Political Parties Flashcards
state the definition of a political party
A political party is an organisation of people with similar political values and views which develops a set of goals and policies that it seeks to convert into political action by obtaining government office, or a share in government, or by influencing the government currently in power. It may pursue its goals by mobilising public opinion in its favour, selecting candidates for office, competing at elections and identifying suitable leaders.
state features of political parties in the UK
- members of parties share similar political values and views
- parties seek either to secure the election of their candidates as representatives or form the government at various levels (local, regional and national)
- They are an organisation that develops policy, recruits candidates and identifies leaders
state typical variations in the features of parties
- Some are mass membership parties with many adherents (UK Labour Party); others have a small leadership group who seek supporters rather than members (the main US parties)
- Some parties may be highly organised with a formal permanent organisation (German Christian Democrats), while others have a loose, less permanent organisation (US parties that only organise fully during elections).
- Some parties may have a very narrow range of values and views and are intensely united around those views (left-wing socialist parties); others have a very broad range of views and values, and so may be divided into factions (UK Conservative Party).
- Some parties are very focused on gaining power (main parties in the UK and US), while others recognise they will not gain power but seek merely to influence the political system (Green parties).
explain why a political party will use a manifesto
A political party uses its manifesto to set out a coherent body of policies it would seek to pass into law if elected to office, and so the party that is returned to power at Westminster in the wake of a general election is said to have earned an electoral mandate: the right to implement its stated policies. This is because popular support at the ballot box is interpreted as support for the manifesto that the party presented during the election. The Salisbury Doctrine holds that the unelected HoL should not, at second reading, oppose any bill that was included in the elected party’s manifesto. Essentially, this doctrine gives the governing party the authority to implement the programme it presented to the electorate.
define manifesto
Manifesto: A pre-election document in which a party sets out a series of policy pledges and legislative proposals that it plans to enact if elected.
define mandate
Mandate: The right of the governing body to pursue the policies it sets out in its manifesto. The mandate gives the governing party the authority to pursue its stated policies, without the need to go back to voters for further approval. However, it does not require the government to deliver on its manifesto promises or prevent it from drafting proposals that were not included in its manifesto
define Salisbury doctrine
Salisbury Doctrine: The origins of this doctrine lie in the idea of a mandate developed by the Conservative prime minister Lord Salisbury in the late (19th. It developed in the 1940s as a constitutional convention, that the unelected HoLs should not frustrate the will of the elected Commons.
state FOR arguments for the question: ‘Does the concept of an electoral mandate make sense’?
Yes:
- The franchise is widely held and there is high level of individual vote registration
- The FPTP electoral system usually results in a single party government, so it follows that the victors should have the right to implement their stated policies
- The doctrine assumes the electors have full knowledge of the manifestos and so can make a rational judgement. Each party’s manifesto is readily available to voters ahead of polling day both in print and online
- Digested summaries of the main policies of each party are disseminated by the mainstream media. Televised leaders debates at the last two general elections have seen the leaders of the parties questioned on their main policies
- The mandate strengthens government, in that the winning party gain legitimacy for its policies
- All the MPs from the winning party who are elected are ‘bound in’ by the mandate, as most voters vote for a party manifesto rather than an individual. Party leaders can therefore maintain discipline among members by emphasising to them they were elected on the same mandate.
- If a government strays from its electoral mandate, parliament and assemblies can feel justified in challenging the government
state AGAINIST arguments for the question: ‘does the concept of an electoral mandate make sense’
NO:
- the low turnout at recent general elections means that the winning party can hardly claim to have secured a convincingly mandate
- It depends upon a single party winning an election outright. Coalition governments such as seen in the wake of the 2010 general election mean that the actual content of the mandate is unclear; two or more parties must agree a compromise programme for which no single party has a mandate
- Most voters pay little attention to party manifestos, whether in full or digested form. Voting behaviour is more about long-term factors or personalities than it is about policy detail.
- The concept of mandate is flawed because it is impossible for voters to cast a ballot for or against a given party on the basis of a single policy
- It is clear that voters who have opted for one party do not necessarily agree with all of its manifesto commitments. Yet the mandate does assume the electorate has given its consent to the whole of the manifesto
- Some manifesto commitments may be rather vague and open to interpretation. This makes calling the government to account on the basis of its manifesto difficult and open to dispute
state the functions of parties
- making policy
- representation
- selecting candidates
- identifying leaders
- organising elections
- political education
- reinforcing consent
Define policy
Policy refers to a set of intentions or a political programme developed by parties or by the governments. Policies reflect the political stance of parties and governments
Explain the political party function of making policy
MAKING POLICY:
Perhaps the most recognisable function of a political party is the development of policies and political programmes.
Policy: A set of intentions or a political programme developed by parties or by the governments. Policies reflect the political stance of parties and governments.
This is a role that becomes especially important when a party is in opposition and is seeking to replace the government. Opposition parties are, therefore, in a fundamentally different position to the party in power. When a ruling party controls the government, its leadership is the government; there is virtually no distinction between the two. Therefore, the policy-making function of the ruling party is the same as the policy making function of the government. It involves political leaders and civil servants, advisory units and committees and private advisors. Backbench MPs and peers, local activists and ordinary members have some say through conferences and committees, but their role remains very much in the background. Most policy is made by ministers and their advisors.
In opposition, the leadership of the party is not in such a pre-eminent policy-making position as the general membership of the party can have considerable input into policy-making. They can communicate to the leadership which ideas and demands (through conferences and party committees) they would like to see as ‘official’ policy and therefore likely to become government policy one day.
The policy-formulating function is sometimes known as aggregation which involves identifying the wide range of demands made on the political system, from the party membership, from the mass of individuals in society and other groups, and then converting these into programmes of action that are consistent and compatible. This process is undertaken by the party leadership.
Aggregation: A process, undertaken by political parties, of converting polices, demands and ideas into practical policy programmes for government. This involves eliminating contradictions and making some compromises.
For example, before the 2017 general election, Labour’s National Policy Forum and the elected National Executive Council worked closely with leadership and senior membership of the parliamentary party to aggregate a manifesto that fairly represented the political opinions of the party.
Explain the political party function of representation
REPRESENTATION:
Parties claim to have a representative function. Many parties have, in the past claimed to represent a specific section of society. For example, the Labour Party was developed in the early (20th to represent the interests of the working classes and especially trade union members. The Conservative Party of the (19th largely existed to protect the interests of the landed gentry and aristocracy. This has however, in contemporary society changed – partisan and class dealignment, accompanied by the rise of centrist ‘catch-all’ parties, have undermined this role. Today, all main parties argue that they represent the national interest and not just the interests of specific classes or groups. So, parties do have a representative function, but today they seek to ensure that all groups in society have their interests and demands at least considered by government. However, in reality, parties tend to be biased towards the interests of one section of society or another. (In the 2017 general election, 82.4% of those who voted felt that their politcial opinions were represented by the Conservative party: 42.4% or the Labour Party: 40%).
Partisan dealignment: A process which began in the 1970s whereby voters who used to be strongly attached to one party, identified with that party and always voted for it, detached themselves from that relationship in eve greater numbers. It is closely associated with class dealignment.
Class dealignment: A trend whereby fewer people consider themselves to be a member of a particular social class and so class has a decreasing impact on their voting behavior.
One new phenomenon that has emerged and which needs to be taken into account as far as representation is concerned, is the emergence of populist parties. These tend to emerge rapidly and often disappear equally quickly. Typically, they represent people who feel they have been ignored by conventional parties – in other words, that they are not represented at all. The appeal of populist parties is usually emotional or visceral and plays on people’s fears and dissatisfactions. They generally take root among the poor who feel left behind and can be both left and right wing.
Populism: A political movement, often represented by a political party, that appeals to people’s emotions and which tends to find supporters among sections of the community who feel they have not been represented by conventional politics and politicians.
We are also seeing the rise of ‘issue parties’ that represent a particular cause. Green parties are the best example, but increasingly new parties are dedicated to advancing women’s rights in parts of Europe. Nevertheless, most contemporary parties in modern democracies still lay claim to representing the national interest.
Explain the political party function of selecting candidates
SELECTING CANDIDATES:
A key function of a political party is to select candidates to fight local, regional, mayoral general and (soon to be removed) European elections. The national party leadership have some influence over which candidates are chosen, but it is in this role that local constituency parties have the greatest part of play. They find prospective candidates who go through a selection process to become an approved candidate. In order to contest a general election, once a candidate wins a seat, s/he can claim to have an electoral mandate to represent that seat in the HoC.
However, the local party can also deselect them from fighting the next election if their views are too opposed to those of local activists – this highlights the significance of the local party. (Momentum is particularly in favour of using the prospect of deselection to ensure Labour MPs at Westminster represent the interests of local party activists, who have generally been more favourable towards Jeremy Corbyn than the parliamentary party).
Explain the political party function of identifying leaders
IDENTIFYING LEADERS:
The members of a political party also play an important role in the election of their party leader. They therefore have procedures in place for identifying leaders.
In the Conservative Party, the parliamentary party will agree on two MPs, whose names will then go forward to party members to decide between. In 2005, the party membership voted decisively for David Cameron over David Davis. However, in 2016 the influence of party members was sidelined when Andrea Leadsom withdrew from the contest, ensuring that Theresa May became the Conservative leader and prime minister, unopposed. (Cameron resigned after his defeat in the 2016 EU referendum).
Under Ed Miliband, the Labour Party also adopted one member, one vote. The current rules state that if an MP can secure the backing of 10% of the parliamentary party, then their name will go forward to the party membership to vote on. Following their election defeat in 2015, Miliband resigned and this generated a huge leadership controversy. Jeremy Corbyn, who had only just scraped enough nominations from the parliamentary party as the ‘token’ left-winger, conclusively defeated his rivals when the party membership voted gaining 59.5% share of the vote – Andy Burnham came second with 19%. Despite this victory, many Labour MPs in Parliament refused to acknowledge him as their leader.
The rules were changed during the 2021 Labour Party Conference so that, in future leadership elections, each candidate would need to be nominated by 20% of Labour MPs.[1] A rule change in late 2018 also required candidates to be nominated by at least 5% of constituency parties or at least three affiliates (two of which must be trade unions) which represent a minimum of 5% of the affiliated membership.
Explain the political party function of organising elections
ORGANISING ELECTIONS:
The way in which political parties campaign during elections plays a key part in the democratic process. Apart from supplying approved candidates, the party organisations form part of the process of publicising election issues, persuading people to vote and informing them about their candidates. Party activists deliver leaflets, canvass voters on the doorstep and arrange political hustings so that voters understand the choice between candidates. Without the huge efforts of thousands of party activists at election time, the already modest turnout at the polls would be even lower. Representatives of the parties are also present when the counting of the votes takes place, so they play a part in ensuring that elections are honest and fair.
Explain the political party function of political education
POLITICAL EDUCATION:
Parties are continuously involved in the process of informing the people about the political issues of the day, explaining the main areas of conflict and outlining their own solutions to identified problems. However, the media have to some extent, taken over un supplying information to the public – the internet and social media have particularly marginalised the parties. Pressure groups too, have played an increasing role in informing the public.
Explain the political party function of reinforcing consent
REINFORCING CONSENT:
Finally, parties have a ‘hidden’ but vital function in the mobilisation and reinforcement of consent. All the main parties support the political system of the UK – that is, parliamentary democracy. By operating and supporting this system, parties are part of the process that ensures that the general population consents to the system. If parties were to challenge the nature of the political system in any fundamental way, this would create political conflict within society at large (these parties would be viewed as extremists).
define aggregation
Aggregation: A process, undertaken by political parties, of converting poliices, demands and ideas into practical policy programmes for government. This involves eliminating contradictions and making some compromises.
define partisan dealignment
Partisan dealignment: A process which began in the 1970s whereby voters who used to be strongly attached to one party, identified with that party and always voted for it, detached themselves from that relationship in eve greater numbers. It is closely associated with class dealignment.
define class dealignment
Class dealignment: A trend whereby fewer people consider themselves to be a member of a particular social class and so class has a decreasing impact on their voting behaviour.
define populism
Populism: A political movement, often represented by a political party, that appeals to people’s emotions and which tends to find supporters among sections of the community who feel they have not been represented by conventional politics and politicians.
state the main ways in which political parties are funded in the UK
- raise donations from wealthy donors, trade unions, organisations or companies
- holding fundraising events such as fetes, festivals, conferences and dinners
- receiving donations from supporters
- gain some funding from the electoral commission (up to £2 million per party available from electoral commission)
- raising donations from supporters
- raising loans from wealthy individuals or banks
- the self-financing of candidates for office
- collecting membership subscriptions from members
Explain the difference in funding for larger parties and smaller parties
It is immediately apparent that the larger parties have better access to funds than their smaller counterparts. While the Conservative Party attracts large donations from wealthy individuals and business corporations (other parties do too, but on a smaller scale), Labour receives generous contribution from trade unions. These amounted to about £11 million in 2014-15, nearly 60% of the party’s total income. This figure may well fall in years to come, however, as the rules for union donations are changing, essentially making it easier for individual union members to opt out of contributing to the party.
Smaller parties, by contrast, have no such regular sources of income. Add to this the fact that they have small memberships and their disadvantage becomes apparent. It is understandable that donors are less likely to give money to parties whose prospects of ever being in power are remote. Those donors who do give to small parties are essentially acting out of idealism rather than any prospects of gaining influence.
Explain how the funding of parties are regulated by the political parties, elections and referendums act 2000
The funding of parties was regulated in 2000 by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (PPERA). Among other regulations, this made the following stipulations:
- People not on the UK electoral roll could no longer make donations (thus reducing foreign influence).
- Limits were placed on how much could be spent on parliamentary elections (£30,000 per constituency).
- Donations over £5000 have to be declared.
- Donations over £7,500 were to be placed on an electoral register.
Thus, regulations stressed transparency rather than any serious limits on the amount being donated. State funding was rejected as a solution at that time. The Political Parties and Elections Act (PPEA) 2009 built upon the regulations established under the PPERA and imposed tighter regulations on spending by candidates in the run-up to an election, allowing the Electoral Commission to investigate cases and impose fines.
Explain how funding is hugely biased in the UK
Funding is hugely biased towards the two biggest parties. Smaller parties are also disadvantaged by the UK electoral system at general elections and therefore the funding shortfall represents a double problem.
Explain how the electoral commission monitors the income of political parties in the Uk
The Electoral Commission, which monitors the income of political parties in the UK, has reported examples of large donations to parties. Some examples include:
- Between 2015-2017 the Conservative Party received £11.3 million from prominent figures and the companies in the financial sector.
- In the same period the Conservatives received £3.6 million from property companies.
- One individual, hedge fund proprietor Angus Fraser donated £1,137,400 to the Conservative Party during this period.
- The Unite trade union gave £657,702 to the Labour Party early in 2017.
- At the same time UNISON, the public service union, donated £376,242 to Labour.
Such individual donations are not only seen as undemocratic forms of influence, but often carry some other kind of controversy. Similarly, trade union donations to Labour have been criticised on the grounds that members of unions are not given a clear enough choice as to whether their subscriptions should be spent in that way. It is also said that Labour is unduly influenced by union leaders because so much of their income comes from them.
explain and state issues with party funding / controversies
However, the question of party funding has a number of issues which are even more serious. The controversies include the following:
- The major parties are put at a huge advantage and conversely, small parties are put at a great disadvantage, particularly when it comes to fighting elections. Current party funding therefore promotes political inequality.
- Funding by large donors represents a hidden and unaccountable form of political influence. Parties are not allowed to change specific policies or propose legislation as a direct result of donations, but donors must expect some kind of political return for their investment. This might be true of trade unions and the Labour Party and business interests and the Conservatives.
- Aspects of funding may well verge on being corrupt. It is suspected that some donors may expect to receive an honour from party leaders such as a peerage or knighthood in return for their generosity. This is sometimes known as ‘cash for honours’.
- The steady decline of party membership has meant that parties are even more reliant upon donors, which further opens up the possibility of corruption and the purchasing of political influence. (Even in 2015, when the Labour Party’s membership enjoyed an unprecedented upsurge, membership fees only accounted for 19% of the party’s overall annual income)
state and explain alternative funding structures/solutions and restrictions
Most commentators and many politicians agree that the way in which parties are funded in the UK is undemocratic and is in need of reform. The problem, however, is that there is no consensus on what to do. There are four basic types of solution:
- Impose restrictions on the size of individual donations to parties. This is broadly the system used in the US (through donors can grant funds to thousands of individual candidates). To be effective, the cap would have to be relatively low.
- Impose tight restrictions on how much parties are allowed to spend. This would make large-scale fundraising futile.
- Restrict donations to individuals, i.e. outlaw donations from businesses, pressure groups and trade unions.
- Replace all funding with state grants for parties, paid out of general taxation.
What is the case for political parties to be funded through taxation?
The 2007 Phillips Report, ‘Strengthening Democracy: Fair and Sustainable Funding for Political Parties’, stated that there was a strong case for political parties to be funded through taxation. The case had become particularly pressing because of the vast discrepancy in the amount of money different parties received, as well as a number of financial scandals which undermined public faith in parliamentary democracy. It concluded that one way forward might be greater state funding for UK political parties, perhaps some form of ‘pence-per-voter’ or ‘pence-per-member’ funding formula.
Explain how political parties are funded by the state and electoral commission through policy development grants
Although the case in favour of the comprehensive funding of political parties is still widely contested, there is already some state funding of parties in the UK. All main parties receive funds from the Electoral Commission. These are called Policy Developments Grants (available to any party that has two or more sitting MPs) and can be used to hire advisers on policy. Over £2 million is available for this purpose. Parties also receive subsidies in respect of TV broadcasts and help with postage costs during election campaigns
Explain the concept of short money in relation to political parties being funded
In addition, there is Short money, which is distributed to all opposition parties to fund their parliamentary work.
Short money: named after Ted Short, the politician who introduced it. Short money refers to funds given to the opposition parties to facilitate their parliamentary work (research facilities etc.). The amount is based on how many seats and votes each party won at the previous election.
Short money is heavily biased towards the large parties because it depends upon how many seats parties have won at previous elections. Thus, since 2015 the Labour Party receives £6,7 million in Short money per annum, while the next biggest grant goes to the SNP with £1.2 million. Interestingly, UKIP refused over half a million pounds in Short money after winning one seat in 2015. The party suggested it was corrupt and designed to favour established parties.
What is short money
Short money: named after Ted Short, the politician who introduced it. Short money refers to funds given to the opposition parties to facilitate their parliamentary work (research facilities etc.). The amount is based on how many seats and votes each party won at the previous election.
Explain the concept of cranborne money in relation to funding
Funds are also available to parties in the HoLs. This is known as ‘Cranborne money’. So, state funding of parties already exists. The real question, though, is whether state funding should replace private donations altogether.
Cranborne money: funds paid to opposition parties in the HoLs in order to help them cover their administrative costs and thereby provide for proper scrutiny of the government.
Much of the debate about party funding relates to state financing. However, although several political parties favour this, there is little public appetite for it. Taxpayers are naturally reluctant to see their taxes being used to finance parties at a time when attitudes to parties are at a low ebb. However, state funding remains the only solution that could create more equality in the system. As long as funding is determined by market forces, it is likely that the large parties wlil be placed at a significant advantage.
The other policy is to eliminate the abuses in the system. This involves full transparency, limits on how much business and union donors can give and a breaking of any link between donations and the granting of honours.
define cranborne money
Cranborne money: funds paid to opposition parties in the HoLs in order to help them cover their administrative costs and thereby provide for proper scrutiny of the government.
Is there political appetite for replacing private donations with state funding of parties?
The idea of somehow replacing private donations with state funding of parties has a good deal of support within the UK political community. Certainly, both the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties have flirted with the idea without actually making firm proposals. The problem has been a lack of political will and a fear that public opinion will not accept it.
State FOR arguments for the question: ‘Should UK parties receive state funding’
FOR ARGUEMENTS:
- It will end the opportunities for the corrupt use of donations.
- It will end the possibilities of ‘hidden’ forms of influence through funding.
- It will reduce the huge financial advantage that large parties enjoy and give smaller parties the opportunity to make progress.
- It will improve democracy by ensuring wider participation from groups that have no ready source of funds.
state AGAINIST arguments for the question: ‘Should UK parties receive state funding?’
AGAINIST ARGUEMENTS:
- Taxpayers may object to funding what can be considered to be ‘private’ organisations.
- It will be difficult to know how to distribute funding. Should it be on the basis of past performance (in which case large parties will retain their advantage) or on the basis of future aspirations (which is vague)?
- Parties may lose some of their independence and will see themselves as organs of the state.
- State funding may lead to excessive state regulation of parties.
- Philosophically, state funding might also suggest that political parties were ‘servants of the state’, potentially limiting their independence.
- The funding of extremist parties, such as the BNP would be extremely contentious
Will state funding arrive in the Uk in the near future?
It seems unlikely that state funding will arrive in the UK in the near future. Far more likely is the idea that individual donations should be limited. Greater transparency has largely been achieved, but the problem of ‘cash for honours’ or the suspicion that large organisations can gain a political advantage through donations persists. This was reflected in the police investigation into the ‘loans for peerages’ scandal during Labour’s time in office 1997-2010. Although it ended without any prosecutions being brought, the issue of party funding is still controversial, as seen in efforts to address the status of donors not registered as UK taxpayers in the PPERA and the PPEA. Many considered this to be aimed squarely at individuals such as the long-term Conservative Party backer and party deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft, whose tax status provoked debate and controversy until March 2010, when he finally revealed that he did not pay UK tax on his overseas earnings.
Statutory regulation and public funds aside, it is clear that the main UK political parties still receive considerable sums in the in the forms of donations and that wealthy individual backers have not been put off by the prospect of losing their anonymity. Action may well centre on a deal between Labour and the Conservatives. Labour might sacrifice some of its trade union funding in return for caps on business donations and wealthy individuals bankrolling the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrats, with their unwavering support for state funding, will have to remain on the sidelines for the time being.
summarise how well do parties enhance representative democracy
PARTIES DO ENHANCE REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY:
They play a number of key roles in the UK’s representative form of democracy:
+ By producing manifestos and political programmes, they ensure government is accountable
+ They are vital in the selection of candidates for office.
+ They mobilise support for political programmes, not just individual policies – aggregation.
+ Parties organise debates and ensure that MPs are called to account.
DO NOT:
- But parties can distort representation as the governing party is elected without an overall majority. The ‘winner takes all’ nature of party politics may result in partisan government.
- Parties also tend to reduce issues to ‘binary’ decision making - claiming that decisions are either wholly wrong or wholly right. In reality, this is rarely the case, but adversarial party politics creates such false choices.
summarise how inclusive are political parties
+ Parties are open organisations – anyone can join and parties make few demands on their members – passive members.
(negative) - This does not tell the full story as internally the parties are elitist – the broad sentiments of the membership are taken into account, but it’s questionable to whether ordinary members have any real influence on the making of policies?
+ Is it possible for ordinary members to rise up through the party ranks? Many political leaders: Callaghan (PM 1976-79), Major (PM 1990-97), Brown (PM 2007-10, Corbyn (Leader 2015-) and Theresa May (PM 2016-19) are examples of individuals who have risen through their party ranks to the top, without any privileged background.
summary could uk democracy operate without parties
+/- All modern democracies have parties as a central feature of their representative systems. However, parties in the US are very loose informal organisations and no mass membership – making the country the closest thing to a partyless democracy in the West.
- Elections would be incoherent, Parliament would have difficultly operating effectively, the opportunities for people to participate in politics would be severely reduced, government would not be made properly accountable and it would be difficult to identify future leaders.
+ The main positive aspect of a democracy without parties is that there would be a greater possibility for consensus building. Without the support of parties, policies would have to be developed on a consensual rather than an adversarial basis.
define political spectrum
Political spectrum: A device by which different standpoints can be mapped across one axis or more, as a way of demonstrating their ideological position in relation to one another.
Explain how party ideology in the UK is represented on the political spectrum
Party ideology in the UK has generally been discussed in terms of the simple left-right political spectrum that emerged in revolutionary France at the end of the (18th. In modern usage, those, those on the extreme left of the political spectrum are said to favour some form of communal existence, with all property being held collectively as opposed to individually, while moderate left-wingers accept capitalism but favour greater government intervention in the economy and a more comprehensive welfare state. In contrast, those on the right area said to favour private enterprise over state provision, resulting in a process that the former Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher described as ‘rolling back the frontiers of the state.’
Explain the left-right political spectrum of the Uk
In the UK, where extreme ideologies of communism (on the left) and facism (on the right) have never really taken hold, the debate over the direction of government policy has generally centred on the battle between socialists and conservatives. However, all three of the main British parties are better seen as ‘broad churches’, each comprising members of various different political shades.
However, although they are commonly used in everyday political discussion to describe an individual’s or a group’s political stance, the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ should be treated with some caution. They are not very precise expressions because they are quite vague an many issues do not fall easily into a left-right divide in the context of British politics. Furthermore, it should be noted that left and right descriptions of politics can vary from one country to the next
define right-wing
Right wing: Right-wing political beliefs derive from liberal and conservative ideology. These include a liberal focus on the importance of limiting excessive government, keeping taxation low and protecting individual liberty. The right also emphasises conservative values such as law and order and the importance of national sovereignty and strong defence.
define left-wing
Left wing: The left wing emphasises the importance of creating a fair and equal society through positive state intervention. This includes higher taxes on the wealthier, extensive welfare provision and greater state influence in the economy. The left wing is also socially progressive and favours an internationalist approach to global problems.
summarise left-wing political ideas
LEFT-WING POLITICAL IDEAS:
- Hold a positive view of the state and a collectivist view of society.
- Believe the government should reduce inequality and encourage social cohesion by providing an extensive welfare state.
- The wealthier in society should pay a higher share of the cost of this through redistributive taxation. The government should also play a major role in the economy through the nationalisation of key industries.
- Left-wing politicians have generally enjoyed close relations with the trade union movement since the unions also represent the economic interests of the working class.
- Socially, the left embraces multiculturalism. It is also socially libertarian and so supports giving alternative lifestyles equal status with more traditional ones.
summary right-wing political ideas
- The right-wing of British politics focuses more on the importance of giving the individual as much control over their own life as possible.
- Right-wing politicians reject left-wing attempts to encourage greater equality and believe that the free market operates best when there is as little government interference as possible.
- Governments should aim to keep taxation as low as possible and trade union influence needs to be limited in order to encourage the smooth operation of the market.
- Companies operate most efficiently when there is competition, so nationalised firms are best privatized.
- Although economically libertarian, the right-wing is socially conservative and so emphasises the importance of a shared national identity and encourages traditional lifestyles.
state the type of periods in the UK politics
- consensus politics
- adversary politics
define what is meant by consensus politics
Consensus politics refers to a period in politics where there is little or no fundamental ideological differences between the parties as there is a great deal of general agreement over policies among the main parties.
They may disagree on the details of policy but there is a general agreement over the goals of the policy
define what is meant by adversary politics
Adversary politics refers to a period in policies where there is considerable conflict over basic principles and ideologies and there may even be deep divisions between or within parties.
However, the uk is generally a highly stable political system and therefore adversary politics is rare
what two periods in recent Uk political history when consensus politics were dominant
- 1950s and 1970s
- 1997 - 2015
Explain the 1950s-1970s period of consensus politics
1950s-1970s:
In the 1940s the Labour government under Clement Atlee had undertaken a major programme of reform in the UK. The welfare state was created, including the creation of the NHS. Major industries such as coal, rail and steel were nationalized, a comprehensive system of old-age pensions was initiated, the provision of subsidized housing was expanded and a wide range of new local authority services was introduced. This presented a problem for the Conservative Party when it came to power in 1951 and remained there until 1964 under four PMs.
The Conservatives had to decide whether to reverse these developments, especially as they had opposed them when they were being introduced. The measures were popular and no one wanted to return to the day of economic depression that had existed before the Second World War. The issue was further complicated when, in 1955, the Labour Party elected a new leader, Hugh Gaitskell, who was much more moderate than his predecessors. The conservative leadership therefore decided that it should accept the Labour reforms and build on them. This heralded in a period of consensus which was to last until the 1970s (commonly referred to as the period of ‘post-war consensus’).
There were still to be party conflicts, for example over economic management and social reform, but there was consensus that the new world created after the war should remain. The two main parties also agreed that the days of British imperial power were numbered and there should be an ordered dismantling of the empire. It was often described as ‘Butskellism’, after the Labour leader Gaitskell and the Conservative chancellor of the exchequer, R.A. Butler, whose political stances were very similar.
Explain the 1997-2015 period of consensus politics
1997-2015:
This period was far more fragile than the earlier post-war consensus era. It is often described as the post-Thatcher consensus. Tony Blair and his leadership group became so dominant after 1997 that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had to accept that the core values of ‘New Labour’ were extremely popular. There was, therefore, general political agreement over key political issues. Among these issues were:
- the maintenance of a strong, well-funded welfare state
- constitutional reforms to make the UK more democratic and less centralised
- improved protection for human rights and social equality among different groups
- the reduction of poverty, especially among families with children and pensioners
- public investment in services and infrastructure to promote economic growth and so generate public funds for such measures
- a stress on improved education to promote equality of opportunity
- the general promotion of individualism by encouraging home ownership and keeping personal taxes as low as possible.
Not all these aims were fully realised but all three main parties shared similar aspirations for the UK. The consensus, at least remnants of it, persisted through the coalition government from 2010-2015. Indeed, PM David Cameron admitted that Tony Blair was a role model for him. Theresa May, on coming to power in 2016, declared her own personal manifesto which echoed that of New Labour back in 1997, so perhaps the post-Thatcher consensus is still alive and well. The Labour left wing and Conservative right wing have very different ideologies, but there is still a large group of politicians in all parties who stand around the centre of politics and who hold similar, consensual views.
Explain 1979-90 period of adversary politics
1979-90:
In modern times there has been just one significant period of adversary politics in the UK. This occurred in the 1980s. The Conservative Party, under Margaret Thatcher’s premiership, moved to a position known as ‘New Right’ politics. Meanwhile the Labour Party, under the leadership of Michael Foot, moved to the left. Political conflict became deep and intense. The two parties had very different visions of which direction the UK should be moving in.
state new right conservative policies
- Publicly owned industries were privatised by being sold to private investors. These included gas, coal, electricity, steel, water and telecommunications.
- A number of legal restrictions were placed on the activities of trade unions.
- Tenants in council homes were encouraged to buy their properties at discounted prices and on low mortgage rates. This became a legal right.
- Legal regulations on the financial system were removed.
- Rates of income tax for high-income groups and tax on businesses were significantly reduced.
state left-wing labour policies
- Labour opposed the privatization and sought to nationalise more industries including, possibly, the banks
- Labour opposed these and proposed additional worker protection measures.
- Labour opposed the ‘right to buy’ policy and proposed increased local authority house building and controls on private rents.
- Labour opposed this and even suggested big banks might be nationalised.
- Labour proposed a steeply progressive tax system to redistribute real income from rich to poor. A wealth tax was also proposed.
summarise adversary and consensus politics
Throughout the history of British politics there has been events where it has be consensus or adversary
During Thatcher’s terms it was a very adversary political time with more of the new right politics
- During post-thatcher it was more consensus politics and more parties agreed to similar policies
- In the 1980s, there was a big adversary between the new right conservative policies and left wing labour policies and even at times they would oppose each others policies e.g conservatives wanted privatisation of buildings and national services whereas labour opposed these policies and sought to nationalise industries
Explain the origins and development of the conservative party
The Conservative Party (CP) emerged from the Tory Party in the 1830s, with many dating its birth to Robert Peel’s Tamworth Manifesto in 1834. Conservativism in the UK has its origins in the conflict that raged during the (17th over the role and authority of the monarchy. Those who supported royal authority (as opposed to Parliament) were known as royalists, but eventually became known as ‘Tories’. During the (17th, it became clear that the supporters of Parliament and democracy in general (mostly known as ‘Whigs’) were gaining the upper hand over royalists. However, a new conflict began to emerge as the industrial Revolution gathered pace in the middle of the (19th.
With industrialisation and the growth of international markets, the capitalist middle classes began to grow in size and influence. Their rise challenged the traditional authority of the aristocracy and the landed gentry - the owners of the great estates whose income was based on the rents and the products of agriculture. The middle classes were largely represented by the Whigs and the landed gentry by the Tories, who were beginning to be described as ‘conservatives’. They were described as conservatives because they resisted the new political structures that were growing up and wished to ‘conserve’ the dominant position of the upper classes whom they represented.
How did the conservatism develop in the 19th century? with robert peel and benjamin disraeli
As the (19th progressed, conservatism began to develop into something closer to the movement we recognise today. Sir Robert Peel (prime minister 1834-35 and 1841-46) is generally acknowledged as the first Conservative Party prime minister (PM). He and Benjamin Disraeli (PM 1868 and 1874-80) formed the party, basing it on traditional conservative ideas. The party’s main objectives were to prevent the country falling too far into inequality, to preserve the unity of the kingdom and to preserve order in society. It was a pragmatic party, which adopted any policies it believed would benefit the whole nation.
Explain the political background of the Conservative party with its two traditions
- The first is often known as ‘traditional conservatism’ and it dates back from the origins of the party in the (19th. It is sometimes described as ‘one-nation conservatism’.
- The other tradition emerged in the 1980s. It is usually given one of two names – ‘New Right conservatism’, or ‘Thatcherism’, after its main protagonist, Margaret Thatcher (1979-90).
How did traditional conservatism/one-nation conservatism orginate?
TRADITIONAL CONSERVATISM (ONE-NATION CONSERVATISM):
Originating in the late part of the (19th, traditional conservatism emerged as a reaction against the newly emerging liberal ideas that were the inspiration behind the revolutions in North America (1776) and France (1789).
What is conservative view of human nature and social change according to Thomas Hobbe
The conservative fear of destabilizing social change and innovation was reflected in Thomas Hobbes’ classic text ‘Leviathan’ (1651). Hobbes had lived through the Civil War and so knew what can happen when government breaks down. His view of human nature was very negative and so he argued that if there was not a strong government to control its citizens and resist dangerous innovation then anarchy would ensue, ensuring that property would not be safe, and violence would be endemic. Conservatives have tended to adopt a pessimistic view of human nature. While liberals see humans as naturally sympathetic to each other, caring of each other’s needs and freedom, and while socialists see humankind as naturally sociable and cooperative, conservatives stress the competitive nature of people. They see humankind as liable to fall into disorder, that humans can be easily led to follow false ideas and the potential for ‘mob rule’. Despite this, conservatives believe we crave order and security. In fact, they argue we prefer security to individual freedom.
The dynamic new egalitarian principles of the French Revolution (1789) based on ‘liberty, fraternity, equality’ were in total conflict with traditional conservative principles
Why was Edmund Burke horrified by the upheaval of the french revolution
Horrified by the enthusiasm which some Britons were showing for the sudden upheaval of the French Revolution, the Whig MP Edmund Burke (1729-97) (sometimes known as the father of conservativism), wrote ‘Reflections on the Revolution in France’ (1790), in which he warned about the consequences of rapid change. For him, the greatest crime of the French revolutionaries, was to abandon traditional forms of authority that had stood the test of time. However, ‘right’ such ideas might be, they were opposed because they disturbed society so seriously and flew in the face of humankind’s most basic desire for order and security. For Burke, ‘No generation should ever be so rash as to consider itself superior to its predecessors.’ The idealistic desire to change the world was considered as dangerous and the safest course was always to approach problems pragmatically, respecting authority and tradition.
Why did Edmund Burke’s ideas influence conservatives to support institutions and traditions such as the monarchy?
For Burke, ‘No generation should ever be so rash as to consider itself superior to its predecessors.’ The idealistic desire to change the world was considered as dangerous and the safest course was always to approach problems pragmatically, respecting authority and tradition. It is these ideas that have led conservatives to support institutions as the monarchy, the Church of England, the Union of Britain and the great traditions of the political system in general. It also leads to a belief in the enduring quality of what are known as ‘British values’ – such as tolerance, respect for individual liberty, love of democracy and equality. For Burke, ‘Good order is the foundation of all good things.’ He suggested that the new ideas of liberty, equality and democracy were creating a disordered society and that Since him, conservatives have always been suspicious of new ideas that threaten the existing order.
Therefore, the conservative preference for the preservation of tradition is related closely to a desire for public order. When we refer to tradition in this context we mean both traditional institutions, such as monarchy, established Church and political constitutions, and values, such as the preservation of marriage, the importance of the nuclear family, religion and established morality. The very fact that values and institutions have survived, argue conservatives in general, is a testament to their quality. They carry the accumulated wisdom of the past and should therefore be respected. Burke also praised traditions for their ability to provide continuity between the past and the present - a ‘partnership between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are born’.
Thereafter, conservatives have consistently opposed the rise of any new ideology and by the (19th Toryism was the party of: property, pragmatism, authoritarianism, tradition and stability.
According to Benjamin Disraeli what did traditional conservatism lack?
According to Benjamin Disraeli (1804-81), traditional conservatism lacked the necessary dynamic to inspire men. In his ‘Young England’ novels, especially ‘Sybil’ (1845), Disraeli, as an ambitious Tory backbencher, argued that conservatism must unite the nation in a collective reverence for those traditions and institutions that had made Britain great. Disraeli saw society as an organic body in which stability and prosperity could only be achieved through all classes and individuals appreciating their debt to each other and not putting their selfish interests above the wellbeing of the community. He recognized that as a result of the Industrial Revolution and the growth of capitalism, a great divide was emerging between the middle classes, who were become increasingly prosperous and the working classes, who were falling further behind. In the most famous passage in ‘Sybil’, he warns against Britain becoming ‘Two Nations’: ‘The Rich and the Poor’, which is why the inclusive conservatism he argued for became known as ‘one-nation conservatism’.
How did Disraeli’s one nation sentiment and principles influence conservatives in relation to the working class?
Disraeli’s ‘one nation’ sentiments were important in enabling the Conservatives to reach out to working class support. As PM, he supported quite extensive social reforms that would reduce conflict and opposed measures that created too much inequality. This reflects a paternalist conservatism which favoured pluralism and social inclusion and held that, while authority should be centralised, the state should be benevolent and care for the neediest. Associated with the idea of ‘one-nation’ is the notion of an organic society suggests that people are tied together by a common sense of being members of an interdependent society, implying that those who are well off and own substantial property do have a responsibility to care for the interests of the poorer sections of society. Furthermore, the theory of the organic society leads to a belief that politics should not seek to change society artificially (as socialists and liberals believe), it should allow it to develop naturally
How are conservatives pragmatists?
However, it would be wrong to suggest that conservativism is a doctrine of ‘no change’ or that it treats its own principles as eternal and fixed. Conservatives are, above all, pragmatists. In ‘On History and Other Essays’ (1983) Michael Oakeshott (1901-90), a leading Conservative philosopher of modern times, advocated this kind of political action asserting that politics should be ‘a conservation, not an argument,’ meaning that political action should never be the result of conflict over political dogma and theory, but the result of a more-gentle relationship between government and the governed. Pragmatism implies a flexible approach to politics, incorporating an understanding of what is best for people, what is acceptable to them and what will preserve a stable society. It is a rejection of the politics of strongly held ideology, a dogmatic approach to decision making. Thus, Conservatives see government as an exercise in maintaining continuity, order and security and avoiding disorder. Government should not, they argue, seek to change society in radical ways. Socialists and liberals may have fixed views of how to change society, but conservatives reject this kind of ideological outlook, which they view as inherently undemocratic.
How are conservatives defenders of property owning classes?
Finally, from their conception, conservatives have been viewed as defenders of the property-owning classes, at a time when most people owned no property at all. With widespread property ownership in the modern era, however, it is a less significant conservative trait. In the modern context, conservatives have always attempted to defend the interests of home owners and of the owners of land and business. Property ownership for conservatives is a fundamental aspect of individualism and is a desirable aspiration to be shared by all. More significantly, the right to own and enjoy one’s own property is a reflection of a civilized existence, as property owners are seen to have a greater vested interest in order and so will help to ensure that there is stability in society.
