Political Parties and the Party System

Note what I said about the development of the study of British politics:

Prior to the second world war the study of British politics was the study of the constitution, the relationship between politics and law. In the post war period political studies have tended to focus far more on political behaviour and in particular on the behaviour of groups and individuals outside the formal/legal apparatus of the state.

Attention turned to the activities of pressure groups; the relationship between the state, the government and sectional interest groups, voting behaviour; and naturally political parties.

This lecture looks closer at political parties in Britain, their organisational and ideological characteristics and how they fit in to their party system, electoral system and the political and social culture.

In Britain, parties are the obvious faces of politics on the television, radio and newspapers. They are perceived as being opinion shapers as much as they are reactive to a shifting consensus.

Consequently, British political parties and the party system are not static features of the political landscape. They are responsive to a wide variety of complex forces operating both on a domestic and global level and subsequently react to those changes in terms of their ideological position and electoral fortunes.

There are three major parties in British politics. The Conservative Party; The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats only two of which; the Conservative party and the Labour party have proven themselves most likely to form the majority party in a general election.

Although Britain has a two to three party system in terms of access to power the importance of other parties should not be understated. The SNP and less so Plaid Cymru have both experienced periods of political strength. Equally, the parties of Northern Ireland who operate within their own party and electoral system exercise a degree of power. In particular the Ulster Unionist parties held great power in the last parliament as a weak conservative government become ever more reliant upon their support in crucial European votes.

Similarly, the SDLP and Sinn Fein have been instrumental as intermediaries in securing IRA cease-fires and seeking to enable the peace process in Northern Ireland.

Other parties such as the Green Party operate almost as popular pressure groups forcing other parties to adopt some of their agenda. Equally socialist and communist parties and organisations attempt to operate at grass roots level and in local politics where their voice can make some impact.

The conventional understanding of the British party system is intimately connected to the Westminster Model of British politics. Generally until the 1960s and 1970s British political parties were regarded as essential machinery in a system of representative and responsible government under a constitutional monarchy.

The Conventional view of the party system in Britain goes something like this. See for example Dearlove and Saunders (1991)

1. It is a two party system with free and fair elections operating under conditions of universal suffrage.

2. The electoral system produces one party government and one party opposition, which scrutinises government policy and seeks to reflect public opinion.

3. Close competition of the parties ensures a swift changeover of governing party. Parties in opposition can readily expect to form a government in the near future. This conforms to a democratic norm that today's minorities (in terms of power holders) ought to easily become tomorrow's majorities.

4. Parties compete for public support by offering packages of policies outlined in manifestos. This ensures that the publics are aware of any forthcoming policy changes at the general election.

5. The fact that parties compete for electoral success means that they have to be popular; they have to in some way reflect the aspirations of the voters

6. The voters in turn are regarded as rational, self interested utility maximizers - they will vote for the party which does they best for them and their families

7. The party, which wins a majority of seats in the House of Commons, forms a government and has a mandate to implement its policy preferences.

8. Parties are organised under strict disciplinary codes, strong decisive leadership. Backbench MPs are expected to toe the party line because parties represent the views of the majority of the electorate. They therefore have a duty to support the leadership in implementing policy changes.

If the practice of British politics concurs with the Westminster model interpretation of the party system we would have to conclude that political parties are the crucial link between the electorate and the wider political system.

However there are four particular ways in which the practice of party politics and the realities of the party system may not fit the conventional theory.

Firstly, it is not clear that Britain is a two party system. Certainly between 1945 and 1970 the two main parties - Con and Lab - shared some 90% of the vote. But, this ignores the 1920s when there was practically a three party system at work. In the 1920s the old Liberal party although in decline was much more powerful than today.

Similarly in the 1970s nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales and a nascent liberal party secured 25% of the vote.

The election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 seemed to indicate two party politics again however the formation of the Social Democratic Party born out of internal left right conflict within the labour party witnessed a revival of three party politics. The Social Democratic party in alliance with the Liberals took 26 % of the vote in 1983.

The demise of the SDP after 1987 and the subsequent rise in support for 'new labour' seems to indicate that two party politics is back, but this underestimates the volatility of the electorate especially in Scotland.

Secondly, despite eighteen years of single party government between 1979 and 1997, we have known considerable periods of coalition rule. 1915 -22; 1931 national government; 1940 – 45 wartime coalition and the 1977 – 79 lib lab pact. Despite the massive majority (178) that the Labour party now has in the House of Commons its worth noting that the conservatives came back from a worse defeat in 1951 to rule for thirteen years.

Thirdly we should not accept at face value that the two parties offer the electorate a real choice. The post war consensus arguably from 1945 - 1979 rested upon political parties adhering to shared goals with regard to economic and social policy.

For the right such a position entrenched socialism and denied a real choice to the electorate. For the left the consensus represented the Labour party’s failure as a socialist party and the dominance of capitalist economic and political forms.

Fourthly, we should be wary of assuming that parties implement the programme upon which they were elected. In many important cases, policies have been developed without reference to the electorate. For example, the development of Britain's nuclear capacity in both civil and military terms was never an election question between 1945 and 1966, furthermore it was tacitly supported by both parties.

Edward Heath in one of the major constitutional events this century (the British Prime Minister between 1970 and 1974) negotiated Britain's entry to the EEC without even putting this aspiration in the manifesto.

The privatisation programme of Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s was never in the 1979 manifesto neither was the highly controversial Poll Tax (local government finance reform) in the 1987 Manifesto.

However, despite these criticisms the Westminster Model approach to the party system should not be ignored. Perhaps we could say that sometimes the theory fits and sometimes it does not. When it doesn't we simply have to look for more valuable analytical tools to find out what’s going on.

Conservatives

Historically, the conservatives have been the party of tradition, of incremental rather than radical change, of paternalistic guardianship of crown and constitution. The party of landowners and traditional old money; of the upper middle class. The conservatives have also been suspicious of abstract ideas or blueprints about how society ought to be organised, arguing for a more organic understanding of the world.

The post war period has seen major changes to the Conservative Party both organisationally and ideologically.

The hold of the traditionalists over the party began to wane in the mid 1960s when the method of electing the party leader changed. Prior to 1965 a conservative leader was said to emerge; the choice of influential voices and party elders. Thereafter the party leader was elected.

Secondly, the election of Margaret Thatcher as party leader in 1975 indicated a sharp swing to the neo liberal right. Influenced by American market economists Thatcher ensured that the party has been informed less by tradition and more by economic 'realism' - a more market as opposed to state orientated approach to social and economic matters.

Essentially followed by Major in most respects, attempted to make the party less socially doctrinaire.

Party under Hague - more say for grassroots members - moves to recruit younger party members - policy stance more Thatcherite than Major.

Labour

The labour party is much newer beast than the conservatives it was born at the turn of the century; a coming together of a variety of forces - principally the intellectual left and the trade unions. It has historically been the party of labour representation in the House of Commons and the party of the working class.

Labours history has been one of internecine strife and has subsequently seen less power than the conservatives. From the 1950s the party has been divided over the key issues of nuclear deterrence, nationalisation of the economy, European integration, the party constitution etc. essentially a conflict between the right and the left.

The 1980s were a desperate time for the labour party when these conflicts caused the split of the party and a seemingly never ending period in opposition. The choice of Michael Foot as leader to fight the general election in 1983 was misguided. The choice of his successor, Neil Kinnock although radical was never likely to win the hearts of southern English voters.

The replacement of Kinnock with John Smith began a series of changes to party organisation not least the gradual weakening of the Trade Union strength and the increase in the power of MPs.

John Smiths death led to the election of Tony Blair and the birth of new labour, which ironically accepted the intellectual terrain, trod by the conservatives in the 1980s.

Party organisation in the Labour party has subsequently been tightened.

Blair wishes to avoid the problems of labours past has tightened the power of the leadership over the party.

Grand Scheme to modernise the party, Britain and the State. Note the significance of social welfare reform and a greater willingness to engage with constitutional matters.

The Liberal Democrats

The liberal democrats formed in 1988 from the old Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party is Britain’s third major political force.

The first two years of the new Party’s existence were troubled. Some members of the old SDP and Liberal Party refused to join the new merged party, and the resulting row sent the Liberal Democrats tumbling. The Party Conference of 1989 marked a turning point, however, with morale, finances and membership recovering steadily thereafter.

The liberal democrats are especially strong in local government. In the 1993 County Council elections, the Liberal Democrats were the major beneficiaries, gaining 397 seats and two councils compared to Labour's 88 seats and one council.

The 1997 Election saw the Liberal Democrats returned with 46 seats their best yet and a considerable result for a third party within an electoral system, which discriminates against third parties with a broad spread of electoral support.

That’s the parties and the party system and there were questions raised about the notion that parties are an effective link between people and state. If parties do not act as filters what happens to the popular will?

There are a variety of perspectives that I could talk about here but I’m going to limit myself to a few general comments about what happens when there is a lack of fit between what parties do and what the public want.

If parties fail to reflect a significant upsurge in public opinion extra parliamentary activity inevitably follows.

In recent years, such action has been the domain of various green activists. Whether it has been the issue of live veal calf transportation or the road building programme, environmental activists have taken direct obstructive action. In areas such as this groups tend to stand outside the received wisdom and fail to conform to accepted norms of political activity.

On the one hand such action could be a breach of the democratic process. However, democracies must tolerate minority views and even a level of civil disobedience. Democracies may well be prone to the mobilisation of bias (Cf. Lecture 2 on Power) meaning that some issues are mobilised in and some out.

Green activists much like the civil rights activists argue that they have to go outside of the dominant political structures to achieve justice.