Exploring British Politics

Mark Garnett, Peter Dorey, Philip Lynch

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN:
  9780367142407
• Edition: 5
• eBook ISBN:
  9780429632419
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Exploring British Politics is a concise, comprehensive, and accessible guide to the subject. Fully updated and revised, the new edition covers developments since 2016 in the role of the executive, Parliament, the civil service, political parties, general elections, party ideology and membership, as well as examining turmoil and leadership battles within the Labour and Conservative parties, the politics of growing inequality, demographic trends and their political consequences, and the future of the UK itself. Stimulating critical analysis and lively debate, it provides new perspectives on two key themes – the health of British democracy and the transition from traditional models of government to more flexible forms of 'governance'.

Key features include:

• a comprehensive analysis of the 2019 general election, Brexit developments since the 2016 Referendum to today's ongoing negotiations, and the shadow cast by the COVID-19 global pandemic and its implications;
• topical coverage of the fall of the Corbyn and May leaderships, the new Starmer and Johnson era, the rise and fall of the 'Change UK' party, the economic crisis, the role of special advisers, new social movements such as Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter, and much more;
• extensive guides to further reading at the end of each chapter; and
• rich illustrations visually representing examples and data.

Whilst the book provides an essential historical background, contemporary issues are to the fore throughout and readers are encouraged to assess critically received wisdoms and develop their own thoughts and ideas. Whether studying the subject for the first time or revisiting it, Exploring British Politics is the ideal undergraduate text.

Part 1

Context

Chapter 1

Understanding British politics

Learning outcomes

After reading this chapter, you will:

• appreciate that the subject matter of politics is open to competing interpretations;
• understand that there are various approaches to the study of British politics;
• become familiar with the concept of ‘liberal democracy’;
• understand the issues involved in a shift from ‘government’ to ‘governance’ in the UK.

Introduction

Despite occasional dissenting voices, until the mid-​1960s, it was common to present the British political system as a success story – ​the product of gradual progress over several centuries towards a democratic society in which all citizens could feel represented and involved in the political process. Nowadays, it is much easier to identify fundamental failings, and since the beginning of the present century, there have been three unmistakable symptoms of public dissatisfaction which would have caused incredulity in the context of the 1960s. The first, in the general election of 2001, was a slump in voter turnout to less than 60 per cent. This was comfortably the lowest turnout since 1928, when the UK adopted universal suffrage for people over 21; in 1964, the turnout had been 77 per cent. The second development was the scandal which erupted in May 2009, when the Daily Telegraph newspaper began to publish details of expenses claims lodged by the Members of Parliament (MPs). The Telegraph – ​traditionally regarded as a bastion of the British ‘establishment’ – ​was able to sustain these revelations over several weeks, raising public doubts about the integrity of numerous elected representatives, and casting a cloud over the reputation of the whole democratic process in the UK. Finally, the 2016 referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union resulted in a rejection of the clear recommendation of a majority of cabinet ministers, after a campaign which was marked by symptoms of antipathy towards the ‘metropolitan elite’ as well as to the EU itself. This followed the 2014 referendum on Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom, in which the supporters of the status quo prevailed, but by a much narrower margin than initially expected.

Such evidence should be sufficient to cure any interested observer of complacency about the health of British democracy. However, the present book is not designed to form part of the chorus of complaint, or indeed to vindicate the UK system from its critics. Its main purpose is to enable students to explore British politics in an analytical spirit and to draw conclusions of their own. Accordingly, while taking account of common criticisms of the British political system, we attempt to give due weight to contrary arguments. By the end of the book, we hope that readers will have learned something about their own ideas, as well as reaching a deeper understanding of the subject.

Executive

the branch of government responsible for putting laws into operation. In the UK, the executive consists of the prime minister, other members of the cabinet, junior ministers, senior civil servants, and special advisers.

The main text of the book is divided into five parts:

1. Context: exploring the historical, economic, and social background to contemporary British politics, and the ways in which it can be studied.
2. Constitution and institutions: covering the uncodified British constitution, the core executive, Parliament, and the legal system.
3. Multi-​level governance: explaining recent developments relating to the changing state, devolution within the UK, local government, and the impact of the EU prior to the decision to withdraw.
4. Political parties: discussing party systems, ideology, and the structure of the main parties.
5. Participation: assessing electoral systems, voting behaviour, referendums, and pressure groups.

This chapter introduces some of the main themes which appear in several parts of the book.

UK politics, representative democracy, and the ‘Westminster model’

Broadly speaking, there are two ways in which any country’s politics can be understood. The most familiar approach is to focus on specific institutions, practices, and people: for example, Parliament, elections, and party leaders. The advantage of this view of politics, exemplified in the UK by the ‘Westminster model’, is that the subject matter is clearly delineated. It takes politics to be a specialised activity, undertaken by a relatively small number of ‘experts’.

Legislature

the part of government which makes laws. In the UK, the Westminster Parliament is the legislative body and is dominated by the elected House of Commons.

The Westminster model (see Chapter 2) reflects the long-​standing UK tradition of strong centralised government, run by strictly disciplined political parties (see Table 1.1). In the Westminster model, the government (the executive) is dominant, backed by a majority in the House of Commons (the main element of the legislature) and advised by a professional civil service as well as unelected special advisers. A crucial feature of the UK system is that the executive and legislative branches of government are fused: that is, the effective head of the executive, the prime minister, cannot govern without the ability to command a dependable majority in the legislature. There is no codified constitution, and institutions like the judiciary and local government can be reshaped according to the wishes of the government, so long as the Parliament agrees. This system is highly unusual (but see Case study 1.1). In most democratic countries, the executive, legislature, and judiciary are kept separate in accordance with a codified constitution (see Chapter 6). The nature of the UK system reflects the political development of the country since the seventeenth century, when effective political power began to pass from the monarchy to Parliament.

TABLE 1.1 The Westminster model

Aspect of political system	Features of the Westminster model
Constitution	Uncodified constitution; no special procedures required for constitutional amendment
Sovereignty	Parliamentary sovereignty – ​supreme legislative authority of Westminster; no other body can overturn parliamentary legislation
Core executive	Prime ministerial government – ​prime minister is the predominant figure in cabinet system
Collective and individual responsibility	Ministers accountable to Parliament
Bureaucracy	Civil service – ​neutral, permanent, knowledgeable Public service ethos, but perception that ‘Whitehall knows best’
Executive-​legislative relations	Dominant executive – ​fusion of executive and legislature. Limited parliamentary scrutiny and amendment of legislation; strong party discipline
Electoral system	Simple plurality electoral system – ​expected to produce ‘artificial’ parliamentary majorities for winning party; single-​party government is the norm; regular, free elections ensure accountability of decision-​makers
Party system	Two-​party system – ​clear choice for voters Mass parties evolved into ‘catch-​all’ parties with broad appeal
Judiciary	Courts cannot challenge constitutionality of legislation Limited powers of judicial review, though ministers and officials are not above the law
Territorial politics	Unitary state – ​political power concentrated at the centre. Weak local government – ​no constitutional protection No subnational government in Great Britain – ​Scottish Office and Welsh Office represent interests at the centre

Judiciary

the branch of government which decides disputes about the law, punishes individuals who have been convicted of illegal acts by the courts, and decides whether agents of the state have properly applied laws passed by the legislature.

The Westminster model approach to UK politics was accepted by most political scientists until the 1970s. It encouraged students to focus on such questions as the role of the prime minister, the influence of the Parliament, and ministerial responsibility. Outside academia, advocates of the Westminster model claimed that it provided government which combined the virtues of strength and flexibility. In a two-​party system (see Chapter 14), the majority party would be able to implement its policy programme because parliamentary discipline would ensure the loyalty of its elected representatives. The parliamentary opposition would point out the government’s real (or perceived) failings, in the hope of replacing it at a subsequent election. On any working day, virtually all of the key actors in UK politics could be found either in the Parliament at Westminster or in the surrounding area of Whitehall.

However, there is an inherent tension between this view of UK politics and the long-​accepted notion that Britain is a ‘representative democracy’. In such systems, when politicians take decisions, they are acting on behalf of the people who elected them. Since 1928, the UK electorate has included all adults (with a few exceptions such as convicted criminals serving prison sentences). In a representative democracy, MPs must submit themselves for re-​election at periodic intervals. As the Fixed-​term Parliaments Act 2011 demonstrated (see Chapter 17), Parliament has the power to change the arrangements governing elections without asking for its proposals to be endorsed in a referendum. However, despite the superficial radicalism of the Fixed-​term Parliaments Act, in one respect it confirmed the existing arrangement under which a new election cannot be delayed to more than five years after the previous one. The Parliament would be most unlikely to increase the maximum interlude between elections, except at a time of grave national emergency (thus, for example, there was no general election between 1935 and 1945).

It is characteristic of constitutional change in the UK that fixed-​term parliaments, while strongly recommended by some reformers, were far less widely canvassed than other proposed changes which have not been implemented. For example, more attention was focused on the argument for a change from the long-​established ‘simple plurality’ (often known as ‘first-​past-​the-​post’) voting system to a proportional one which would bring electoral outcomes closer to public preferences (see Chapter 17). However, when a referendum was held on electoral reform in May 2011, the proposed new system (the alternative vote [AV]) was comprehensively rejected, despite the fact that, as a non-​proportional system, the AV system was regarded by reformers as a first step rather than the truly radical change which was required. This outcome made it difficult to envisage a further public vote on the subject for many years.

Case study 1.1

The Westminster model abroad

Westminster is often described as the ‘mother of parliaments’. This is actually a misquotation from the radical politician John Bright (1811–​89), who spoke of England as ‘the mother of parliaments’. But the confusion is understandable. Although Iceland and the Isle of Man vie for the honour of having the oldest parliamentary system, Westminster has a long history, and the system of parliamentary democracy in a constitutional monarchy has been exported to many countries in the Commonwealth. These include Australia, Canada, Jamaica, and New Zealand. Here, the head of state is the British monarch, while the head of government is usually the leader of the largest party in the Parliament. The executive branch is made up of members of the legislature and operates a cabinet system in which the prime minister is the key actor. Bicameral legislatures are the norm (except in New Zealand), and parliamentary ceremony often replicates that found in England. Two-​party systems and simple plurality electoral systems are found in many Commonwealth states. Another similarity is that civil law is based on English common law (see Chapter 9).

But there are significant differences in the way a Westminster-​style system operates in Commonwealth states that adopted the British model of government. Almost all have written constitutions and a codified Bill of Rights (New Zealand does not have a single codified constitutional document), but conventions remain important. Australia and Canada are federal states. The suitability of the Westminster model has also been a subject of political controversy in some Commonwealth states. New Zealand moved to a mixed electoral system in 1996, while the British monarch’s position as head of state is a thorny issue in Australia.

The Westminster model was not adopted in continental Europe where codified constitutions, elected second chambers, strong regional government, proportional representation, and multi-​party systems are common.

Other proposed changes to British democratic institutions and practices would either widen the franchise further (by reducing the voting age to 16) or make participation easier (e.g. b...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Brief contents
• Table of Contents
• Guided tour
• Guide to features
• Preface
• Part 1 Context
• Part 2 Constitution and institutions
• Part 3 Multilevel governance
• Part 4 Political parties
• Part 5 Participation
• Part 6 Conclusions
• Index