The Erosion of Party Politics in Britain (original) (raw)
Related papers
The role of the British Labour Party a century on
2002
There is broad agreement that, under its new unofficial name of 'New Labour'the British Labour party has undergone a metamorphosis. About the nature and contours of that metamorphosis there is much less agreement. There has been a voluminous debate about its policies and ideology-about how significant and deep-seated the changes are and what they signify for the actions of Labour as the UK's ruling party. What does New Labour stand for–and for whom?
New Labour in Britain: new democratic centralism?
2002
This article uses a case study-the introduction in 1997 of new policy machinery-to analyse competing claims about the nature of the Labour Party's organisational transformation. It aims to demonstrate that whilst the new policy process was presented as a move towards greater democracy, both its general design and its modes of operation rendered inevitable the production of a general election manifesto in 2001 (the culmination of the process) whose contents coincided very closely to the leadership's tastes.
This article draws from the fields of political science and of organisational studies to explore the short-term and long-term impact of New Labour's party management on the quality of party processes as well as on party reputation. It is based on the long-term ethnographic participant observation of the Labour Party at local and regional levels, as well as national events such as annual conferences. The article starts by identifying the distinctive features of New Labour's party management. It then examines the " unintended consequences " of this brand of party management, showing this model to be mainly self-defeating. The final section provides a general assessment of the impact of New Labour's party management from the perspective of organisational learning and innovation. Overall the article stresses the long-term poisonous effects of this brand of leadership and management on political organisations and on politics in general.
Partnership in Power? Party Reform and Membership Empowerment: The Case of the British Labour Party.
This is a draft paper which examines the extent to which reforms to the Labour Party’s internal organisation under Ed Miliband’s leadership empowered members or represented a continuation of the controlled, managerial regime of Tony Blair. It makes use of a framework for analysing power in political organisations which accounts for its operation in several different modes: at individual and organisational levels, in culture and practice and in the techiques and technologies employed in the pursuit of party goals. Key aspects of the reforms are discussed, including community organising, flexibility in the organisation of local parties, the idea of candidate contracts, the role of training and the impact of the registered supporters scheme, particularly on the franchise for leadership elections. The analysis suggests that whilst there was a genuine desire to give more power to members and local parties, it was tempered by a reluctance to fully relinquish managerial control. Empowering measures were taken, but important safeguards preserving the control of the party’s parliamentary leadership were built-in. The failure of MPs to properly use these safeguards in the 2015 leadership election, however, has opened up the possibility of further, more radical change.
The Presidentialization of Party Politics in the UK
The Presidentialization of Political Parties Organizations, Institutions and Leaders, 2015
This chapter explores party presidentialization in the United Kingdom, with a focus on party competition at Westminster. It provides an overview of the constitutional structures of the UK and relates these to the party system. The decline of the two-party system since the 1970s is highlighted. The genetic features of the Conservative and Labour parties are explored through a discussion of their historical origins and development. The chapter then considers the level of centralized leadership in these parties, and the leadership selection procedures they have employed. This reveals a gap between the rhetoric of decentralisation, participation and democratisation, and the reality of increasing centralisation and leadership autonomy.
2006
This paper examines the Labour Party's organisational changes since the mid-1990s. It has been argued that these changes have been designed to give the leadership significant new powers to control dissent in the party. This paper will compare the Labour Party with the Danish Social Democrats (SD), to ascertain why it was necessary for the Labour leadership to change the party's organisation when SD, being in many ways a similar party has seen very little organisational change. The paper will suggest that Labour's organisational changes have been strongly influenced by the workings of the British SMP electoral system. SMP has been partly responsible for creating a situation where successive Labour leaderships have been faced with 1) an electoral environment where legislative influence is dependent on a high degree of success in the polls, and 2) very vocal internal opposition, something which has made electoral success difficult to achieve. In contrast the SD leadership, operating under a List PR system has not faced these challenges and have consequently not had to acquire additional powers through organisational reform.
Challenges and Responses in British Party Politics
Comparative Politics, 1980
This paper addresses the question of why parties decline in electoral support and examines particularly the recent dealignment in Great Britain. The general theme is that dealignment depends on the nature of the demands placed upon the parties by the electorate and the response of the parties to those demands, An analysis of the key issues of the sixties and seventies shows that ther ' e were M ll'l � � ....
New Labour and Government in Britain: Change or Continuity?
Australian Journal of Public Administration, 1997
The 1997 British election marks a major change in British government. Eighteen years of Conservative rule had brought about growing inequality and social division and have generated powerful demands for new directions in public policy, especially in the areas of welfare and public administration. On welfare state reform Labour is constrained by election promises to restrain taxation and public expenditure. New Labour ministers influenced by the New Right have in any case largely rejected traditional social democratic redistributive strategies and are seeking instead new ways of reducing welfare dependency.The virulent spread of quangos at all levels of government and a marked increase in the centralisation of power in Whitehall have given a new impetus to demands for constitutional reform. Labour's response to these demands is a major program of regional devolution, House of Lords reform and open government measures.This article explains what ‘New Labour’ means and discusses New...
New Labour and the politics of depoliticisation
A number of commentators in the 1980s sought to explain the character of the Thatcher administration. By contrast, relatively little work has been produced that seeks to analyse the principles and governing strategies of the Blair government. Focusing primarily on economic management, this article offers a characterisation of statecraft under Blair in terms of the politics of depoliticisation. In summary, it argues that the Blair government has fused aspects of traditional economic management with new initiatives to create a powerful tool of governing organised on the basis of the principle of depoliticisation. Depoliticisation as a governing strategy is the process of placing at one remove the political character of decision-making. State managers retain arm's-length control over crucial economic and social processes whilst simultaneously benefiting from the distancing effects of depoliticisation. As a form of politics it seeks to change market expectations regarding the effectiveness and credibility of policy-making in addition to shielding the government from the consequences of unpopular policies. A quick survey of the history of 'governing Britain' in the twentieth century is apt to reveal that, despite much rhetoric, governments are unable to solve the fundamental problems that beset the British economy (the relative productivity problem, the decline of the staple industries, recurrent inflationary pressure, the 'boom and bust' cycle). 1 This was well recognised by Jim Bulpitt, who argued that the aim of government is to achieve, in the eyes of the public, a level of governing competence, and