Edexcel A-Level Politics | Paper 1 | 2027 Predicted Paper
Predicted Paper 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas
Paper reference: 9PL0/01
Time: 2 hours
Total marks: 84
Instructions
There are two sections. Answer three questions in total.
In Section A, answer either Question 1(a) or Question 1(b) and then either Question 2(a) or Question 2(b).
In Section B, answer either Question 3(a) or Question 3(b).
The marks for each question are shown in brackets.
The specification confirms that Section A is worth 60 marks and contains one 30-mark source question and one 30-mark essay, while Section B contains one 24-mark Core Political Ideas question.
SOURCE BOOKLET
SECTION A
Political Participation
Source 1(a)
Should the franchise be extended to 16- and 17-year-olds?
The following two arguments consider whether extending the franchise to 16- and 17-year-olds would strengthen democracy in the UK.
The case for extending the franchise
The history of democracy in the UK has involved a gradual widening of the franchise. Restrictions based on property and gender were progressively removed, equal voting rights for women were achieved in 1928, and the voting age was reduced from 21 to 18 in 1969. Extending the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds could therefore be regarded as another stage in the development of political participation.
There is already experience of younger voters taking part in elections within the UK. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds can vote in Scottish Parliament and local elections in Scotland, and in Senedd and local elections in Wales. In 2026 the Representation of the People Bill proposed extending voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds more widely. Supporters argue that allowing people to participate while they are young could encourage continued engagement in political life. It could also make the franchise more consistent across different elections and strengthen the legitimacy of representative democracy by including more citizens in choosing those who govern them.
The case against extending the franchise
Extending the legal right to vote would not automatically solve problems of political participation. A participation crisis can result from people who already possess the franchise choosing not to vote or becoming disconnected from political parties and institutions. Simply adding more people to the electorate may therefore increase the size of the franchise without significantly increasing effective participation.
Critics can also argue that every electoral system requires an age at which voting rights begin. Lowering that age does not in itself prove that democracy becomes more effective. Instead of changing the franchise, greater attention could be given to encouraging existing voters to participate and ensuring that citizens understand political choices. Representative democracy also allows people who cannot vote to influence politics through campaigning and other forms of participation. The central issue is therefore whether extending formal voting rights would genuinely improve participation and legitimacy, rather than simply enlarging the electorate.
Source basis: The historical franchise requirements, including the 1832, 1918, 1928 and 1969 Acts and a current movement to extend the franchise, are explicitly required by specification point 1.2. The contemporary material reflects the government's 2026 proposal to extend the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds.
Source 1(b)
Does the way political parties are funded need reform?
The following two arguments consider whether the current system of funding UK political parties should be reformed.
The case for reform
Political parties require substantial financial resources to campaign, employ staff, communicate with voters and develop policy. However, dependence on private donations can create concerns about political influence. Under the current rules, there is no overall limit on the size of a donation that a party may accept from a permissible source. This means that a small number of wealthy individuals or organisations can potentially provide sums far greater than ordinary members could contribute.
The issue is not simply whether a donor can prove that a particular policy was purchased. Public confidence may be damaged if voters believe that those able to make very large donations gain greater political access or influence than ordinary citizens. Differences in access to funding may also give some parties greater opportunities to campaign successfully than others. The Electoral Commission has argued that although the UK system contains important transparency requirements, aspects of political-finance law could be strengthened. Reform could therefore protect confidence in representative democracy while reducing the significance of large private donations.
The case for retaining the current system
Political parties need money if they are to fulfil their functions in representative democracy. They develop policies, contest elections, recruit candidates and give voters alternative programmes of government. Private contributions can be seen as a legitimate form of political participation because citizens, members, trade unions and other permissible organisations are able to support parties with which they agree.
The existing system also contains regulation and transparency. Parties must check whether donations come from permissible sources, maintain records and report qualifying donations to the Electoral Commission. Parties can receive money through membership and affiliation payments as well as private donations, while some public funding is also available. The Policy Development Grants scheme distributes £2 million to qualifying parties to support the development of manifesto policies. Greater reliance on state funding might distance political parties from their own supporters and require taxpayers to finance parties they oppose. Regulation and disclosure may therefore provide a better balance than imposing severe new restrictions on political funding.
Source basis: Edexcel specifically requires knowledge of the functions and features of political parties, how parties are currently funded and debates about the consequences of that funding system.
QUESTION PAPER
SECTION A
Political Participation
Answer ONE question from either Question 1(a) or Question 1(b) and then answer ONE question from either Question 2(a) or Question 2(b).
EITHER
Question 01(a)
Look at Source 1(a).
Using the source, evaluate the view that extending the franchise to 16- and 17-year-olds would strengthen democracy in the UK.
In your response you should:
compare the contrasting arguments contained in the source
examine both sides of the debate in a balanced way
base your analysis and evaluation on the political information contained in the source.
(30 Marks)
OR
Question 01(b)
Look at Source 1(b).
Using the source, evaluate the view that the current system of funding political parties in the UK should be reformed.
In your response you should:
compare the contrasting arguments contained in the source
examine both sides of the debate in a balanced way
base your analysis and evaluation on the political information contained in the source.
(30 Marks)
AND EITHER
Question 02(a)
Evaluate the view that the media has only a limited influence on voting behaviour in UK general elections.
You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.
(30 Marks)
OR
Question 02(b)
Evaluate the view that the use of referendums since 1997 has had a positive impact on UK political life.
You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.
(30 Marks)
SECTION B
Core Political Ideas
Answer ONE question from either Question 3(a) or Question 3(b).
EITHER
Question 03(a) Liberalism
To what extent do classical liberals and modern liberals disagree over the meaning of freedom?
You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider both agreement and disagreement in a balanced way.
(24 Marks)
OR
Question 03(b) Conservatism
To what extent is conservatism divided over its view of human nature?
You must use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer and consider both agreement and disagreement in a balanced way.
(24 Marks)
Comments