Key Concepts
- political party
- left/right
- liberalism
- conservatism
- socialism
- factionalism
- consensus politics
- adversary politics
Content Explanation
Nature of political parties — a knowledge and understanding of political parties, of their distinctive features and of their key functions within the political system.
Traditions and policies of parties — a knowledge and understanding of the central ideas, traditions and policies of the major UK political parties, and the development of party policies in recent years and of factors that influence ideological and policy development, including policy and ideological differences within parties. (Although extended questions will not be set solely on political traditions, they may be set on sub-traditions such as ‘new’ Labour or ‘Thatcherism’).
Comparing party policies and ideas — a knowledge and understanding of similarities and contrasts between the ideas and policies of the major parties and of the ideological relationship between and amongst them.
Exposition
- Definition of political party—distinguish from and identify overlaps with pressure groups; differences between major and minor parties (eg Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats and nationalist parties).
- Functions of political parties—e.g. representation, goal formation, political recruitment, organisation of government.
- Ideological tradition of Labour Party—socialism; Keynesian social democracy; Blairism and modernisation; beyond Blairism?
- Ideological tradition of Conservative Party—Conservatism; One Nationism; Thatcherism; beyond Thatcherism?
- Ideological tradition of the Liberal Democrats—modern liberalism; constitutionalism; pro-Europeanism.
- Ideological and policy differences within major parties.
- Ideological and policy similarities and differences between major parties (consensus and adversary politics).
Political Parties and Party Politics
A political party can be defined as a group of people organised (usually formally) with the aim of attaining government power. Within a democracy, political parties achieve this aim by proposing ("putting up") candidates from within the party for election. This is done with the hope of gaining representation by winning those contests and, by doing so, forming (or participating in) government.
Whilst often confused with social-cultural movements and / or pressure groups, political parties possess three (3) primary features that make them distinctive:
- The members of a political party are normally brought together by broadly shared political views and ideological identities; as a result...
- Political parties usually adopt a 'broad issue focus', proposing ideas and policies for each of the major areas of government; this reflects the fact that...
- The general aim of most mainstream political parties is to exercise state / government power by winning political office(s)
Modern politics throughout liberal democracies worldwide relies on the existence of the "political party"—the very notion of providing voter choice within a democracy, moreover, implies that these will always be plural: "political parties".
Like true liberal democracy itself, modern political parties are a relatively recent innovation and only really emerged in the 19th century as a by-product of extending the franchise ('the right to vote') within developing representative government. Previously, politics—in the UK especially—was driven by "factions" within Parliament and wider society. Characterised by a group of 'like-minded' individuals
Power Distribution within Political Parties
The distribution of power within political parties is highly significant for the role of parties as avenues of communication between government and people. Formal structures and rules are important in this regard, of course, but so too are the more informal ways and means of finding effective policies, strategies and leadership.
The primary actors within any political party consist of:
- party leaders
- Parliamentary parties
- party members
- constituency parties
- party backers
Party Leaders
For practical everyday purposes, the parliamentary leaders clearly dominate the rest of their party—particularly when the party leader is also the Prime Minister. Party leaders have clearly grown in their already high importance since the late 1970s: the leaders' public profiles overshadow those of even senior party colleagues and occasionally that of their party itself (political celebrity); meanwhile, a move towards a 'presidential' style of leadership has placed party leaders in the position of having—almost singlehandedly it seems—to determine their party's policy development and win elections.
Party leaders are not omnipotent, however... That party leaders now often provide a 'brand image' for their party can evoke frailty as well as strength. Leaders who are perceived to be 'failing' or even floundering are expected either to stand down or to face removal. Before David Cameron, for example, the Conservative Party had a total of three short-lived leaders after John Major's resignation amid the loss of the 1997 General Election: William Hague (1997-2001), Iain Duncan Smith (2001-2003) and Michael Howard (2003-2005).
In theory at least, Conservative Party leaders hold greater authority than their Labour Party counterparts. Tory leaders enjoy few formal restraints, while Labour leaders are meant to be constrained by collective decisions taken at Annual Conference and—between conferences—by the National Executive Committee (NEC).
Parliamentary Parties
The term 'parliamentary party' refers to that subset of the larger party which, having been elected in a General Election, represent the party within Parliament (i.e. the party's MPs). A popular conception of parliamentary parties is that they are mere 'lobby fodder' in the hands of the whips and party discipline, humble parliamentary sheep ready to be herded through divisions on leaders' instructions.
A number of indicators suggest, however, that since the 1970s MPs have become significantly less ‘subservient’ to their leaders, exhibiting greater independence and a willingness to rebel against the party line on important issues. A decline in party unity has been noted, leading to divisions and factions that can serve to weaken the party leader’s authority. The Blair-Brown split within New Labour from the early 2000s is good illustration of this, as is the sniping that Gordon Brown suffered in turn after just a few months into his premiership.
Backbench MPs can and do play an important role in either bolstering or compromising the parliamentary leadership of their respective parties. The Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) and the 1922 Committee of Conservative backbenchers both wield considerable weight and it would be a brave Tory party leader not to take account of their views. The PLP holds considerable power when Labour are in opposition: as demonstrated recently after the election of Ed Miliband as party and Opposition Leader, the PLP subsequently exercised its right to determine the staffing of Labour’s shadow cabinet, effectively reducing Ed Miliband’s choices to MPs selected by the PLP. Even more recently, the resolve by a number of Liberal Democrat MPs in December 2010 not to support party leader Nick Clegg’s accommodation of Coalition plans to triple university fees was widely regarded as weakening the Deputy PM’s standing.
The ultimate exercise of power by parliamentary parties was dramatically demonstrated in 1990 with Margaret Thatcher’s removal as Conservative party leader and PM. Thatcher’s successor John Major was subsequently undermined by a series of backbench revolts (often sparked by Eurosceptic MPs within his own party).
Party Members and Constituency Parties
The general decrease in party membership over recent years - and the accompanying decrease in party activists - might suggest that constituency parties (the local branch of the party in a seat) are also decreasing in importance. Moreover, the recent tendency for all parties to develop their policies through committees, forums and task forces has served to strengthen the control of party leaders over policy development and direction. Such practices have effectively deprived the Labour Party Annual Conference, for example, of its traditional policy formation role.
In other ways, however, ordinary party members and local party branches have enlarged their power. Among the Conservative Party, for example, constituency associations have retained a high degree of self-control over the selection of parliamentary candidates, despite recent attempts to intervene by David Cameron. The Labour Party, by contrast, has a more centrally-controlled process (all-women shortlists were imposed, for example, in half of the party's target seats running up to the elections in 1997 and 2005).
The primary power ordinary party members retain, of course, is their central role in electing a new party leader from time to time.
Party Backers
Many have argued—often with good reason—that real power within political parties lies not with those who hold formal positions (leaders, MPs, constituency activists, etc.) but with those individuals and / or groups who finance the party’s organisation and activities (and particularly election campaign funding, which remains very expensive).
The Conservatives have traditionally been accused of being in thrall to business, their major business backers (brewers, tobacco, construction, media) allegedly wielding undue influence over Tory policies by means of their financial contributions and ideological correspondence. A recent example is the accusation that Conservative Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt is “too close” to BSkyB and the Murdoch media empire, the relationship perhaps clouding his judgement as a Cabinet minister.
Labour has long been associated with the trade unions, critics suggesting that the party is effectively controlled by workers’ unions that contribute the bulk of the party’s funds. These critics need to recognise, however, that New Labour’s dependence on union finance has diminished significantly in recent years, to about ⅓ of the party’s funding. Of course, the shortfall has had to be made up by contributions from individuals and groups perhaps more usually associated with the Tories… This, in turn, has given rise to fresh criticisms from more traditional Labour supporters, who feel that the party has lost its traditional grounding and support.
The support of party backers unsurprisingly leads to perennial accusations—against both the two main parties—of political corruption and ‘sleaze’. “Cash for questions” (Major’s government) and “Cash for honours” (Blair’s government) were major scandals that have done nothing to allay these concerns. Many feel that wealthy individuals have indeed been able to purchase influence within parties and, by extension, within government. A prime example includes the apparent influence of Formula One promoter Bernie Ecclestone, who in 1997 succeeded in convincing the newly-elected Blair government to exempt motor racing from tobacco advertising bans—something that cost Tony Blair his “squeaky clean” image for many people.
Repeated scandals have led progressively to tighter rules on party funding, administered by the independent Electoral Commission. Limits are now placed on campaign spending and donations over £5,000 must be publicly disclosed. Many continue to argue, nonetheless, that concerns related to party backers and outside finance can only fundamentally be addressed by the adoption of state funding for parties, as is common in many of Britain’s European partners.
State Funding of Political Parties
Britain currently maintains only the most limited form of state funding of political parties, by means of the official salaries that are paid to the Opposition Leader and the Opposition Chief Whip. Any extension to these efforts, not least the introduction of a comprehensive system of state funding for political parties, remains highly controversial in the mind of the great British public. There are, of course, arguments for and against:
For
- State funding would greatly reduce parties’ reliance on vested interests, largely freeing them from directly ‘playing the game’ with business and unions and allowing them to be more responsive to party members’ views and those of voters in general. Parties would therefore be more democratically attuned.
- State funding would create a more level playing field for all parties, effectively excising the unfair advantage that some parties might derive from being able to attract wealthy backers.
- Party performance as instruments of debate and policy formation / implementation would be greatly enhanced, as far less time and effort would need to be spend on fund raising
Against
- Concerns exist that state funding of political parties could weaken their links to wider society, relationships with important sectors of UK society being brought about by the need to seek financial as well as electoral support
- Smaller parties worry that state funding could create a bias towards the existing mainstream parties if (as is customary under most state funding schemes) the level of public finance reflects party performance in previous elections
- The independence of political parties could be compromised by state funding, effectively making party organisations rival branches of the state and less likely to propose policies that block the interests of critical state bodies
Two-Party System
The UK has traditionally been associated with a ‘two-party system’, a political arrangement arising from the fact that two major parties have a roughly equal chance of winning elections and wielding governmental power. Other Western states have similar configurations, e.g. the USA (Democrats and Republicans) and Australia (Labor and the Liberal-National Coalition).
Three main features characterise a two-party system:
- A number of smaller, ‘minor’ parties may exist within a country, but only two ‘major’ parties realistically enjoy sufficient electoral appeal and legislative strength to contemplate forming a government (this may be a by-product of the electoral system employed, e.g. FPTP)
- Post election, the larger of the two parliamentary parties is usually able to govern by itself, normally by wielding its parliamentary majority, while the ‘runner-up’ takes its turn as a powerful opposition
- Governmental power normally alternates between these two major parties—both are ‘electable’, the opposition taking the role of an alternative ‘government in waiting’
Multi-Party System
As the name suggests, a multi-party system is one in which more than two parties seek governmental power. As for two-party systems, three main features characterise a multi-party system:
- No single party by itself normally enjoys sufficient electoral appeal and / or legislative strength to contemplate forming a government (this may be a by-product of the electoral system employed, e.g. proportional representation). Distinctions between ‘major’ and ‘minor’ parties are often irrelevant.
- After elections are held, governments tend to be formed by coalitions of parties or rely upon minority administration. These arrangements either create a tendency towards policy compromise and consensus-building, or promote fractured (and therefore weakened, unstable) government
- Governmental power can shift immediately after elections, but also between elections as coalition deals dissolve or are renegotiated; alternatively, a minority government may be unable to attract ongoing legislative support, forcing realignment, further compromise or fresh elections
The relationships between and amongst political parties determine how the UK political system works in practice - this is known as 'the party system'.
Traditionally, UK politics has been dominated by a 'two-party system'. The 19th century saw UK politics driven by a Conservative-Liberal two-party system, while the 20th century is often said to have been dominated by a Conservative-Labour two-party system.
This is somewhat misleading, as neither the Liberals nor Labour were able to dominate Conservative dominance in the period 1919-1939. Nonetheless, a classic two-party system did develop between Labour and the Conservatives in the post-war period (1945-1970). During these years, the two major parties won over 90% of the vote between them, dominating the House of Commons with over 90% of MPs. Power changed hands four times with a very tight average electoral gap of 4%.
Two-party politics was for many years promoted as the best way of combining representative democracy with effective government, a system allegedly characterised by stability, choice and accountability. It was argued that two dominant parties were able to offer the electorate a clear-cut choice between rival manifestos and alternative governments. Voters could support a party knowing that, if elected, it would be able to implement its programme without having to negotiate or accomodate coalition partners. Strong but accountable government was said to derive from the competition between the Government and Opposition parties. Proponents of the two-party system saw a bias in favour of moderate politics as the two rival parties battled for the 'centre ground' of 'floating voters' - all of which led to a social-democratic consensus in the 1950s and 1960s.
The post-war two-party system began to dissolve from 1974 which saw the beginning of a revival in the support for a 'third' party (the old Liberals >> the Liberal-SDP Alliance (1983-1987) >> the Liberal Democrats). The change was symbolised by the hung Parliament after the February 1974 election and a minority Labour government. Thereafter, until 1997, the UK had a "2.5-party system" as voting and class patterns shifted - the impact of this was disguised, however, by the majoritarian bias of the FPTP voting system. The practical political outcome of this development was the long period of Conservative dominance - from 1979- 1997 - as the non-Conservative vote was effectively split. The Labour Party failed to attract sufficient support, appearing to be in decline by losing the support of 'the working class', who were themselves shrinking.
Since the victory of New Labour in 1997, the UK party system has definitively shifted towards multi-partyism as overlapping and multiple political systems have been put in place. Two-party politics tended still to dominate Westminster politics until very recently (the Tory-LibDem Coalition has terminated this for the meantime); in devolved assemblies, however, multi-partyism is the norm.
