MINISTERUL EDUCATIEI SI CERCETARII,AL TINERETULUI SI SPORTULUI

Colegiul National ,,ANDREI MURESANU

LUCRARE DE ATESTAT
Political parties in England

Profesor indrumator:

Ivanciu Dorina Bruja Maria

Elev: -Nume: Balint -Prenume: Simona Andrea -Profil: uman -Specializare: engleza-bilingv -Anul: 2011

CUPRINS:

Political parties in England

In England, rival political grouping, reflecting an intensifying conflict between court and country interests, can be detected from the mid-1660s through the 1670s, although these are normally thought of as factions rather than parties. Although the court experimented with new forms of parliamentary management, political organization remained rudimentary and the unity of the court interest fragile; likewise, the country interest, although beginning to cohere around an ideological platform of opposition to the growth of popery and arbitrary government (especially from the mid-1670s, when Anthony Ashley Cooper, the first earl of Shaftesbury [16211683], emerged as the leading country spokesman), is best seen as a series of coalitions of placeseekers, back-benchers, and separate politician-connections with discrete political agendas who were temporarily united by a desire to bring down the ministry of the day. The first age of political parties is usually dated to the Exclusion Crisis and the struggle between the Whigswho sought to exclude the Catholic heir, the future James II (ruled 16851688), from succession on the grounds of his religionand the Tories, who championed divine right monarchy and indefeasible hereditary right. However, some would maintain that while the first Whigs were a party, the Tories were not; others insist that neither grouping was a true party, since they lacked a recognizable leader and ideological coherence, and because political allegiances remained fluid throughout this period. The old view of a monolithic Whig party with Shaftesbury as its leader has long been discredited: The Whigs incorporated a number of discrete interests (Shaftesbury's being just one) and reflected a spectrum of belief from supporters of a strong, albeit Protestant, monarchy to those who wanted to reform the powers of the monarch to bring England nearer to a republic (some of whom preferred limitations on a popish successor to Exclusion). However, the Whigs did evince a degree of political organization that was impressive by the standards of the day: they had political clubs, to coordinate tactics and strategy; they employed electoral agents; they orchestrated a highly sophisticated propaganda campaign, deploying a wide range of visual, aural, and printed media; and they sought to mobilize the populace nationwide to support their platform through mass petition campaigns and political rallies. Although they might have differed over England's ideal constitutional settlement, all Whigs would have agreed that government existed to protect people's lives, liberties, and estates; they were also united in their condemnation of the religious intolerance of the high Anglican establishment. To counter the Whig challenge, the Tories mimicked many of the Whigs' organizational and propaganda techniques, but rallied around a platform of commitment to the existing settlement in church and state (as established by law) and opposition to Protestant Nonconformists. If political parties are understood as organized groupings of people, with mass followings, that are united in the promotion of a series of principles that were intended for the public good, then both the Whigs and the Tories of that time would qualify. Party identities were temporarily blurred in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution. The dethroning of James II and his replacement by William III (ruled 16891702) seemed to have solved the issue that had given rise to party strife in the first place; moreover, the Whigs, who had started as a party in opposition to the executive, now found themselves in power, whereas the Tories, who had been the court interest, were now disfavored. Indeed, during the first half of

the 1690s it is more accurate to see politics as dividing once more along court-versus-country lines. Historian Robert Walcott has even denied that parties existed during the reign of Queen Anne (ruled 17021714), insisting instead that political connections based on family ties were more important, though his views have been discredited. Division lists show that from the mid1690s through the reign of Anne, most peers and members of Parliament voted consistently along party lines. Likewise, poll books reveal that the parliamentary electorate voted for party tickets (voters rarely split their votes between rival Whig and Tory candidates), while local research has demonstrated how many communities throughout the land were divided by partisan rivalries. From the mid-1690s through the end of Queen Anne's reign in 1714, the two parties had developed fairly sophisticated organizational structures to ensure unity: regular planning meetings, political clubs, circular letters and regional whips, electoral organizations, and extensive propaganda campaigns. Ideologically, the parties were divided over a series of issues. One was the conduct of foreign policy, specifically how to fight the wars against France (16891697 and 17021713) that England had become involved in as a result of the Glorious Revolution; the Whigs favored an all-out commitment to the Continental theater, and the Tories a blue-water campaign with an emphasis on maritime and colonial operations. Another divisive issue concerned religious policy: The Whigs remained the party of the "Low Church," sympathetic to the plight of dissenters, whereas the Tories were the High Church party, convinced that the Anglican establishment was in danger of being undermined by the growth of Protestant heresy and the practice of occasional conformity, which had flourished in the wake of the Toleration Act of 1689. A third issue centered on the parties' respective attitudes toward the Glorious Revolution, with the Whigs believing that James II had been overthrown for breaking his contract, the Tories that the king had deserted and left the throne vacant, and therefore that no resistance had taken place in 1688. Although a few Tories remained loyal to the exiled Stuarts, the Tory party was not, on a whole, a Jacobite party, and most Tories were prepared to accept the Hanoverian succession in 1714. The implication of some leading Tory politicians in the Jacobite rebellion of 1715, however, split the Tory party and permanently discredited them in the eyes of the new Hanoverian monarchs, leading to Tory political proscription and the rise of Whig oligarchy under the first two Georges. The Politics of England form part of the wider politics of the United Kingdom, with England one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. Prior to the Union, in 1707, England was ruled by a monarch and the Parliament of England. Since the Union, England has not had its own government. Because England is by far the largest constituent country, in terms of population, area and GDP, its relationship to the UK is somewhat different from that of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The English capital London is also the capital of the UK, and English is the dominant language of the UK (not officially, but de facto). Dicey and Morris (p26) list the separate states in the British Islands. "England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, and Sark. . . is a separate country in the sense of the conflict of laws, though not one of them is a State known to public international law." But this may be varied by statute. The United Kingdom is one state for the purposes of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. Great Britain is a single state for the purposes of the Companies Act 1985. Traditionally authors referred to the legal unit or state of England and Wales as "England" although this usage is becoming politically unacceptable in the last few decades. The Parliament of the United Kingdom is located in London, as is its civil service, HM Treasury and most of the official

residences of the monarchy. In addition, the state bank of the UK is known as the "Bank of England". Though associated with England for some purposes, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey have their own parliaments, and are not part of the United Kingdom, the European Union or England. There are many political parties in Britain but throughout the whole of England, there are three dominant political parties : Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. These are expanded on in the regions by the addition of the Scottish National Party in Scotland, Plaid Cymru in Wales and the various Unionist parties and Sein Fein of Northern Ireland.In terms of electoral success, Britain has frequently been referred as a two-party state; similar to America. In terms of pure definition, Britain is a classic multi-party state in which just a handful of parties have any political/electoral significance due to the electoral system we have of first past the postin an election. During the era of Thatcher and Major, such was the dominance of the Tories up to the 1997 election, that the era 1979 to 1997 could be referred to as an era of one party dominance. The same appears to be true of Britain 1997 to 2002 with the Labour Party in a position of total dominance in Parliament after their victory in 2001. Most of the parties that operate within England alone, tend to be either minor parties incapable of contesting many constituencies like Pensioners Party (England), or parties purely interested in English issues, such as the English Democrats Party (although they too have stood candidates in Monmouthshire) and the Free England Party. There is also a tendency towards extremism, e.g. the far right England First Party. The Green Party has had an amicable split from Scottish counterpart, and the Wales Green Party section is becoming increasingly autonomous. The Conservative Party has recently adopted a policy of English Votes on English Legislation (EVoEL). The Conservative policy of EVoEL aims to prevent MPs with constituencies outside of England from voting on legislation that only affects England. There is a significant element within the Conservative Party that supports full devolution for England with the establishment of a devolved English Parliament and English Executive, along the lines of those in Scotland. Some English people and parties go further by calling for the dissolution of the Union entirely, such as the Free England Party. However, the approach favoured by the current Labour government was (on the basis that England is too large to be governed as a single sub-state entity) to propose the devolution of power to the Regions of England. Lord Falconer claimed a devolved English parliament would dwarf the rest of the United Kingdom.[5] Referendums would decide whether people wanted to vote for regional assemblies to watch over the work of the non-elected RDAs.

The function of political parties

Politics, and therefore politicians, invariably have to respond to what society in general and individuals specifically want out of their community. These are the values and beliefs that society in general has. The most common are likely to be: reform of the electoral system constitutional reform better and more effective law and order; an expansion of our police forces an improved public transport ,system reform of the welfare system improved national health and education systems, better protection of the environment ,greater government accountability ,a Freedom of Information Act as found in America. Certain groups will also have their own interests to pursue : unions calling for better protection for their members, business leaders asking for both government aid and protection, the poor wanting an expansion of all aspects of the Welfare State, women demanding more equality . A government is likely to listen to any of the values or the interest /pressure groups if there is a political reason to do so. If the support for one is an electoral liability (even if it is a sound prospective policy) then it is likely that such support will not be forthcoming. In 1997, the Liberal Democrats lead by Paddy Ashdown, stated in the run-up to the election, that they, if elected, would put 1p on income tax to fund education. All political analysts decided that this was an honest statement but political folly as no-one was going to vote in a party however laudable its policies - if they meant that their own income tax would increase, even if they did support a policy of more money going into state education. Any imposed "Green Tax" to fund a clean-up of the environment would also certainly meet with the same response. Everybody wants a cleaner environment but no individual wants to see his/her income decreased to assist in the financing of it. Only if the party analysts and researchers have got their information correct, and their findings show that people would be willing to do this, would there be a chance that this would become an electoral issue. A political party must also select its leader with the death, retirement etc of its incumbent leader. A potential party leader should be charismatic, good at public speaking, have the powers of persuasion, the energy for public campaigning and above all the respect of his/her party. While the Liberal Democrats and Labour used the traditional method of voting for a new leader - by a simple vote among MPs - the Tories have for the 2001 leadership contest introduced a vote for its 330,000 party members to give the system a greater air of democracy. The system in the Labour Party is rather more convoluted with the involvement of the unions and party members etc. The recent reforms leading to "one person one vote" changed this system but it does claim to be fairer as it includes all those who have a vested interest in the

party and who have a right to vote on such matters rather than leaving it to just a handful of MPs representing the party in Parliament. At a local and regional level, parties also introduce selected candidates to politics. Local parties are vital in identifying potential talent within their ranks. All Cabinet Members and Prime Ministers in recent years had to start their political career at a local level and the input of local parties is vital to the strength of the party at a national level. In one sense, the local party is the breeding ground for potential party leaders. A party in power requires the support of the people it governs. Without this most basic requirement, a government will find it hard to function effectively. The Poll Tax rebellion under Margaret Thatcher showed what could happen when a government misreads public desires. The fuel crisis in 2000 also showed the power the public has though its impact at the 2001 election appeared to be minimal in terms of support for the Labour Party. Through all of this, certain conventions are held by all parties in Britain : If a party loses an election, it will confirm the right of the victorious party to exercise power. It will not deny its right to govern. Parliament remains at the centre of the political system in Britain (though recognising the importance of the devolved bodies of Scotland,Wales and Northern Ireland) and MPs generally work to uphold its traditions and procedures. Parliament recognises the status of the monarch as head of state. If the nation is threatened with a national crisis, traditional political rivalry is suspended and all parties work together in the interest of national unity. One of the roles played by parties in the political system of Britain is that of organising political activities. Various institutions are unlikely to operate without this input from the parties. One of the key areas in which parties operate is that of the formulation of policy programmes. If a party is elected to power after a general election, it must have policies ready on the very same day that it officially takes over the country. A failure to do so would be a failure to govern. In the run-up to an election, a party clearly states its manifest. Probably at no time in history are these manifestos so readily available with the growth of the Internet. Therefore, no-one in the Civil Service can claim to be lacking in knowledge of potential government policies. A newly elected government should have direction, shape and organisation almost from the start of its time in office. Those who need to know about these policies will do so. Parties also recruit candidates for elections. It would not be feasible for a party leader to know about every potential candidate at constituency level. This process of selection has to come from each constituency party office. It is their responsibility to the party to ensure that each candidate is able and has an appeal to the electorate of that constituency. In this sense, the future of the party as a whole is dependent on the constituency hierarchy selecting people of ability who might rise up through the ranks of the party if elected. At a local level, parties are of vital importance during an election. Local party supporters are crucial in getting out and encouraging people to actually vote. It is these party faithful who deliver leaflets, organise local phone-ins, organise transport etc. Without these people in a party, they would have little hope of electoral success especially in an era which seems to indicate that fewer and fewer people are voting in elections of all sorts. The involvement of such

people is vital for a party but it is also a major part of ensuring that an election is run successfully and fairly - an important component of democracy. Parliamentary committees are also part of the party machine. It is these committees that scrutinise potential government legislation or actions. These committees need able and broad minded members. The selection process of parties for an election or potential candidates for Parliament is implicit in this process and goes back to the role played by parties at a local level. In this sense, parties organise the business of Parliament.

POLITICAL PARTIES AND THE PUBLIC

A cynic might conclude that parties are only interested in what is good for themselves. However, the role of a party at all levels is very important in informing the public about the major issues of the day. The fact that arguments take place across the floor of the House of Commons gives the public access to the arguments and counter-arguments surrounding a major issue. That these debates are televised and recorded for posterity are implicit in a democracy. Such a system would not be found in a one-party state.Giving the public (and by implication the electorate) such a resource as information is vital in the political process as it gives the public the majority of arguments about whatever issue is being argued about; each party will present its points of view in an attempt to mobilise support and the public will then be at large to make a judgement. In a one-party state the public would be presented with just one point of view which may or may not be true and they would not be allowed to make a judgement on that issue. One way of holding a government accountable in a democracy is to hear and have access to the full range of arguments and making a conclusion on these arguments. The party in power will present its arguments accordingly while the opposition parties will present their arguments against government policies. In this way, the public at large usually get the necessary information before making a valued judgement. After the 1977 election, one party - Labour - dominated Parliament as a result of its parliamentary majority. This was sustained after the 2001 election result. Even if party mavericks are willing to rock the party boat, the partys majority is such that lack of support from the likes of Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner, Jeremy Corbin etc. is unimportant though possibly embarrassing for the government. With so many young Labour MPs out to make their mark with the partys leadership, most follow the party line and party unity within the House remains. It would be unwise to state that the government can do as it pleases within the constitutional boundaries of Britains political set-up as it has to answer to the public at some stage in its life. However, the party does have its 2001 manifest to deliver and in this sense the party is responsible to the electorate if it is seen to be failing to deliver this. The manifesto was a written document made publicly available in 2001. Therefore, the public have a right to expect that the issues raised on the manifest are at least addressed in some degree by the government. In this sense, an election manifest can become a political millstone. For example, the 1997 Labour manifest claimed it would reduce hospital waiting queues by a specific percentage by the end of their time in government. Over the course of 4 years the climate in which a government operates can change greatly. The state of the NHS is an Achilles Heel for any government with the Blair government caught out by the 1999 flu epidemic which was quickly latched on to by opposition parties. Then, the Labour political spin was that the chaos that ensued in the NHS was the result of 18 years of Tory lack of finance etc. Now in 2001, still tied to its promises in the 2002 manifesto, the government has been accused of 'fiddling' NHS

waiting time figures - ironically, something it accused the Major government of doing while it was in opposition from 1992 to 1997 The party in power also has what is referred to as a doctors mandate. This is when a problem occurs while it is in power which it has to respond to as a doctor would respond to a patients illness. John Major would have faced such a crisis with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; likewise, Tony Blair with the Balkans crises. The public expect resolute action even if the situation that occurred was not referred to in a manifesto. Parliament is effectively controlled by the government especially when the current government has such a large working majority. The legislation it wishes to introduce is controlled by party managers and its committees are staffed by party appointees. MPs are expected to adhere to the party line and their loyalty is effectively controlled by the party whips. During the course of a 5 year government, very few pieces of private members legislation gets to the floor and if it is contentious, it can be killed off through lack of time. Departmental select committees, which examine government conduct within that department, do allow MPs more scope for manoeuvre but outside of these select committees, those same MPs will be looking for promotion within the party, and therefore are unlikely to want to be seen by party managers as mavericks who cannot be trusted. Therefore, the shadow of the governing party still tends to dominate MPs of the governing party on the select committees. The appointment of Cabinet ministers junior ministers, senior staff to committees etc allows the party leadership huge powers of patronage. This in itself allows for a great degree of loyalty as few MPs wish to remain on the backbench and a constituency selection panel may not be impressed with a MP who seems to have done nothing to advance his/her career within Parliament. Opposition to the government comes from the parties that sit on the Opposition benches in Parliament. They have to remain tightly organised, disciplined and controlled if they are to maintain an effective opposition to the government in power. If none of these exist, then the government has what is effectively a free hand to pursue what it wishes to without any effective opposition. During the fuel crisis of September 2000, the Tory opposition scored many points off of the Labour government as a direct result of the governments inability to end the blockade. The polls indicated that the gap between both parties had dramatically fallen to single figures for the first time since 1997. Yet less than one month later and after the Tory Party Conference at Bournemouth, the figure was back up to 13% after the Tory Partys problems on where it stood with the prosecution (or not) of those found with cannabis on them. One comment by the Opposition Home Secretary - Anne Widdecombe - was seized on by the media and left the then party leader, William Hague, in a situation he could not win; does he support one of his colleagues on the Opposition front bench, or does he not? His comment that he would put out to the party all sides of the arguments to discuss before coming to a party decision on the issue was probably the best he could do in the circumstances.

Floral Symbolism in British Political Parties

Didn't British political parties traditionally have flowers associated with them? Is it true that primroses are for the Conservatives and something yellow--perhaps daffodils?--for the Liberals. Could the rose have originated as the symbol of Labour, then carried over to other parties? Joe McMillan, 24 February 2003

I'm fairly sure that the rose, as a symbol of the Labour Party, is a fairly recent phenomenon, say, 1980s. The old symbol included a torch and a spade. The primrose was Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli's favourite flower. The Primrose League was an association founded in 1883 by Lord Randolph Churchill (Winston's father) to promote Conservatism, but from outside the Conservative Party. It was named after the primrose in Disraeli's honour. The usual colour usually associated with the Conservatives is blue. Confusingly, Primrose was the family name of the Earl of Rosebery, Prime Minister between 1894 and 1895 - but he was a Liberal. I haven't been able to find anything that links daffodils with the Liberal Party, unless the connection is David Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister during the First World War. Lloyd George was prominent in a campaign at the start of the 20th century to have the daffodil replace the leek as the Welsh national emblem (why the daffodil was chosen remains unclear, unless it is the almost-rhyme between daff and taffy. Yellow has been used for Liberal party favours and literature since the 19th century. But now that they are the Liberal Democrats, they use orange. Ian Sumner, 26 February 2003