United Kingdom PDF

7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 31 2 UNITED KINGDOM Head of state: Queen Elizabeth II (since February 6, 1952) Head of government: Prime Minister Gordon Brown (since June 27, 2007)...

7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 31 2 UNITED KINGDOM Head of state: Queen Elizabeth II (since February 6, 1952) Head of government: Prime Minister Gordon Brown (since June 27, 2007) SCOTLAND Capital: London NORTHERN Total land size: 244,820 sq km IRELAND Edi nburgh Gl asgow Population: 61 million GDP at PPP: 2.1 trillion US$ Bel fast Leeds GDP per capita at PPP: $35,100 REPUBLIC Bradford OF S heffi el d Human development index ranking: 16 M anchester IRELAND ES Li verpool Bi rmi ngham WAL ENGLAND C ardi ff Bri stol L o ndo n UNITED KINGDOM 31 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 32 32 CH. 2 UNITED KINGDOM INTRODUCTION Why Study This Case? F or many reasons, most introductory works about comparative politics begin with a study of the United Kingdom (UK). As the primogenitor of modern democracy, the UK’s political system is at once strikingly unique and a model for many other liberal democracies. The UK is the world’s oldest democracy. Its transition to democracy was gradual, beginning with thirteenth- century limitations on absolute monarchs and continuing incrementally to the establishment of the rule of law in the seventeenth century and the extension of suffrage to women in the twentieth century. The democratization process persists today, with reforms of the anachronistic upper house of the legis- lature, decentralization of power, and ongoing discussions about electoral reform. Unlike many other democracies, the UK cannot attach a specific date or event to the advent of its democracy. The UK is also unusual in that the main political rules of the game in that country have not been seriously inter- rupted or radically altered since the mid-seventeenth century. The United Kingdom is one of only a handful of democracies without a written constitution. The longevity and stability of its democracy have thus depended to a large extent on both traditional legitimacy and a unique polit- ical culture of accommodation and moderation. Although its constitution is unwritten, many aspects of its democracy have been adopted by a number of the world’s other democracies, especially in areas of the globe that were once part of the far-flung British Empire. Finally, the United Kingdom deserves careful study because it is the birth- place of the Industrial Revolution, which turned it into the world’s leading economic and political power for several hundred years. Some have attrib- uted the UK’s early industrialization to the emergence of liberal ideology. The UK was also the first major industrialized country to experience an extended economic decline after World War II, the reasons for which have been much debated. The United Kingdom remains a fascinating case. In 1979, Margaret Thatcher of the Conservative Party was the first leader of an industrial democracy to experiment with neoliberal economic policies in an attempt to stem economic decline. The policies were very controversial within the UK but widely emulated in other democracies, including the United States. Even with Thatcher’s resignation in 1990, the Conservatives (Tories) remained in power until the 1997 election when they were ousted by the Labour Party. Under the leadership of Tony Blair, and his successor Gordon Brown, the 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 33 INTRODUCTION 33 Labour Party embraced many of the liberal policies executed by Thatcher and her conservative successors. These policies have become known as the Third Way. Major Geographic and Demographic Features Since 1801, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has been the formal name of the United Kingdom. Separated from France by the English Channel, Great Britain itself consists of three nations (England, Scotland, and Wales). These three nations plus the northeastern part of the island of Ireland constitute the United Kingdom. The remainder of Ireland is called the Republic of Ireland. Although it is confusing, citizens of the UK are often referred to as British or Britons even if they live in Northern Ireland. Most Welsh, Scots, and Northern Irish consider themselves British, but it would be unwise to call a resident of Edinburgh (in Scotland) or Cardiff (in Wales) English. The United Kingdom is roughly the size of Oregon and about two thirds the size of Japan. It has approximately 60 million residents, nearly twice the population of California and about half that of Japan. The UK’s population is not equally distributed among England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ire- land. Five of six Britons live in England. The UK can be considered a multi- ethnic state because it contains Scottish, Welsh, and English citizens, who have distinct cultures and languages. Racially, however, the UK is relatively homogeneous; its nonwhite population, composed mainly of immigrants from the UK’s former colonies, is only about 3 percent of the total. The majority of those immigrants come from the Indian Subcontinent, and about one third are from the Caribbean. The UK’s physical separation from the European mainland ended in 1994 with the inauguration of the Channel Tunnel, which links Britain and France. For much of British history, the country’s isolation provided some protection from the conflicts and turmoil that afflicted the rest of Europe. A diminished fear of invasion may help explain the historically small size and minimal polit- ical importance of the UK’s standing army (and the relative importance and strength of its navy). In addition, it may help explain the UK’s late adherence to the European Union, its unwillingness to replace the British pound with the euro (the single European currency), and its continued skepticism about European unification. Historical Development of the State British citizens owe their allegiance to the Crown, the enduring symbol of the United Kingdom’s state, rather than to a written constitution. The Crown sym- 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 34 34 CH. 2 UNITED KINGDOM TIME LINE OF POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT Year Event 1215 King John forced to sign Magna Carta, thereby agreeing to a statement of the rights of English Barons 1295 Convening of Model Parliament of Edward I, the first representa- tive parliament 1529 Reformation Parliament summoned by Henry VIII, beginning process of cutting ties to the Roman Catholic Church 1628 Charles I forced to accept Petition of Right, Parliament’s statement of civil rights in return for funds 1642–48 English Civil War fought between Royalists and Parliamentarians 1649 Charles I tried and executed 1689 Bill of Rights issued by Parliament, establishing a constitutional monarchy in Britain 1707 Act of Union put into effect, uniting kingdoms of England and Scotland 1721 Sir Robert Walpole effectively made Britain’s first prime minister 1832–67 Reform Acts passed, extending right to vote to virtually all urban males and some in the countryside 1900 Labour Party founded in Britain 1916–22 Anglo-Irish War fought, culminating in establishment of indepen- dent Republic of Ireland, with Northern Ireland remaining part of the United Kingdom 1973 UK made a member of the European Economic Community (now the European Union) 1979–90 Margaret Thatcher served as prime minister 1982 Falklands War fought with Argentina 1997–2007 Tony Blair served as prime minister 2007 Gordon Brown becomes prime minister bolizes far more than just the monarchy or even Her Majesty’s government. It represents, of course, the ceremonial and symbolic trappings of the British state. In addition, it represents the rules (or regime) as well as the unhindered capacity (the sovereignty) to enforce and administer these rules and to secure the country’s borders. 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 35 INTRODUCTION 35 The evolutionary changes of the state over the past eight centuries have been thoroughgoing and not without violence. But in comparison with polit- ical change elsewhere in the world, the development of the modern British state has been gradual, piecemeal, and peaceful. EARLY DEVELOPMENT Although we commonly think of the United Kingdom as a stable and unified nation-state, the country experienced repeated invasions over a period of about 1,500 years. Celts, Romans, Angles and Saxons, Danes, and finally Normans invaded the British Isles, each leaving important legacies. For example, the Germanic Angles and Saxons left their language, except in Wales and Scot- land and other areas that they could not conquer. Local languages remained dominant there until the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Today, we still refer to those areas as the UK’s Celtic fringe. In terms of the UK’s political development, another important legacy was the emergence of common law, a system based on local customs and prece- dent rather than formal legal codes. That system forms the basis of the con- temporary legal systems of the UK (with the exception of Scotland), the United States, and many former British colonies.1 The last wave of invasions, by the Normans, occurred in 1066. The Nor- mans were Danish Vikings who occupied northern France. In Britain, they replaced the Germanic ruling class and imposed central rule. Politically, their most important legacy was the institution of feudalism, which they brought from the European continent. Under feudalism, lords provided vassals with military protection and economic support in exchange for labor and military service. Though hardly a democratic institution, feudalism did create a sys- tem of mutual obligations between lords and peasants on one level, and between monarchs and lords at another level. Indeed, some scholars have seen in these obligations the foundation for the eventual limits on royal power. The most important initial document in this regard is the Magna Carta, which British nobles obliged King John to sign in 1215 and which became a royal promise to uphold feudal customs and rights. The Magna Carta set an impor- tant precedent by limiting the power of British monarchs and subjecting them to the law. As a result, the United Kingdom never experienced the type of royal absolutism that was common in other countries (for example, in Rus- sia), and this in turn helped pave the way for public control over government and the state. The UK was fortunate to resolve relatively early in its historical develop- ment certain conflicts that other states would experience later in the modern era. A prime example is the religious divide. During the reign of Henry VIII (1509–47), a major dispute between the British monarch and the Vatican (the center of the Roman Catholic Church) had unintended consequences. When the Catholic Church failed to grant Henry a divorce, he used Parliament to 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 36 36 CH. 2 UNITED KINGDOM pass laws that effectively took England out of the Catholic Church and replaced Catholicism with a Protestant church that could be controlled by the English state instead of by Rome. The creation of a state-controlled Anglican Church led to a religious insti- tution that was weaker and less autonomous than its counterparts in other European countries. Supporters of Catholicism fought unsuccessfully to regain power, and religion never plagued the UK as a polarizing force the way it did in so many other countries. Northern Ireland, where the split between Protes- tants and Catholics continues to create political division, is the bloody excep- tion to the rule. A second unintended consequence of the creation of the Anglican Church was that Henry VIII’s use of Parliament to sanction the changes strengthened and legitimized Parliament’s power. As with the Magna Carta, institutional changes helped pave the way for democratic control—even if that result was not foreseen at the time. THE EMERGENCE OF THE MODERN BRITISH STATE Compared with its European neighbors, the United Kingdom had a more con- strained monarchy. This is not to say that British rulers were weak. But in addition to the early checks on monarchic rule, three major developments in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries decisively undermined the power of British sovereigns and are crucial to understanding why the UK was one of the first nations to develop democratic control. First, the crowning of James I (a Scot) in 1603 united Scotland and England but created a political crisis. James was an absolutist at heart and resisted limits on his power imposed by Parliament. He sought to raise taxes without first asking Parliament, and his son Charles I, whose reign began in 1625, continued flaunting his royal power and eventually precipitated civil war. The English Civil War (1640–1649) pitted the defenders of Charles against the supporters of Parliament, who won the bitter struggle and exe- cuted Charles I in 1649. For eleven years (1649–1660), England had no monarch and functioned as a republic led by Oliver Cromwell, whose rule soon became a military dic- tatorship. Parliament restored the monarchy in 1660 with the ascension of Charles II, but its power was forever weakened. Second, when James II, a brother of Charles II, inherited the throne in 1685, the monarchy and Parliament again faced off. James was openly Catholic, and Parliament feared a return to Catholicism and absolute rule. In 1688, Parliament removed James II and sent him into exile. In his place, Par- liament installed James’s Protestant daughter Mary and her Dutch husband, William. A year later, Parliament enacted the Bill of Rights, institutionalizing its political supremacy. Since that time, monarchs have owed their position to Parliament. This so-called Glorious Revolution was a key turning point in the creation of the constitutional monarchy. 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 37 INTRODUCTION 37 Third, in 1714, Parliament installed the current dynastic family by crown- ing George I (of German royalty). The monarch, who spoke little English, was forced to rely heavily on his cabinet (his top advisers, or ministers) and, specif- ically, on his prime minister, who coordinated the work of the other minis- ters. From 1721 to 1742, Sir Robert Walpole fashioned the position of prime minister into much of what the office is today. By the late eighteenth century, in large part in reaction to the loss of the colonies in America, prime minis- ters and their cabinets were no longer selected by monarchs but were instead appointed by Parliament. Monarchs never again had the power to select mem- bers of the government.2 THE BRITISH EMPIRE The United Kingdom began its overseas expansion in the sixteenth century, and by the early nineteenth century it had vanquished its main European rivals to become the world’s dominant military, commercial, and cultural power. Its navy helped open new overseas markets for its burgeoning domestic industry, and by the empire’s zenith in 1870, the UK controlled about one quarter of all world trade and probably had the wealthiest economy. The dimensions of the British Empire were truly exceptional. In the nineteenth century, it governed one quarter of the world’s population, directly ruled almost fifty countries, and dominated many more with its commercial muscle. Paralleling the gradual process of democratization in the UK, the erosion of the British Empire was also slow and incremental. It began with the loss of the American colonies in the late eighteenth century, though subsequently the empire continued to expand in Asia and Africa. By the early nineteenth century, however, it had begun to shrink. Following World War I, the UK granted independence to a few of its former colonies, including Egypt and most of Ireland. With the conclusion of World War II, the tide had turned against the empire. International sentiment favoring self-determination for subject peoples, local resistance in many colonies, the costs of the war, and the burden of maintaining far-flung colonies helped spell the end of the British Empire. Independence was willingly granted to most of the remaining colo- nial possessions throughout Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean. The United Kingdom managed to retain control of a few small colonies, and in 1982 it fought a brief war with Argentina to retain possession of the remote Falkland Islands. One of the UK’s last colonial possessions, Hong Kong, was returned to China in 1997. Today, the Commonwealth includes the UK and fifty-four of its former colonies and serves to maintain the eco- nomic and cultural ties established during the UK’s long imperial rule. THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION The United Kingdom lays claim to being the first industrial nation, and indus- trialization helped support the expansion of its empire. The country’s early 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 38 38 CH. 2 UNITED KINGDOM industrialization, which began in the late eighteenth century and developed slowly, was based on its dominance in textiles, machinery, and iron produc- tion. By the mid-nineteenth century, most of the UK’s workforce had moved away from the countryside to live in urban areas. While industrialization dra- matically changed British politics and society, the process did not create the kind of political upheaval and instability that was seen in many late-developing nations, where it occurred more rapidly. Because the British were the first to industrialize, the UK faced little initial competition and therefore amassed tremendous wealth. Its early prosperity may have facilitated its first steps toward democracy.3 But the benefits of early industrialization may also have been factors in the United Kingdom’s economic decline. As a world leader, the UK spent lav- ishly on its empire and led the Allied forces in World Wars I and II. Although the Allies won both wars, the UK was drained economically. The end of World War II also signaled the end of colonial rule, and the UK began to relinquish its empire. As the first industrialized country, the UK would also be one of the first industrialized nations to experience economic decline. When British industries faced new competition and obsolescence after World War II, the country found it increasingly difficult to reform its economy. GRADUAL DEMOCRATIZATION We have seen how Parliament weakened the power of the British monarchs, but at the same time we should note that Parliament itself originally repre- sented the interests of the British elite: only the wealthy could vote. The UK had an “upper” House of Lords, which represented the aristocracy, and a “lower” House of Commons, which represented the interests of the lower aristocracy and the merchant class. In addition, by the time Parliament was established, British monarchs were no longer absolute rulers, although they continued to wield considerable political power. Two factors gradually democ- ratized Parliament and further weakened monarchical power. The first was the rise of political parties, which emerged in the eighteenth century as cliques of nobles but eventually reached out to a broader sector of society for support. The two largest cliques became the UK’s first parties: the Conservatives (Tories) supported the monarch, and the Liberals (Whigs) opposed the policies of the monarch. The Whigs were the first to cultivate support among members of the UK’s burgeoning commercial class, many of whom were still excluded from the political system. The second was the expansion of suffrage. In 1832, the Whigs were able to push through a Reform Act that doubled the size of the British electorate, though it still excluded more than 90 percent of British adults. Over the next century, both parties gradually supported measures to expand the suffrage, hoping in part to gain a political windfall. The process culminated in 1928, 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 39 POLITICAL REGIME 39 when women over the age of twenty-one in the UK were granted the right to vote. The gradual expansion of the vote to include all adult citizens forced the political parties to respond to demands for additional services. The new vot- ers wanted the expansion of such public goods as health care, education, and housing, and they looked to the state to provide them. It was the Labour Party, as the main representative of the working class, that pushed for policies that would develop basic social services for all citizens, or what we commonly call the welfare state. The British workers who had defended the United Kingdom so heroically during World War II returned from that conflict with a new sense of entitlement, and they elected Labour to power in 1945. Armed with a parliamentary majority, the Labour government quickly moved to imple- ment a welfare state. This was accompanied by the nationalization of a num- ber of sectors of industry, such as coal, utilities, rail, and health care. POSTWAR POLITICS AND THE EXPANSION OF THE STATE The Labour Party initiated the welfare state, but British Conservatives gen- erally supported it during much of the postwar period in what has been called the postwar collectivist consensus. By the 1970s, however, the British econ- omy was in crisis, and a new breed of Tories (dubbed neoliberals) began to blame the UK’s economic decline on the excesses of the welfare state. When Margaret Thatcher became prime minister in 1979, she broke with traditional Tory support for the welfare state and pledged to diminish the state’s role in the economy. She sought to lower taxes and cut state spending on costly social services, and she replaced some state services (in areas as diverse as housing and mass transit) with private enterprise. Her government thus marked the end of the postwar collectivist consensus. Yet in some ways, a new consensus has formed around Thatcher’s reforms. Even the Labour Party, traditionally the staunch defender of an elaborate welfare state, has come to accept the Thatcherite view of more limited social expenditures and privatization.4 POLITICAL REGIME The political regime of the United Kingdom is notable among the world’s democracies because of its highly majoritarian features. Under the rules of British politics, the majority in Parliament has virtually unchecked power. Unlike political parties in other democracies, even parliamentary democra- cies, the majority party in the UK can enact policies with few checks from other branches of government. Again unlike other democracies, there are no formal constitutional limits on the central government, few judicial restraints, 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 40 40 CH. 2 UNITED KINGDOM TWO DOMINANT PRIME MINISTERS: THATCHER AND BLAIR M argaret Thatcher and Tony Blair are arguably the United Kingdom’s most impor- tant and controversial prime ministers since the end of World War II. Despite the fact that Thatcher, who served from 1979 to 1990, was a Conservative and Blair, who served from 1997 to 2007, a Labourite, they share some remarkable similari- ties. Defying the Conservative Party’s traditional ties to the aristocracy, Thatcher was a grocer’s daughter who came to political power through sheer force of will. She steered the Tories away from the party’s traditional social paternalism and toward a more free-market economy. Blair reoriented the Labour Party away from its traditional hostility toward the free market and sought to make the party less dependent on its trade union supporters. Both of these leaders are credited with having reinvigorated political parties that were in crisis after having suffered from long periods of being out of government. Once in office and armed with large majorities in the House of Commons, both leaders implemented important domestic reforms that were radical departures from the past. The Iron Lady, as Thatcher was dubbed, undertook a series of dramatic steps to reverse Britain’s economic stagnation and to repeal the social democratic policies that had been created under the collectivist consensus. Her government privatized many state-owned businesses and allowed numerous ailing firms to go bankrupt. Thatcher also confronted and eventually defeated powerful trade unions during widespread strikes by unions that opposed her policies. One particularly controversial but popular policy was her decision to sell millions of public housing units to their occupants in order to create more private homeowners in the UK. Her boldest policy was the ill-advised introduction of the so-called poll tax, designed to move local governments’ tax burden from property owners to all citizens. This legislation generated widespread resentment and even rioting. Blair’s domestic reforms were no less dramatic, although they were less controversial. Although he continued most of Thatcher’s economic policies, he implemented an ambitious set of constitutional reforms. Blair devolved power to regional and local governments (some of which had lost power under Thatcher), creating new legislatures in Scot- land and Wales. He began to reform the archaic House of Lords, established a Supreme Court, and made the central bank (The Bank of Britain) independent of the government. In their foreign policies, both leaders favored an extremely close relationship with the United States, often at the expense of relations with the UK’s European allies. Thatcher and Blair also took the country into controversial wars. Thatcher launched a costly war against Argentina in 1982 to retake the distant Falkland Islands, and the UK’s victory in that war temporarily buoyed Thatcher’s political success. Blair joined the United States in the Iraq War, a move that was bitterly opposed by many within his own party and by a large majority of the UK public. As the war bogged down, Blair’s popularity plummeted. 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 41 POLITICAL REGIME 41 Thatcher and Blair were exceptional communicators with charismatic personal- ities that charmed the public. Thatcher was known for her tough, often blunt pub- lic statements and her fierce debating skills. Blair had a wit and charm that captivated Britons for over a decade. However, both were unpopular by the end of their time in office. Thatcher was viewed by many as insensitive and out of touch, and Blair was increasingly viewed as a spinmaster who often skirted the truth. Both of them stubbornly refused to budge from policies (like Thatcher’s poll tax, or Blair’s stance on the Iraq War) that were bitterly opposed by the British public. After over a decade in power, Thatcher and Blair each resigned their positions without ever having lost an election. Thatcher quit when she faced growing oppo- sition and a challenge to her leadership with the Conservative Party. After Labour won its third consecutive majority in the Commons, the increasingly beleaguered Blair agreed to step down and hand power to his longtime Chancellor of the Exche- quer, Gordon Brown. One final similarity is worth noting: Thatcher and Blair handed power to competent but less charismatic party leaders who proved less controver- sial and less successful. and no constitutionally sanctioned local authorities to dilute the power of the government in London. Only the historical traditions of democratic political culture, and, increasingly, restictions imposed by the European Union, keep the British government from abusing its power. Political Institutions THE CONSTITUTION The United Kingdom has no single document that defines the rules of poli- tics, but the constitution is generally understood to include a number of written documents and unwritten rules that most British citizens view as invi- olable.5 In 1215, the Magna Carta set a precedent for limits on monarchical power. Other documents include the 1689 Bill of Rights and the 1707 Act of Union, which united Scotland and England. What makes the UK’s constitu- tion particularly unusual is that it also consists of various acts of Parliament, judicial decisions, customs, and traditions. Since Parliament is viewed as sov- ereign, the democratically elected lower house of the legislature can amend any aspect of the constitution by a simple majority vote. This power extends to the very existence of the monarchy, the powers of regions or local govern- ments, and the powers of the houses of Parliament. Unlike most other dem- ocratic regimes, the UK has no constitutional court. The absence of written constitutional guarantees has consistently alarmed human rights advocates and has given rise to demands for a more formal con- stitution or, at the very least, written constitutional protections of basic rights. 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 42 42 CH. 2 UNITED KINGDOM Since 1973, when the UK became ESSENTIAL POLITICAL FEATURES a member of the European Union, British citizens have increasingly Legislative-executive system: parliamentary appealed to European laws to pro- Legislature: Parliament tect their rights. In response to Lower house: House of Commons such concerns, in 1998 the gov- Upper house: House of Lords ernment incorporated into law the Unitary or federal division of power: unitary European Convention on Human Main geographic subunits: England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland Rights, a document that now Electoral system for lower house: plurality serves as a basic set of constitu- Chief judicial body: House of Lords tional liberties. Although it is a source of concern to some political ana- lysts, others have lauded the UK’s constitution for its unparalleled flexibility and responsiveness to the majority. Changing the constitution in most democ- racies is a cumbersome and often politically charged process. In the UK, how- ever, changes can be implemented more quickly and without lengthy political battles. Admirers of the British constitution argue that it has delivered polit- ical stability since the late seventeenth century; in their view, a formal docu- ment does not necessarily make for a more democratic government. THE CROWN We can think of the Crown, the legislature, the judiciary, the prime minister, and the cabinet as the main branches of government in the United Kingdom. In most respects, we can think of the British Crown as the head of state. The Crown, embodied by the monarch, is the symbolic representative of the con- tinuity of the British state. The monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth II) thus acts as a purely ceremonial figure, and on matters of importance she must act at the behest of the cabinet even though the cabinet is referred to collec- tively as Her Majesty’s government. The British monarchy is a continual source of popular fascination, in part because the institution and all its pomp and circumstance appear to be a relic in the twenty-first century. The reality, how- ever, is less glamorous. The British monarch today is essentially a paid civil servant: the government allocates a budget to cover the royal family’s expenses, and the queen spends much of her time signing papers, dedicating public works, and performing diplomatic functions. The UK’s monarchy has survived for centuries precisely because it has agreed to act constitutionally. Since the nineteenth century, this has meant that it must always follow the orders of elected representatives. For example, although the monarch always selects the head of government, the choice must always be the leader of the majority party in the lower house of Parliament. Only in the unlikely event that no clear majority is present in the legislature 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 43 POLITICAL REGIME 43 could a monarch have any real influence on politics, and even in that case her choice would be severely constrained. Likewise, the monarch is officially the commander of the British armed forces, but it is the prime minister who has the power to declare wars and sign treaties. The British monarchy is a hereditary institution, following the rule of pri- mogeniture: the oldest son (or oldest daughter if there are no sons) inherits the throne. However, a cardinal principle of the UK’s constitution is that Par- liament may choose the monarch. In 1701, for example, Parliament imposed a new dynastic family (the Hanovers) to replace the reigning Stuarts. Since that time, only Protestants have been allowed to succeed to the throne. Since 1952, Elizabeth II has been queen, succeeding her father, George VI. Despite the series of high-profile scandals that have rocked the monarchy during her reign, polls consistently show that the institution remains highly popular, as evidenced by the public celebrations of the queen’s golden jubilee (fifty years on the throne) in 2002. There have been occasional movements in the UK to eliminate the monarchy, but these have failed to garner much support. In spite of scandals and the costs of royalty, public support for the institution remains strong. A 2006 poll, for example, showed nearly three quarters of the public in favor of retaining the institution.6 The Branches of Government THE PRIME MINISTER Parliament is supreme in the United Kingdom’s political system, but real power is concentrated in the prime minister and the cabinet. The prime min- ister is the head of government and, as in all parliamentary systems, must be an elected member of the legislature. He or she is the head of the largest party in the lower house, the House of Commons. Once named by the monarch (a mere formality), the prime minister selects his or her cabinet. British prime ministers are probably the most powerful heads of govern- ment of any contemporary democracy. Because they can expect their parlia- mentary majority to approve all legislation, because party discipline in the UK is very strong, and because there are few checks on the power of the central government, prime ministers usually get their way. Prime ministers wield less power when their parties hold a slim majority (as was the case with John Major from 1990 to 1997) or when they are forced to depend on a coalition of parties (which is rare). Like any member of Parliament (MP), prime min- isters in the UK are elected to a maximum term of five years, but they alone can decide to call elections at any time before that term has expired. Prime ministers commonly call early elections to take advantage of favorable polit- ical conditions. After the UK’s victory in the 1982 Falklands War, for exam- 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 44 44 CH. 2 UNITED KINGDOM STRUCTURE OF THE GOVERNMENT Prime House of Monarch Minister Lords Regional House of Legislatures Commons (Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) ELECTORATE Lines of Control ple, Margaret Thatcher called an election despite the fact that she had two years remaining on her mandate. Prime ministers are subject to a legislative vote of no confidence. This would occur if a government deemed a measure to be of high importance, but the legislature rejected that measure. In such situations, either the entire cabinet must resign (and be replaced by a new one) or new elections must be called. Although such a check on the government exists, it is rarely used; over the past seventy years, only one government has been toppled by a legislative vote of no confidence. In fact, the prime minister can use the threat of a no- confidence vote as a way to rally support. In March 2003, Tony Blair sub- mitted a motion to the House of Commons to support the use of force against Iraq even though a prime minister may take the country to war without par- liamentary approval. Yet he chose to submit his decision to the House of Com- mons, threatening to resign if he failed to win support. The tactic worked: despite widespread opposition to the war among Labour Party backbenchers, a large majority in Parliament supported the war. Prime ministers play a number of roles. As leaders of their party, they must maintain the support of their fellow MPs, a condition that has plagued every prime minister since Thatcher. They must appear in the legislature 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 45 POLITICAL REGIME 45 weekly for a televised question period, during which they must defend gov- ernment policies and answer questions from MPs—and in so doing display strong oratorical skills.7 As head of government, the prime minister must direct the activity of the cabinet and smooth over differences among cabinet members; as a politician, he or she is expected to guide his or her party to victory in general elections. Even though the monarch is head of state and the nation, the prime minister is expected to provide national leadership. British prime ministers are also diplomats and world leaders, roles that Tony Blair especially relished, despite the objections of many of his own party mem- bers, particularly regarding the war in Iraq. Prime ministers are always seasoned political veterans with, on average, more than two decades of experience in the House of Commons. As a result, British prime ministers are usually outstanding debaters, effective communi- cators, and skilled negotiators. In the British system, a political outsider has virtually no chance of becoming prime minister: one must move up the ranks of the party before gaining the highest office. THE CABINET Cabinets evolved out of the group of experts who originally advised Britain’s monarchs. Contemporary British cabinets have about twenty members (called PRIME MINISTER GORDON BROWN T he United Kingdom’s current prime minister, Gordon Brown is the scholarly and taciturn son of a minister of a Church of Scotland. As is the norm in the UK, he spent decades training for his current job. After earning a Ph.D. in political science, he was first elected to parliament in 1983 and served for more than a decade as Tony Blair’s Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 1997, Brown agreed not to contest the Labour Party leadership election, yielding to his close colleague, Blair. Brown was widely credited with the sound economic policies that fueled the UK’s economic boom during Blair’s governments. As Blair’s popularity waned, Brown was increasingly seen as leading the internal Labour Party opposition to Blair. Upon taking office in 2007, Brown faced several immediate problems. First, the UK economy began to stagnate after a decade of strong growth. Brown failed to depart substantially from some of the more unpopular policies of his predecessor and was unable to establish his own political identity. Brown initially pledged to hold elections in order to win his own mandate, but clumsily reversed course when polls showed that Labour would lose. In the 2008 local elections, a revived Conservative opposition scored important victories that further embarrassed the government. Perhaps most seriously, Brown has none of the charisma and charm that favored Tony Blair. As one leading observer wrote, “[Brown] is a lousy communicator. A fail- ing in any leader, for Mr. Brown this weakness has proved catastrophic.”8 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 46 46 CH. 2 UNITED KINGDOM ministers), all of whom must be members of Parliament. They are usually from the lower house but occasionally are members of the upper house, the House of Lords. The prime minister generally appoints leading party officials to the top cabinet positions. As in most democracies, cabinet ministers in the United Kingdom preside over their individual government departments and are responsible for answer- ing to Parliament (during question time) about actions of the bureaucracies they oversee. The most important ministries are the Foreign Office (which conducts foreign policy), the Home Office (which oversees the judiciary), and the Exchequer (whose minister, called the chancellor, oversees financial pol- icy as head of the central bank). One unwritten rule of cabinet behavior in the UK is collective responsi- bility; even when individual cabinet ministers oppose a given policy, the entire cabinet must appear unified and take responsibility for the policy. Cabinet min- isters who cannot support a decision must resign and return to the legislature (in 2003, three members of Blair’s cabinet resigned over the war in Iraq). THE LEGISLATURE The British legislature, called Parliament, is perhaps the most powerful leg- islature on earth, due in large part to the lack of constitutional constraints, which we have discussed above. The concentration of power is even more impressive when it is considered that of the two chambers of the legislature, the House of Commons and the House of Lords, only the former has any real power. The House of Commons currently consists of 646 members of Parliament representing individual districts in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Members are elected for a maximum term of five years, though new elections may be called before the expiration of the term. Gov- ernment and opposition parties face each other in a tiny rectangular cham- ber, with the members of the government and the leaders of the opposition sitting in the front row. The other MPs, called backbenchers, sit behind their leaders. A politically neutral Speaker of the House presides. Despite the enormous power of the House of Commons, individual legis- lators are far less powerful than their counterparts in the United States. They receive relatively paltry salaries and have very small staffs and few resources. In parliamentary systems in general, the largest party elects the prime min- ister as head of government; as a result, political parties, not individual mem- bers, are what matter. Thus, British legislators follow the lead of their party and, for fear of weakening party cohesion, do not undertake the type of indi- vidual initiative common to representatives in the United States. Moreover, parties designate certain members to serve as whips, who are charged with enforcing the party line. 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 47 POLITICAL REGIME 47 Despite these limitations, MPs do perform important tasks. They actively debate issues, participate in legislative committees (though these are less pow- erful than their U.S. counterparts), vote on legislation proposed by the gov- ernment, and have the power to remove the prime minister through a vote of no confidence. Finally, although the government initiates the vast majority of legislation, individual members propose measures from time to time. Thus, despite the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, the legislature in the UK mostly deliberates, ratifies, and scrutinizes policies that are proposed by the executive. The government is usually able to impose its will on its major- ity in the House of Commons. MPs vote with their parties more than 90 per- cent of the time. Nevertheless, even governments with large majorities occasionally lose the vote in the lower house, suggesting that MPs sometimes act independently. The House of Lords is another uniquely British institution. Once the more powerful of Parliament’s two chambers, it has gradually become virtually pow- erless, having lost most of its power nearly a century ago. The House of Lords was considered the upper house not only because it represented the top aris- tocracy but also because it was considered the more powerful of the two houses. As the UK underwent democratization, it made sense for a chamber of appointed members of the aristocracy to lose most of its power. True to the British desire to accommodate tradition, the House of Lords remains as yet another reminder of the UK’s predemocratic past. The House of Lords is composed of about 750 members, or peers, who have traditionally been appointed in several ways. Life peers are distinguished citizens appointed for life by the Crown upon the recommendation of the prime minister. Law lords are top legal experts, appointed for life, who play an important role in legal appeals. About a dozen top officials of the Church of England are also members of the House of Lords. The most controversial component of the House of Lords is composed of hereditary peers, mem- bers of the aristocracy (dukes, earls, barons, and so on) who until recently had been able to bequeath their seats to their offspring. In 1999, the Labour government eliminated virtually all of the hereditary peers as part of a reform of the upper chamber. The House of Lords has no veto power over legislation, but it can delay some legislation up to one year and occasionally persuades governments to amend legislation. The most important role of the Lords has been as the UK’s court of last appeal, and the legal expertise of some members of the Lords is often called on to improve legislation. However, legislation passed in 2005 created an independent Supreme Court that is due to be inaugurated in 2009 and that will deprive the Lords of most of its judicial influence. Currently, there is considerable debate in the UK about the future of the upper house and whether it should be directly elected and given greater powers.9 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 48 48 CH. 2 UNITED KINGDOM THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM Compared with the United States and even compared with other parliamen- tary democracies, the judiciary in the United Kingdom has a relatively minor role. There is no tradition of judicial review (the right of courts to strike down legislation that contradicts the constitution) because the British parliament is always supreme: any law that is passed by the legislature is, by definition, constitutional. Thus the role of the courts in the UK is mainly to ensure that parliamentary statutes have been followed. Beginning in 2009 the UK will cre- ate a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that will be the highest court of appeal on most legal matters. Over the past couple of decades, however, a slow move toward greater political involvement of the courts has occurred. In part, this is because British governments have sought legal interpretations that would support their actions. A second factor in this development is the adoption of international laws, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, that codified for the first time a set of basic civil rights. These laws have given the courts new powers to strike down legislation as unconstitutional, though these powers have so far been used sparingly. Still, the days when we could speak of the UK as lacking judicial review may be slowly coming to an end. Judges are selected from among distinguished jurists by the lord chan- cellor (the minister who heads the judiciary). They serve until retirement unless they are removed by Parliament (which has never happened). To the extent that the vast majority of judges come from relatively wealthy families and are educated at elite universities, it could be assumed that the judiciary has a conservative bias. The legal system, based on common law and developed in the twelfth cen- tury, stands in stark contrast to the stricter code law practiced in the rest of Europe, which is less focused on precedent and interpretation. Like most democracies, the UK has an elaborate hierarchy of civil and criminal courts, and a complex system of appeals. The House of Lords, of which many mem- bers are distinguished jurists, is the highest judicial authority in the UK, though it does not serve the kind of constitutional-review function that is found in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Electoral System Like the United States, the United Kingdom uses the single-member district (SMD) system based on plurality, or what is often known as first past the post (FPTP). Each of the 646 constituencies elects one MP, and that member needs to win only a plurality of votes (that is, more than any other candidate), not a majority. Electoral constituencies are based mostly on population, and they 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 49 POLITICAL REGIME 49 average about 65,000 voters. Constituencies are revised every five to seven years by a government commission. The implications of FPTP are fairly clear. First, as shown in the table below (“Consequences of the British Electoral System, 1987–2005”), the system helps maintain the dominance of the two main political parties, Labour and Con- Consequences of the British Electoral System, 1987–2005 Election Years % of Votes Seats Won % of Seats Labour 1987 31 229 35.0 1992 34 271 42.0 1997 43 419 64.0 2001 41 412 62.5 2005 35 355 54.9 Conservative 1987 42 375 58.0 1992 42 336 52.0 1997 31 165 25.0 2001 32 166 25.0 2005 32 197 30.0 Liberal Democrat 1987 23 22 3.0 1992 18 20 3.0 1997 17 46 7.0 2001 18 52 8.0 2005 22 62 10.0 Others 1987 4 24 4.0 1992 6 24 4.0 1997 9 29 4.0 2001 9 29 4.0 2005 10 32 5.0 Percentages do not always equal 100 percent due to rounding. 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 50 50 CH. 2 UNITED KINGDOM GOVERNING LONDON: “RED KEN” AND BORIS A s prime minister, Tony Blair reinvigorated the UK’s system of local government that had been weakened under Conservative governments. Blair restored the post of Mayor of London that Thatcher had eliminated. The first occupant of that new office was Ken Livingstone, nicknamed Red Ken because of his identification with the radical left of the Labour Party. During his two terms in office, Livingstone was a controversial, enigmatic mayor, and he became one of the UK’s most visible politicians. In order to reduce London’s sclerotic traffic, Livingstone charged driv- ers a fee when they brought their vehicles into the city. In order to improve service and investment, he privatized much of the city’s mass transit system. He was widely applauded not only for his response to the 2005 London terrorist bombings but also his ability to lure the 2012 Olympic games to the city. He was criticized, however, for a steady stream of imprudent and often incendiary political statements. Living- stone was narrowly defeated in 2008 by an equally controversial and flamboyant Conservative, Boris Johnson. Livingstone’s defeat was viewed by many political ana- lysts as being both a referendum on the increasingly unpopular Brown government and a backlash against some of Livingstone’s more controversial policies. servative. Second, the system consistently penalizes smaller parties. The Lib- eral Demo-crats, whose support is spread evenly across the country, regularly get between one fifth and one quarter of votes in many districts but can rarely muster enough votes to edge out the larger parties. In 2005, the Liberal Democ- rats won 22 percent of the vote but only sixty-two seats (about 10 percent of the total). With well less than three times as many votes as the Liberal Demo- crats, Labour won about five times as many seats! Small parties that are regionally concentrated, like the Scottish Nationalist Party, do somewhat bet- ter, but even they are underrepresented. Third, the British electoral system has produced clear majorities in the House of Commons even when there was no clear majority in the electorate. Indeed, in the elections of 1951 and 1974, the party with the smaller per- centage of the vote won the most seats because of the nature of the electoral system. Even in 1997, Labour won a huge (179-seat) majority in the Com- mons with only 43 percent of the vote. These distortions occur when more than two parties contest a seat, so that a majority of votes is wasted—that is, the votes are not counted toward the winning party. Since World War II, more than 60 percent of all seats have been won with a minority of votes. In a system that gives virtually unchecked power to the party with the majority of seats, an electoral system that artificially produces majorities could be considered a serious distortion of democratic rule. It is no wonder that the parties most hurt by the electoral system (especially the Liberal Democrats) have called for electoral reform. The Labour government elected in 1997 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 51 POLITICAL REGIME 51 appointed an independent commission to consider a more proportional elec- toral system. In 1998, the Jenkins Commission recommended a system that would be a mix of FPTP and proportional representation (PR), as is used in Japan, Russia, Mexico, and a number of other countries. Now that it is the chief beneficiary of the current system, however, Labour has been slow to act on the recommendations. In contrast, regional legislatures in Scotland and Wales have adopted a mixed electoral system, and Northern Ireland uses a rare system known as single-transferable vote. Ironically, the governing Labour Party, which has benefited greatly from FPTP, favored a mixed system for the regional legisla- tures, fearing that FPTP would produce large majorities for the local nation- alist parties. Local Government Unlike the United States, the United Kingdom has traditionally been a unitary state: no formal powers are reserved for regional or local government. Indeed, during the Conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher, the autonomy of municipal governments (known as councils) was sharply curtailed. The Labour government elected in 1997 has taken bold steps to restore some polit- ical power to the distinct nations that compose the United Kingdom and to local governments. Although there has never been a constitutional provision for local auton- omy, British localities have enjoyed a long tradition of powerful local gov- ernment. Concerned that local governments, or councils (especially left- leaning ones in large urban areas), were taxing and spending beyond their means, Thatcher’s Conservative government passed a law sharply limiting the ability of councils to raise revenue. The struggle between the central govern- ment and the councils came to a head in 1986, when Thatcher abolished the Labour-dominated Greater London Council as well as several other urban gov- ernments, a move deeply resented by urban British citizens. London was left with councils in each of its thirty-two boroughs, but it had no single city gov- ernment or mayor. In 1989, Thatcher further threatened local governments by replacing the local property tax with a poll tax: that is, a flat tax levied on every urban citizen. The new policy shifted the tax burden from business and property owners to individuals (rich and poor alike) and was among the most unpopular policies of Thatcher’s eleven years in power. In response, rioting broke out in London. Thatcher’s successor, John Major, abandoned the poll tax but continued to limit the financial autonomy of local governments. After 1997, Tony Blair restored considerable autonomy to municipal government, enacting reforms that allow Londoners to directly elect a mayor with significant powers and to choose representatives to a Greater London Assembly. Ironically, in the first 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 52 52 CH. 2 UNITED KINGDOM such election, in 2000, a left-wing Labour opponent of the prime minister was elected (see “Governing London: ‘Red Ken and Borris,’ ” p. 50). Nevertheless, Blair maintained the financial limitations on local government that were imposed during Thatcher’s tenure. Representation at the regional level has traditionally been very limited. Of the four nations that constitute the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), only Northern Ireland had its own legislature— until political violence there caused the central government to disband it in 1972. Each of the four nations had a cabinet minister in the central govern- ment, called a secretary of state, who was responsible for setting policies in each region. As it has with local government, the Labour Party has promoted devolu- tion, or the decentralization of power, to the UK’s regions. In 1997, Scotland and Wales voted in referenda to create their own legislatures to address local issues, though their powers are not uniform: Scotland’s legislature is more powerful than that of Wales, a reflection of the much stronger nationalist ten- dencies in Scotland. Meanwhile, the 1998 Good Friday Agreement between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland has allowed for the reestab- lishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Some observers view the devel- opment of these bodies as the first steps toward a federal UK.10 Despite these recent reforms, the UK remains a centralized, unitary state. Regional and local authorities clearly enjoy greater legitimacy and far more powers than in the past, but the central government still controls defense pol- icy, most taxation power, and national economic policy, among other aspects of government. The central government also retains the power to limit (or even eliminate) local government if it so chooses. POLITICAL CONFLICT AND COMPETITION The Party System In the United Kingdom’s majoritarian parliamentary system, political parties are extremely important. The majority party controls government and can gen- erally implement its policy goals, which are spelled out in the party manifesto. From the end of World War II to 1970, the UK had a two-party system. The Conservative Party and the Labour Party together garnered more than 90 percent of the popular vote. The two large parties were equally successful during that period, with each winning four elections. After 1974, a multiparty system emerged, which included the birth of a stronger centrist Liberal Dem- ocratic Party and a surge of support for nationalist parties in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. But since the Conservatives and Labour continue to prevail, the current system is often called a two-and-a-half-party system, with the Liberal Democratic Party trailing far behind the other two parties. 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 53 POLITICAL CONFLICT AND COMPETITION 53 The UK’s party system differs regionally, even for national elections. In England the three major parties (Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Demo- crat) compete with one another. In Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, important regional parties compete with the three national political parties. In the 2005 elections, the two leading parties together won about 67 percent of the vote, while the remaining votes were divided among a variety of par- ties. In total, eleven parties won seats in the House of Commons. The two main parties may be losing votes as a result of the growth of smaller parties.11 The percentage of the vote cast for parties other than the three major parties has steadily increased over the past three elections, and no party since 1935 has won a majority of the vote. However, the leading par- ties have not lost control of political power. Since 1945 every government has been run by the Conservatives (Tories) or Labour, and only between 1974 and 1979 did either party fail to have a majority in the House of Commons. THE LABOUR PARTY We have discussed the democratization of the United Kingdom as a gradual process that incorporated previously excluded groups into the political sys- tem. The Labour Party is a clear example of this, as it was formed in 1900 as an outgrowth of the trade union movement. Initially, it sought to give the British working class a voice in Parliament. Only after the mobilizing effect of World War I and the expansion of suffrage in 1918 was the Labour Party able to make significant progress at the polls. By 1918, it had garnered almost one quarter of the vote. Labour’s turning point and its emergence as one of the UK’s two dominant parties came with its landslide victory in 1945, just after the end of World War II. Like virtually all working-class parties of the world, the British Labour Party considered socialism its dominant ideological characteristic. British socialists, however, were influenced by Fabianism, a moderate ideology that advocated working within the parliamentary order to bring about social dem- ocratic change. While Labour championed a strong welfare state and some state ownership of industry, the party’s moderate politics never threatened to replace capitalism. For most of its history, the Labour Party depended heavily on working- class votes, winning the support of about two thirds of the UK’s manual labor- ers. Starting in the 1970s, however, the composition of the class structure began to change, with fewer Britons engaging in blue-collar jobs. At that point, the solid identification of workers with Labour began to erode, creating a seri- ous challenge for the party. By the mid-1970s, the Labour Party was badly divided between radical socialists who wanted the party to move to the left to shore up its working- class credentials and moderates who wanted it to move toward the political 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 54 54 CH. 2 UNITED KINGDOM center. These divisions involved the party’s relationship to the trade unions as well as its stand on economic and foreign policy. This internal division caused the more conservative elements to bolt the party in 1981. Most seri- ous, the internal bickering led to the defeat of Labour in every election from 1979 to 1997. In the 1980s and 1990s, the Labour Party began a process of ideological and organizational moderation. The party’s constitution was rewritten to weaken severely the ability of trade unions to control party policy. Labour also abandoned its commitment to socialism and advocated a cross-class appeal. Tony Blair, who became party leader in 1994, consolidated these changes and advocated moderate free-market policies with ambitious consti- tutional reform, policies that were eventually known as the Third Way.12 Blair’s landslide victory in the 1997 elections marked the beginning of a period of party unity and electoral success that has been termed New Labour, and the election results of 2001 confirmed this success. Blair’s victory in the May 2005 elections marked the first time in history that Labour had been elected to office three consecutive times.13 However, those elections reduced Labour’s majority by forty-seven seats, likely as a result of Blair’s unpopular policy on Iraq. Blair promised to step down during his third term and hand power over to his Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown. Brown had yielded to Blair in 1997 with the understanding that he would eventually assume the position of prime minister. In June 2007, Blair resigned, and the Labour Party endorsed Brown as Blair’s successor. THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY If the Labour Party was never as leftist as some of its Continental counter- parts, the Conservatives (Tories) similarly made for a rather moderate right. The UK’s Conservatives emerged in the late eighteenth century and have come to be identified not only with the democratization of the UK but also with the origins of the British welfare state through the collectivist consensus. Because the Tories have usually been pragmatic conservatives and because they have always embraced democratic rule, the party has widespread respect and even electoral support among a wide range of voters. In 1997, about one third of the British working-class vote went to the Conservatives. Just as the Labour Party developed severe internal ideological divisions beginning in the 1970s, the Tories became divided among advocates of tradi- tional conservative pragmatism, advocates of a limited welfare state, and advo- cates of radical free-market reforms (known as neoliberals). The rise to power of Margaret Thatcher in the late 1970s marked the dominance of the neo- liberal faction and the abandonment of support for the collectivist consensus. The party was further split over policy regarding the European Union, with the so-called Euroskeptics facing off against supporters of continued efforts at European integration.14 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 55 POLITICAL CONFLICT AND COMPETITION 55 The Tories struggled in opposition after their defeat in the 1997 elections. A series of ineffective leaders attempted unsuccessfully to lead the Conserva- tive Party back to power. The Tories gained thirty-three seats in the 2005 elec- tions but failed to dislodge Labour. After the electoral results were announced, the Tories selected the young and charismatic David Cameron as party leader. Under Cameron’s energetic leadership, the Tories were able to project a more centrist image and by 2007 had overtaken Labour in opinion polls. THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS The Liberal Democratic Party was formed in 1988 through the merger of the Liberal Party and defectors from the Labour Party. Its ideology is a mixture of classical liberalism’s emphasis on both individual freedom and a weak state and social democracy’s emphasis on collective equality. The Liberals (Whigs) were displaced by the rise of the Labour Party in the early twentieth century. The current Liberal Democratic Party has been unable to recover the power and influence of the early Whigs. In recent years, the party has won between 17 and 22 percent of the vote but has not been able to break through the bar- riers imposed by the electoral system. As a result, one of the Liberal Demo- crats’ chief issues is the reform of the electoral law. Without such reform, the future of the Liberal Democrats seems limited. The Liberal Democrats have been consistent supporters of European inte- gration and fierce opponents of the war in Iraq. Though viewed as a centrist party, the Liberal Democrats have often attacked Tony Blair’s policies as too timid and have often called for increased taxation and social spending. Though generally viewed as closer to Labour than to the Conservatives, the party announced in 2004 that it would adopt a policy of strict neutrality vis-à-vis the two major parties and might be willing to form a coalition with either party should the 2005 elections result in a hung Parliament. Liberal Demo- crats were clearly hoping that the unpopular war in Iraq, backed by a major- ity of Labour and Tory members of Parliament (MPs), would lead the party to significant electoral gains in the 2005 elections. Indeed, the Liberal Demo- crats gained eleven seats and won 22 percent of the vote but still earned only about one tenth of the seats in the House of Commons. In 2007, Nick Clegg was elected Liberal Democratic leader and became the UK’s youngest party leader. In the 2008 local elections, the Liberal Demo- crats won a quarter of the vote and about the same percentage of local coun- cil seats. Whether Clegg can boost his party’s fortunes enough to break the dominance of the two major parties remains to be seen. OTHER PARTIES Many small parties vie for seats in British elections, but few of them are suc- cessful. All parties must post a small deposit (about US$800), which is returned to parties that win more than 5 percent of the vote. The main impediment to 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 56 56 CH. 2 UNITED KINGDOM the success of small parties remains the structure of the electoral system, since first past the post (FPTP) tends to work against small parties that cannot win a plurality of votes. Only regionally based parties—like the Scottish National Party, the Welsh Plaid Cymru, and several Northern Irish parties (for exam- ple, Sinn Féin)—have been able to concentrate enough votes in some districts to win seats in the legislature. Finally, while it has not gained any seats in Par- liament, in recent years the extreme right-wing British National Party (BNP) has won a number of council elections in England on an anti-immigration plat- form. Some single issue parties, such as the United Kingdom Indpendence Party (UKIP), which opposes the UK’s membership in the EU, have had lim- ited success on the local level or in elections to the European Parliament. Elections British voters select all 646 members of the House of Commons during a gen- eral election. Elections must take place every five years but may take place before the end of the five-year term if the prime minister decides to call an early election, as often happens. Usually about 60 to 70 percent of the elec- torate votes in British general elections, below the European average but far above the U.S. turnout. British campaigns are short affairs, usually lasting less than a month. The voter has a relatively simple choice: which party should govern? British par- ties are well disciplined and have clear, published policy manifestos. Com- pared with voters in the United States, voters in the United Kingdom are far more likely to know what each party stands for and how the parties differ. UK voters tend to focus on differences between parties rather than on differ- ences between candidates. Candidates may not even reside in the district in which they run for office. The notion of one’s candidate serving local (rather than party) interests first, that is, concentrating on bringing benefits (or pork) to local constituents to secure reelection, is of much less concern than it is in the United States. Civil Society As in virtually all democracies, in the United Kingdom various groups exist to articulate special interests (interests that benefit specific groups instead of the nation as a whole). British interest groups influence public policy and public opinion, but interest-group lobbying of MPs is far less prevalent than such lobbying is in the United States Congress because British parties are so highly disciplined. Interest groups must focus their attention on the party leadership (since parties, not individual MPs, make key policy decisions) and on the government bureaucracies, which often interpret and apply policies. 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 57 SOCIETY 57 Perhaps the greatest influence of British interest groups comes through their participation in quangos (quasi-autonomous nongovernmental organi- zations). Quangos are policy advisory boards appointed by the government that bring government officials and affected interest groups together to help develop policy. First established in the 1960s and 1970s, quangos represent a move toward the neo-corporatist model of public policy making, in which government and interest groups work together to develop policy. Although attacked in the 1980s by Thatcher (who saw them as empowering special inter- ests and weakening government), there are currently more than 5,000 such organizations working in different policy areas. In sheer numbers, the Trades Union Congress (TUC), a confederation of the UK’s largest trade unions, is the most important British interest group. For much of the postwar period, the TUC dominated the Labour Party and was thus extremely influential during periods of Labour government. Yet a variety of factors has weakened the TUC over the past two decades. First, as is the case in all industrial democracies, the number of blue-collar workers is shrinking quickly, and the TUC has seen its membership plummet. Only twenty years ago, about one half of British workers belonged to trade unions; today, only about one quarter of workers are union members. Second, the Conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher sharply reduced the political power of the TUC by passing laws designed to restrict union activity. Third, reforms within the Labour Party in the 1990s severely eroded the TUC’s con- trol of that party. The TUC is still an important source of funding and elec- toral support, but the TUC-Labour link has been seriously weakened. The TUC can no longer dominate the selection of the Labour Party leader and no longer dominates the formation of Labour policy. The most important business organization in the United Kingdom, and the main counterweight to the TUC, is the Confederation of British Indus- try (CBI). Unlike the TUC, which has formal links to the Labour Party, the CBI has no direct link to the Tories. The main industrial and financial inter- ests in the UK usually favor Conservative policy, however, and top business leaders have exercised considerable influence in past Conservative govern- ments. Since taking power in 1997, the Labour Party has been careful to cul- tivate good relations with the CBI. SOCIETY The United Kingdom’s social makeup is divided in many significant ways. The British state is both multinational and multiethnic; British society reveals class, religious, and even linguistic divisions. But while these divisions may appear rather sharp when viewed from the outside, compared with the social 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 58 58 CH. 2 UNITED KINGDOM divisiveness in most other states the UK’s divisions have been relatively benign. Over the centuries, the UK has demonstrated remarkable national unity and enviable social and political stability. Class Identity Class identity remains perhaps the most salient of all social divisions in the United Kingdom and the one perhaps most noticed by outside observers. His- torically, political parties and many key policy debates have reflected class differences, not differences of ethnicity, region, or religion, as is the case in many other states. Certainly the social reforms of the twentieth century largely ameliorated the huge income disparities and rigid occupation-based class lines of nineteenth-century England that preoccupied both Karl Marx and Charles Dickens. But increased social mobility has not yet erased the perception of a two-tier society divided between an upper class and a working class. Chief among the legacies of the class system has been the education sys- tem, which has long channeled a minority of the British elite into so-called public schools (which are, in fact, private schools originally designed to train British boys for public service). Graduates of these elite schools go on to Oxford or Cambridge University before pursuing white-collar careers in gov- ernment or industry, careers enhanced by elitist old-boy networks. Class dif- ferences are also perpetuated by continued self-identification with either the upper class or the working class as manifested in preferred tastes and leisure activities (sherry versus warm beer, cricket versus football, opera versus pub) and variations in speech and accent. Some argue that under the neoliberal reforms of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, class differences have finally ETHNIC GROUPS RELIGION Indian Pakistani Other 2% 1% 3% Other Black 1% 2% Unspecified or none 23% Hindu 1% Muslim white 3% Christian 92% 72% 7701_e02_p31-74.qxd:O'NEIL 7/21/09 10:05 AM Page 59 SOCIETY 59 begun to break down. However, with a prosperous and vibrant white-collar southern England and a stagnant and struggling blue-collar north, regional disparities in income remain a source of social division.15 Ethnic and National Identity Although we have noted that the United Kingdom is relatively homogeneous, religious, linguistic, and cultural divisions do exist and in some cases are becoming more significant (see “Current Issues,” p. 68). The UK settled most of its religious differences early on, and its politics are more secular than those in the rest of Europe. Even today, however, Scots are mainly Catholic or Pres- byterian, and the English are mostly identified with the Church of England. Compared with the United States, religiously oriented social issues in the UK, such as gay rights and abortion, have generally not become politicized.16 Religion remains a source of conflict in Northern Ireland, however, where the majority is Protestant (of Scottish or English origin) but some 40 percent of the population is Catholic. Northern Ireland comprises the northeastern portion of the island of Ireland (about 17 percent of the island’s territory) that remained part of the United Kingdom following the creation of an independent Republic of Ireland in 1921. This religious d