Secondly he argues, that competition in elections can only seriously contend between two parties because of the adoption of the “winner takes all” approach and the “refusal of majority parties to share executive office with rivals”. He says that “even on the rare occasions since 1945 when the largest single party has not been able to command an overall majority in the Commons, it has been the norm to continue in office as a minority administration rather than to seek to form a coalition”.
Finally explained is that “two-partism is defined by a regular alternation in power of the major parties” and also makes the point that “in a stable majoritarian democracy, it is share concurrently in a consensus democracy”. He explains that parties take on popular policies from opposition and that to gain re-election, the party in power must still retain the ‘middle-ground’ ideology that lead to the election in the first place.
However, it’s a popular opinion that these arguments can only explain the political system up until the 1970s. Post-1970 there is a shared consensus that there is a shift toward a multi-party system. Webb and Fisher in “The Changing British Party System” puts this down to electoral change, to one of more instability “…characterised by the return of a minority Labour government, and the support of third parties.”. In the 1974 election, the Liberal party made significant gains since previous election, achieving 19.3 per cent of the vote, a substantial leap from the 7.5 per cent they won in the previous election, “a post-war high”. They argue that “In short, the party system started to take on a more fragmented appearance as the actual number of parties represented in parliament increased from four to nine”, also the effective number calculated also shifted from 2.5 during the late 1960s, to 3.1 twenty years later.
This trend in the late 1960s which continued through the 1970s can be attributed to declining social class as an influence on electoral choice. In previous decades, social class was a much wider determinant of voting behaviour, occupation, education level private home ownership etc all determined to which social ‘class’ you belong, and those that fall into the same categories, tend to vote for the same party, or policies. However, there is a shift in the period between the early 1960s and the late 1970s. An indicator of this is the response of voters to assign themselves to a social class. Only 50 per cent of people would assign themselves to a particular class, declining to 43 per cent in 1974. However, despite the rise in class politics in this period, this number unwilling to be assigned to a ‘class’ increases throughout the twentieth century and can be attributed to a number of factors – the rise in further and higher educations and the rise in privately owned-housing.
The two main parties – The Labour Party, and The Conservative Party – had a very class based support traditionally. With the decline of affiliation with a particular class, it can be argued that people looked to other parties and particular pressure groups, instead of the ‘traditional working class party’ as an example. Stephen Ingle in “Britain’s Third Party” concurs, stating that “…the Liberals were benefiting from a new kind of voter who did not feel the need to justify his/her voting allegiance by reference to class”.
However, despite this shift to a three, or ‘multiparty’ system, there is evidence to suggest that this is not the case. As a most obvious example, is that despite gains in particular elections for The Liberal Democrats and other third parties, all post-1945 elections have been won by either a Conservative or Labour government. This can be accounted for by the limits of a ‘First Past the Post System’ according to Ingle.
In Britain, there is also the issue of regional party systems. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales all have regional parties that though, are influential purely in a local context; these parties do have seats in Westminster’s Parliament. The SNP, Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru and the Ulster Union Party hold 6 seats, 5 seats, 3 seats, and 1seat respectively. Though obviously limited in number, and influence they will have in the decision-making process, the sheer fact that in our First Past the Post system, there are still MPs of 12 different political parties means that people affiliated themselves outside of the two dominant parties.
To add to arguments between both a two-party system, and a multi-party system, the “something else” referred to in the title I will concentrate on is one of a ‘dominant party system’. Andrew Heywood in Britain’s dominant-party system suggests that in a pluralist system, it is possible to have one party dominating the elections. Though the electorate have a chance to change this perception, they do not. This is obviously different to one-party systems typically found in now-collapsed states such as the Soviet Union.
He argues that The Conservatives have dominated twentieth century politics. “In the seventy years leading up to 1992, the Conservatives had been in government, either alone or as the dominant member of a coalition, for fifty of them.” He continues that though the fact that Labour has been in office over this period of time, it doesn’t necessarily point to a two-party system. “…Labour has only twice, in 1945 and 1966, recorded decisive election victories, and at no time has the party managed to serve two consecutive full terms in office…[they] did not succeed in breaking the mould of twentieth-century politics”.
However, despite the fact that Labour has since won an unprecedented three elections, it could be argued that though a Conservative dominance theory can be discredited, an argument could be made for a Labour dominant 21st Century perhaps. Though Conservative support might appear to be increasing, maybe, as Labour had in the Twentieth Century, they will be unable to make such a large time in office as previously.
On the other hand, to agree with Heywood that there has been a dominant conservative consensus over the latter of the twentieth century, his argument can still be valid, despite the victories of Labour in 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections. ‘New Labour’ can be seen as a shift to the ‘right’ and a removal of old ideas of socialism within the twentieth century. The election of New Labour can perhaps only help Heywood’s dominant party system assertion.
In conclusion, Britain at varying times in history can be called a dominant party system, a two party system, a multi party system and others. There is much evidence to back up all of these claims, particularly post-1945. However, it can be argued that the simple fact that there are different arguments and that these systems change over time, that Britain is a multi-party system. Though there is evidence to suggest that Heywood’s dominant party theory was perhaps true at the time of publication, since then there has been a successful Labour government for 10 years. The slow increase of political party MPs in the House of Commons also proves that Britain is a multi-party system, and while these parties may be limited to one seat and little in any influence in parliament, this is due to Britain’s limited system of First Past the Post. The fact that there are more than two parties making up parliament, and that other parties have won constituencies, shows that the British Electorate are voting for more than the two main parties.
Therefore, I believe the steady increase of other parties, particularly of the Liberal Democrats, will continue into the twenty first century.
1847 words
Bibliography
Paul Webb the Modern British Party System (London: Sage Productions, 2000)
Paul Webb & Justin Fisher ‘The Changing British party system: Two-party equilibrium or the emergence of moderate pluralism?’ in D. Broughton & M. Donovan Changing Party Systems in Western Europe (London: Pinter, 1999)
Dunleavy, Patrick, Helen Margetts, Brendan O’Duffy and Stuart Weir, ‘Remodelling the 1997 General Election: How Britain Would Have Voted Under Alternative Systems, in Denver, Cowley, Fisher and Pattie eds, British Elections and Parties Review, Volume 8 (London: Frank Cass, 1998)
Justin Fisher, David Denver & John Benyon Central Debates in British Politics (Harlow, Pearson 2000)
Lyton Robbins, Hilary Blackmore & Robert Pyper Britain’s Changing Party System (London, Pinter 1994)
Samuel E. Finer The Changing British Party System 1945-1979 (Washington, D.C, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research 1980)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/86188.stm
Webb, Paul “The Modern British Party System” pg. 4
Heywood, Andrew “Britain’s dominant party system” in Robins, Lynton, Hilary Blackmore and Robert Pyper’s “Britain’s changing party system” pg. 10
Paul Webb & Justin Fisher ‘The Changing British party system: Two Party equilibrium or the emergence of moderate pluralism?” in D. Broughton & M. Donovan “Changing Party Systems in Western Europe”.
Webb, Paul “The Modern British Party System” pg. 5
Webb, Paul “The Modern British Party System” pg. 5
Webb, Paul “The Modern British Party System” pg. 4-6
Webb, Paul “The Modern British Party System” pg. 7
Webb, Paul “The Modern British Party System” pg. 8
Paul Webb & Justin Fisher ‘The Changing British party system: Two Party equilibrium or the emergence of moderate pluralism?” in D. Broughton & M. Donovan “Changing Party Systems in Western Europe”. Pg. 20
Finer, Samuel “The Changing British Party System 1945-1979” pg. 48
Ingle, Stephen ‘Britain’s Third Party’ in Lyton Robins, Hilary Blackmore and Robert Pyper’s “Britain’s Changing Party System” pg. 93
Ingle, Stephen ‘Britain’s Third Party’ in Lyton Robins, Hilary Blackmore and Robert Pyper’s “Britain’s Changing Party System” pg. 107
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/86188.stm
Heywood, Andrew “Britain’s dominant party system” in Robins, Lynton, Hilary Blackmore and Robert Pyper’s “Britain’s changing party system” pg. 11
Heywood, Andrew “Britain’s dominant party system” in Robins, Lynton, Hilary Blackmore and Robert Pyper’s “Britain’s changing party system” pg. 15