I have read your essay and it certainly contains some points of merit. I do, however, think it is rather biased towards the Queen model.
 
First, some factual points:
 
You talk about religion. The British prime minister is not allowed to be a Catholic. Therefore, perhaps you should ask whether the same might apply to a British President.
 
You should refer to 'laws' rather than 'legislations'.
 
Try to get the language right. A General Election takes place when the Queen accedes to a prime minister's request to dissolve parliament. Similarly, it is by convention that after an Election the Queen asks the leader of the party with the largest number of Commons seats to become prime minister and form a government.
 
Now, some omissions from your essay:
 
The Queen is a constitutional monarch. What this means is that the royal prerogative powers are exercised on her behalf by the prime minister and his Cabinet colleagues. Government is conducted in the Queen's name. In other words the Queen 'reigns but does not rule'. In principle she could dismiss a government at any time, though this has not happened since George III dismissed the Fox-North government in the 18th century.
 
It is highly likely that a president would be elected - as in the USA. This in turn suggests that there would need to be a written constitution, whereas at present the UK has an uncodified constitution. Such a written constitution is also likely, as in the USA, to embrace the principle of the separation of powers. Hence the president would be head of the executive branch, but would not be responsible for law-making (the legislative branch) or the upholding of the law (the judicial branch). The only alternative to this would be a despotic president with supreme powers, but this is clearly not an option for the UK.
 
So far as the armed forces are concerned, the president is likely to be commander-in-chief, as in the USA. This means that he is ultimately responsible for deploying troops, though you should note that in the USA it is Congress that has the power to declare wars, ratify treaties and finance military operations.In the UK, it is the prime minister who at present makes all these decisions, subject to parliamentary approval.
 
Note that if the UK followed the US Constitution, there would be no question of the president granting honours, as you suggest, since the Constitution explicitly bars the granting of honours and titles.
 
The key point that needs to be made about a president is that he would almost certainly be elected, in contrast to the Queen, who is an hereditary monarch. An elected president would therefore have his own mandate, and would automatically be the spokesman for the UK. He could also be defeated in a subsequent presidential election by another candidate. He would combine the roles of Head of Government and Head of State. This is unlike the present situation in the UK, where Gordon Brown is Head of Government and the Queen is Head of State.
 
Finally, the interesting question to ask is whether we could have both, as in some European countries. The Queen would then have a purely symbolic role, and almost certainly no constitutional role. We would no longer talk about Her Majesty's Government, courts, etc.
 
I hope this is helpful.

This is of course an enormous topic, and you are quite right to try to focus on some of the more central themes and omitting others. You will see that I have been through your work with a fine toothcomb, in the process removing errors, adding key points of comparison or fact, and clarifying all manner of issues. I hope you like the new version, which is certainly deserving of a high mark - I particularly liked the Swift Boat Veterans' material.

This is nicely written, with some deft touches and phrases. I don't fundamentally disagree with your analysis or conclusion, though I felt that more by way of specific illustration would make it more convincing. You will therefore find that I have added examples in places, and have also changed some of the wording to make the points clearer. It is now A grade standard.

I hope this is helpful.

You have assembled quite a lot of material here, but I have had to make radical alterations in order to make it flow more smoothly, to clarify a number of points and to bring out comparisons. I have added a good number of examples and further analysis in several places. As yet, you have no conclusion - you essentially need to say that pressure groups are much more influential in the US than in the UK, because of their huge contribution to legislation and their key role in providing finance (through political action committees) and in mobilising members to vote in elections. In the UK, even the more 'insider' groups have been marginalised - for example, the present government doesn't take much notice of either the CBI or the TUC, and has often practically ignored the advice of the NFU and the British Medical Association. The key difference is that in the USA the insider groups don't tend to change whoever is in power, while in the UK they need to share the government's political philosophy on issues in order to have any real influence.

I get the impression that you are not so confident on the USA side of this, so the following might be useful, and some of it could be woven into your amended essay.

Interest groups engage in a very broad range of activities. This is perhaps best demonstrated by referring to specialist surveys in this area. The following information summarises the work of Nownes and Freeman (1998). It refers to a survey of interest groups with Washington offices. The bracketed figure denotes the proportion of such groups that regularly engage in the activity listed.

Testifying at legislative hearings (99)
Contacting government officials directly (98)
Informal contacts with officials (95)
Entering into coalitions with other groups (90)
Attempting to shape implementation of legislation (89)
Talking to media (86)
Helping to draft legislation (85)
Consulting with officials to plan legislative strategy (85)
Raising new issues/calling attention to previously ignored problems (84)
Inspiring letter-writing campaigns or equivalent (84)
Getting influential constituents to contact legislator’s office (80)
Mounting grassroots lobbying efforts (80)
Helping to draft regulations/rules/guidelines (78)
Serving on advisory commissions/boards (76)
Alerting legislators to the effect of a bill on their districts (75)
Filing suits/engaging in litigation (72)
Making contributions to candidates (58)
Attempting to influence appointment to public office (53)
Running ads in media about position (31)
Working in election campaigns (24)
Endorsing candidates (22)
Protests or demonstrations (20)

Lobbying involves direct contact between a lobbyist and a government official. A lobbyist (or ‘consultant’) is an organisation or individual attempting to influence the passage, content or defeat of legislation, or the administrative decisions of government. Modern lobbying is not based on bribery and corruption of officials, but uses more subtle and sophisticated methods. Most of the top lobbyists are seasoned lawyers or former Congressmen, with offices in Washington (‘the K Street corridor’) and who have built effective working relationships with officials through what is known as the ‘revolving door’. For example, Bob Livingston, chair of the House Appropriations Committee, resigned from Congress in 1999, and started the Livingston Group, which lobbies Congress on behalf of business firms. Such ‘insider’ lobbying is directed at policy makers who are naturally inclined to support the group in question. Money is critical – for example, the American Petroleum Institute can afford a Washington office staffed by lobbyists, petroleum experts and PR specialists who help oil companies maintain access to, and influence with legislative and executive leaders.

Lobbyists aim to cultivate long-term relationships with key decision-makers. The benefits of a close relationship with Congressmen are substantial and symbiotic. Interest groups can offer legislative assistance to achieve their policy goals; Congressmen rely on trusted lobbyists for information and expertise, and to identify bills deserving of their attention and support. Lobbyists’ influence in part depends on their reputation for fair play and on the avoidance of arm-twisting tactics. During the 1993 NAFTA debate, the AFL-CIO threatened retaliation against congressional Democrats who supported the free trade legislation, but the backlash from Democrats in favour of the legislation was so intense that the unions were obliged to withdraw their threat. The lobbying influence of interest groups on the legislature comes about in a number of ways. These include: direct contact with Congressmen and their staff (and especially with the relevant House and Senate committee members, and with the staff serving these committees); testifying at committee hearings and assisting with the drafting of bills; mobilising and applying pressure from ‘the folks back home’, with a view to influencing policy-makers indirectly; providing political information (and thus ‘voting cues’) to legislators; endorsement of, and financial contributions to candidates in election campaigns; and campaigning for and against members of Congress (including issue advocacy, independent expenditures and publicising the voting records of Congressmen).

Lobbying of the executive branch has also increased in importance. By working with executive departments, agencies and regulatory commissions, interest groups, especially in areas such as health and safety, transport, business regulation and the environment, can influence policy decisions at both the planning and implementation stages – many even draft the regulations. Interest groups assist agencies by providing information and lending support when their programmes are reviewed by Congress and by the president. The broadcasting organisations are one example of key players; they are said to have a great deal of influence over the Federal Communications Commission. This is often described as an example of ‘agency capture’. But agency officials are acutely aware that they can lose influence in Congress (which controls their funding and programme authorisation) if they show too much favour towards a particular group. Some groups also attempt to influence political appointments to the bureaucracy.

Court rulings in key areas such as education and civil rights mean that some interest groups focus their attention on the judicial branch, including efforts to influence the appointment of federal judges. For example, right to life groups pressurised the Reagan and George Bush administrations to make opposition to abortion a condition of nomination. Many groups use an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, a written document in which the group brings its position on a particular issue to a court’s attention. For example, in the landmark affirmative action case Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke (1978), 58 such briefs representing the positions of over a hundred groups were filed with the Supreme Court. Such groups typically try to influence public policy through the courts by filing lawsuits, selecting test cases to create a precedent – the NAACP and ACLU are prominent in this field, frequently defending the rights and liberties of minority groups. Litigation is increasingly common – for example, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council have frequently sued oil, timber and mining corporations, while in 1999 five civil rights groups sued the University of California over its admissions policy. Groups also resort to the courts as a means of forcing opponents to negotiate with them, a tactic used frequently by groups opposing property developers and tobacco companies.

There are also examples of ‘iron triangles’ – a small and informal, but relatively stable set of bureaucrats, Congressmen and lobbyists who seek to develop policies beneficial to a particular interest. One example is the close relationship between the Department of Veterans Affairs, the veterans affairs committees of the House and Senate, and veterans’ groups such as the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. A group in an iron triangle has an inside track to those legislators and bureaucrats who are in the strongest position to promote its cause. In return it provides lobbying support for the agency’s funding and its programmes, and gives campaign contributions to its congressional allies. Other good examples are defense contractors and agricultural interests. Iron triangles are found only in certain policy areas and are less prominent than in the past. A more common pattern of influence today is the ‘issue network’, an informal grouping of officials, lobbyists and policy specialists who come together temporarily through their shared interest in a particular policy issue. Unlike iron triangles, issue networks are built around specialised interests and information. Once the issue is resolved, the network usually disbands. For example, in the case of a decision on whether a forest should be opened to logging, the network consists of logging interests, the US Forest Service, House and Senate Agriculture Committee members, research scientists and environmental groups spokesmen, the housing industry and animal rights groups. Hence, unlike the iron triangle, the network incorporates interests that are in opposition.

Although a group may rely solely on Washington lobbying, this approach is unlikely to succeed unless it can demonstrate convincingly that its concerns reflect those of a vital constituency. Hence many groups engage in ‘outside lobbying’, which involves bringing public pressure to bear on policy makers, both between and during election campaigns. Some groups specialise in grass roots lobbying or ‘climate control’ – i.e. pressure designed to convince officials that their policy position enjoys strong or widespread public support, or opposition; growing use is made of the Internet to provide members with information and advice on contacting legislators. To mobilise support, groups can mount advertising and PR campaigns through the media, and can also encourage members to contact (through letters, faxes, e-mails, computer-generated mail and visits) their elected representatives. The American Association of Retired Persons is the classic example – with 36 million members and a staff of 1600, it is a powerful lobby on a range of issues affecting the elderly, and particularly social security and Medicare. Other examples are the NRA, which is able to generate thousands of calls and letters to Congressmen in a remarkably short time, and the Christian Coalition, with its customised letters and voter guides. Some groups launch high profile campaigns in the media when a significant piece of legislation is coming up for a crucial debate and vote in Congress. Examples in recent years have included health care and welfare reform, gun control, international environmental agreements, federal funding of faith-based groups and of stem-cell research, the outlawing of partial abortion and gay civil unions.

Presidential and congressional elections provide opportunities for interest groups to play a critical and direct political role. In 1996, labour unions backed 27 GOP House candidates who had been supportive of their interests, while the AFL-CIO spent almost $40M in the 2000 election and over $60M in the 2004 election on campaign literature, get-out-the-vote telephone banks, voter registration drives and television issue advertisements, and with a significant input into the victories of both Gore and Kerry in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The Sierra Club spent $16M in 1996, $22M in 2000 and $32M in 2004 on targeted congressional races, with a heavy emphasis upon negative advertising. The League of Conservation Voters produces a ‘Dirty Dozen’ list for each election – the twelve public officials with the poorest voting record on environmental conservation. Most are Congressmen, and are targeted with some success in elections. The NRA targeted nearly thirty House Democrats in 1994 who had voted for the Brady Act, helping to defeat some two-thirds of them, including the then House speaker, Foley. This was followed by a concerted effort to defeat Al Gore in 2000, focusing upon membership training and negative advertising in particular states and districts, and most obviously meeting with success in West Virginia.

Many groups played a significant role in the 2004 election, organising voter registration drives in key battleground states, mobilising their members in the campaign ‘on the ground’, providing personnel, equipment, polling data and offices for candidates, and directly funding campaigns to support or oppose Initiatives on state and local ballots, particularly those concerned with same sex marriage, gun control and abortion. The efforts of members of conservative and evangelical groups in particular proved decisive in close congressional races, in raising turnout, and in delivering swing states (such as Florida, Ohio and New Mexico) to George Bush. Some interest groups also have strong connections with the tax-exempt 527 Committees that played such a significant role in the 2004 presidential election. Groups such as Americans Coming Together and the Media Fund were active in voter registration and advertising on behalf of Kerry, while America Votes coordinated the efforts of a number of liberal leaning groups. Similarly, the Bush campaign benefited from the efforts of 527s such as the Progress for America Voters Fund and Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth.

I hope this is helpful.

As in the case of your other answer, I have appended here some points that will explain neo-liberalism to you.

Neo-liberalism represents a revival of the ideas of classical liberalism. Its aim has been to halt, indeed reverse, the trend towards 'big government' and state intervention that has characterised most of the 20th century. Hence markets are viewed as morally and practically superior to government - neoliberals such as Hayek and Friedman attack central planning in particular and economic intervention in general. Economic intervention is thus the single most serious threat to individual liberty because any attempt to control economic life inevitably draws the state into other areas of human existence, ultimately leading to totalitarianism. Hence the growth of 'big' government (with its tax and spend policies, and increasing encroachment into all areas of economic and social life) is not so much a response to democratic pressures, nor an attempt to correct the imbalances of capitalism, but is rather a consequence of the pursuit of self-interest by public sector workers, bureaucrats and legislators. Neoliberalism thus glorifies the market, and naturally welcomes globalisation, since it is essentially market-oriented global capitalism. So neo-liberals are generally unconcerned by the effects of this modern capitalism - seen in the growing power of transnational corporations, unbridled consumerism. competitive individualism, and the threats to economic and cultural diversity.

Ultimately, there are clearly tensions within liberalism (and thus also within its antecedent, utilitarianism, which is consistent with both classical liberalism and modern liberalism). Classical liberalism (and its neoliberal revival) is characterised by utility/happiness maximisation, the minimal state, a free market economy and negative freedoms, while modern liberalism is characterised by an enabling state. a managed economy, an assault on the excesses (injustices) of unbridled capitalism, equality of opportunity, and positive freedom.

I hope this is helpful.

I have read your essay, and it appears to be rather too chatty and not well focused. Rather than 'correct it' I have put together a number of key points on Benthamite utilitarianism, which will help you to understand it better - you will then be able to modify your essay accordingly.

The essential features of utilitarianism were: 

1. Men act to maximise their own interests, or in Bentham's language, happiness. 
2. Moral codes should be based on the principle of general utility - 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number'
3. This principle of utility should govern legislative rules and policies.

The key problem with the theory is that there is an apparent contradiction between its psychological premises and its ethical injunctions. If men are necessarily dedicated to the pursuit of their own happiness, then urging them to follow a moral principle (the general utility or good) might well militate against their own interests. Utilitarians suggested two answers to this dilemma, each with very different political implications. The first was that man's natural pursuit of their own interests would AUTOMATICALLY further the general utility. This is the basis of classical economic theory - self-interested men will naturally generate a productive and commercial system maximising general utility (Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'). Seeking the means to their own happiness, they produce goods and services which can be exchanged for goods and services they desire. The market mechanism itself will then promote the efficient investment of capital and labour. Hence, in the area of economic relationships, government intervention is not necessary (beyond the enforcement of contracts) to achieve a reconciliation between individual aspirations and general utility.

However, the other response to the utilitarian dilemma was less critical of government intervention. The egoistic drives of individuals can be brought into line with the requirements of general utility by law operating through sanctions. By penalising actions undesirable on utility grounds, legislators can ensure that rational egoists, seeking to avoid sanctions, will contribute to the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

Hence there are several different, indeed divergent strands in utilitarianism: support for laisser-faire policies in the economic sphere; a justification for government intervention where social harmony could not be achieved through market mechanisms; and a defence of the classic liberal position that non-restriction of liberty needs no defence, while intrusions on it always require justifications. It thus provides ideological backing for the liberal concern with individual freedom, most particularly in the economic sphere, while at the same time supporting a reformist thrust in public administration.

The vexed question of how disinterested legislators laying down rules to maximise the general utility could be found was addressed by support for political democracy - hence 19th century utilitarians were advocates of radical parliamentary reform - self-interested legislators could be transformed into disinterested legislators only if they were made accountable to (and thus removeable by) the electorate - hence the call for extensions of the franchise. and the belief in representative government, individual consent and popular sovereignty.

By the end of the 19th century, a new factor had been injected into the liberal philosophy - essential that of equality of OPPORTUNITY, and the need for the state to introduce measures designed to bring it about. In other words, there was the development of the idea of POSITIVE LIBERTY - that individuals can only make effective choices (and thus exercise their liberty) if they have the POWER to choose. Hence social justice was needed to support individuals when their self-reliance and initiative were insufficient to provide them with protection, or where the market did not exhibit the flexibility or sensitivity it was supposed to in satisfying basic wants. This was the rationale behind the provision of state education, health, housing and pensions, as well as later anti-discrimination legislation. Even Bentham had earlier argued that 'the business of government is to promote the happiness of society' - the evolution of utilitarianism required active intervention by governments to ensure that all citizens had sufficient economic resopurces to exercise real choices and thus advance their own happiness. In short, Bentham was the founder of contemporary liberalism.

The tensions within utilitarianism, however, mean that it is not synonymous with liberalism. 'The happiness of the greatest number' does in principle suggest that the interests of the MAJORITY outweigh those of the MINORITY, while liberals, in contrast, believe that all individuals are entitled to pursue their own interests. So the strict application of Benthamite ideas could result in majoritarian tyranny, especially if governments do nothing to uphold and guarantee the rights of minorities.

I hope these ideas are helpful.

There is a good amount of decent and accurate material here, though I have found it necessary to make plenty of changes to the wording to make it all flow more smoothly. There is in places a danger of loss of focus, and several key points that should appear do so only at the margins or by implication. I am therefore spelling these out below, and strongly recommend that you incorporate them into your essay.

Reasons for the 1997 defeat need to be mentioned - in particular, the party's loss of reputation for strong leadership, unity and excellent economic management. By 1997, the party was widely seen as divided, rudderless, out of touch, sleazy and increasingly extreme in a number of policy areas. In contrast, Labour had been transformed under Blair and was seen as modern, fresh, enterprising, non-ideological and concerned with the welfare of all the people and not simply those on higher salaries.

This highlights the fundamental need for change in the Conservative party, but the party took years (and two firther election defeats) to recognise it. The complacent view was that the electorate had deserted the party only temporarily, and that once Labour in office was revealed as a socialist party the voters would soon feel cheated and see sense. Of course this simply didn't happen, and 'New' Labour adopted much of the Conservatives' agenda. Hence the Conservatives were permanently left on the backfoot, month after month behind in the opinion polls, and struggling to escape from the legacy of Thatcherism, which had left the party deeply divided over Europe and represented in the Commons by MPs, most of whom were decidedly Thatcherite and who blamed the party's downfall on the decision in 1990 to ditch her.

Meanwhile the party's membership in the country had fallen below 200,000; the average age of members was 65; the party was not recruiting young people (or women or ethnic minorities); its base in local government too was shattered. Hague recognised this and believed that democratising the party was the answer. His efforts failed, however, and the only real effect of granting greater power to the membership was to entrench deeply conservative policies that were unpopular in the country, while his reform of the system of electing the party leader simply gave them Duncan Smith, who was never remotely likely to look like prime ministerial material. Over and over again, the party's image in the country ensured that it would remain in opposition. It was seen as divided, discredited, out of touch, preoccupied with a narrow range of issues, and - as Theresa May warned - plain nasty.

Each of Hague, Duncan Smith and Howard started off by trying to make the party more broadly based and appealing - Hague wanted young people to join it, while both IDS and Howard initially made a pitch for the middle ground, stressing policy areas based on inclusion and social justice. But this 'softer' approach failed to convince the electorate, while at the same time often outraged the party's activists and core supporters, most of whom are extremely right wing. Hence when the softer approach failed to result in the party making any headway in the opinion polls, all three leaders responded by veering back sharply to the right, with the stress on anti-Europe, anti-immigration and asylum, tax cuts and law and order. This pleased Tory members and core voters, but of course failed to make any inroads into Labour's commanding lead. The party remained marooned in the low 30s in the polls under all these leaders, while the election campaigns of 2001 and 2005 were noted for their stridency, negativity and focus on 'dog whistle' issues. This enabled the party to reassure its core supporters and to recruit a few extra DE class voters (due to the patriotic card) but turned off millions of AB professional voters, who had deserted to Labour and stayed there (or, in some cases, supported the LibDems).

Howard's great service to the party is that he managed to unite it by removing the divisive EU issue from the agenda. But he was unable to broaden its appeal. The surprise election of Cameron as his successor represents a belated recognition that the party must modernise if it is ever to regain office. He was elected overwhelmingly - both by MPs and party members - because both are fed up with losing general elections. So there are parallels with Labour electing Blair in 1995 as leader after four successive defeats. Cameron has made it clear that the party must undergo radical change in every respect, and thus lose its reputation for standing only for the wealthy white middle class. His argument is that people will vote for it only if it is seen to have radically changed, and is regarded as open, tolerant and welcoming. To this end there will be a huge stress on ensuring more female and ethnic minority candidates are lined up for winnable seats. Cameron also plans to make a pitch for voters in the cities, who have deserted the party in droves. He has already thrown out traditional Conservative policies in areas such as health and education, and is putting far greater emphasis upon the environment and on anti-poverty programmes. Traditional Conservatives do not of course greatly care for this, but are going along with it because they want the Conservatives back in power, and are thus prepared to bite the bullet - after all, it is clear that the earlier manifestoes dominated by Europe, immigration and tax cuts simply don't appeal to miost voters. So many commentators see Cameron as a latter-day Blair, marching the party towards the centre. He will be deemed to have been successful in his strategy if it all results in election victory; if not, all hell will break out!

I hope all this is helpful.