British Party System Research Articles

The Growth of the British Party System

The Growth of the British Party System

The Growth of the British Party System, by Ivor Bulmer-Thomas

The Growth of the British Party System, <i>by Ivor Bulmer-Thomas</i>

The Growth of the British Party System

The Growth of the British Party System

The Bow Group's Role in British Politics

Svisions political allegiance have always been more numerous. To underSstand British party system, one must understand balance of forces within parties as well as relations between them.1 unprecedented increase Conservative strength at 1959 general election emphasizes need to understand present divisions within Conservative party, subject neglected by academics.2 purpose of this article is to analyze structure and functions of Bow Group, Conservative research organization, order to assess its role British political process., Bow Group is notable because of its efforts to think out anew implications of Conservative principles society undergoing major changes, and because of its efficient organization for political work. Its achievements have elicited various conflicting evaluations. A few days after last general election (October 11, 1959) non-party London Observer could refer to that secret and unacknowledged alliance between leadership and younger progressives such as Bow Group. Bow Group describes itself as body which does not stand for any particular kind of Conservatism, but non-party Economist can refer to it as a shorthand phrase for Tory left, group with great differentiating principle separating it from Liberals or Gaitskellite wing of Labour party.4 A leading Conservative publicist, T. E. Utley, has attacked Group as hardly to be distinguished from radical liberalism and sometimes even from Socialism; he also called it misguided enemy of the sane right. 5 In 1957 Bow Group's advertising copywriters termed it Young, compact and influential . .. Pamphlets exert considerable influence on Tory thought and action; yet it can also claim to be in no sense pressure group. 6 Mr. R. A. Butler, chairman of Conservative party, has called it, with characteristic wit and ambiguity, The beehive . . . from which we obtain honey as well as an occasional sting. 7

The Bournemouth Affair: Britain's First Primary Election

T HIS PAPER EXAMINES THE RELATIONS between a Member of Parliament, his constituents, and his leaders under conditions of considerable stress. Recent interpretations of the British party system have tended to emphasize the centralization of power in both major parties as a result of the constitutional principle that governments be responsible to Parliament and to the whole electorate and of the need to appeal to a wider range of views than those embodied in the formal membership of a single party, if the party in question is to enjoy success at the polls.' These interpretations, which appear to be generally well-founded, have entailed minimizing the importance both of the backbencher and the local party organizations. Only a few polemical journalists have suggested that the ordinary Member or constituency party has ceased to be a real influence in British politics, but, in large part because of the attention devoted -to the leaders, few areas of British politics remain in more obscurity than the relations of a Member to his constituents.2 The discreet veil which local British parties, particularly the Conservatives, usually succeed in drawing over their internal processes compounds the obscurity so that generalizations about the pattern of influence and dissent within the parties are frequently based on exanples which are outdated or only superficially known. It therefore should be instructive to examine rather closely the prolonged dispute which arose between Nigel Nicolson and his constituents at Bournemouth as a result of the Suez crisis of 1956. A close study of this dispute is possible because events came closer to the surface than usual and the present writer was able to discuss

Power in British Political Parties [I

J t I 'UCH of the confusion about the distribution of power within the \/ major British political parties arises from a careless use of terms. a L g iThe phrases Conservative and Labour are commonly used as if each referred to a unified political entity consistlng of three sections: a parliamentary party, a voluntary mass organization and a professional staff or party bureaucracy. It is usually assumed that if either party were truly democratic }, the leaders of the party in Parliament would hold themselves responsible to the ' members of the party , i.e., to those who belong to the mass organization. But an examination of the history of the two parties shows that in practice they do not. Therefore many observers End themselves dnven to cynical or pessimistic conclusions about the nature of intra-party democracy. Some conclude with Robert Michels that an iror} law' inearitably prevents the members of a nominally democratic political organization from controlling their leaders. Others, paraphrasing A. Lv Lowell, conclude that Both parties are shams, but with this difference, that the Conservative organization is a transparent, and the Labour an opaqueg sham . There are good grounds for cynicism about certain features of the British party system and there is much to be said for both Michels and Lowell. But a clarification of terms helps to put the problem into perspective. In fact two autonomous political entities face each other in Parliament; they are The Conservative Party and The Parliamentary Labour Party (P.L.P.). Each is associated with a voluntary mass organization of its supporters outside Parliament, the former by The National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations , the latter by a body properly known as The Labour Party . In addition, the Conservative Party has at its disposal a professional staff of party workers outside Parliament, the Conservative Central Office (which

The British Party System between the Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867

The British Party System between the Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867. Un article de la revue Report of the Annual Meeting / Rapports annuels de la Société historique du Canada (Volume 34, numéro 1, 1955, p. 1-133) diffusée par la plateforme Érudit.

A Note On Party Organization: the Democrats in California

M AANY AMERICAN scholars have viewed with admiration the British party system. The Labour and Conservative parties present concrete programs to the electorate; if a party controls the government the voters expect the program to be implemented. When a British party takes a definite stand on a political question, it is confident that the members will support the party after as well as before the election; in the British system the party leaders are able to exert firm organizational control over the members in office. So it is said that the British system provides the electorate with effective and responsible party government, as befits a democracy.1 Of course the Republican and Democratic parties in none of our states function like British parties. American parties tend to be more irresponsible and ineffective political organizations. Not the organizations, but rather political figures quite independent of party control, dominate the American political scene. In California the political parties have conformed to this traditional pattern of American politics. And it has long been evident that the Democratic party in this state has been an especially irresponsible and ineffective political organization. It is, therefore, interesting that during the past few years the Party's character has been undergoing a marked transformation. This change promises to make the Party a more responsible as well as a more effective political organization. If this promise is fulfilled, the nature of party politics in Califoriia may be radically altered. California is, in a sense, a Democratic state. Since 1928 it has gone Democratic in five of six presidential elections. The Democrats have a three to two advantage in party registration; in 1952 approximately 3,312,000 voters registered Democratic, as against 2,197,000 Republicans. Since the Eisenhower victory the margin has narrowed, but in November of 1954 the Democrats still had an edge of 851,582 in registration.

Book Review: The British Party System, Parliament: A Survey

Book Review: The British Party System, Parliament: A Survey

The British Party System

The British Party System

BOOK REVIEWS

BOOK REVIEWS Get access The British Party System. Edited by Sydney D. Bailey. Second Edition. Hansard Society. 12s. 6d. G. N. N. NUNN G. N. N. NUNN Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Parliamentary Affairs, Volume VII, Issue 1, 1953, Pages 182–185, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pa.a053133 Published: 01 January 1953

THE BRITISH PARTY SYSTEM

THE BRITISH PARTY SYSTEM IVOR BULMER-THOMAS IVOR BULMER-THOMAS 12 Edwardes Square, W.8 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Parliamentary Affairs, Volume V, Issue 3, 1951, Pages 413–414, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pa.a053396 Published: 01 July 1951

The Reform Bill of 1867 and the British Party System

The Reform Bill of 1867 is generally considered as second step in long process which peacefully transformed British government into a functioning democracy. The orderly extension of suffrage, bringing new classes within pale of constitution without destroying old forms, created a deep seated satisfaction in Great Britain and universal admiration abroad. The nature of these changes made them seem both right and inevitable, and one scholar, a former president of American Historical Association, even went so far as to deify tendency toward democracy into a law of history.' Statesmen of both parties, like Macaulay, heard the voice of great events . . . proclaiming . . . Reform that you may preserve . . . Renew youth of state, 2 and not only met but even anticipated popular demand for representation. In consequence, Bill of 1867 has taken its place with Reforms of 1832 and 1884-5 as most striking example of that peculiarly British method of progress typical of: