voting Rights Act Preclearance", "topics": "US Supreme Court; Civil rights; Voting rights; Federalism; Race and representation", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In 2013 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Shelby County v Holder that the formula deciding which states needed federal preclearance for election-law changes was unconstitutional.", "ao1_long": "The 1965 Voting Rights Act required states with a history of discrimination to get federal approval before changing voting rules. Roberts, for the majority, said the coverage formula relied on outdated data and intruded on state sovereignty. In practice the ruling ended preclearance, and several states quickly brought in voter-ID and other rules.", "ao2_short": "It shows the Court reshaping civil-rights protection and shifting power back to the states, with real effects on access to the vote.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Civil rights and the franchise: a central case on whether legal protection of minority voting rights has weakened. Use 2 - The Supreme Court's power: striking part of a landmark Act shows the reach of judicial review over Congress. Use 3 - Federalism: the ruling rested on protecting state sovereignty from federal oversight.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2013, "example_type": "Court case", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "The weakening of voting-rights protection", "secondary_uses": "Judicial review of landmark legislation; federalism; race and representation", "key_statistic": "Decided 5-4; preclearance effectively ended", "related_concepts": "Voting Rights Act; Preclearance; Federalism; Judicial review", "linked_organisations": "US Supreme Court", "common_misunderstandings": "The Court struck the coverage formula, not the whole Act; but without a formula, preclearance stopped working.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E386", "paper": "Paper 3: US Politics", "name": "Moore v Harper 2023: The Supreme Court Rejects the Independent State Legislature Theory", "topics": "US Supreme Court; Elections; Checks and balances; Federalism; Judicial review", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In 2023 the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Moore v Harper that state legislatures setting rules for federal elections are still subject to review by state courts.", "ao1_long": "The case rejected the strong 'independent state legislature' theory, which claimed legislatures had near-total power over federal election rules without state-court checks. Roberts, for the majority, said ordinary checks and balances still apply. A win for the theory could have reshaped how elections are run and challenged.", "ao2_short": "It shows the Court protecting checks and balances and limiting a theory that could have concentrated power in state legislatures.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Checks and balances: a clear example of the Court keeping courts able to review legislatures even over elections. Use 2 - Elections and democracy: it affects who can challenge election rules and maps, with major implications for close races. Use 3 - The Supreme Court's role: a conservative-majority Court rejecting a theory favoured by some on the right complicates simple partisan readings.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2023, "example_type": "Court case", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Checks and balances in election administration", "secondary_uses": "The Supreme Court and democracy; federalism; judicial review", "key_statistic": "Decided 6-3; majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts", "related_concepts": "Independent state legislature theory; Checks and balances; Judicial review", "linked_organisations": "US Supreme Court", "common_misunderstandings": "The ruling did not give courts power over everything; it confirmed normal state-court review still applies to federal-election rules.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E387", "paper": "Paper 3: US Politics", "name": "Trump v Anderson 2024: States Cannot Bar a Presidential Candidate Under the 14th Amendment", "topics": "US Supreme Court; Elections; Federalism; Constitution; The presidency", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In 2024 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Trump v Anderson that individual states cannot disqualify a candidate for federal office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.", "ao1_long": "Colorado's top court had removed Trump from the primary ballot, citing the 14th Amendment's bar on insurrectionists holding office. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that only Congress, not individual states, can enforce Section 3 against federal candidates. The decision kept Trump on ballots nationwide.", "ao2_short": "It shows the Court protecting a uniform national process for federal elections and limiting state power over who can run.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Federalism: a clear line that states cannot set their own rules for disqualifying federal candidates. Use 2 - The Constitution and elections: it interprets a rarely used clause and shapes who appears on the ballot. Use 3 - The Supreme Court and politics: a unanimous result on the outcome shows the Court trying to avoid 50 different state answers in a presidential year.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2024, "example_type": "Court case", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Federalism and national uniformity in federal elections", "secondary_uses": "Constitutional interpretation; the Supreme Court and elections; the presidency", "key_statistic": "Decided unanimously on the result (9-0)", "related_concepts": "Fourteenth Amendment; Federalism; Ballot access", "linked_organisations": "US Supreme Court", "common_misunderstandings": "The Court did not rule on whether Trump engaged in insurrection; it ruled on who can enforce Section 3 against federal candidates.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E388", "paper": "Paper 3: US Politics", "name": "National Guard Deployments Ruled Unlawful 2025-26: Courts Check the President's Domestic Use of the Military", "topics": "US Supreme Court; The presidency; Federalism; Civil liberties; Checks and balances", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In 2025-26 federal courts blocked President Trump's attempts to use National Guard and regular troops for domestic law enforcement, including in Los Angeles and Chicago.", "ao1_long": "A federal judge ruled that using soldiers around Los Angeles for arrests and crowd control broke the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the military from civilian law enforcement without clear authorisation. The Supreme Court left in place a block on deploying the National Guard to Chicago, saying the president had not shown legal authority. The clashes followed protests against immigration enforcement.", "ao2_short": "It shows the courts checking presidential power and protecting the line between the military and civilian policing.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - The presidency and its limits: a current example of courts blocking the executive, useful against claims of an unchecked 'imperial presidency'. Use 2 - Federalism: states resisting federal troop deployments show tension between national and state authority. Use 3 - Civil liberties: limits on using the military against protesters connect to rights of assembly and protest.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/court-finds-trumps-use-soldiers-los-angeles-illegal", "source1_title": "Brennan Center - Court finds Trump's use of soldiers in Los Angeles illegal", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": "2025-26", "example_type": "Court case", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Courts checking presidential power", "secondary_uses": "Federalism and state resistance; civil-military relations; civil liberties", "key_statistic": "First court injunction for a Posse Comitatus Act violation (Los Angeles)", "related_concepts": "Posse Comitatus Act; Checks and balances; Federalism; Imperial presidency", "linked_organisations": "US Supreme Court; National Guard", "common_misunderstandings": "The National Guard can be deployed in some situations; the rulings turned on the lack of legal authority for domestic law enforcement here.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E389", "paper": "Paper 3: US Politics", "name": "West Virginia v EPA 2022: The Major Questions Doctrine and the Limits of Agency Power", "topics": "US Supreme Court; Congress; The executive; Environment; Separation of powers", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In 2022 the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in West Virginia v EPA that the Environmental Protection Agency could not impose sweeping limits on power-plant emissions without clear authorisation from Congress.", "ao1_long": "The majority used the 'major questions doctrine': on issues of vast economic and political significance, agencies need clear congressional permission to act. The ruling limited the EPA's ability to fight climate change by regulation and pushed responsibility back to an often-gridlocked Congress.", "ao2_short": "It shows the Court reining in executive agencies and strengthening Congress's role, with major consequences for climate policy.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Separation of powers: a key example of the Court limiting the executive branch in favour of Congress. Use 2 - Congress and gridlock: by requiring clear congressional authority, it makes action harder when Congress is deadlocked. Use 3 - The environment and global politics: it weakens US federal climate action, with knock-on effects for global climate governance.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2022, "example_type": "Court case", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Limits on executive and agency power", "secondary_uses": "Congress and gridlock; environmental policy; separation of powers", "key_statistic": "Decided 6-3; established the major questions doctrine", "related_concepts": "Major questions doctrine; Separation of powers; Administrative state", "linked_organisations": "US Supreme Court; Environmental Protection Agency", "common_misunderstandings": "The Court did not ban all EPA action; it required clear congressional authority for sweeping rules.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E390", "paper": "Paper 3: US Politics", "name": "United States v Rahimi 2024: Second Amendment Limits Upheld for Domestic Abusers", "topics": "US Supreme Court; Civil rights and liberties; Second Amendment; Constitutional interpretation", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In 2024 the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in United States v Rahimi that people under domestic-violence restraining orders can be barred from owning guns.", "ao1_long": "The ruling refined the 2022 Bruen test, saying a modern gun law is valid if it fits the principles behind historic regulations, even without an exact historical twin. Roberts, for the majority, found a long tradition of disarming dangerous people. It is the more restrictive bookend to Bruen, which widened gun rights, and to Hemani in 2026, which struck a ban down.", "ao2_short": "It shows the Court accepting some limits on gun rights and trying to make the Bruen history test more workable.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Civil liberties and the Second Amendment: pair it with Bruen and Hemani to show the Court drawing the line case by case. Use 2 - Constitutional interpretation: it illustrates how originalism and history are applied and softened in practice. Use 3 - Judicial review: an 8-1 ruling crossing ideological lines complicates claims that the Court simply votes its politics.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2024, "example_type": "Court case", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "The limits of gun rights and the Bruen test in practice", "secondary_uses": "Constitutional interpretation and originalism; how political the Court is; civil liberties", "key_statistic": "Decided 8-1; majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts", "related_concepts": "Second Amendment; Originalism; Precedent; Judicial review", "linked_organisations": "US Supreme Court", "common_misunderstandings": "Rahimi did not overturn Bruen; it applied and clarified it, allowing some restrictions to stand.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E391", "paper": "Paper 3: US Politics", "name": "303 Creative v Elenis 2023: Free Speech and the Limits of Anti-Discrimination Law", "topics": "US Supreme Court; Civil rights and liberties; First Amendment; Free speech; LGBT rights", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In 2023 the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in 303 Creative v Elenis that a web designer could refuse, on free-speech grounds, to create same-sex wedding websites.", "ao1_long": "The majority held that the First Amendment bars the state from compelling an artist to express a message they disagree with, even under an anti-discrimination law. The dissent warned it opens a route for businesses to deny service to LGBT customers. It sits at the clash between free expression and equal treatment.", "ao2_short": "It shows the Court favouring free-speech claims over anti-discrimination rules, with consequences for LGBT rights.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Civil rights and liberties: a key case on the tension between free expression and equality before the law. Use 2 - The culture wars and the Court: it shows the conservative majority shaping social policy through rights claims. Use 3 - Comparison: contrast with the UK, where equality law and the Human Rights Act balance these rights differently.", "core_example": "FALSE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2023, "example_type": "Court case", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Free speech versus anti-discrimination protection", "secondary_uses": "LGBT rights; the Court and the culture wars; UK-US rights comparison", "key_statistic": "Decided 6-3", "related_concepts": "First Amendment; Compelled speech; Anti-discrimination law", "linked_organisations": "US Supreme Court", "common_misunderstandings": "The case turned on expressive, custom work; it is not a blanket licence to refuse all service to any group.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E392", "paper": "Paper 1: UK Politics", "name": "Gurkha Justice Campaign 2009: Celebrity-Led Pressure and a Government U-turn", "topics": "Pressure groups; Insider and outsider groups; Direct action; Rights; Government responsiveness", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In 2009 the Gurkha Justice Campaign, fronted by the actor Joanna Lumley, forced the government to grant retired Gurkha soldiers the right to settle in the UK.", "ao1_long": "The campaign combined celebrity profile, sympathetic media coverage and a Commons defeat for the government to overturn the existing settlement rules. Ministers shifted from resisting the demand to conceding it within weeks. It is a textbook case of an outsider campaign winning by mobilising public and parliamentary opinion.", "ao2_short": "It shows how a well-run campaign with public sympathy and media backing can force even a reluctant government to change policy.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Pressure-group methods and success: a clear example of an outsider group winning through media and public pressure rather than insider access. Use 2 - The role of celebrity and the media: it shows how a recognisable figure can amplify a cause and shape the agenda. Use 3 - Government responsiveness and democracy: it illustrates how pressure groups can improve representation between elections.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2009, "example_type": "Pressure group", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "How outsider pressure groups achieve success", "secondary_uses": "The media and celebrity in politics; government responsiveness; rights campaigns", "key_statistic": "Government U-turn within weeks of a Commons defeat", "related_concepts": "Outsider group; Direct action; Government responsiveness; Agenda setting", "linked_organisations": "Gurkha Justice Campaign", "common_misunderstandings": "Success here came from public and parliamentary pressure, not insider lobbying; not all groups can repeat it.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E393", "paper": "Paper 1: UK Politics; Paper 2: UK Government", "name": "The Hillsborough Campaign and the Push for a Hillsborough Law", "topics": "Pressure groups; Rights; Accountability; Justice campaigns; The state and the citizen", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "Families of the 97 people killed in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster ran a decades-long campaign that overturned the original findings and won 2016 inquest verdicts of unlawful killing.", "ao1_long": "The campaign exposed failures by the police and the cover-up that followed, and pressed for a 'Hillsborough Law' creating a legal duty of candour on public bodies. It is one of the most sustained citizen-led accountability campaigns in modern UK politics.", "ao2_short": "It shows how persistent citizen campaigns can hold the state to account and drive legal and institutional change.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Pressure groups and accountability: a powerful example of a grassroots campaign forcing the state to admit failure. Use 2 - Rights and the citizen: it speaks to the right to truth and justice against powerful institutions. Use 3 - Constitutional reform: the proposed duty of candour shows campaigns shaping new legal protections.", "core_example": "FALSE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": "1989-present", "example_type": "Pressure group", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Citizen campaigns and holding the state to account", "secondary_uses": "Rights and justice; institutional accountability; legal reform from below", "key_statistic": "97 killed; 2016 inquests found unlawful killing after a 27-year campaign", "related_concepts": "Accountability; Duty of candour; Civil society", "linked_organisations": "Hillsborough Family Support Group", "common_misunderstandings": "The campaign was led by families and survivors, not a formal lobby group, showing pressure can come from grassroots networks.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E394", "paper": "Paper 1: UK Politics", "name": "Surfers Against Sewage and the Water Pollution Campaigns 2020-present", "topics": "Pressure groups; Environment; Direct action; Regulation; Public opinion", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "Surfers Against Sewage has driven public anger over sewage discharges into UK rivers and seas, pushing water regulation up the political agenda.", "ao1_long": "The group used data, mapping of discharges and high-profile campaigning to turn a technical issue into a mainstream political concern, contributing to tougher rules and fines on water companies. It shows a single-issue group shaping the agenda and regulation.", "ao2_short": "It shows how a focused campaign can turn a neglected issue into a salient political and regulatory problem.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Pressure groups and the agenda: a current example of a group setting the agenda and forcing a government and regulator response. Use 2 - Environmental politics: it links public opinion to environmental regulation. Use 3 - The role of information: using data and mapping shows how evidence can power a campaign.", "core_example": "FALSE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": "2020-present", "example_type": "Pressure group", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Agenda setting and regulatory change by a single-issue group", "secondary_uses": "Environmental politics; the use of data in campaigns; regulation of privatised utilities", "key_statistic": "Sewage discharges and water-company fines became a mainstream 2020s issue", "related_concepts": "Single-issue group; Agenda setting; Regulation", "linked_organisations": "Surfers Against Sewage; Ofwat", "common_misunderstandings": "The campaign worked through publicity and pressure on regulators, not only direct action.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E395", "paper": "Paper 1: UK Politics", "name": "Fathers4Justice 2003-08: Stunt-Based Direct Action and Its Limits", "topics": "Pressure groups; Direct action; Methods and effectiveness; Media", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "Fathers4Justice campaigned for fathers' rights in family courts using high-profile stunts, including scaling public buildings in superhero costumes.", "ao1_long": "The stunts won heavy media coverage but also criticism, and the group struggled to convert attention into policy change. It is a useful contrast to campaigns that combined publicity with broader public sympathy.", "ao2_short": "It shows that media attention alone does not guarantee influence, and that disruptive methods can backfire.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Pressure-group methods and effectiveness: a case where dramatic action gained coverage but limited results, contrasting with the Gurkha or Hillsborough campaigns. Use 2 - The media and politics: it shows the difference between visibility and influence. Use 3 - Direct action and legitimacy: it raises the question of when disruptive tactics help or harm a cause.", "core_example": "FALSE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": "2003-08", "example_type": "Pressure group", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "The limits of stunt-based direct action", "secondary_uses": "Methods and effectiveness; media coverage versus influence; legitimacy of tactics", "key_statistic": "High media coverage but little direct policy change", "related_concepts": "Direct action; Effectiveness; Legitimacy", "linked_organisations": "Fathers4Justice", "common_misunderstandings": "Coverage is not the same as influence; visibility did not translate into policy wins here.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E396", "paper": "Paper 1: UK Politics", "name": "Insulate Britain 2021: Motorway Blockades and the Backlash", "topics": "Pressure groups; Direct action; Environment; Public opinion; Rights and protest", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In 2021 Insulate Britain blocked motorways including the M25 to demand home insulation, leading to injunctions and prison sentences for activists.", "ao1_long": "The group used disruptive direct action to force attention onto climate and housing policy. The blockades drew public anger and a tough legal response, and helped prompt later restrictions on protest. It sits alongside Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion in the debate over disruptive climate protest.", "ao2_short": "It shows the trade-off between disruption that wins attention and the public and legal backlash it can provoke.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Pressure groups and methods: a current example of disruptive direct action and its mixed results. Use 2 - Rights and protest: it connects to debates about the limits of protest and new restrictions on it. Use 3 - Environmental politics: it shows the strategy and risks of radical climate campaigning.", "core_example": "FALSE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2021, "example_type": "Pressure group", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Disruptive direct action and public backlash", "secondary_uses": "The right to protest and its limits; environmental campaigning; legal responses to protest", "key_statistic": "M25 and motorway blockades; injunctions and prison sentences followed", "related_concepts": "Direct action; Civil disobedience; Protest rights", "linked_organisations": "Insulate Britain", "common_misunderstandings": "Disruption raised the issue's profile but also hardened opposition, so impact is contested.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E397", "paper": "Paper 2: UK Government", "name": "Evans v Attorney General 2015: Courts Overturn a Ministerial Veto", "topics": "The judiciary; Royal prerogative; Freedom of information; Separation of powers; Rule of law", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In 2015 the Supreme Court ruled in Evans v Attorney General that the Attorney General could not use a veto to block the release of Prince Charles's letters to ministers, the 'black spider memos'.", "ao1_long": "A tribunal had ordered the letters released under freedom-of-information law; the Attorney General tried to override that with a ministerial veto. The Supreme Court held the veto unlawful, protecting judicial decisions from being set aside by the executive. It is a strong example of courts checking executive power.", "ao2_short": "It shows the judiciary defending the rule of law and limiting the executive's power to override the courts.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - The judiciary and the executive: a clear case of courts blocking a ministerial attempt to ignore a legal ruling. Use 2 - Rule of law and separation of powers: it shows the courts protecting their own authority against the government. Use 3 - Transparency and the monarchy: it touches on freedom of information and the political role of the royal family.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2015, "example_type": "Court case", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "The judiciary checking executive power", "secondary_uses": "Rule of law and separation of powers; freedom of information; the monarchy and politics", "key_statistic": "Supreme Court struck down the Attorney General's veto", "related_concepts": "Rule of law; Separation of powers; Royal prerogative; Judicial review", "linked_organisations": "UK Supreme Court", "common_misunderstandings": "The case was about the unlawful veto of a legal ruling, not simply about the content of the letters.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E398", "paper": "Paper 2: UK Government", "name": "Resignations of the Independent Adviser on Ministers' Interests (Geidt 2022, Magnus 2024)", "topics": "Ministerial code; Standards in public life; Accountability; The executive", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "Successive Independent Advisers on Ministers' Interests resigned, Lord Geidt in 2022 and Sir Laurie Magnus in 2024, over the handling of standards and the ministerial code.", "ao1_long": "The Independent Adviser oversees the ministerial code but cannot launch investigations alone or enforce findings; the Prime Minister remains the final judge. Repeated resignations exposed the weakness of the system and the lack of independent enforcement of standards.", "ao2_short": "It shows the limits of standards enforcement when the Prime Minister is both subject to and judge of the rules.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Accountability and standards: a clear example of weak enforcement of the ministerial code. Use 2 - The power of the Prime Minister: it shows the PM controlling the standards process, raising questions about checks on the executive. Use 3 - Constitutional reform: it strengthens the case for an independent standards body with real powers.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": "2022-24", "example_type": "Case study", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "The weakness of standards enforcement in the executive", "secondary_uses": "Prime-ministerial power; accountability; the case for reform", "key_statistic": "Two Independent Advisers resigned within three years (2022 and 2024)", "related_concepts": "Ministerial code; Accountability; Standards in public life", "linked_organisations": "Independent Adviser on Ministers' Interests", "common_misunderstandings": "The Adviser cannot enforce the code; the Prime Minister remains the final decision-maker.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E399", "paper": "Paper 2: UK Government", "name": "The UK Covid-19 Inquiry 2022-present: Public Inquiries and Accountability", "topics": "Accountability; Public inquiries; The executive; Scrutiny; Government decision-making", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "The independent UK Covid-19 Inquiry, chaired by Baroness Hallett, is examining the government's handling of the pandemic, hearing evidence from ministers and officials.", "ao1_long": "Public inquiries can compel evidence and expose decision-making, but they are slow and cannot punish or directly change policy; their recommendations rely on government acting. The inquiry has produced damaging evidence about decisions at the centre of government.", "ao2_short": "It shows public inquiries as a powerful but limited tool of accountability after the event.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Accountability and scrutiny: a current example of holding the executive to account through an inquiry. Use 2 - The limits of inquiries: slow timelines and non-binding recommendations show the limits of this check. Use 3 - Government decision-making: evidence on how decisions were taken informs debates about the core executive.", "core_example": "FALSE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": "2022-present", "example_type": "Case study", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Public inquiries as a tool of accountability and their limits", "secondary_uses": "Scrutiny of the executive; the core executive and decision-making; transparency", "key_statistic": "Ongoing since 2022; evidence from senior ministers and officials", "related_concepts": "Public inquiry; Accountability; Core executive", "linked_organisations": "UK Covid-19 Inquiry", "common_misunderstandings": "Inquiries cannot enforce change; their power lies in evidence and recommendations, not sanctions.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E400", "paper": "Paper 3: Global Politics", "name": "COP30 Belem 2025: Climate Governance and the Limits of Consensus", "topics": "Environment; Global governance; Multilateralism; Sustainable development; The Global South", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "COP30, held in Belem in the Brazilian Amazon in 2025, was the latest UN climate summit aiming to turn the Paris Agreement's goals into firmer commitments.", "ao1_long": "COP summits rely on consensus among nearly 200 states, which makes binding outcomes hard and progress slow. Holding it in the Amazon put deforestation, climate finance and the demands of developing states at the centre of the talks. It shows both the reach and the limits of multilateral climate governance.", "ao2_short": "It shows the strengths and weaknesses of consensus-based global governance on climate.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - The environment and global governance: a current example of the UN climate process and its limits. Use 2 - Multilateralism: consensus among nearly 200 states makes strong action difficult, a key debate in global governance. Use 3 - The Global South: hosting it in Brazil highlighted climate finance and justice for developing states.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2025, "example_type": "International organisation", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "The limits of consensus-based climate governance", "secondary_uses": "Multilateralism and the UN; the Global South and climate justice; sustainable development", "key_statistic": "Nearly 200 states negotiate by consensus at each COP", "related_concepts": "Multilateralism; Global governance; Climate finance; Sustainable development", "linked_organisations": "United Nations; UNFCCC", "common_misunderstandings": "COP agreements are largely non-binding; progress depends on states choosing to act.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E401", "paper": "Paper 3: Global Politics", "name": "Sudan Civil War 2023-present: Humanitarian Catastrophe and the Failure of Global Governance", "topics": "Conflict and security; Human rights; Global governance; Humanitarian intervention; Power and developments", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "Since April 2023 a war between Sudan's army and the Rapid Support Forces has caused one of the world's worst humanitarian crises, with mass displacement and famine.", "ao1_long": "Millions have been displaced and warnings of genocide and famine have grown, yet international action has been limited and divided. The conflict shows the gap between the language of human rights and the responsibility to protect, and what actually happens when major powers look away.", "ao2_short": "It is a stark current example of the failure of global governance and the limits of the responsibility to protect.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Human rights and R2P: a current case where the responsibility to protect has not been acted on. Use 2 - Global governance and its limits: divided major powers and an overstretched UN show the weakness of the system. Use 3 - Power and developments: it illustrates how conflicts in less strategically prized regions receive less attention.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": "2023-present", "example_type": "Case study", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "The failure of global governance and R2P", "secondary_uses": "Human rights and humanitarian crisis; the limits of the UN; selective attention in world politics", "key_statistic": "One of the world's largest displacement crises since 2023", "related_concepts": "Responsibility to Protect; Human rights; Global governance; Failed state", "linked_organisations": "United Nations; African Union; Rapid Support Forces", "common_misunderstandings": "Inaction is not due to a lack of legal frameworks but to a lack of political will among powerful states.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E402", "paper": "Paper 3: Global Politics", "name": "The Sahel Coups 2020-23: Sovereignty, Democratic Backsliding and Russian Influence", "topics": "Sovereignty; Democracy and governance; Regionalism; Power and developments; Great-power competition", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "A wave of military coups in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger between 2020 and 2023 ousted elected governments and turned these states away from Western partners towards Russia.", "ao1_long": "The juntas expelled French forces, drew on Russian (Wagner) support, and pulled their countries out of the regional bloc ECOWAS to form their own alliance. The coups show democratic backsliding, contested sovereignty and the spread of great-power competition into the Sahel.", "ao2_short": "It shows sovereignty, regionalism and great-power rivalry playing out as states realign away from the West.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Sovereignty and intervention: states asserting sovereignty by expelling Western forces and choosing new partners. Use 2 - Regionalism: leaving ECOWAS to form a rival bloc tests regional integration in Africa. Use 3 - Great-power competition and multipolarity: growing Russian influence shows the contest for influence in a multipolar world.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": "2020-23", "example_type": "Case study", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Sovereignty and great-power competition in the Global South", "secondary_uses": "Democratic backsliding; regionalism and ECOWAS; Russian and Western influence", "key_statistic": "Coups in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger (2020-23); withdrawal from ECOWAS", "related_concepts": "Sovereignty; Regionalism; Multipolarity; Democratic backsliding", "linked_organisations": "ECOWAS; African Union; Wagner Group", "common_misunderstandings": "These are not just internal events; they reflect wider great-power competition and contested sovereignty.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E403", "paper": "Paper 3: Global Politics", "name": "Global AI Governance Summits 2023-present: Regulating an Emerging Technology", "topics": "Global governance; Non-state actors; Emerging technology; Sovereignty; International cooperation", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "From the 2023 Bletchley Park summit onwards, states have held international meetings to agree shared principles on the risks of artificial intelligence.", "ao1_long": "The summits brought together governments and powerful technology firms to discuss AI safety, but produced voluntary declarations rather than binding rules. They show both the attempt to build global governance for a new technology and the strong role of non-state actors such as large tech companies.", "ao2_short": "It shows the early, soft-law stage of global governance for a fast-moving technology dominated by non-state actors.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Global governance: a current example of states trying to coordinate on a shared problem without binding rules. Use 2 - Non-state actors: powerful technology firms shape the agenda, showing the limits of state-only governance. Use 3 - Sovereignty and cooperation: states balance national control with the need to cooperate on a borderless technology.", "core_example": "FALSE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": "2023-present", "example_type": "Case study", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Global governance of emerging technology", "secondary_uses": "The power of non-state actors; soft law versus binding rules; sovereignty and cooperation", "key_statistic": "Voluntary declarations from successive AI summits since 2023", "related_concepts": "Global governance; Non-state actors; Soft law; Sovereignty", "linked_organisations": "United Nations; major technology companies", "common_misunderstandings": "The summits produced voluntary commitments, not enforceable global rules.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E404", "paper": "Paper 2: UK Government", "name": "Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022: The Executive Trims the Courts' Powers", "topics": "The judiciary; Judicial review; Separation of powers; The executive; Rule of law", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 limited the courts' powers of judicial review, including giving judges the option of suspended or non-retrospective quashing orders and ending 'Cart' reviews of some tribunal decisions.", "ao1_long": "It followed the Independent Review of Administrative Law, set up after the government lost the 2019 prorogation case (Miller II). Ministers wanted to curb what they saw as judicial overreach. Critics argued it weakened a key check on the executive, though the changes were narrower than first proposed.", "ao2_short": "It shows the executive pushing back against the courts after losing high-profile cases, testing the balance between the branches.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - The judiciary and the executive: a clear example of the government trying to limit judicial checks on its power. Use 2 - Separation of powers and the rule of law: it raises the question of how far Parliament should be able to curb the courts. Use 3 - Constitutional change: it shows the uncodified constitution being reshaped by ordinary legislation.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2022, "example_type": "Legislation", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "The executive limiting judicial checks on its power", "secondary_uses": "Separation of powers; the rule of law; reform of the uncodified constitution", "key_statistic": "Followed the government's defeat in Miller II (2019)", "related_concepts": "Judicial review; Separation of powers; Rule of law; Ouster clause", "linked_organisations": "UK Supreme Court; Ministry of Justice", "common_misunderstandings": "The Act trimmed rather than abolished judicial review; the courts retain their core supervisory role.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E405", "paper": "Paper 2: UK Government", "name": "Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022: Restoring the Prerogative", "topics": "The constitution; Royal prerogative; Parliament; Elections; The executive", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 repealed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and returned to the Prime Minister the power to call a general election.", "ao1_long": "The 2011 Act had fixed five-year terms and required a Commons vote to hold an early election, which contributed to the Brexit deadlock of 2017-19. The 2022 Act restored the prerogative power of dissolution and included an ouster clause to keep the courts out of the decision. It hands a key timing advantage back to the PM.", "ao2_short": "It shows power shifting back to the Prime Minister and away from Parliament, reversing an earlier reform.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Prime-ministerial power: restoring the power to choose the election date strengthens the PM. Use 2 - The constitution and reform: a clear case of constitutional change by ordinary law, and of reforms being reversed. Use 3 - The royal prerogative and the courts: the ouster clause raises questions about whether such decisions should be reviewable.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2022, "example_type": "Legislation", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Power shifting back to the Prime Minister", "secondary_uses": "Constitutional reform and reversal; the royal prerogative; Parliament versus the executive", "key_statistic": "Repealed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011", "related_concepts": "Royal prerogative; Dissolution; Fixed-term Parliaments Act; Ouster clause", "linked_organisations": "UK Parliament", "common_misunderstandings": "The PM does not have unlimited power over elections; a maximum term still applies, but the timing choice has returned.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E406", "paper": "Paper 2: UK Government", "name": "Senedd Expansion 2024: Devolution Deepens in Wales", "topics": "Devolution; Electoral systems; Representation; Multi-level governance", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "The Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Act 2024 expanded the Welsh Parliament from 60 to 96 members and changed its voting system to a closed-list form of proportional representation.", "ao1_long": "The change, taking effect from the 2026 Senedd election, was meant to strengthen scrutiny and representation in a body that had grown in powers since 1999. It shows devolution as a deepening, evolving process rather than a one-off settlement.", "ao2_short": "It shows devolution continuing to deepen and the devolved nations choosing different electoral systems from Westminster.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Devolution: a current example of devolved powers and institutions growing over time. Use 2 - Electoral systems: Wales using proportional representation contrasts with Westminster's First Past the Post. Use 3 - Representation and scrutiny: more members are meant to improve law-making and accountability in Wales.", "core_example": "FALSE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2024, "example_type": "Devolution", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "The deepening of devolution in Wales", "secondary_uses": "Electoral-system divergence within the UK; representation and scrutiny; multi-level governance", "key_statistic": "Senedd expanded from 60 to 96 members from 2026", "related_concepts": "Devolution; Proportional representation; Representation", "linked_organisations": "Senedd Cymru", "common_misunderstandings": "Devolution is not fixed; the Welsh settlement has grown in powers and size since 1999.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E407", "paper": "Paper 2: UK Government", "name": "UK Internal Market Act 2020: Devolution and the Post-Brexit Power Question", "topics": "Devolution; The constitution; Sovereignty; Brexit; Intergovernmental relations", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "The UK Internal Market Act 2020 set rules to keep trade flowing across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland after Brexit, but devolved governments said it cut across their powers.", "ao1_long": "With EU rules gone, the Act required goods accepted in one UK nation to be accepted in the others, limiting the practical effect of some devolved decisions. Scotland and Wales called it a 'power grab' that weakened devolution. It is a key example of post-Brexit tension between Westminster and the devolved nations.", "ao2_short": "It shows the strain Brexit placed on devolution and the contested balance between UK-wide and devolved power.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Devolution: a clear example of Westminster legislation limiting devolved decisions in practice. Use 2 - The constitution and sovereignty: it shows parliamentary sovereignty asserting itself over devolved competence. Use 3 - Intergovernmental relations: the row illustrates weak machinery for resolving UK-devolved disputes.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2020, "example_type": "Legislation", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Post-Brexit tension between Westminster and devolution", "secondary_uses": "Parliamentary sovereignty; intergovernmental relations; the future of the Union", "key_statistic": "Applied across all four UK nations after the end of EU rules", "related_concepts": "Devolution; Parliamentary sovereignty; Mutual recognition", "linked_organisations": "UK Parliament; Scottish Government; Welsh Government", "common_misunderstandings": "The Act did not abolish devolved powers; it limited their practical reach on internal-market matters.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E408", "paper": "Paper 2: UK Government", "name": "Stormont Collapse and Restoration 2022-24: Power-Sharing Under Strain", "topics": "Devolution; Northern Ireland; Power-sharing; The constitution; Brexit", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "Northern Ireland's power-sharing government collapsed in 2022 when the DUP withdrew over post-Brexit trade rules, and was only restored in 2024 after a new deal.", "ao1_long": "Under the Good Friday Agreement, government requires both unionists and nationalists to take part, so one party walking out brings it down. The two-year gap left Northern Ireland without ministers. Restoration in 2024 also saw Michelle O'Neill become the first nationalist First Minister.", "ao2_short": "It shows both the strength and the fragility of consociational power-sharing, where any major party can halt government.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Devolution and power-sharing: a clear example of how Northern Ireland's model can be both inclusive and unstable. Use 2 - Brexit and the constitution: the collapse flowed directly from post-Brexit trade arrangements. Use 3 - Representation and change: a nationalist First Minister marks a historic shift in Northern Ireland politics.", "core_example": "FALSE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": "2022-24", "example_type": "Devolution", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "The fragility of power-sharing devolution", "secondary_uses": "Brexit and the Union; consociational government; representation and change", "key_statistic": "Power-sharing suspended about two years (2022-24)", "related_concepts": "Power-sharing; Consociationalism; Good Friday Agreement; Devolution", "linked_organisations": "Northern Ireland Assembly; DUP; Sinn Fein", "common_misunderstandings": "The system is designed to share power, but that same design lets a single party bring government down.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E409", "paper": "Paper 2: UK Government", "name": "The Brown Report 2022 (A New Britain): Labour's Constitutional Reform Plans", "topics": "The constitution; Constitutional reform; House of Lords reform; Devolution", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In 2022 a commission led by Gordon Brown produced 'A New Britain', proposing major constitutional reform including replacing the House of Lords with an elected chamber and more devolution.", "ao1_long": "The report set out plans to spread power away from Westminster, strengthen the nations and regions, and reform the second chamber. It became a reference point for Labour's approach in government, though only parts have been taken forward.", "ao2_short": "It shows the live debate over codifying and reforming the UK constitution and the gap between proposals and action.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Constitutional reform: a current blueprint for change, useful for essays on whether the UK constitution should be reformed. Use 2 - House of Lords reform: the call for an elected chamber feeds the long debate over the second chamber. Use 3 - Devolution: proposals to spread power further show devolution as an ongoing project.", "core_example": "FALSE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2022, "example_type": "Current affairs / policy proposal", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Proposals to reform the UK constitution", "secondary_uses": "House of Lords reform; devolution; the gap between proposals and delivery", "key_statistic": "Proposed an elected second chamber to replace the House of Lords", "related_concepts": "Constitutional reform; House of Lords reform; Devolution; Codification", "linked_organisations": "Labour Party", "common_misunderstandings": "It is a set of proposals, not enacted law; only parts have been pursued in government.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E410", "paper": "Paper 2: UK Government", "name": "The Strathclyde Review 2015: The Lords, Secondary Legislation and the Tax Credits Defeat", "topics": "House of Lords; Parliament; Secondary legislation; Checks and balances", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "After the House of Lords blocked the government's tax-credit cuts in 2015, the Strathclyde Review proposed limiting the Lords' power over secondary legislation.", "ao1_long": "The Lords' move was unusual because it used its power over secondary legislation to stop a major financial measure. The review suggested the Commons should be able to override the Lords on such matters. Its proposals were not fully implemented, but the episode shows the Lords acting as a check and the government's wish to curb it.", "ao2_short": "It shows the unelected Lords checking the elected government, and the government's attempt to limit that power.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - The House of Lords as a check: a clear example of the Lords blocking the government and forcing a rethink. Use 2 - Commons-Lords relations: it raises the question of how far an unelected chamber should defy the elected one. Use 3 - Secondary legislation and scrutiny: it highlights the often-overlooked power of the Lords over delegated powers.", "core_example": "FALSE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2015, "example_type": "Case study", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "The House of Lords as a check on government", "secondary_uses": "Commons-Lords relations; scrutiny of secondary legislation; reform of the Lords", "key_statistic": "2015 Lords defeat forced the government to drop its tax-credit cuts", "related_concepts": "House of Lords; Secondary legislation; Checks and balances", "linked_organisations": "House of Lords", "common_misunderstandings": "The Lords rarely block financial measures; this was a notable and contested use of its power.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E411", "paper": "Paper 2: UK Government", "name": "The Salisbury Convention: Constitutional Conventions and Lords Restraint", "topics": "The constitution; Constitutional conventions; House of Lords; Parliament", "definition": "The Salisbury Convention is the understanding that the House of Lords will not block or wreck a government bill that delivers a manifesto commitment.", "ao1_short": "The Salisbury Convention holds that the House of Lords will not vote down bills that carry out a governing party's election manifesto promises.", "ao1_long": "It developed after 1945, when a large Conservative majority in the Lords faced a Labour government with a clear mandate. As a convention it has no legal force but is widely followed, helping the elected government deliver its programme. It is a leading example of an unwritten rule shaping the constitution.", "ao2_short": "It shows how unwritten conventions, not just law, regulate the relationship between the Commons and the Lords.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - The uncodified constitution: a clear example of a convention doing important constitutional work without legal force. Use 2 - Commons-Lords relations and the mandate: it gives the elected chamber's manifesto special weight over the unelected Lords. Use 3 - Reform debates: questions about whether conventions are enough strengthen the case for codification.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": "1945-present", "example_type": "Case study", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "How conventions regulate the Commons and the Lords", "secondary_uses": "The uncodified constitution; the mandate and manifesto; codification debates", "key_statistic": "In force since 1945", "related_concepts": "Constitutional convention; Mandate; House of Lords; Codification", "linked_organisations": "House of Lords", "common_misunderstandings": "Conventions like Salisbury are not legally binding; they hold by agreement and could be challenged.", "tag_type": "concept", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E412", "paper": "Paper 3: Global Politics", "name": "The Fall of Assad in Syria 2024: Regime Change and a Setback for Russia and Iran", "topics": "Sovereignty; Conflict and security; Power and developments; Great-power competition; State collapse", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In December 2024 a rebel offensive led by the group HTS ended more than fifty years of Assad family rule in Syria, with President Bashar al-Assad fleeing to Russia.", "ao1_long": "The rapid collapse came after years of civil war during which Russia and Iran had propped up the regime. Their failure to save Assad, while stretched by other conflicts, marked a shift in the regional balance of power. The aftermath left questions about stability, human rights and outside influence in the new Syria.", "ao2_short": "It shows the limits of even strong outside backing, and how quickly the balance of power can change.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Power and developments: a striking example of regime change and a shift in regional power away from Russia and Iran. Use 2 - Sovereignty and intervention: it raises questions about state collapse, outside influence and what follows a fallen regime. Use 3 - The limits of great-power support: Russia and Iran could not save a client state, useful in debates about their reach.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2024, "example_type": "Case study", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Regime change and shifts in the balance of power", "secondary_uses": "Sovereignty and state collapse; the limits of Russian and Iranian power; human rights after conflict", "key_statistic": "Ended over 50 years of Assad family rule in December 2024", "related_concepts": "Sovereignty; Balance of power; Regime change; Non-state actor", "linked_organisations": "Russia; Iran; HTS", "common_misunderstandings": "Strong outside support does not guarantee a regime's survival; backers can be overstretched or unwilling to act.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E413", "paper": "Paper 3: Global Politics", "name": "Venezuela's Disputed 2024 Election: Democracy, Sovereignty and Non-Recognition", "topics": "Democracy and governance; Sovereignty; Human rights; Global governance; Power and developments", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In the July 2024 election Venezuela's authorities declared Nicolas Maduro the winner, but the opposition and many governments said the result was fraudulent.", "ao1_long": "The opposition published tally sheets suggesting it had won by a wide margin, and protests followed a crackdown. Several states and bodies refused to recognise the result, while others backed Maduro. It is a clear case of democratic backsliding and contested legitimacy.", "ao2_short": "It shows the tension between sovereignty and external judgements about the legitimacy of a government.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Democracy and human rights: a current example of democratic backsliding and disputed elections. Use 2 - Sovereignty and recognition: non-recognition by other states tests how far outsiders can judge a government's legitimacy. Use 3 - Global governance: weak and divided international responses show the limits of pressure on an entrenched regime.", "core_example": "FALSE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2024, "example_type": "Election result", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Democratic backsliding and contested legitimacy", "secondary_uses": "Sovereignty and recognition; human rights; the limits of international pressure", "key_statistic": "July 2024 result rejected as fraudulent by much of the international community", "related_concepts": "Democratic backsliding; Sovereignty; Legitimacy; Recognition", "linked_organisations": "Organisation of American States; United Nations", "common_misunderstandings": "Non-recognition does not remove a government from power; it is a diplomatic stance, not direct intervention.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E414", "paper": "Paper 3: Global Politics; Paper 3: US Politics", "name": "Taiwan and Cross-Strait Tensions 2024-26: Sovereignty and US-China Rivalry", "topics": "Sovereignty; Power and developments; Great-power competition; Conflict and security; US foreign policy", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "China has stepped up military and political pressure on Taiwan since the 2024 election of President Lai Ching-te, who China views as a separatist.", "ao1_long": "Beijing claims Taiwan as its own territory under the 'one China' principle and has held large military drills around the island. The United States supplies Taiwan with arms and keeps a deliberately unclear stance on whether it would defend it. Taiwan is a central flashpoint in US-China rivalry.", "ao2_short": "It is the clearest current flashpoint of sovereignty and great-power competition between the US and China.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Sovereignty: a contested claim where one state denies another's right to exist independently. Use 2 - Great-power competition: it sits at the centre of the US-China struggle and the shift to a multipolar or bipolar world. Use 3 - Hard power and deterrence: US 'strategic ambiguity' and arms sales show deterrence in action.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": "2024-26", "example_type": "Case study", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Sovereignty and US-China great-power rivalry", "secondary_uses": "Hard power and deterrence; multipolarity; the limits of international law over sovereignty", "key_statistic": "Large Chinese military drills followed the 2024 election of President Lai", "related_concepts": "Sovereignty; Deterrence; Strategic ambiguity; Multipolarity", "linked_organisations": "China; Taiwan; United States", "common_misunderstandings": "The US has no formal treaty to defend Taiwan; its 'strategic ambiguity' is deliberate.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E415", "paper": "Paper 3: Global Politics; Paper 1: Core Ideologies", "name": "Javier Milei and Argentina 2023-present: Libertarian Economics in Power", "topics": "Ideology; Economic policy; The role of the state; Populism; The Global South", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "Elected in 2023, Argentina's President Javier Milei is a self-described libertarian who has slashed the state, cut spending and deregulated the economy.", "ao1_long": "Milei campaigned with a chainsaw as a symbol of cutting the state and proposed scrapping the central bank and dollarising the economy. His 'shock therapy' cut inflation but caused hardship, making Argentina a live test of radical free-market ideas.", "ao2_short": "It is a rare real-world test of libertarian, minimal-state economics in national government.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Ideology and the role of the state: a current example of radical free-market and libertarian ideas applied in power, useful for essays on the size of the state. Use 2 - Populism: his outsider, anti-establishment style fits debates about modern populism. Use 3 - The Global South and economics: it shows a developing economy testing shock-therapy reform.", "core_example": "FALSE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": "2023-present", "example_type": "Case study", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Libertarian, minimal-state economics in practice", "secondary_uses": "Populism; the size and role of the state; economic reform in the Global South", "key_statistic": "Pursued deep spending cuts and deregulation from 2023", "related_concepts": "Libertarianism; Minimal state; Populism; Deregulation", "linked_organisations": "Argentina; International Monetary Fund", "common_misunderstandings": "Milei's libertarianism is about shrinking the economic state; it is not the same as anarchism in the spec sense.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E416", "paper": "Paper 3: US Politics", "name": "The US TikTok Divest-or-Ban Law 2024: Free Speech, Congress and China", "topics": "Civil rights and liberties; First Amendment; Congress; National security; The Supreme Court", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In 2024 Congress passed a law requiring the Chinese-owned app TikTok to be sold to a non-Chinese owner or face a ban in the United States, citing national security.", "ao1_long": "TikTok challenged the law as a breach of the First Amendment, but in early 2025 the Supreme Court upheld it. Enforcement was then repeatedly delayed by the executive. It pits free speech and a hugely popular platform against national-security and anti-China arguments.", "ao2_short": "It shows the clash between free-speech rights and national-security powers, and bipartisan agreement against China.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Civil liberties and the First Amendment: a current case on free speech versus security, with the Supreme Court siding with Congress. Use 2 - Congress and bipartisanship: a rare bipartisan vote shows shared concern about China. Use 3 - The branches and enforcement: delayed enforcement by the executive shows tension between the branches over a law on the books.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2024, "example_type": "Legislation", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Free speech versus national security", "secondary_uses": "Congress and bipartisanship; the Supreme Court and rights; executive enforcement discretion", "key_statistic": "Supreme Court upheld the law in early 2025", "related_concepts": "First Amendment; National security; Bipartisanship; Judicial review", "linked_organisations": "US Congress; US Supreme Court; TikTok", "common_misunderstandings": "The law required divestment first; a ban was the fallback, not the immediate aim.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E417", "paper": "Paper 3: Global Politics", "name": "EU-Ukraine Accession Talks 2024: Regionalism, Enlargement and the War", "topics": "Regionalism; The European Union; Enlargement; Sovereignty; Power and developments", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In June 2024 the European Union formally opened membership talks with Ukraine and Moldova, a major step in EU enlargement during the war with Russia.", "ao1_long": "Joining the EU is a long process requiring deep reforms, so talks are only a stage, not membership. Opening them was a strong political signal of support for Ukraine and of the EU's pull as a regional bloc. It also raised questions about how a larger EU would work.", "ao2_short": "It shows regional integration deepening and the EU using enlargement as a tool of influence.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Regionalism: a current example of the EU as a deepening, widening bloc and a model of integration. Use 2 - The EU as a power: enlargement is a form of soft power and strategic support for Ukraine. Use 3 - The limits of integration: a bigger EU raises hard questions about decision-making and sovereignty.", "core_example": "FALSE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2024, "example_type": "International organisation", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "Regional integration and EU enlargement", "secondary_uses": "The EU as a soft power; sovereignty and pooled decision-making; support for Ukraine", "key_statistic": "Accession talks opened with Ukraine and Moldova in June 2024", "related_concepts": "Regionalism; Enlargement; Pooled sovereignty; Soft power", "linked_organisations": "European Union; Ukraine; Moldova", "common_misunderstandings": "Opening talks is not joining; accession can take many years and major reforms.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" }, { "id": "E418", "paper": "Paper 3: Global Politics", "name": "2024, the Year of Elections: Democracy Tested Worldwide", "topics": "Democracy and governance; Global trends; Populism; Comparative politics; Power and developments", "definition": "", "ao1_short": "In 2024 countries with about half the world's population held national elections, including India, the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Indonesia and South Africa.", "ao1_long": "The results were mixed for democracy: some incumbents were punished, populist and nationalist forces rose in places, and several contests were marred by restrictions or disputes. Together they offered a snapshot of the health of democracy around the world.", "ao2_short": "It is a powerful overview example of the global state of democracy and the rise of populism.", "ao2_long": "Use 1 - Democracy worldwide: a synoptic example for essays on whether democracy is advancing or in retreat. Use 2 - Populism and nationalism: many of the year's contests showed these forces growing. Use 3 - Comparative politics: it invites comparison of how different systems and societies voted in the same year.", "core_example": "TRUE", "expandable": "TRUE", "source1_url": "", "source1_title": "", "source2_url": "", "source2_title": "", "source3_url": "", "source3_title": "", "image_url": "", "image_link": "", "year": 2024, "example_type": "Statistical data", "checked_facts": "", "checked_links": "", "wikipedia_added": "", "image_added": "", "ao1_complete": "", "ao2_strong": "", "last_reviewed": "", "status": "Draft", "primary_use": "The global state of democracy", "secondary_uses": "The rise of populism and nationalism; comparative politics; legitimacy and participation", "key_statistic": "Countries with around half the world's population held elections in 2024", "related_concepts": "Democracy; Populism; Legitimacy; Comparative politics", "linked_organisations": "", "common_misunderstandings": "Holding elections is not the same as healthy democracy; some were neither free nor fair.", "tag_type": "label", "synoptic_links": "", "question_links": 0, "greenhead": 0, "davids_pick": "No" } ]