British politics, part one (BSDA #14)

The first thing to say in any debate on this topic is that the British political system, forged from more than 800 years of continuous development, is a hugely complex beast. Today's post is devoted to the easy bit, you'll be glad to know. The Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled is the full title of the lower house of the national parliament. It currently has 650 members, elected from all four corners of the United Kingdom. Nice and easy. The first partially-elected parliament (of England) was called in 1264 by Simon de Montfort, a French nobleman who led a rebellion against King Henry III and became the effective king after his victory at the Battle of Lewes. While he was later killed at Evesham, and King Edward I took the throne, the position of the parliament was now established and over the next few centuries its powers grew and grew until it was acknowledged as the most important part of the constitution during the nineteenth century. During that period, England unified with Scotland in 1707 and Great Britain with Ireland in 1800. In 1922 five-sixths of Ireland became independent (this is just history, you don't need me here). 


The current membership is divided between three main parties, and a few others with just a couple of members each. The government of today is what can only be described as an uneasy coalition between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, while the Labour party, who governed from 1997-2010, provide the Official Opposition. Of these, the Conservatives have the longest history, being ultimately descended from the Tories (they are still often called by this name) who sprung up in the later seventeenth century in support of the right of royal succession to fall to anyone, even a Catholic, during the Exclusion crisis of the 1680s. The party that supported the removal of James, Duke of York from the succession because of his Catholicism developed into the Whigs, and over the centuries these two parties began to solidify into movements we'd now describe as liberal and conservative, with the Whigs supporting constitutional separation of powers (in a broad sense) and the nonconformist tradition while the Tories supported the monarch's power and the high Church of England. These parties renamed themselves into the Liberals and Conservatives in the Victorian era. 


From the early 1900s, the incipient trade union movement began to get more and more members elected to parliament, and the socialist Labour party emerged, first taking government in 1924. Labour quickly supplanted the Liberals as the second party, so much so that in the general election of 1951 95% of voters supported either Labour or the Conservatives, and the Liberals won just six seats - in five of those there was no Conservative candidate. At this point, it would be clear to see genuine ideological differences between all three. In 1979 Margaret Thatcher, Conservative leader, became prime minister. She was a radically different leader, moving the Tories into a new era of libertarian neoliberalism based on the ideas of Friedman, Hayek and others. In an attempt to combat this, Labour elected Michael Foot as their leader in 1980, the furthest left leader for many years. This was the last straw for many in the moderate faction of the Labour party. Four senior party figures left Labour to form the Social Democratic Party on the European model. While they hoped to wrestle the mantle of official opposition from Labour, it quickly became apparent that they could not and so the SDP formed an Alliance with the Liberals, who were experiencing a slight revival themselves. This Alliance grew in power over the following years, and the two parties eventually merged to form the Liberal Democrats, despite the opposition of SDP leader David Owen, who remains an independent to this day. Neither Labour nor the Lib Dems could provide a credible challenge, however, to Thatcher, or her successor Major. 


In an attempt to become electable, Labour elected Tony Blair as their leader, and effectively renounced socialism, most notably via the elimination of Clause Four of the party constitution, which committed the party to nationalisation of industry. (Note: loads more stuff happens before this, as this is very simplistic, but you can find that out yourselves, I'm sure.) Labour was elected in 1997 and effectively continued the radical policies of Thatcher and Major, deregulating banking, supporting private industry at the expense of the state, and so on. Many felt that the Lib Dems had become the real party of the left, by continuing to support wholeheartedly the welfare state, high taxation and progressivism. However, the Orange Book of 2004 in fact showcases the Lib Dem commitment to radical centrist policies. It is therefore possible to suggest that all three parties are of the radical centre to centre-right, at least at the leadership level, though there are signs that new Labour leader Ed Miliband is attempting to move back to a more defined centre-left social democratic tradition. 


Man. That was LONG. And I only covered half of what I wanted to. Questions? Leave them in comments. Follow this blog, go to twitter, and dance like a kangaroo. https://twitter.com/#!/antmoorfield

Observations on political systems. (BSDA #13)

One of the questions that has always fascinated me, ever since my interest in politics evolved into a dangerous and maddening obsession about three years ago, is that of how people in different countries relate to their political systems. I know far too much about this kind of thing, and I've decided to make the next few blogs purely informational ones about the practical and constitutional differences between different systems; namely, those of the USA, Britain, Germany and possibly any others that strike my fancy. That said, I thought a good way into these would be to try and tackle the question on a purely subjective level, by considering how the political cultures of different nations are borne out in their attitudes to their elected representatives.

So. A day or two ago I was watching a video on Youtube in which a young woman declared that since her leader, US President Obama, is a Democrat, this makes her a Republican. This is, in many ways, an extremely odd pattern of thought, yet extremely common, I have noticed, in my admittedly few dealings with Americans, and in other political debate. It is interesting, because such a logic implies that, firstly, there are only two answers to any political question, and, secondly, opposition to a single person and his/her policies means opposition to his/her broad position on the political spectrum. Duverger's law (more on that another day, when I will get terribly nerdy about electoral systems) tells us that in first-past-the-post systems such as that used in the USA, political thought inevitably polarises around two extremes, two political parties, with little possibility of compromise or cooperation. This incident, and, in a wider sense, the near-total hegemony of Democrat and Republican, two parties who often seem to be bitterly opposed to each other on fundamental levels, seems to be the apotheosis of such a concept. 

This phenomenon can be witnessed in the UK too, where we often hear such talk as "Labour caused the financial crisis" or "the Tories will wreck the NHS" (neither of which statements are totally wrong, or totally right), although here it is tempered by two factors - the disdain of the public for any party politician, whatever the stripe, and the widespread feeling that all three major parties are less than a gnat's wing apart from each other. Where in the USA Democrat and Republican seem implacably opposed to each other, here in the UK the parties are often considered too close to each other for any meaningful debate. It appears to me, and again this is based on purely circumstantial evidence, that such a feeling is not so powerful in those countries which have proportional representation. This system, which requires coalitions, cooperation and the willingness to listen to other shades of opinion, seems to me to foster a culture of understanding and of unity, which ultimately leads to a better politics. 

So there are some opening observations. Over the next few days of this blog, I will attempt to impart some of what I know, in a hopefully useful fashion, in the following order. I hope you are willing to keep reading, even in the scary bits. Out of the frying pan into the fire, as one might irrelevantly say.

April 16th - the British political system, part one: the House of Commons, the Cabinet and political parties.

April 17th - the British political system, part two: Lords, kings and devolved parliaments.

April 18th-22nd - I'm not here. Do something with your lives.

April 23rd - to break it up, a review of the first episode of Doctor Who! EXCITED.

April 24th - political systems compared across the world. Or something along those lines.

April 25th - the aforementioned nerdy electoral systems post. Be happy.

Et cetera.

Any suggestions, questions, criticism or whatever - either scribble down below or hit me up on twitter. You should follow me in both places too. Cos, you know. That's how we roll round here. 

twitter.com/antmoorfield

This blog was inspired by an impromptu twitter conversation with all-round interesting person Julia Taylor. Linky. about.me/juliabobulia92