British politics sample chapter by Macmillan International Higher Education

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

brief contents PART I: FROM PAST TO PRESENT 1.

The Study of British Politics

The Shadow of the Past I: From War to Welfare

The Shadow of the Past II: Thatcher and After

Life in Contemporary Britain

PART II: GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNANCE 5.

The Changing Constitution

Parliament and the Legislative Process

102

The Cabinet and Prime Minister

126

Ministers, Departments and the Civil Service

146

The Law, the State and the Judicial Process

168

10. Local Government and Politics

194

11. Devolution 214 12. Britain and Europe

240

PART III: PEOPLE AND POLITICS 13. Electoral Systems and Voting Behaviour

266

14. Political Parties

286

15. Ideology 306 16. Participation 330 17. The Media

354

PART IV: POLITICS AND POLICY-MAKING 18. The Policy-making Process

376

19. Managing the Economy

400

20. Welfare and Public Services

422

21. The Environment

440

22. Britain and the World

458 v

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

contents Lists of Illustrative Material

Tour of the Book

xii

6. Parliament and the Legislative Process 102 The functions of the House of Commons 103 Reform of the House of Commons 117 The House of Lords 118 The Westminster Parliament and devolution 122

Teaching and Learning Resources Xiv Politics in Action Video Interviews XV About the Authors

xvii

Preface xviii Abbreviations xx

7. The Cabinet and Prime Minister 126 The Cabinet The Prime Minister

PART I: FROM PAST TO PRESENT 1. The Study of British Politics What is politics? Power in British politics Policy: who gets what, when, how? ‘British’ politics

2. The Shadow of the Past I: from War to Welfare

8. Ministers, Departments and the Civil Service

2 3 6 13 14

9. The Law, the State and the Judicial Process

The rule of law Civil liberties and human rights The uk’s legal systems The police

10. Local Government and Politics

Conservative dominance: Thatcherism and the free market 37 ‘New Labour’: Blair and Brown (1997–2010) 42 Conservatives, coalitions and crisis? 46

4. Life in Contemporary Britain Nations, regions and Britishness Economic division Allegiance and identity

The nature of the constitution Key features of the British constitution The Westminster model British parties and the constitution The British constitution today Beyond the Westminster model

168 169 171 178 188

194

Democratic local government? 195 The failure of local government reorganisation 195 The reform of local government finance 198 Changes to the running of local government 200 The loss of services and power: from delivering to enabling 204 From central-local relations to ‘multi-level governance’ 208 The Northern powerhouse, metro mayors and new combined authorities 210

54 55 57 65

PART II: GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNANCE 5. The Changing Constitution

146

The organisation of central government 147 Reforming the Civil Service 153 Where does power lie? 163

Warfare to welfare 19 The 1950s onwards: an age of consensus? 25 The 1960s and after: consensus to crisis 29

3. The Shadow of the Past II: Thatcher and After

127 132

11. Devolution 214

Nationalist pressures on the British state 215 Northern Ireland, Irish nationalism and devolution 217 Nationalism and devolution in Scotland and Wales 223 The English question 234

81 83 88 88 94 98

vii Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

viii

contents Devolution, federalism or separation? A disunited kingdom? The future of the UK

12. Britain and Europe

235 236

240

Britain and Europe: awkward partners The EU: superstate or intergovernmental organisation? The road to Brexit

241 254 259

PART iII: PEOPLE AND POLITICS 13. Electoral Systems and Voting Behaviour 266 Electoral systems in the UK Party allegiances: why do we vote the way we do? A new age of electoral volatility?

14. Political Parties

267 276 283

286

What’s the use of political parties? The decline of the mass party? Party organisation

15. Ideology

287 289 292

306

Do ideas matter in politics? Mainstream ideologies and political parties in Britain Other ideologies: beyond left and right Mainstream and other ideologies

16. Participation

307 309 321 328

330

Representative democracy and the ‘crisis of participation’ Pressure groups and participation Activism and participation in new social movements

Policy-making in a ‘hollowed-out’ state 388 ‘Steering, not rowing’: networks, enabling and governance 394 Conclusion 396

19. Managing the Economy Who makes and shapes economic policy in Britain? The tools of economic management Encouraging market forces New Labour: economic growth and public service investment Conservative-led governments and ‘the politics of austerity’

20. Welfare and Public Services The welfare state New Labour: ‘choice’ and investment The financial crisis and recession Welfare and austerity: from Cameron to May The decline of the welfare state?

21. The Environment

400 401 404 409 411 415

422 423 430 433 435 437

440

The environment in British politics 441 The rise of green politics 443 Environmental policy 447 Obstacles facing environmental policy 454

22. Britain and the World

458

355 360

Making and influencing foreign policy 459 National interests and international obligations 463 Between Europe and the USA? 465 New Labour: ethical foreign policy and Liberal interventionism 470 Reacting to events? Foreign policy since 2010 474

PART IV: POLITICS AND POLICY-MAKING

Bibliography 480

17. The Media

331 339 350

354

British politics and the media Power without responsibility?

18. The Policy-Making Process Policy-making and decision-taking The policy cycle

376

Index 502

377 378

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

PARTICIPATION

Toilet paper. A garlic peeler. Work on a bell tower. A ‘duck island’. In 2009 The Daily Telegraph’s revelation that all these items had featured in recent MP expenses claims caused widespread outrage. It was not just the size of the claims (some substantial) that made headlines but often their frivolity. Claims for duck islands and moat cleaning illustrated the gulf between the lifestyles of some MPs and their constituents, while others for more mundane items like dog food and toilet seats simply appeared petty. A more serious criticism was of the apparently widespread practice of MPs ‘flipping’ their main residence and second home to maximise their expenses and minimise their tax bills. The House of Commons’ Speaker Michael Martin was effectively forced out after his perceived mishandling of the crisis.

These revelations led to numerous humiliating public apologies and repayments of wrongly claimed expenses by MPs. All parties suffered from the allegations, and many parliamentary careers were effectively ended as some members, voluntarily or under pressure, declined to stand for re-election. The most serious cases of false claims led to prison sentences. Few MPs came out well, although The Telegraph (n.d.) listed some fifty ‘saints’ whose claims were modest and reasonable.

The scandal seemed to crystallise a longer term sense of mistrust in politics and politicians and a drop in the desire to engage with the political process. A poll in 2016 showed that politicians were the least trusted professional group, scoring lower than estate agents and journalists – just 15% of people trusted them to tell the truth, compared to 93% for nurses (Ipsos MORI, 2016). There was pressure not just to reform the system of parliamentary expenses, but the House of Commons more generally. Politicians were increasingly seen as corrupt, ‘in it for themselves’ rather than the public, and disconnected from the lives of their constituents. Politics seemed to be in crisis.

Academic literature picked up on this feeling and analysed it. Recent titles appearing in book shops include: Why We Hate Politics; Don’t Vote for the Bastards! It Just Encourages Them; Is Democracy a Lost Cause? and Can Democracy be Saved? (Flinders, 2015 and reviewed in more detail in Ercan and Gagnon, 2014). A substantial number of people it seems are fed up with politics. This chapter explores how we participate – or decide not to participate – in politics. We examine what could be summarised as a crisis in representative democracy. It also looks at

330

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

Chapter 16: PARTICIPATION the role that pressure groups perform in modern democracies. While elections and parties are crucial to the theory and practice of representative democracy, they do not necessarily involve much popular participation in day-to-day government and decision-making. Involvement in pressure groups is a more direct way in which political participation is now often carried out. This chapter analyses their role in the political system as well as examining the emergence of ‘new social movements’, which often operate outside, or at least at arm’s length from, representative politics.

This chapter: »»

Examines various kinds of political participation, including voting and party membership.

»»

Asks who participates in politics, and why this varies between groups.

»»

Discusses the rise of negative attitudes towards politics, often summed up in the term ‘anti-politics’, and examines some of the main explanations for that.

»»

Looks at other ways in which people do participate: through involvement with pressure groups and examines various types of pressure group, their targets and methods.

»»

Introduces other forms of activism, including involvement in ‘new social movements’ that challenge conventional politics.

Representative Democracy and the ‘Crisis of Participation’ The most basic form of political participation in a representative democracy is voting. The political system depends on the readiness of people to exercise their right to vote. Substantial non-voting reduces the legitimacy of any elected individual or authority. Low turnout, the proportion of the eligible population that actually vote, in elections has become a matter of concern in Britain. Turnout in general elections has declined since the 1950s when it averaged over 80%. In 1992, turnout was 77.7%, in 1997 it was 71.5% and in 2001 it was down to 59%. In general elections since then, it has staged something of a recovery, but it only reached 69% by 2017. Turnout is lower still in elections for the European Parliament and local elections (see Figure 16.1 overleaf). Political participation can be described as citizen involvement in politics through, for example, voting, or pressure group and party activity aimed at influencing government and public policy.

Voting and non-voting Britain is hardly alone in registering relatively low levels of electoral participation. Indeed, they appear to be a feature of most western democracies (Hague et al., 2016, Ch. 13). Recent US presidential elections have only involved around half of American citizens. Although it is sometimes argued that non-voting reflects contentment, the more general view is that low turnout is a serious cause of concern as it suggests disengagement. Whiteley et al. (2001, p. 222), reviewing the 59% turnout in the 2001 general election, observed: ‘If this is not a crisis of democratic politics in Britain, then it is hard to know what would be.’ For Bill Jones (2003, p. 24), large-scale abstentions indicate that ‘worryingly large numbers of people have little faith in the political system’. Although the number of people voting in general elections has increased since the low in 2001, the proportion of people turning out for other elections remains low. Suggested remedies for low and declining electoral turnout depend to a degree on some very different perceptions of the causes of nonvoting (see Table 16.1 on p. 333). All the suggested causes of non-voting have a certain plausibility and most of these suggested

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

331

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

british politics Figure 16.1: Turnout for recent elections, % 90 80 General elections

European Parliament elections

Scottish Parliament elections

Welsh Assembly election

Northern Ireland Assesmbly

30 20

2016

2014

2012

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

332

Note: Turnout for local elections is often considerably lower, but like-for-like comparisons are difficult, because of different areas holding elections. Turnout for other, specific votes varies considerably. For example, the turnout on local ‘police and crime commissioner’ in 2012 was just 15.1%. Turnout on the referendum on the alternative vote in 2011 was 42%. Turnout in the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 was 84.6%.

Source: Compiled using data from Voter Engagement in the UK: Political and Constitutional Reform, www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/232/23202.htm. © Parliamentary copyright 2014. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0, www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/open-parliament-licence/

remedies have already been tried, many in Britain, and others elsewhere. Those who are better educated are more interested and more likely to vote, which makes political education important. There have been efforts to improve the level of political education in Britain with the introduction of citizenship classes in schools, and through the efforts of campaigning individuals and societies. But political education is also intrinsically controversial. Many are worried that it could involve political indoctrination. Yet if it is confined to the safer ground of the political system and process rather than more controversial political issues, it risks being boring. The impact of more political education can only be judged in the longer term, but to date the results are unimpressive.

Arguably, low knowledge of, and interest in, politics may be blamed more on the mass media than on any deficiency in political education. Certainly, there is evidence of reduced political coverage in the popular press and on the main TV news programmes. Much of the coverage is also superficial and, in the case of the press, nakedly partisan. There has also been a rise in ‘fake news’ giving an untrue picture of political events and an increasing tendency for voters to obtain their political education from their personal social media networks, which merely reinforces existing prejudices. Yet those involved in the media might reasonably claim only to be reacting to demand, or in this case the lack of it. (These issues are discussed in more detail in Chapter 17.)

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

Chapter 16: PARTICIPATION Table 16.1 Low electoral turnouts: possible causes and remedies The cause?

The cure?

• Voter ignorance of politics and government in general, and local government and the EU in particular

• More political education in schools and colleges. Improved media coverage of government and politics

• Lack of confidence that voting changes anything, particularly for non-Westminster elections. Lack of a clear impact of voting on government

• More powers for local and devolved government. Increase accountability of European institutions to the elected European Parliament

• Potential voters deterred by limited effective choice in British elections and ‘unfair’ relationship between votes cast and the result in terms of seats won

• Reform the electoral system to provide a more proportionate relationship between votes cast and election outcomes, and more effective choice

• Citizens disillusioned by party politics, elections and the processes of representative democracy

• More direct democracy. New forms of politics involving more direct action and involvement from local groups and communities

• Voters put off by perceived lack of representativeness in the political system – the idea that the political class are all the same and/or unable to relate to the average voter

• Avoid selecting ‘professional politicians’ in favour of candidates who have proved themselves outside politics. Use ‘all women shortlists’ to select candidates

• Potential voters put off by ‘low-tech’, antiquated and inconvenient means of registering choice, by marking a ballot paper in a remote polling station

• Penalties (e.g. fines) for non-voting. More convenient polling stations (e.g. in supermarkets). Reform voting methods by introducing more postal voting, telephone voting and internet voting

Some non-voting might reflect not so much political ignorance as a (reasonably accurate?) belief that voting is unlikely to make much difference for anything other than Westminster elections. (Even here, the low turnout in 2001 especially could be blamed on the widespread assumption that the result was a foregone conclusion and that Labour would win comfortably over the Conservatives, as indeed they did.) Thus low turnout in local elections may be because local councils do not seem to have much power, and perhaps also in many cases because elections are unlikely to lead to a change in party control (see Chapter 10 for more on local elections). Voters may also perceive that the European Parliament lacks power. Although it has gained increased influence over legislation, the budget and even the composition of the European Commission, it does not effectively control the government of Europe (see Chapter 12, p. 254), which

might be why the British public turned against it when given the chance in 2016. Nationalists would argue that one reason for the lower turnout in elections for the Scottish Parliament and, particularly, the Welsh Assembly is that these bodies still do not have enough power. Indeed, the turnout for the vote on Scottish independence was high, at nearly 85% – arguably because the vote did matter so much to so many people (see Chapter 11). Whether turnout would be markedly higher in elections for local councils, devolved assemblies and the European Parliament if these bodies had more power seems debatable, however. Voting might be encouraged by rewards and/or punishments. Some countries, like Belgium, fine non-voters. Unsurprisingly, this encourages very high turnout (over 90%), yet such a solution has not generally found favour. Compulsion involves some interference with

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

333

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

334

british politics freedom. Moreover, the constrained voter may vote arbitrarily or perversely. Alternatively, voters might be rewarded with a modest tax rebate. There may also be some merit in allowing positive abstention as an option in elections, for example allowing voters to put a cross next to ‘none of the above’ under the parties or candidates listed.

Electoral reform might do more to ensure that each vote counts, and thus increase the incentive to vote. At present, turnout is higher in marginal constituencies, and lower in those unlikely to change hands. So it is at least plausible that a more proportional electoral system would lead to a higher turnout. Yet more proportional electoral systems introduced for elections for the European Parliament, Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have not produced high turnouts. It is even possible that these more complicated electoral systems have confused some electors and put them off. This is arguably reflected in the turnout for the referendum on electoral reform in 2011, in which only 42% of eligible people voted. (The AV referendum is discussed in more detail in Chapter 13.) In Britain, more emphasis has been placed on modernising and simplifying voting procedures, particularly by facilitating postal voting. While a generation used to communicating through mobile phones and internet-driven tablet devices may find marking a ballot paper with a pencilled cross in a remote schoolroom requisitioned as a polling station both antiquated and inconvenient, there are continuing security concerns over

alternatives. Among these, only the relatively ‘old-tech’ postal voting has led to significantly higher turnout levels, at the cost of increased allegations of electoral fraud, which the Electoral Commission and, in some cases, the police have investigated. There have also been experiments with rather more user-friendly polling stations, sited in supermarkets. Having elections on a Sunday or public holiday (as in other countries) instead of a Thursday, when elections are traditionally held, might encourage higher turnout in Britain.

Party membership

Voting is only the simplest and most basic form of political participation in a modern representative democracy. A rather higher level of political commitment than voting in the UK is registered by joining a political party. (Party membership is discussed in more detail in Chapter 14.) The modern political parties that developed and flourished in the twentieth century had substantial mass membership, and most voters strongly identified with specific parties. Both active party membership and strong party loyalty have declined markedly over the past half-century over most of the western world and in Britain in particular. Accurate membership figures are difficult to obtain, but the latest figures at the time of writing are set out in Table 16.2. Altogether, only 1–2% of voters are party members, and fewer still are actively involved in party meetings, fundraising and canvassing. Party membership thus does not necessarily

Table 16.2 Membership of main political parties in UK

Party

Membership number

Date recorded

Labour

517,000

March 2017

Conservative Party

149,800

December 2013

Scottish National Party

Approx. 120,000

July 2016

Liberal Democrat Party

82,000

February 2017

The Green Party (England and Wales)

55,500

July 2016

UKIP

39,000

July 2016

Plaid Cymru

8,273

July 2016

Source: Data from Keen and Audickas (2017)

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

Chapter 16: PARTICIPATION indicate active participation in politics. Many members do no more than pay subscriptions by direct debit, and some join for the social facilities offered by Conservative or Labour clubs.

that political activists (as defined in Figure 16.2) are found disproportionately among the higher social classes. Thus those in the A and B social groups (higher or intermediate managerial, administrative or professional) have a mean score of 5.23 for the number of activities they mention being willing to undertake if they felt strongly about an issue. This is significantly above the national average 3.39 mean score. Those in social group C1 (lower middle class) are marginally above the national average, with a mean score of 3.56, whereas C2s (skilled

Participation: who does, who does not and how?

Evidence from the Hansard Society (a UK charity working around the world to promote democracy and strengthen parliaments) shows

Figure 16.2: Political activities

Activities that people have done in the past 12 months vs would do if felt strongly enough about an issue in the future Have done

Would do

61 39

19 18

31 24 19

None of these Donate money or pay a membership fee to a charity or campaigning organisation

22 22

34 36

23 12 11

24 25

35 34

8 11 7 6

22 22

6 5

21 19 15 17

5 3 5 5

Audit 14 (2017)

Contact a local councillor of MP / MSP / welsh Assembly Member Boycott certain products for political, ethical or environmental reasons Contribute to a discussion or campaign online or on social media

19 19

10 9

Audit 13 (2016)

Create or sign an e-petition

11 10

Vote in an election

Create or sign a paper petition Take part in a public consullation Take an active part in a campaign Attend political meetings Donate money or pay membership fee to a political party

10 11

4 3

16 17

Take part in a demonstration, picket or march

4 3

20 17

Contact the media

Source: Audit of Political Engagement 14, Figure 24, reproduced with permission of the Hansard Society, https://assets.contentful.com/xkbace0jm9pp/1vNBTsOEiYciKEAqWAmEKi/ c9cc36b98f60328c0327e313ab37ae0c/Audit_of_political_Engagement_14__2017_.pdf

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

335

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

336

british politics manual workers) and D and Es are below the average at 2.35 and 2.0 respectively (semiskilled and unskilled manual workers) and Es (state pensioners or widows, casual or lowest grade employees and long-term unemployed) (see Chapter 4, pp. 59–62, for more on this class categorisation). White citizens are more politically active (with a mean score of 1.7) than those from non-white ethnic minorities (1.03). Gender differences in political participation, once significant, have largely disappeared. The propensity of women to be political participants is marginally higher than that for men (Hansard Society, 2017, p. 44). Why do some people participate more in politics than others? Political activists may be more confident that their efforts may make a difference. The Hansard Society survey (2017, p. 47) found that just 32% of the public agreed that ‘when people like me get involved in politics they really can change the way that the UK is run’. Those believing political participation is futile and ineffective may not even try to influence decisions that affect them. They are thus unlikely to have their interests taken into account, confirming the view that ‘no one takes any notice of people like us’. They may be right, at least in part. Governments may be more responsive to some interests than others, while some sections of the population lack the resources and skills – in terms of connections, knowledge about politics, or a public platform – to allow them to participate effectively in the current system. There seems to be a fairly widespread dissatisfaction with popular influence on government and policy, and considerable mistrust of Parliament and politicians.

Research also indicates that young adults are less interested in politics, less knowledgeable about it and less likely to vote than older generations. This has aroused considerable concern over the alleged political apathy and alienation of young adults, and the prospects for democratic politics in Britain, although some argue that this is simply a life-cycle problem – young people will become more politically engaged as they grow older. Another possible explanation is that the young are

‘turned off’ by conventional party politics but are interested instead in a new politics agenda involving single-issue pressure groups and new social movements. A survey of young people eligible to vote in elections for the first time found that they had a rather narrow view of politics, involving government, running the country, politicians and political parties. They considered the government unresponsive to the needs and wishes of young people, and had little confidence in their ability to influence parties or the government. Although the research indicated that young people ‘had a general attachment to and confidence in the democratic process’, they were sceptical about the outcome of elections, and showed ‘a deep-seated scepticism towards the political parties and politicians who vie for their votes and political office’ (Henn et al., 2005, p. 567). However, the young adults surveyed showed similar levels of interest in political issues to the population as a whole – public services, war, the economy, law and order. Henn et al. (2005, p. 569) concluded that: at the heart of young people’s declining election turnout and their apparent disenchantment with Westminster politics is a strong sense of political alienation rather than political apathy – the political system in Britain is failing to provide the stimuli necessary for young people to take a greater role in political life.

Higher than average political participation may also be related to political values. Those holding strong or extreme political views tend to participate well above average, with overall participation in all fields of political activity highest on the extreme left. By contrast, the moderate centre tends to underparticipate. This may be because they are more satisfied with the way the country is run, and so less inclined to indulge in political activities to secure change. The Hansard Society survey (2017, p. 47) found that just three in ten people (31%) are satisfied with the way our system of governing works, with

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

Chapter 16: PARTICIPATION almost two-thirds (65%) saying that it needs improvement.

Political values associated with the ‘new’ or ‘post-materialist’ politics of environmentalism, peace and feminism are linked to higher than average participation, although this may be expressed through collective and direct action far more than through more conventional forms of participation. Civil disobedience and direct action strategies have been most evident in anti-poll tax demonstrations in the 1980s and early 1990s, and more recently in animal rights protests and campaigns against new roads, airport runways, nuclear and coal-fired power stations and similar environmental protests. While a majority only support orderly, peaceful methods of political protest, willingness to engage in forms of direct action such as site occupations, destruction of crops, refusals to pay taxes and blocking roads appears to have increased.

Civil disobedience is a political act disobeying the authority of the government, on the grounds of a moral objections, in order to create a more ‘just’ society. Direct action is a form of protest aimed at getting change, which bypasses conventional channels, such as Parliament or bureaucracy.

A crisis in representative democracy? Despite a slight improvement in recent years, the numbers of people voting or joining a political party membership have not recovered to their postwar high, and are often seen as part of a wider dissatisfaction with politics. Much of this dissatisfaction is demonstrated each year in the Hansard Society’s Audit of Political Engagement. The organisation’s polling has consistently revealed public scepticism about the political system. Focus groups also reveal strong negative associations with the term ‘politics’, which participants often viewed as something they were not involved with and which was the preserve of an elite, acting in their own interests (Stoker, 2011, p. 152).

All this reflects negative perceptions of politics, politicians and traditional political institutions.

Yet, dissatisfaction with the political process is not new. In perhaps the first major study to look at attitudes to politics, carried out in 1959, 3 in 10 people reported never talking about politics with friends or acquaintances, while 8 in 10 were doubtful of the promises made by candidates in elections (reported in Stoker, 2011, p. 159). The claim that is sometimes made that things were once different ignores this evidence. However, the depth of disengagement with traditional political institutions and activities does seem to be different to the past.

The rise of anti-politics?

One consequence of disengagement from traditional politics is that those politicians who have succeeded in recent years have often done so by presenting themselves as outsiders, who are critical of ‘the ruling elite’. Nigel Farage (2014), the leader of UKIP in the run-up to the UK’s decision to leave the EU, for example, would frequently criticise ‘the Westminster bubble’ of politicians and journalists that, he argued, dominated British politics. Donald Trump, in his successful presidential campaign in the USA, would similarly talk about how he would ‘drain the swamp’ in Washington of professional politicians, lobbyists and bureaucrats (Time, 2016). From a very different political position, Jeremy Corbyn’s success as Labour leader can in part be put down to his status as an outsider. He is not part of the Westminster elite, and certainly not an ‘identikit’ professional politician. The language and presentation of all these men is purposefully designed to sound different to those they rejected as practised, professional politicians. This disengagement with the traditional ways of doing politics and political institutions is often summed up by the term anti-politics.

Anti-politics is a strong, negative outlook towards politicians and a disengagement from the formal institutions and practice of politics.

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

337

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

338

british politics

Problems with the political system One set of explanations for the rising dissatisfaction with formal politics places the blame at the door of politicians and political institutions (Stoker, 2011), for the following reasons:

1 Citizens do not engage because they feel powerless to make a change: Indeed, one vote is unlikely to make any difference (and for many citizens in safe seats, it is clear in advance which candidate will win in their constituency – as we discuss in Chapter 13). If one person’s vote is unlikely to make any difference, why bother? The Power Report, Power to the People (2006), set out an argument along these lines and argued that electoral reform would at least ensure that votes were not wasted.

2 The process of politics turns people off: The confrontational rhetoric in the House of Commons, particularly at Prime Minister’s Question Time, is often dismissed as ‘Punch and Judy’ politics, after the old puppet show, that is, based on point-scoring, personal attacks and jeering. This approach to discussion would be widely viewed

as unprofessional in other workplaces, particularly when discussing issues of importance, and can alienate the watching public.

3 The partisan divisions in modern politics, that is, those to do with political parties: The main parties in Westminster emerged over a century ago to represent voters in a very different society to the one we live in today. This explanation would note that the divisions between the main political parties do not reflect the social, economic or other divides in our society. As such, it is no longer clear which political party represents us best as citizens.

4 The performance of the political institutions we have: The biggest problems the world faces today cannot be solved in Westminster or in the devolved administrations. Global warming, international terrorism, the power of global financial institutions and the spread of nuclear weapons cannot be controlled through the actions of any one national or subnational government. The problems we face today are bigger than the ability of our traditional political

Source: Oli Scarff/Getty Images An expenses claim for a duck island came to symbolise the parliamentary expenses crisis of 2009 as well as wider unease with politics and politicians more broadly.

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

Chapter 16: PARTICIPATION institutions to solve them and that turns voters off traditional politics.

5 Some voters have questioned the proficiency of politicians: For example, the people who become MPs, so the argument goes, are not up to the job, instead focusing on their own interests or feeding their own egos. The parliamentary expenses scandal back in 2009 provided one very obvious example of politicians who seemed to be ‘in it for themselves’.

The decline in social capital and political engagement

An alternative explanation for the decline in engagement with politics focuses instead on social changes, rather than the failure of politicians or political institutions. We are no longer connected to the political process. Robert Putnam (1995, 2000), in particular, has linked the decline of political participation with a reduction in ‘social capital’, a more general decline in social interaction and engagement in the modern western world. Basically, social capital reflects how much individuals interact with each other face to face as neighbours, members of clubs and other forms of association. High levels of such interaction encourage the development of civic attitudes, including voting in elections. The more individuals play passive, isolated roles in society, such as staying at home, watching TV and videos and surfing the internet, the more likely they are to withdraw from public activities such as voting, and from active involvement in political parties and pressure groups. Putnam supports his theory with a wealth of research in the USA, indicating a strong correlation between a decline in social capital and decline in active citizenship and political engagement.

Some critics suggest that Putnam has been too pessimistic and one-sided over the social changes he has described. Social capital theorists have tended to see innovation in communications as a threat to participatory democracy, through the reduction in face-toface communication and social interaction. Yet it can be argued that they offer new forms of

communication and opportunities for increased participation, through, for example, internet chat rooms (Margetts, 2002) and social media. Other critics suggest that Putnam’s American findings do not necessarily apply to Britain. So Maloney (2006, pp. 114–15) cites evidence of increased political engagement and involvement in the voluntary sector in Britain and relatively high levels of social and political trust.

Pressure Groups and Participation It is sometimes argued that the decline in involvement in political parties has been balanced by a rise of participation in singleissue pressure groups. Pressure groups offer opportunities for ordinary people to participate in the political process on a continuous basis over specific issues that concern them. Pressure groups normally seek influence over, rather than direct control of, government. Indeed, the membership of some groups runs into millions, and far exceeds the membership of political parties. However, these figures are hardly reliable indicators of active participation in politics. Members of pressure groups can join for a host of reasons, beyond a desire for political participation – including a general interest, advice or some other benefit of membership. A more reliable indicator is perhaps provided by membership of campaigning groups such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth or Amnesty International (all between 100,000 and 200,000). However, even much of this support involves ‘cheque book participation’, with many members only prepared to make a donation to a cause with which they sympathise, but not to involve themselves further in active campaigning (Maloney, 2006).

What are pressure groups?

A simple definition of pressure groups will serve as an introduction, but some aspects remain problematic. Many pressure groups are highly organised, with formal constitutions, containing clearly stated aims

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

339

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

340

british politics and objectives, rules and procedures, including the election of officers and the management of resources. Yet some groups may begin with a much looser informal structure, while others may prefer to retain non-hierarchical organisations from ideological preference or practical considerations. Thus radical green or feminist groups may consciously reject formal structures with leadership roles for a flatter and more democratic means of operating, while groups on the fringe of the law (such as some animal rights groups) prefer informal and clandestine procedures. (The clandestine nature of these meetings is in part because several of these groups have been subject to controversial and at times illegal police infiltration and surveillance in recent years.)

A pressure group is any organised group that seeks to influence government and public policy at any level: they are not just a section of the public with an interest in common. Pressure groups seek influence rather than formal positions of political power (unlike political parties) and are outside rather than inside government.

While pressure groups (unlike parties) do not normally contest elections, they may seek to influence elections, for example advising voting against particular candidates, and occasionally may fight (and even win) elections in pursuit of a particular interest or cause. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) did sporadically put up candidates for elections, while more recently members have been elected to the Westminster Parliament and the Scottish Parliament on pressure group platforms. Moreover, some formally constituted political parties are essentially single-issue pressure groups – hence the debate over the future of UKIP after its main goal, Britain’s withdrawal from the EU, was met in 2016.

Although pressure groups are formally outside government, some groups work so closely with government that they are part of the process of governance. Government, both at national and local level, may seek the active cooperation and partnership of business groups and voluntary organisations. Such groups may continue to put pressure on government, but as recipients of government contracts, grants and other benefits they are also clients of government. Decisions may emerge as a result of an ongoing

debate within a network of public, private and voluntary organisations, all with an interest in a particular area of policy (see discussion of policy networks in Chapter 18). It may even be possible on occasion for a government department or agency to be effectively captured by the interests they are responsible for regulating. It is also worth noting that some parts of government seek to influence other parts of government, often using familiar pressure group tactics. Thus local councils and local government in general (through the local government association and appropriate professional bodies) often seek to influence the decisions of central government and the EU.

Types of pressure group

Pressure groups are so numerous and varied that many attempts have been made to distinguish between types of group, to bring some order into the analysis of a crowded field.

‘Political’ and ‘non-political’ groups

One distinction for political scientists is that between groups with a clear political purpose, such as Plane Stupid or the Taxpayers Alliance, and groups that exist primarily for social purposes and engage in politics rarely, if at all. However, even an allotment association or sports club, ostensibly non-political, may from time to time seek political influence, over ground rents or council grants for example, or more seriously over plans for roads or buildings that might threaten their survival. Charitable organisations, such as Oxfam or the RSPCA, may frequently engage in political lobbying – seeking to influence key political actors on an issue – as part of their primary purpose, although they have to be careful not to endanger their charitable status.

Local, national or global groups

Another simple distinction might be made about the level at which groups operate. Some are purely local, seeking to influence decisions and services in the immediate community. Others are national, although they might have local or regional branches (e.g. the National Farmers’ Union (NFU), the National Union of Students, the National Union of Teachers (NUT)). An increasing number of groups operate at the European

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

Chapter 16: PARTICIPATION level (e.g. European Automobile Manufacturers Association). Some of these groups act as peak or umbrella groups, which represent a large number of similar organisations. Finally, some groups are genuinely international in their membership and concerns (e.g. Amnesty International, Greenpeace), although such groups commonly have links with national organisations or national branch structures.

Peak or umbrella groups involve formal associations of a large number of similar groups. In the UK, the most well known of these are the Trades Union Congress (TUC), to which nearly all British trade unions are affiliated, and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), of which most (but not all) large and medium-sized firms are members.

Interest and cause groups This approach classifies groups by what or who they represent. It distinguishes between interest groups, seeking to defend the interests of a particular section of the population (alternatively, these may be described as ‘sectional’ or ‘defensive’ groups); and cause (or promotional) groups. Interest groups include business firms, trade associations, professional bodies and trade unions and other groups involved with industry and employment. Examples include the CBI, the TUC, the British Medical Association (BMA), the Law Society and the NUT. Members of churches, sports bodies, residents’ associations and groups representing particular minority communities may also be described as groups concerned primarily, although not exclusively, with defending their own interests. Cause groups, by contrast, come into existence to promote some belief, attitude or principle. They are also referred to as promotional, attitude, ideological or preference groups. Examples are Greenpeace, the Child Poverty Action Group, the League Against Cruel Sports, Amnesty International, Liberty and Plane Stupid.

Interest groups are concerned to defend or advance the interests of their members. Cause groups are based on a shared attitude or values.

There are two main differences between the two types of group. First, whereas membership of a sectional group is limited to those with a shared background, membership of a cause group is open to all those sharing the same values. Second, whereas the purpose of the sectional group is to protect the interests of its own members, the aim of the cause group is generally to advance other interests (the environment, children, animals, prisoners of conscience) or the public welfare as perceived by its members.

The distinction between interest and cause groups is not, however, always clear-cut. First, interest groups may pursue causes. The BMA, for example, not only looks after the professional interests of doctors but also campaigns on more general health issues such as drinking and smoking. Second, while in terms of their overall goals and motives many groups are clearly cause groups, such groups also often have material interests to defend. A charity such as Oxfam owns property and employs professional staff with careers to advance.

Many groups may combine a mixture of selfinterest and more altruistic concerns. Thus groups opposed to specific developments (e.g. a new airport runway or a bypass) can involve both those promoting the broad cause of environmental conservation and others with a more self-interested objection to the proposed development’s impact on their personal wellbeing and their property values. While some opponents reject almost all new roads or airports as part of a radical alternative transport strategy, others simply want the proposed development somewhere else – the Nimby, ‘not in my back yard’, view. Moreover, as a matter of tactics, to win wider public support, particular sectional interests often claim they are acting in the wider pub lic interest. University lecturers seeking to protect their pensions, for example, stress the benefits to higher education and the country. Foxhunters opposing a ban on their leisure pursuits broadened the debate to encompass the cause of rural protection (the Countryside Alliance). Despite these complications, the straightforward classification of groups into sectional and cause remains useful.

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

341

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

342

british politics

Insider and outsider groups An additional distinction between insider and outsider groups is also employed (Grant, 2000, p. 19). One important virtue of this typology is that it sets groups firmly within a relationship with government. It refers to the strategy pursued by a group – whether or not it seeks acceptance by government – and to the status achieved or not achieved as a result of its efforts. This distinction is also not clear-cut. While insider groups operate mainly behind the scenes, as we explore later in this chapter, rather than indulging in the politics of protest, in part because they do not want to put at risk their good relations with government and their influence in the ‘corridors of power’, they may on occasion campaign publicly. Indeed, some groups that are too powerful or important to ignore, such as the BMA and NFU regularly use behind the scenes influence and public campaigns.

Insider groups are consulted on a regular basis by government.

Outsider groups either do not want to become closely involved with government or are unable to gain government recognition.

However, other groups dependent on government funding or official recognition may become ‘client’ or ‘prisoner’ groups. Some outsider groups may lack the contacts and skills to become insiders, while others may be potential insiders, who seek to be consulted and may achieve this over time. Others may fear that a close relationship with government could jeopardise their independence and blunt their capacity for radical criticism and action. Radical groups committed to direct action, for example the Animal Liberation Front or Plane Stupid, may reasonably suspect their aims and methods will make them unacceptable to government in any case.

This classification cuts across the interest/cause distinction. Interest groups are perhaps rather more likely to be insiders than cause groups. However, some cause groups have managed

Source: Stefan Rousseau/PA Archive/PA Images Some groups, such as Plane Stupid, have used direct action to further their cause.

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

Chapter 16: PARTICIPATION to achieve insider status (e.g. MENCAP, which works with people with learning difficulties, and the Howard League for Penal Reform), while some interest groups (e.g. Fathers 4 Justice, which campaigned for fathers’ rights to see their children after relationship breakdowns) have been conspicuously excluded from govern ment consultation (understandably given the illegal nature of many of their protests). Status can also change over time. Trade unions were regularly consulted on employment issues, incomes policies and economic and social policy generally by both Labour and Conservative governments up until the election of a hostile Conservative government in 1979 when they lost much of their insider status. By contrast, many radical environmental groups, such as Greenpeace, began as outsiders. Questions of definition and perception as well as apparent changes over time illustrate some problems with the insider/outsider distinction as a basis for classifying groups.

Pressure group targets and methods

Whom do pressure groups seek to influence and what methods do they use? It is reasonable to consider these together as the methods adopted may clearly depend on potential targets. Moreover, in choosing their strategy, much depends on the aims and resources of particular groups and the level at which they are operating. Potential targets are many of those institutions discussed elsewhere in this book, including:

»» the ‘core executive’ – government ministers (including the prime minister) and civil servants (Whitehall) »» Parliament (both houses) »» political parties

»» informed opinion – more disrespectfully described as ‘the chattering classes’ »» wider public opinion – mainly through the mass media

»» local institutions, including local government »» the European Union – while the UK remains a member.

Influencing the government Why do groups seek to influence the government and why is the government ready to listen? The answer to the first question is perhaps fairly obvious. Groups seek to defend and advance their own interest or cause, and government policy or specific government decisions may affect them, adversely or beneficially. Therefore they have a strong motive to seek to influence government, especially as power in the British political system is heavily concentrated within the core executive. Thus a change in taxation may significantly affect business profitability or the living standards of particular sections of the population. A change in the law may similarly affect business costs, employment opportunities or individual freedom. So pressure groups will generally seek to lobby the Westminster government or that of the relevant devolved parliament or assembly. Government decisions on benefits, grants and subsidies and specific projects, such as hospitals, schools, roads and airports, may profoundly affect particular sections of society and specific communities. Those groups affected want information on the government’s early thinking and draft proposals, because it is often easier to influence the government before it has gone public and committed itself. They want the chance to influence both the substance and detail of government policy, for if they cannot change the government’s mind on the principle, they will want to ensure that the detailed implementation damages their interests as little as possible. Once a law is passed, a tax introduced or a planning decision announced, affected interests may continue to seek its amendment or repeal. Influence on the core executive is commonly the most direct and effective way to look after those interests, and groups may only seek to influence Parliament, political parties or public opinion when this direct route fails. There can also be risks involved in becoming too close to government. Groups may fear to criticise government for fear of losing their valued insider status. In so doing they may risk upsetting some of their own members, who may feel their interests and views are being ignored or unrepresented.

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

343

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

344

british politics At first sight, it is perhaps less easy to see what the government gains from contacts with pressure groups, although this is at least as important. Government needs, first, information and specialist knowledge and advice, which is not generally available in Whitehall. Second, government will want some idea of the potential reaction to specific initiatives from those likely to be affected. Prior consultation may avoid potential trouble later. Third, if possible, government wants support from relevant interests. If a minister can claim that those with an interest in a particular policy or initiative have been fully consulted and support the proposals, this will help win the argument in Parliament, the media and the country. Finally, on many issues the government needs the active cooperation of outside bodies, if it is to be successful. Much effective influence may not involve high-profile meetings with ministers, but routine behind the scenes discussions with officials. Many group representatives sit with civil servants on the large number of committees advising government. Many group spokespersons will have frequent formal and informal contacts with their ‘opposite numbers’ in Whitehall.

Influencing Parliament Attempts by pressure groups to influence Parliament often secure more media publicity than attempts to influence the executive (because much of this is behind the scenes). Thus TV news frequently broadcasts pictures of particular groups lobbying Parliament, and occasionally more dramatic interventions; for example, when Fathers 4 Justice campaigners threw a condom filled with purple dye into the Commons chamber in 2004. Although Parliament has long been seen by most established groups as a less effective target for influence than the executive, there seems to be a growing use of parliamentary channels. Reasons for this include the increase in backbench independence and the growth in size and number of backbench revolts, the increasing importance of departmental select

committees that provide another channel for influence, and the growth of Westminster-based professional consultancies, often employing MPs or their researchers. The semi-reformed House of Lords has also become an increased target of pressure group influence, particularly as it has demonstrated more readiness to amend and delay government legislation. Groups may seek to influence Parliament by submitting petitions, lobbying Parliament and individual MPs, circulating all MPs and peers with letters and information packs, and using friendly MPs to ask questions, raise issues, and introduce amendments to legislation, or sometimes even a bill (through Private Members’ legislation). Much of this activity is open and legitimate, although sometimes it has involved more questionable inducements, which have led to scandals and increased scrutiny, particularly from the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Indeed, former cabinet members Sir Malcolm Rifkind (a Conservative) and Jack Straw (Labour) were both secretly filmed seeming to offer access to key contacts in exchange for cash in 2015. Both denied wrongdoing, saying that they were working within the rules Parliament sets down for lobbyists.

Groups may seek to influence the legislative process at every stage. As nearly all the legislation passed by Parliament is government bills, much of this influence is targeted at the executive, particularly in the formative preparliamentary stages when the need for new legislation is discussed and the government is consulting outside interests. However, while a bill is going through Parliament, groups will seek to target both government and Parliament, particularly with regard to the details of legislation, often at the committee stage using sympathetic MPs or peers to introduce amendments drafted for them. On controversial bills, groups will hope to influence the votes of MPs, particularly backbench MPs on the government side, who may be persuaded to defy the government whips. Even after a bill is passed and becomes an Act of Parliament, groups may often be involved in the crucial implementation of the Act, and in influencing delegated legislation (although much of this influence will be direct-

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

Chapter 16: PARTICIPATION ed at the executive rather than Parliament). If a group remains dissatisfied with the law as it stands, it will campaign for new legislation, using the channels of influence, and the whole process may start again. Groups may particularly target Parliament and individual MPs and peers on Private Members’ legislation (bills introduced by MPs who are not members of the government). Although very few of these succeed, certain controversial political questions, particularly those involving moral issues, have often been left to Private Members’ legislation, such as changes in the laws on homosexuality, divorce and abortion, partly because these cut across party lines. As such issues are normally left to a free vote of MPs, there is more scope for pressure group influence. Sometimes, outside groups draft whole bills and seek to persuade MPs who have won a place in the annual ballot for a chance to present Private Members’ bills to introduce their measure (see Figure 16.3).

Influencing political parties Influencing Parliament and individual MPs inevitably involves influencing parties, as generally all MPs and most peers belong to parliamentary parties. But groups may seek to influence parties more directly and in a number of ways. The most obvious way is to make donations to political parties, as do both the trade unions (to Labour, which was set up as a party largely to provide trade union representation in parliament.) and business (mainly to the Conservatives). Some cause groups, such as the anti-hunting and anti-abortion lobbies, try to influence parties’ choice of parliamentary candidates. Others attempt to persuade parties to include detailed commitments in their manifestos. In return for influence, such groups campaign for the party supporting their cause. Sometimes, group and party membership overlaps, and

Figure 16.3: Pressure group influence on Whitehall and Westminster: the main stages Stage 1 Groups work to place problem on the policy agenda

The government recognises a problem

Stage 2

Stage 3

Preliminary consultations

Perhaps a Green Paper; often a White Paper

Possibly considered by a committee of civil servants

Groups lobby about limitations

Further consultations by the relevant minister(s) and civil servants

A bill is drafted Stage 5: Implementation Secondary legislation bringing parts of the Act into force

Stage 4: Parliamentary procedures

Groups consult minister about implementation

Act of Parliament

Bill is considered by the House of Lords. Perhaps more chances to secure detailed changes

Bill is considered by the House of Commons. Groups lobby for detailed changes

Source: Grant (1995) Pressure Groups, Politics and Democracy in Britain, Figure 3.1, p. 48, Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Reproduced with permission of Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

345

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

346

british politics this may help the groups achieve a favourable reception from parties.

Targeting a particular party may have drawbacks for a group, however. It may alienate opinion in other parties and is only likely to be successful if the targeted party is in power or has reasonable prospects of reaching power, and even then past commitments may not be honoured. However, Labour was more receptive to some interests when it was in power between 1997 and 2010, as they fitted with the party’s overall outlook (e.g. trade unions, ramblers, groups opposed to blood sports) and it made sense for relevant groups to target the party to fulfil prior commitments on the minimum wage, access to the countryside and hunting legislation after 1997. Other organisations, such as the Countryside Alliance and the Taxpayers’ Alliance, have found a more sympathetic audience from Conservatives.

Influencing informed opinion

Because many public policy issues are relatively specialist and do not attract much interest from the mass media or the wider public, it may often be more important to target what might be called ‘informed opinion’ – sometimes more disrespectfully called ‘the chattering classes’. This may be achieved, for example, through influencing important professional bodies, and through more specialist media, including minority TV channels and programmes, the ‘quality’ daily press, and weeklies, such as The Economist, The Spectator or New Statesman. Such bodies and media outlets may be far more influential than their membership or audience figures may suggest, as they are noticed by leading ‘opinion-formers’ in Parliament, journalism and elsewhere. This group may often prove decisive in the long run in swaying the decisions of ministers, civil servants and MPs, even sometimes where the popular media and wider public opinion is pushing in another direction. For example, while the mass media dramatised a possible link between the triple MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) inoculation programme and autism in the late 1990s, health professionals and informed opinion reached a clear consensus that there was no such link and the government held firm, despite an initial panic.

Influencing wider public opinion Much of the most visible pressure group activity involves influencing public opinion, to gain further support for their cause and to pressure key actors, although this can be time-consuming and expensive in resources, and may be less effective than other channels. Thus groups can seek to raise public awareness of an issue by various forms of protest and direct action (Jordan and Mahoney, 1997). These include legal and non-violent methods including public petitions, marches and demonstrations, such as those by the Stop the War Coalition against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, or consumer boycotts of goods, such as the long-running boycott of Nestlé products from the 1970s onwards for selling baby milk formula in the developing world, rather than advocating breastfeeding. But they can also include the disruptive but nonviolent tactics used by radical campaigning groups such as Greenpeace or Plane Stupid. More rarely, the use of violence and intimidation is employed; for example, supporters of the Animal Liberation Front have broken into laboratories, released animals, and targeted the persons and property of any individual remotely connected with experiments on animals.

Some experienced pressure group cam paigners make only sparing use of public demonstrations, because they can be not only ineffective but even counterproductive, particularly if they get out of hand and alienate public opinion and decision-makers. Yet more disciplined peaceful mass demonstrations can have relatively little effect. Thus the CND annually organised massive four-day marches between the nuclear research establishment at Aldermaston and London from the late 1950s onwards without having any appreciable impact on government defence policy. More recently, what was estimated to be the largest public demonstration ever, that against the Iraq War in March 2003, did not succeed in its objective of stopping the war. Rather more successful in influencing public opinion have been much smaller, more targeted demonstrations, such as those employed by Greenpeace. One of the most successful of these was the brief occupation by protestors

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

Chapter 16: PARTICIPATION of the Brent Spar oil rig in 1995, in protest against proposed plans to dump it at sea. The episode was filmed and shown on the main TV news. The publicity embarrassed the Shell oil company and the government to such an extent that the plans to dispose of the rig at sea were abandoned. The demonstration was successful in changing policy (Jordan, 2001).

This example illustrates the importance of the mass media (see Chapter 17) if a pressure group demonstration is to be effective in influencing public opinion. Without the free publicity given by the media, only those few people directly involved would have known about the occupation of the Brent Spar oil rig. Other protests have been taken up and extensively amplified by the tabloid press, particularly those by the Countryside Alliance from 1997 onwards, the fuel protests of September 2000, the anti-council tax protests of 2003–04, and chef Jamie Oliver’s campaign to improve the nutritional value of school dinners in the 2000s, which illustrates the value of a prominent public celebrity to a cause in securing news coverage and the attention of politicians.

Influencing local government and other local institutions Many important decisions that affect people’s lives are still made locally (see Chapter 10). Small local community groups with relatively few resources can sometimes be very effective in influencing these local decisions, such as the proposed closure of a school or hospital, or decisions on planning applications, or policy on roads and traffic regulation.

An organisation can spring up very quickly, and can often tap local expertise to mount a professional campaign. There are some clear targets for influence. The local MP may be a potentially useful and influential ally, even if the issue involves local institutions rather than central government. Individual councillors, local government officers and the council as a whole are obvious targets for issues that are a local authority responsibility, although sometimes a government department may also be contacted if a minister has the final say. Doctors, nurses and other health

service professionals, together with affected patients, readily attract sympathetic coverage on any health service issue. Meetings and demonstrations can invariably attract free publicity from the local press and radio, and sometimes also regional TV if a story is deemed newsworthy.

Influencing the EU At the other extreme, many decisions that affect people in Britain are currently made by the EU (for more on Britain’s exit from the EU, see Chapter 12). Although this seems to many Britons a remote body – part of the reason Britain voted to leave in 2016 – it is still highly susceptible to influence from organised groups. Business and farming interests, trade unions, professional associations such as the BMA and the Law Society, and environmental groups all lobby at EU level. Some British groups have offices in Brussels and lobby directly, and many others employ consultancy firms to lobby on their behalf. Commonly, British groups seek allies in other EU member states and work through Europe-wide umbrella groups such as BusinessEurope (formerly the Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe), ETUC (European Trade Union Confederation), COPA (Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations), BEUC (the European Consumer Organisation) and EEB (European Environmental Bureau). A potential disadvantage of such Europewide groups, however, is that they sometimes find it hard to agree on policy because of national differences. Pressure groups have long sought primarily to influence the European Commission, but as the powers of the European Parliament have increased, that too has become an important target. It is rarely possible for groups to have any direct influence on the Council of Ministers, so here they have to rely on their national government to protect their interests. However, they may be able to influence the Committee of Permanent Representatives, which serves the Council of Ministers and prepares papers on which Council decisions are made. Relatively few groups seem to make much use of the Economic and Social Committee in Brussels, which was

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

347

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

348

british politics an institution designed to reflect the interests of employers, employees and consumers.

Some British groups (such as the fishing industry) undoubtedly feel they have little or no influence over decisions made in Brussels that affect their livelihoods. Other groups, however, make use of EU directives and regulations to put pressure on their own government, and cite examples of practices in other EU member states to demand improved services and higher standards in Britain (see Chapter 12, pp. 257–58, for more on pressure groups and the EU). Britain’s decision to leave the EU in 2016 will lead to a withdrawal from this area of lobbying, but EU regulations will remain important for British politics, not least because most of our foreign trade is done with EU countries.

Pressure groups, power and democracy

The debate over the role of pressure groups in the political process is closely bound up with arguments over the distribution of power and

the extent of democracy, both in Britain and in other modern western political systems. Pluralists argue that power is effectively dispersed in modern western democracies in large part through the activities of countless freely competing groups (see Chapter 1, pp. 9–13, for more on pluralism). They point to the apparent influence of pressure groups in numerous case studies of decision-making. They claim that pressure groups promoting one interest or cause (such as legalised abortion, a ban on blood sports or low taxes) stimulate the growth of rival groups to counter their arguments, as has happened in Britain. These rival groups, through their activities, promote democratic debate, help educate the public on the issues and lead to better informed decisions, which reflect the net sum of influence and the balance of public opinion. So pressure group activity is the very essence of a free democratic society. Indeed, some modern theories of democracy (notably those of Robert Dahl, see Key Figures 16.1) depend heavily on the role of pressure groups.

Key figures 16.1 Robert Dahl and pluralism Robert Dahl (1915–2014) was a leading US political scientist, particularly associated with the study of power. He was a key figure in the community power debate between pluralists, who argued power was widely dispersed, and elitists, who claimed it was concentrated in the hands of the few. His 1961 book Who Governs? (a study of decision-making in New Haven, Connecticut) concluded that there was no single elite guiding decisions, but that power was dispersed through the influence of numerous groups on specific policy areas. His theory of democracy (he preferred the term ‘polyarchy’) rested heavily on the ability of ordinary people to influence government decisions through their participation in pressure group activity.

Elitists, by contrast, argue that power remains concentrated in the hands of the few. The contest between groups, they claim, remains profoundly unequal, in part because of massive differences in resources. (See Chapter 1, pp 9–13 for more on elitism.) Some have abundant finance, effective leadership and communication skills, but above all access to decision-makers, while others do not. Much of the most effective influence takes place behind the scenes rather than in the open. Government listens to some interests and ignores or rejects others. Within

a capitalist system, business groups have much more influence than groups representing labour or consumers not only because of their greater resources and access to government, but also because their role is crucial if the economy is to be managed successfully. Some interests (the poor, the sick, the elderly) are more difficult to organise than others. Although the numbers involved in some pressure groups are impressive, and far larger than those involved in parties, group policy is commonly

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

Chapter 16: PARTICIPATION determined by leaders and spokespersons. Some group leaders are elected by members, but most are not, and can be virtually self-appointed. Although some, like the once influential Mary Whitehouse, who, appalled by what she saw as immorality on TV and radio, formed the National Viewers’ and Listeners’ Association, claim to speak for the ‘silent majority’, while the majority remains silent there is no way of testing such claims. Moreover, much of the most effective influence is behind the scenes in the ‘corridors of power’ rather than in the open. Some of the most effective pressure groups are ‘hidden persuaders’ rather than contributors to a democratic public debate. While some of the criticism of the role of pressure groups in modern politics has come from the left, because of marked inequalities in group resources and influence, some has come from the right, particularly the New Right (which is discussed in more detail in Chapter 15). New Right thinkers and politicians have argued that increases in public spending and taxation have been pushed by an alliance of unions of public sector workers and dependent

client groups with a vested interest in higher spending, against the interests of the broad mass of voters and taxpayers. The excessive influence of these groups, it was argued, interfered with the operation of free-market forces, to the detriment of economic efficiency and prosperity. The Thatcher government, in particular, reacted against a particular form of economic decision-making involving ‘peak organisations’ representing employers and workers, known as ‘tripartism’ or ‘corporatism’ (see Chapter 2, p. 32). The election of the Thatcher government virtually ended corporatism. Lord Young, a leading member of her Cabinet, claimed: ‘We have rejected the TUC; we have rejected the CBI. We do not see them coming back again. We gave up the Corporate State’ (Financial Times, 9 November 1988). Finally, it may be noted that pressure groups are viewed differently in other political cultures. While pressure groups are widely seen as integral to the process of democracy in the USA, they tend to be viewed rather differently in a country like France (see Comparing British Politics 16.1).

COMPARING BRITISH POLITICS 16.1 Pressure groups in the USA and France The academic study of pressure groups goes back a long way in the USA, at least as far back as the work of Bentley (1908). They have been viewed as not only a necessary but also a highly beneficial part of the political process, increasing competition and spreading influence. Under Robert Dahl, they have become the vital ingredient of a modern theory of democracy or ‘polyarchy’. Among the national pressure groups considered particularly well supported and influential in the US political system are the National Rifle Association, the National Organization of Women, and the American Association for Retired Persons. In France, the political culture seems less compatible with pressure group politics, perhaps reflecting a tradition of thought going back to Rousseau, who saw special interests

as articulating a ‘partial will’ opposed to the ‘general will’ of the French people. Thus, the Fifth French Republic – ‘one and indivisible’ – is less responsive to special interests than the US political system with its elaborate checks and balances. Groups representing labour and business are smaller and weaker than elsewhere in northern Europe. Although some French workers are often involved in disruptive action, such as strikes, obstruction and boycotts, this may reflect their relative lack of influence in government circles. However, farmers remain an important exception to the relative lack of influence of special interests in French politics, partly because of the historical significance of agriculture in the French economy (and its society) and the power of the farmers’ lobby (The Economist, 2005).

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

349

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

350

british politics

Activism and Participation in New Social Movements Pressure group membership has sometimes been seen as a limited form of political participation, distanced from involvement in the traditional practices and institutions of representative democracy, such as voting or party membership. To critics, it is a problematic alternative. Dismissively termed ‘clicktivism’, support for pressure groups is often characterised as a ‘light-touch’ alternative to traditional political activism – a click of a mouse to sign a petition on Facebook or highlight a donation signifying to others that you care about an issue, without ever taking the time to fully engage in or debate the issue. There are certainly concerns that pressure group participation, discussed above, does not involve the same depth of participation that other forms of political engagement might have. However, this is rarely said of participation in social movements. The term ‘social movement’ has been employed to describe a much looser and less organised coalition of individuals or groups supporting a broad interest or cause. It is customary to define a pressure group as an organisation that aims to influence policy by seeking to persuade decision-makers by lobbying rather than by standing for election and holding office. By contrast, Paul Byrne (1997) described a social movement as something that is relatively disorganised. While a pressure group is a formal organisation with members, a social movement is an informal and loosely organised network, with supporters rather than members. Examples of what are termed new social movements are the women’s movement, the peace movement, the green movement and the anti-capitalist movement (to be contrasted with older social movements such as the labour movement) (see Spotlight 16.1). (There is more discussion on these new social movements in Chapter 16.) All these include some specific organised groups, and many individuals who may be members of one or more such groups, but also others who may not belong to any organised group but still identify strongly with the interest or cause. Thus the women’s movement is much

more than a coalition of interest groups, but represents a broad swathe of interests and opinion in society that has already promoted significant social change.

New social movements describe a diverse set of popular movements, characterised by a departure from conventional methods of organisation and expression. In recent decades, women’s movements and green movements have been seen as examples.

A loose informal movement may be preferred to a formal organisation for ideological reasons. Some feminists associate formal organisations, with their rules and hierarchies, with a male preference for order, authority and status, and seek more spontaneous and cooperative methods of working. Similarly, some peace campaigners or green activists positively reject leadership roles as part of a wider rejection of the existing social and political order based on traditional values. Radical social movements favour alternative ways of organising politics and society and want changes that will fundamentally change the existing order. Rather than working through parliamentary parties, which accept and reinforce ‘traditional’ channels of influence (as pressure groups do), social movements instead advocate supporters to lead their own private lives in ways shaped by their alternative values and ideologies and encourage them to challenge the values of the governing elite, question its authority and replace conventional politics with the ‘new’ politics of direct action.

Social movements come from across the political spectrum. Recently, there has been a resurgence of populist far-right political movements, such as the English Defence League, ostensibly formed in 2009 to counter militant Islam, but whose provocative demonstrations have appeared indiscriminately Islamophobic and racist, and have commonly led to violent confrontations with anti-fascist groups.

Perhaps we are less fed up with politics than is frequently stated. We do, however, seem to have lost some faith in representative democracy, as the beginning of this chapter shows. The

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

Chapter 16: PARTICIPATION

Spotlight on …

The anti-capitalist movement and Occupy

Anti-capitalist protests and direct action against multinational companies have grown. This new social movement has no established leaders, and no organisation (in the sense of having a headquarters staffed by office workers), but involves a loose international network linked by the internet. Naomi Klein described it as a ‘global, anarchic and chaotic’ body (quoted in Viner, 2000), but it has nevertheless become a significant political force. Much campaigning takes place against the ‘iron triangle’ of global capitalism: the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Much additional grassroots campaigning takes place against multinational companies such as McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Nike, Texaco, Shell, Microsoft, Disney and Gap. The protesters’

16.1

causes range from anti-consumerism and environmentalism to anti-slavery and the promotion of human rights. Some oppose junk food replacing locally produced ‘real’ food. Some oppose the use of ‘sweatshop labour’ by women and children in the third world to produce expensive designer label products in the West. A recent example of this activity is ‘Occupy’ – a broad movement against social inequality and lack of ‘real’ democracy around the world. They have often used the slogan ‘We are the 99%’ to highlight the issue of inequality. Occupy has held protests around the world, and created encampments in various locations in the UK, most notably outside St Paul’s Cathedral in London in 2011–12.

Source: CARL COURT/AFP/Getty Images An Occupy camp outside St Paul’s Cathedral in London, set up to protest against social inequality and injustice.

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

351

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

352

british politics long-term fall in party membership and the decline in people voting give some evidence for this. However, the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Party leader in 2015 went some way to challenging these assumptions. As Chapter 15 shows, Labour members joined the party in their thousands to get Corbyn elected leader. Despite a torrid two years for Corbyn, his relative success at the 2017 general election surprised commentators. Corbyn’s Labour

managed to attract new social movements, such as green protestors, feminists, disabled groups, peace activists, into campaigning for a traditional political party (Chadwick, 2017). Whether this coalition of supporters can hold together to push Corbyn closer to Downing Street remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the claim that we are disengaging from politics looks a far less solid one than it might first appear.

SUMMARY »» Democracy appears to require higher levels of political interest, knowledge and involvement than other political systems.

interest (or sectional or defensive) groups and cause (or promotional) groups, and between insider and outsider groups.

»» Nevertheless, up to half of British adults have little knowledge of or interest in politics. A substantial minority do not vote, and the majority of the population do not participate in traditional, parliamentary politics beyond voting.

»» Insider groups may enjoy a mutually beneficial relationship with government, although there may be a risk that groups get too close to government and become effectively emasculated. Government departments or agencies may sometimes be effectively captured by their client groups.

»» This rejection of traditional means of political participation is often described as ‘anti-politics’. For some theorists, the problem lies in the political system itself, which doesn’t meet the needs of the citizens. For other theorists, declining political participation is part of a wider decline in ‘social capital’ in modern society. »» Some argue that a decline in traditional political engagement through voting, parties and representative institutions has been offset by a rise in new forms of political activity involving social movements, campaigning groups and more direct action. »» Pressure groups offer more scope for direct involvement in the political process than political parties. »» Pressure groups may operate at various levels. Distinctions are commonly made between

»» Groups may have a variety of targets, including ministers, civil servants, Parliament or the wider public. In the British political system, influence on the executive is generally seen as more effective than influence on the legislature, although some policy areas can be exceptions. »» For pluralists, pressure groups help promote democracy by dispersing power in society. »» A more recent phenomenon has been the growth of broad, loosely organised ‘new social movements’ often involving the politics of direct action. Although these have generally been associated with the left, under the Labour government there was some increased use of direct action by groups and movements on the right.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION »» How far do low and declining turnout figures in elections suggest a crisis for democracy?

»» Should voting be compulsory? How else might people be encouraged to vote? Does voting change anything?

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

Chapter 16: PARTICIPATION »» How else can individuals participate in politics beyond voting? How many do in fact participate significantly beyond voting?

»» How far do most pressure groups have a choice in becoming an insider or outsider group? Are there any disadvantages to insider status?

»» Are younger people less interested in politics, and if so, why, and how might this be remedied?

»» Why do most pressure groups prefer to target the executive rather than the legislature in the British political system? What exceptions are there to this general rule?

»» Has there been a general decline in social interaction and engagement in modern Britain, and what are the implications for politics? »» How far is the distinction between interest groups and cause groups valid and useful?

»» What is a ‘new social movement’ and how might such a movement be distinguished from a pressure group? »» How far is power effectively dispersed and democracy assisted through the activities of pressure groups?

FURTHER READING On political participation, a key source is still Parry et al. (1992) Political Participation and Democracy in Britain. For a valuable survey of participation, citizenship and associated academic debates, see Margetts (2002) and Frazer (2002). For more specific analysis of political culture and voting participation, see Evans (2003). For a good discussion of anti-politics, see Stoker (2011).

Good texts on pressure groups in Britain are those by Grant (2000) Pressure Groups and British Politics, Byrne (1997) Social Movements in Britain and Coxall (2001) Pressure Groups in British Politics. Richardson (1993) Pressure Groups affords a useful comparative perspective, as does Chapter 13, ‘Political Participation’, in Hague et al. (2016).

USEFUL WEBSITES Print material should be supplemented by the British Social Attitudes surveys: www.natcen.ac.uk produced annually, and the annual reports on political engagement produced by the Hansard Society from 2004 onward, which can be consulted on their website: www.hansardsociety.org.uk.

More information on specific groups can be found from their websites: the British Medical Association: www.bma.org.uk; the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament: www.cnduk.org; Greenpeace: www.greenpeace.org.uk, among many others.

Further student resources to support learning are available at www.macmillanihe.com/griffiths-brit-pol-3e

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

353

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

Index A

Abbott, Diane, 113–114 Abortion, 70, 172, 322 Academy schools, 97 Acheson, Dean, 24 Act(s) of Parliament, 87, 95, 103, 107, 344–345 Act(s) of Union, 80, 178, 215, 230 Adams, Gerry, 218 Additional Member System, 204 Administrative law, 183, 192, 480, 485 Afghanistan, 14, 44, 69, 86, 465, 468, 471–477, 478 Age, 73–75 and voting, 280–281 and pensions, 71, 74, 75, 435 Ageism, 77 Age of consent, 72 Agriculture, 158, 233, 349, 441, 453, 455 All-women shortlists (AWS), 282, 302, 333 Al-Qaeda, 468, 472 Alliance Party (Northern Ireland), 218, 220–223, 272 Alternative Vote (AV), 270 and referendum (2011), 47, 94, 132, 256, 332 Anglo-Irish Agreement (1985), 220 Anti-capitalist movement, 350–351 Anti-politics, 331, 337, 352–353 Anti-Semitism, 205, 327 Apathy, to electoral reform, 273 to politics, 3, 195, 197, 336 Arab Spring, 478 Article 50, 242, 251, 253 Attlee, Clement, 19, 21–23, 25, 26, 37 ,91, 113, 129, 135, 138–139, 141 Audit Commission, 376 Australia, 84, 87, 90, 364 Authority, and conservatism, 312–315 and new social movements, 350 and party politics 297–298, 292 and sovereignty, 85, 88 and the prime minister, 136–144 and Max Weber, 7

‘Back to Basics’, 42 Bagehot, Walter, 82, 86, 88, 99, 141 Baldwin, Stanley, 360 Balls, Ed 159 ‘Bankers’ bonuses’, 46, 415 Bank of England, 416–417, 419–420 Banking regulation, see Financial regulation Barry, Brian, 69 British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), 2, 112, 129, 160, 277, 356, 359 Beauvoir, Simone de, 321, 323 Beckett, Margaret, 470 Bell, Daniel, 26 Benefit Cap, 435 Benn, Tony, 296, 298, 319–320 Bevan, Aneurin (‘Nye’) 21–23, 318–319, 425–426, 437 Beveridge, William, 21, 22, 26, 32, 310, 318, 422– 424, 426–428 ‘Big Society’, 46, 422–433 Bill(s), 103–108 and influencing of 344–345 Bill Committees, 106, 123 Private Member’s Bill(s), 107–110, 117, 344–345 Bill of Rights (US), 84 Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) / Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) citizens and ‘institutional racism’, 190 and Britishness, 216 and gender, 323 and identity, 65–67 and judiciary, 184–185 and migration, 29 and police, 189 and voting differences, 282–283 as a label, 65 as civil servants, 151 as Members of Parliament, 113 in the US, 83 Black Wednesday, 42, 246, 376, 409–410 Blackstone, William, 87 Blair, Tony and business, 303, 393 and Cabinet, 129 and civil service, 146, 151, 157–158

and constitutional reform, 93, 121 and David Cameron, 316 and devolution, 135, 221, 226 and economy, 401, 403 and environment, 447 and Europe, 246–248, 253, 257, 411 and foreign policy, 69, 459–460, 466, 470–474, 476 and Gordon Brown, 128–129, 294 and Jeremy Corbyn, 301 and local government, 206 and media, 364, 366–367, 369 and New Labour, 42–45, 319 and political centrism, 278, 297, 308, 321 and public services, 430–432 and special advisers, 135, 158–159 as communicator, 357 ‘Presidentialism’ of, 141–144 Bloody Sunday, 31, 219, 224 Blunkett, David, 191 Bogdanor, Vernon, 95, 175, 235 Bosnia, 247, 462, 472 Bradford and Bingley, 415 Brent Spar oil rig, 245 ‘Brexit’, xvi, 259–263, 400 and ‘Euroscepticism’ in Europe, 260 and Conservative Party politics, 49–51, 129, 160, 256 and environmental consequences, 444 and potential outcomes, 251 and predicted economic consequences, 402, 419 and Scottish politics, 231 and the Democratic Unionist Party, 252 and the media 366 and wider foreign policy, 465 Referendum (2016), 248–251 Support by age, 280 British empire, 22, 33 British Medical Association (BMA), 353 Britishness, 14, 55, 214–217, 236–238 British National Party (BNP), 250, 327, 362 Brooks, Rebekah, 371

502 Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

Index Brown, Gordon, and David Cameron, 85 and devolution, 226–227, 235 and economic crisis, 45–46, 412–415, 433 and economy, 264, 400, 402 and environment, 447, 452 and Europe, 460 and ideology, 319–320 and media, 364 and ministers, 134 and New Labour, 42–45 and public services, 411, 430–433 and Tony Blair, 294 as a ‘Big Beast’, 128 as communicator, 142, 361 as Labour leader, 296, 298 as Prime Minister, 135 Browne Report (on Higher Education financing), 434 BSE (‘Mad Cow Disease’), 123, 169, 181, 208, 325, 330, 346, 413 Bureaucracy, ‘street level’ 385 and political parties, 292, 298–300 and the state, 7, 11, 60, 150, 155, 163, 258, 430 Burke, Edmund, 114, 312–313 Burnham, Andy, 211, 297 Bush, George W., 447, 460, 466, 469, 470, 471, 473 ‘Business interests’, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 162, 202, 292, 402–403, 412 Butler, David, 276, 277, 279 Butler, RA (‘Rab’), 5, 21, 25, 26, 428, 437, see also ‘Butskellism’ Butler Report (2004), 130, 473 ‘Butskellism’, 26

Cabinet, 18, 23, 37, 79, 83, 90, 97, 126–133, 135, 137, 139–141, 143–146, 153, 164–165, 205, 211, 230, 256, 274–275, 286, 290, 298, 370, 410, 421, 446, 460, 484, 489, 492 Cabinet committees, 126, 130, 144 Cabinet Office, 128, 131, 145, 421, 460 Cable, Vince, 140, 415, 417, 421 Callaghan, James (Jim), 131, 135, 139, 319, 400 Cameron, David, 37, 48, 52–53, 129, 135, 139, 145–146, 160, 248, 262, 276, 306, 328–329, 370–371, 410, 433, 455, 466, 471, 476, 480–484, 491–492, 495–496, 500–501

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), 30, 340, 346, 353 Campbell-Bannerman, Henry, 214 Campbell, Alastair, 160, 301, 363, 370 Campbell, Beatrix, 53 Campbell, Menzies, 214 Campbell, Rosie, 2, 17 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), 28, 241, 244, 259, 303, 444 Capitalism, 9, 11, 13, 21, 40, 162, 217, 309, 312, 316–324, 327, 251, 363, 407, 415, 425, 425, 467 Popular, 39, 64, 409, Global, 10, 351, 365, 461, 463, Carson, Rachel, 441 Carney, Mark, 402 Cause groups, see pressure groups Central–local relations, see local government Confederation of British Industry (CBI), 257, 341, 349 Compulsory competitive tendering (CCT), 39, 155, 205, 206, 389, 393 Child benefit, 417–418, 424, 435 Child Support Agency, 155, 376, 391 Christian Democrats (Germany), 274, 288 Church of England, 68, 120–121, 282, 312 Churchill, Winston, 19–20, 23, 25, 41, 47, 85, 112, 134–136, 138–139, 243, 277, 293, 401, 405, 459, 465–466, 470, Citizenship, 332, 339, 353, 427, 487–488, 493 City academies, 431–433 Civil disobedience, 337 Civil liberties, 91, 169–171, 173, 177, 183, 185, 311–312 Civil rights, 23, 83, 171, 218–219, 222, 224, 427 Civil service, 4, 7, 10–11, 79, 126, 133, 135, 137, 146–159, 161–163, 165–167, 188, 389, 391, 402, 482, 487, 489, 492–496, 499 Civil society, 4, 16, 394, see also ‘Big Society’ Clarke, Kenneth (Ken), 48, 50, 191, 295, 297, 402 Class, and voting behaviour, 278–280 Changing class structure, 55, 62 Consciousness, 59 Dominant, 307, 365 Economic, 54, 307

Interest, 310, 365 Marxist views, 59–60 Middle, 23, 29, 36, 41, 56, 60–63, 70, 182, 192, 278, 290, 292, 302, 310, 313, 323, 335, 358, 365, 425 Occupational, 76, 268 Representation in parliament, 113–114 Ruling, 10–12, 64, 307, 361 Social, 55, 59, 62, 76, 114, 267, 276–278, 280, 284, 326, 335, 358, 427, 434 Upper, 60 Working, 20, 26, 39, 49, 56, 60–63, 67, 74, 77, 113–114, 179, 189, 276–278, 278, 291–292, 307, 310, 313, 315–317, 322, 327, 358, 366, 400, 425 Clegg, Nick, 46–47, 122, 140, 145, 275–276, 312, 361, 379, 447 Climate change, 3, 14, 260, 325, 367, 338, 440–443, 447–449, 454–456 Clinton, Bill, 400, 419, 447, 466, 470–471, 499 Clinton, Hilary, 354 Coalition, xv, 32, 269, 271, 273 Conservative-Lib Dem, (2010– 2015, UK), 11, 37, 46–49, 93, 94, 109, 115, 118, 122, 130, 132, 134, 135, 139, 140, 142, 161, 163, 191, 201, 235, 248, 275, 293–294, 312, 316, 370, 376, 384, 386, 387, 391, 395, 403, 415–417, 432, 433, 435, 438, 442, 443, 447, 448, 451, 452, 474–476 Germany, 274, 288, 446 ‘Lloyd George’, 292, 303 Northern Ireland, 221, 222 Scotland, 45, 226, 273, 326 Second World War (UK), 19, 23, 25, 112, 405, 424 Wales, 123, 228, 236, 326 Cold war, 24, 27, 33, 40, 69, 146, 458, 464, 467–469, 477–478 Collective responsibility, 127, 131–132, 134–135, 138, 142, 144, 153, 382, 395 Communism, 40, 327, 467 Competition in public sector, 39, 41, 153–155, 157–158, 165–166, 206, 314, 328, 385, 388–389, 393, 395, 398, 409, 411, 428–429, 431–432 Consensus, 19, 21, 23, 25–26, 29, 32–34, 36, 41, 50, 52, 58, 76, 82, 88, 100, 116, 152, 196, 231, 238, 310–311, 314, 423, 428, 437, 441

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

503

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

504

Index Conservative party, and contemporary debates, 2, 4, 14, and the post-war consensus, 19, 20–23, 25–29, 31, 33, Under Thatcher and Major, 36, 38–39, see also Thatcherism and New Labour, 41–45 and economic crisis, 46–53, and electoral support, 56–59, 62–64, 74, and -making, 377, 379, 383, 385, 388–390, 392–393, 398, and ‘crisis of participation’, 333–335, and cabinet, 127–130, and constitution, 80, 89, 91–96, 99–100, and devolution, 214–215, 217–218, 220, 222–223, 225–230, 235–237, and electoral system, 266–267, 269–271, 273–276, and environment, 440–444, 446–448, 451–452, 455–456, and Europe, 240, 244–246, 248–252, 257–258, 261–262, and foreign policy, 459 and judiciary, 177, 179, 183, 191, and local government, 196–199, 201–202, 204–208, 211, and parliament, 102, 109, 112–125, and pressure groups, 343–346, and prime minister, 132, 134–135, 139–140, 142, 145–145, and state bureaucracy 152–155, 157–163, 166, and the economy, 400, 402–403, 405–406, 409–416, 419, and the media, 354, 358–360, 362–364, 366, 368–370, and welfare and public services, 424–426, 428–438, as a political party, 286, 289–306, ideology of, 319–320, 324, 326, 328–329, Constitution, 2, 80 amending, 84, 105 and ‘Brexit’, 168–169 and civil servants, 149, 163, 164 and devolution, 122–123, 160 and judiciary, 177 and ministers 148, 152, 164, 149 and New Labour reforms, 44–45, 161, 170

and prime minister and cabinet, 133, 141, 142 and representative democracy, 12 and rule of Law 169 House of Lords and 119, 120 Key features, 83–88 Nature of, 81–83 Political parties reform of, 88–94 Today, 94–99 United States, 104, 173 Constitutional reform, 37, 44, 52, 80, 89, 91–95, 99–101, 120, 140, 147, 160, 168, 170, 173, 177, 179, 181, 192, 231, 311, 328, 332 Cook, Robin, 132, 470, 472 Cooper, Yvette, 297, 306 Corbyn, Jeremy, xv, 3, 5, 18, 49–52, 74, 116, 136, 252, 276, 280–281, 289–291, 293–294, 297–299, 301, 304, 306, 308, 320–321, 329, 337, 352, 366–367, 403, 419, 472, 475 Core executive, 97, 126, 128, 130, 141, 143, 145, 343 Coulson, Andy, 370–371 Council tax, 41, 198–201, 211–212, 347, 427 Court system, 75, 82, 87–88, 107, 162, 169–171, 174, 177, 179–187, 192, 371, 384, 464 Cox, Jo, 112, 250 credit crunch, see financial crisis Crime, 14, 67, 74, 96, 171, 183, 189, 191, 204, 277, 302, 332, 361, 398, 422, 462, 472, 475–476 Criminal law, 171, 181, 188, 232 Crosland, Anthony (Tony), 21, 26, 129, 318–319, 442, 484–485 Crossman, Richard, 25, 141, 164, 484, 494

Dahl, Robert, 12, 202, 348–349, 384 Dalyell, Tam, 95, 225, 234, 236 Darling, Alistair, 227, 414 Davidson, Ruth 227, 236 Davies, Clement, 214 Davies, Gavyn, 363 Davies, Norman, 216–217 Davies, Philip, 324 Davies, Ron, 234 Davies, William, 50 Davis, David, 256, 295, 419 Dyke, Greg, 363 Decision-making, 12, 96–97, 123, 127, 130, 141, 143,

187, 201–203, 209, 212, 331, 348–349, 377–378, 384, 394–395, 401, 460 Decommissioning (Northern Ireland), 221–222, 224, 449 Delegated legislation, 103, 107, 119, 344 Delors, Jacques, 245 Democracy, 3, 7–9, 13, 82–83 and civil liberties, 171, 173 and consociationalism, 221 and core executive, 128 and electoral systems, 266, 270, 273 and House of Commons, 117 and House of Lords, 92, 119–121 and local government, 195, 426 and media, 355, 356, 361, 363, 365, 368–370 and non-UK politics, 463, 467–468, 474, 476 and parliamentary sovereignty, 96 and pluralism 348–349 and policy, 384, 392 and political parties, 287, 289–290, 296, 297, 299–301, 319 and pressure groups, 348–349 and prime minister, 133, 136 and representation, 182, see also representation and United States, 83 crisis of, 331–339 direct, 84, 96–97 parliamentary, 5, 20, 80 participatory, 99, 351 property owning, 39, 64 representative democracy, 12, 64, 84, 87–89, 91, 96–97, 309–310, 350 scepticism about representative democracy, 11, 330, 331 suppression of, 90 Tory, 89 Democratic deficit, 206, 263, 398 Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), xv, 15, 44, 51–52, 140, 142, 163, 215, 218, 220–224, 252, 269, 272 Dentistry, 425, 432 Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, 442, 449 Department for Education, 148 Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 158, 459–460 Department for International Development, 148, 459–460

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

Index Department for Work and Pensions, 75 Departmental Select Committees, 105, 109–111, 116–120, 124, 136, 152, 163, 344, 387 Dependency culture, 58, 76, 409 Detention without trial, 177 Devaluation (of sterling), 32, 42, 400, 410 Devolution, 31, 33, 40, 44–45, 54, 77, 79, 85, 89, 91–100, 121, 123, 147, 150, 160, 178, 181, 194, 203, 211–212, 214–239, 256, 311, 315, 382, 384, 388, 397, 442, 444, see also Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Dewar, Donald, 45, 226–227 Dicey, AV, 82, 86, 88 Differentiated polity, 98 Direct action, 333, 337, 342, 346, 350–352 Disability Discrimination Act, 75 Disability Rights Commission, 64, 75 Disability, 13, 64, 75–76, 114, 147, 152, 276, 323, 352, 417–418, 426, 435 Disraeli, Benjamin, 313–314, 328 Douglas-Home, Sir Alec, 133, 295 Downs, Anthony 380, 441–442 Duggan, Mark, 189, 380 ‘Dumbing down’ of politics, 365, 368, 372 Duncan Smith, Iain, 43, 140, 293, 295, 298, 302, 315, 435 Dunleavy, Patrick, 17, 99, 126, 155, 267 Duverger, Maurice, 17, 267

Ecclestone, Bernie, 303 Economic decline, 30, 33, 57, 404, 420 Economic growth, 21, 28–29, 31, 45, 56, 208, 210, 242, 325, 402–404, 411–412, 418, 420, 424, 427, 440–441, 454–455 Economic recession, 45, 48, 54, 136, 138, 260–261, 410, 421, 454 Economic policy, 2, 21, 25, 46, 134–135, 258–260, 318, 376, 401–404, 406–410, 413, 415–417, 419–421, 462 Eden, Anthony, 25, 27, 47, 112, 135, 137, 139, 401, 459 Education, Act (1944), 21, 22, 424 and BAME groups, 67 and devolution, 225, 231, 233

and local government, 205, 426, 428 and the civil service, 150–153 Competition, 39, 393, 429, 430–433 Higher, 74–75, 341, 425, 434 Political, 332 Right to, 175 Spending on, 39, 44, 411, 412, 430–433 Theresa May views, 50 European Economic Community (EEC), 25, 27–28, 33, 241–244, 247, 252 European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA), 243, 247, 252 Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), 71 Elections, European elections, 248, 254, 257, 272, 445 General election (1945), 225, 424 General election (1979), 37, 277 General election (1983), 28, 40, 301 General election (1997), 42–44, 89, 225, 271, 279, 365, 410 General election (2010), 46, 52, 85, 94, 96, 122, 161, 238, 249, 271, 275, 279, 283, 296, 304, 364, 415–416, 418, 432–434 General election (2015), xv, 2, 45, 47–49, 94, 113, 118, 130, 161, 215, 226, 236, 248–249, 262, 266–267, 269–270, 273, 274, 279, 282, 284, 286, 290, 297, 304, 312, 320, 366, 373, 377, 426, 435, 445 General election (2017), 3, 15, 37, 45, 49, 52, 74, 76, 113, 127, 137–139, 142, 215, 222, 227, 229, 238, 249, 252, 266–267, 276, 280–281, 284, 286, 290, 297, 302, 321, 324, 352, 354, 362, 364, 367, 419, 434, 445–446 Local elections, 46, 197, 199, 201, 274, 327, 331–333, 445 Mayoral elections, 197, 205, 269–270, 284, 324 Northern Ireland elections, 220, 222, 272 Presidential elections (France), 327 Presidential elections (US), 331, 354–355, 400 Scottish elections, 273 Welsh elections, 229, 273, 332 Electoral college (US), 83, 296–297

Electoral commission, 10, 92, 285, 303, 305, 334 Electoral reform, 83, 89, 91–92, 94–95, 99, 118, 132, 140, 256–257, 266–268, 270, 273–276, 284, 311, 334, 338, 381, 446 Electoral volatility, 278, 283 Elites and elitism, 10–12, 17, 48, 90, 150–152, 166, 188–189, 202, 244, 289, 299, 320, 337, 348, 350, 356, 358, 361, 371, 434 Energy crisis, 28, 32, 244 Energy policy, 442, 447, 451 England and English, and centralised system of government, 194 Civil war, 68 Church of, 68, 120, 282, 312 Identity, 15, 57, 98 In relation to rest of UK, 15, 55, 99, 215–217, 234–237 Legal system, 178–181 Nationalism, 99, 327 Religion, 68 Regions, 56, 91, 92, 99, 283, 384, 400 Same sex marriage in, 72 English Defence League, 57, 327, 350 English parliament, 215, 234, 237 English regions, 15, 55–57, 75–76, 92, 97, 148, 210, 225, 229, 232–235, 237, 246, 255–256, 258–259, 271, 283, 300, 384, 397, 405, 418, 420, 442 English votes for English laws (EVEL), 106, 234 Enlightenment, 309, 312 Environment, 14, 46, 74, 148, 152, 157–158, 172, 203, 208, 210, 233, 260, 316, 325, 329, 341, 357, 375, 378, 380, 440–445, 447–449, 451–456, 459–460 Environmental policy, viii, 259, 386, 440–444, 447, 454–456 Environmentalism, 47, 51, 105, 111, 160, 226–227, 250, 257, 263, 266–267, 269, 274, 279–280, 286, 288–289, 297, 301, 304, 306, 308–310, 322, 325–326, 328–329, 334, 340, 345, 350, 352, 402, 406, 410, 412, 414, 422, 440–446, 448–449, 452–456 Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), 64, 390 Equal Pay Act (1970), 71

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

505

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

506

Index Equality, 5, 8, 13–14, 46, 48, 58, 64–65, 67, 70–72, 75–77, 170, 209, 221, 283, 310, 312, 319, 321–324, 326, 328–329, 390–391, 409, 423, 427 Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), 75, 390–391 European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), 40, 42, 245–246, 253, 376, 410 Establishment, 10–11, 365 Ethical foreign policy, 378 Ethical socialism, 317–318 Ethnic minorities, see Black, Asian, Ethnic Minority (BAME) Etzioni, Amatai, 383 European Union (and predecessor organisations), see also Brexit, Referendum Committee of The Regions, 234, 255–256 Common Agricultural Policy, 28, 241, 244, 259, 444 Common Market, 240, 242–245, 248, 260, 315 Coreper (Committee of Permanent Representatives), 255, 262 Council of Ministers, 254–255, 258, 262, 347 Economic and Social Committee, 25, 241–243, 252, 255, 262, 258, 347 Enlargement, 241–242, 246–247, 260, 262–263 Euratom, 241–242, 247, 252 Euro, 94, 246–247, 253, 258, 260, 263, 376, 411, 460 European Atomic Energy Authority, 241 European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), 25, 241–243, 247, 252 European Commission, 97, 242, 245, 253–255, 258–259, 262, 333, 347 European Community (EC), 28, 40, 89, 91, 95, 119, 132, 241–246, 249, 252–256, 258–260, 262, 263, 315, 319, 410, 444, 458 European Constitution, 248, 253, 315 European Convention on Human Rights, 2, 92, 107, 169, 172–176, 183, 185, 192 European Council, 242, 254–255, 258, 262 European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), 97, 173–176, 186

European Court of Justice (ECJ), 97, 173, 251, 255–256, 262 European Defence Community, 259 European Economic Community, 25, 91, 241–243, 252, 262 European Elections, 248, 254, 257, 445 European Free Trade Association (EFTA), 243 European Parliament, 44, 92, 97, 123–124, 172, 222, 248–250, 252, 254–258, 262, 267, 269, 271–272, 275, 284, 304, 327, 331–334, 347, 445–446, 454 Eurozone, 260–261 Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) 40, 245, 253, 376, 410 Regional and Social Policy, 259 Single European Act, 40, 245, 253 Single European Currency, 41, 246, 259 Social Chapter, 41, 172, 246, 411 European People’s Party, 248, 257 Eurosceptics / Euroscepticism, 49, 138, 254, 258, 262 Executive, see Core executive Executive agencies, 148, 150, 153–155, 157, 162–163, 165, 389–394, see also Next Steps Agencies Executive dominance, 93, 102, 108, 170

Fabian society, 317–318 Factions (party), 134, 288, 294–295, 310 Factortame case, 95, 256 Fair trade, 446 Faith schools, 70 Falklands, 40, 112, 129, 153, 315 Family, 2, 5–6, 14, 21–22, 29, 34, 39, 42, 55, 69, 72–73, 75, 113, 116, 147, 157, 174, 180, 182, 184, 189–190, 250, 281, 288, 302, 315, 322–323, 328, 357, 360, 380, 412, 417–418, 422, 424–425, 434–435 Family breakdown, 72 Family values, 29, 42, 72, 302, 315 Farage, Nigel, 10, 48, 248–249, 337, 368, 458, see also UKIP Fascism, 307, 309, 326–327 FDP (Germany), 274, 288 Federalism, 84–85, 95–96, 225, 235, 238 Feminism, 50, 54, 72, 306–307, 309, 311, 321–325, 328–329, 337

Film, 355, 357, 391 Financial crisis (2007 onwards), xv, 3, 11, 13, 45, 48, 52, 54, 58, 64, 70, 135–136, 138, 223, 226, 253, 259- 261, 316, 320, 328, 378, 382, 393, 396, 400–402, 405, 408, 412–413, 410, 415, 417–421, 423, 433, 454 Financial Management Initiative (FMI), 154 Financial regulation, 162, 320, 328, 392, 395–396, 402, 413, 415–416, 420–421 Financial services, 46, 58, 320, 396, 402, 413, 415–417, 420 Financial Services Authority (FSA), 396, 402 First Past the Post, see Single Member Plurality system Fiscal policy, 258, 404, 406–408, 417, 420 Flooding, 440 Focus groups, 288, 337 Food Standards Agency, 391, 453 Foot, Michael, 28, 244, 293, 319, 357, Foreign and commonwealth office (FCO), 459–460 Foreign policy, 3, 14, 24–25, 27, 44, 85, 135, 259–260, 375, 378, 458–460 Foster, Arlene, 218 Foundation hospitals, 138, 431 Fox, Liam, 295 Free collective bargaining, 317 Freedom, see Liberty Free market, 5, 11–12, 14, 39, 50, 162, 209, 307, 310, 312–314, 319, 388, 407, 409, 411, 428, 443, 454 Free schools, 97, 433 Free trade, 241, 243, 251–252, 261, 310, 313 Freedom of information, 44, 92, 390 Friedman, Milton, 12, 38, 311, 314–315, 408 Friends of the Earth (FoE), 339, 441, 443, 445, 456 Fuel protests (2000), 138, 347, 452 Fukuyama, Francis, 467–468 Fulton Report (1968), 151, 162

Gaitskell, Hugh, 21–22, 25–27, 299, 318, 425 Gay marriage, 277 Gay rights, see LGBT+ rights Gender, 5, 8, 46, 50, 55, 63–64, 69–72, 74, 76–77, 113, 125, 128, 147, 151, 182,

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

Index 184–185, 267–268, 272, 276, 278, 281, 285, 302, 321–322, 325, 328, 336, 423 General Practitioners (GPs), 431–433 General strike (1926), 317 Genetically modified (GM) food, 453 German Green Party, 445–446 Gladstone, William, 217, 310, 406 Global warming, see climate change Goldsmith, Zac, 205, 440, 443 Good Friday agreement (Northern Ireland), 96, 221–222, 224 Gove, Michael, 49, 129, 177, 295–296, 433 Governance, 16, 79, 90, 97–99, 107, 123, 126, 144, 195, 202, 206, 208–209, 211–213, 217, 235, 260, 340, 394–395, 398, 443, see also Multilevel governance Gradualism, 318 Gray, John, 312 ‘Great Depression’ (1929–), 415 Greater London Council, 40, 196 Green politics, see environmentalism Green paper, 105, 345 Green Party (UK), 257, 266, 289, 297, 301, 325, 334, 441, 445–446, 454–456 Greenpeace, 339, 341, 343, 346, 353, 441, 445, 450–451, 456 Greer, Germaine, 322 Grenfell Tower fire (2017), 61 Grimond, Jo, 120, 214 Gulf, 14, 25, 41, 57, 86, 315, 330 468, 475 Gaulle, General Charles de, 27–28, 244, 252, 254, 260

Hague, William, 43, 295, 300, 302–303, 315 Haldane Report (1918), 147 Hammond, Philip, 49, 402, 419, 436 Hansard society, 335–337, 353 Harman, Harriet, 282, 296 Hattersley, Roy, 296, 319 Hayek, Friedrich, 12, 38–39, 311, 314–315 HBoS (bank), 46, 415 Healey, Denis, 129, 296, 319, 402 Health and Safety Executive, 395 Heath, Edward (Ted), 28, 32, 37–38, 40–41, 47, 89, 135, 138–139, 142, 196–197, 219, 224, 243–244, 248, 252, 295, 298, 400–401, 442

Heseltine, Michael, 41, 128–129, 131, 203, 298, 442 Hill, Fiona, 160 Hillsborough disaster (1989), 190 Hobhouse, LT, 310, 427 Hobson, JA, 310, 318, 427 Homosexuality, 5, 29, 51, 72–73, 108, 172, 189, 205, 222, 345 House of Commons, 8, 28, 44, 51, 70, 82, 87, 89, 92–96, 102–119, 121, 124–125, 127, 132–136, 140, 144, 148, 234, 248, 252, 256, 266–269, 275, 286, 293, 310, 312, 330, 338, 345, 364, 392, 460 House of Lords, 2, 44, 70, 80–82, 87, 89, 91, 94, 106, 109, 118–125, 134, 168, 180–183, 192, 222, 344–345, 384, 460 Housing, 14, 26, 50, 63–64, 67, 75–76, 115, 182, 186–187, 194–195, 203–208, 210, 218, 227, 229, 232–233, 250, 318, 380, 393, 411–412, 417–418, 422–428, 434–437 Housing associations, 64, 205, 393, 426 Housing tenure, 63–64 Howard, Michael, 43, 139, 177, 295, 302, 315 Howard League for Penal Reform, 343 Howe, Geoffrey, 41, 132, 402 Huhne, Chris, 140, 447, 451 Human Rights Act, 2, 44, 95, 171– 172, 174–175, 177, 179, 183, 192, see also Rights, human Hume, John, 218, 220 Hung councils, 201 Hung parliament, 32, 47, 52, 94, 161, 248, 275, 290, 320 Hunting, 117, 345–346, 453 Huntington, Samuel, 69 Hussein, Saddam 41, 473–475 Hutton Inquiry (2003),160, 183, 363, 460 Home Office, 49–50, 53, 160–161, 436

Ibbs Report (1988), 156 identity, 34, 55–57, 64–69, 76, 98, 102, 113, 117, 197, 211, 215– 217, 223, 225, 234, 237–238, 261, 276, 282, 323–324, 326 Ideology, 13, 26, 37–38, 62, 134, 215, 236, 265, 306–309, 311, 313–319, 321, 323, 325–329, 350, 388, 422, 455 Independent Labour Party (ILP), 317–318

International Monetary Fund (IMF), 97, 319, 403, 410 Immigration, 29, 49–50, 54, 65, 67, 76, 139, 177, 186, 216, 237, 249–251, 254, 258, 262, 302, 327, 376, 378–379, 401, 436 Imperial preference, 313 Incomes policy, 32–33, 343, 385, 388, 405–406 Incrementalism (policy), 382–383 Individualism, 309, 313, 319 Industrial relations, 31–32, 37, 135, 314, 411 Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, 405 Inequality, 13, 30, 41, 44, 46, 54–56, 58–60, 62, 64, 75–77, 225, 310, 322, 349, 351, 412–413, 431 Inflation, 21, 31–33, 38, 44–45, 199, 314, 379, 385, 400, 403, 405–412, 418, 420, 453–454 Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), 208, 421, 418 Institute of Directors, 402 Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), 37 Institutional racism, 190 Interest rates, 38, 138, 402, 404, 407–413, 415–417, 420, 436 Internal markets, 389, 393, 398, 429, 431 International law, 175 International Monetary Fund, 16, 32, 351, 403 Internet, 10, 101, 263, 333–334, 339, 351, 355–357, 373 Iraq war, 112, 114, 138, 160, 175, 282, 284, 293, 346, 363, 458 Irish nationalism, vii, 16, 216–218, 237 Irish Republic, 15, 57, 216, 223, 271 Irish Republican Army (IRA), 31, 218–219 Isis (‘Islamic state’), 206 Islam, 68–69, 327, 350, see also Muslims Islamophobia, 70, 76–77 Issue voting, 277–278, 284

JAMs (‘Just about managing’), 50, 419 Jenkins, Roy, 112, 129, 244, 275, 318, 381, 402 Jenkins Report (1998), 381 Jennings, Ivor, 54, 75, 216 Johnson, Boris, 48–49, 128–129, 205, 250, 295, 358, 419 ‘Joined-up government’, 158, 165–166, 386, 394

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

507

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

508

Index Jones, Carwyn, 229 Jones, Digby, 134 Jones, Owen, 162 Joseph, Keith, 37, 39, 201, 311, 313, 428 Judges and the judiciary, 4, 44, 81, 87, 95, 107, 168–170, 174–186, 188, 192–193, 384 Judicial independence, 168, 181 Judicial review, 88, 94, 169, 177, 179, 185–186 Judt, Tony, 34, 64

Kagan, Robert, 468–469 Khan, Sadiq, 205, 282 Kelly, David, 160, 183, 363 Kelly, Petra, 446 Kennedy, Charles, 214, 312 Keynes, John Maynard, 21, 407, 420, 424, 427 Keynesian(ism), 21, 26, 36, 38, 52, 328, 388, 408, 418, 420, 427 Kinnock, Neil, 43, 298, 319, 366 Kosovo, 468, 475 Kuwait, 475 Kyoto Agreement, 444, 469, 447–448

Labour Party, 286, 289–301, 303–306 and cabinets and prime ministers, 130–132, 134–136, 138, 140–141 and constitution, 22, 62, 80, 89, 91–95, 120–123 and contemporary politics, xv, xvii, 2–3, 5, 15 and ‘crisis of participation’, 333–335, 337 and devolution, 214–215, 218, 220–221, 225–231, 235–237 and economy, 400–403, 405–413, 415–421 and electoral support, 56–58, 60–65, 67–68, 74, 275–284 and electoral system, 266–267, 269–273 and environment, 441–443, 445, 447–449, 451–453, 455 and Europe, 240, 244–246, 248–250, 252, 257–258, 261 and foreign policy, 459–460 and ideology, 310, 314–322, 326, 328–329 and judiciary, 170, 174, 181–182, 191 and local government, 196, 198, 201–206, 211

and media, 354, 357, 359, 361, 363–370, 372–373 and New Labour, 41–53 and parliament, 112–117 and policy-making, 379, 382, 384–388, 390–391, 393–395, 398 and post-war governments, 19–28, 31–33 and pressure group politics, 343–346, 348–350 and responses to Thatcherism, 36–37, 109 and state bureaucracy, 145–148, 152–154, 157–161, 163–164, 166 and welfare and public services, 423–426, 428–434, 436–438 Labourism, 318, 328 Lamont, Norman, 410, 429 Lasswell, Harold, 6, 17, 369, 377 Law, 168–193 and Europe, 248, 251, 254–255 environmental, 443–444, 446–447 Rule of, 88, 169–171 Law Lords, 120–122, 177, 181 Law society, 341, 347 Lawrence, Stephen, 189, 380 Laws, David, 415 Lawson, Nigel, 37, 41, 131, 401–402, 448 League Against Cruel Sports, 341 League tables, 387, 430, 437–438 Left and right, see Political spectrum Legislature, 81, 83–84, 93, 102–104, 118, 121, 124, 133, 168–169, 181, 192, 271, 288, 352–353 LGBT+, 113, see also homosexual and transgender Liberal Democrats, 37, 43, 294, 309, 311, 319, 328, 443, see also Coalition (2010–2015) Liberal Party, 28, 37, 43, 91, 217, 274, 282, 294, 309–311, 445 Liberal-SDP Alliance, 269 Liberalism, 38–39, 41, 48, 68, 306–313, 316, 318, 326, 328–329, 388 Liberty, 8, 91, 169–171, 173–174, 177, 183, 185, 192, 195, 310–312, 341 Life peers, 89, 91, 120–122 Lincoln, Abraham, 8 Lindblom, Charles, 12, 383 Lisbon Treaty, 248, 253, 260

Livingstone, Ken, 40, 44, 198, 204–205, 393, 452 Lloyd George, David, 134, 214, 224, 292, 302 Lobby(ing), 117, 208–209, 257, 258, 337, 340, 343, 344, 345, 347–350, 412, 441, 442, 444, 452–454 Local democracy, 123, 206, 211 Local governance, 195, 206, 208, 212–213, 394 Local government, 39–40, 56, 79, 83, 97–98, 135, 138, 155, 161, 188, 194–209, 211–213, 270, 287, 304, 315, 333, 340, 343, 347, 381, 385, 387, 389, 391–394, 426–428, 432, 434, 437–438, 442, 450 London Assembly, 95, 123, 203, 213, 267, 269, 271, 273, 327, 445, 454 London bombings (2005), 69, 170, see also Terrorism Lord Chancellor, 48, 128, 161, 168–169, 181, 188 Lovelock, James 451, 455 Lucas, Caroline, 297, 445–446, 454 Lukes, Steven, 6, 17, 384

Maastricht Treaty, 41, 172, 234, 242, 246, 249, 253, 255, 260, 315, 411 McDonald, Mary Lou, 218 Macdonald, Ramsey, 19, 214, 299 Mackintosh, John, 126 Macmillan, Harold, 21, 25–28, 32, 47, 135, 137–139, 196–197, 244, 247, 252, 293, 295, 357, 375, 400–401, 437 Macpherson Report (1999), 190 Macron, Emmanuel, 260 Major, John, 31, 36, 39, 41–42, 44, 46–47, 52, 64, 92, 96, 109, 115, 127–128, 130, 134–135, 137–142, 153, 156–157, 197, 199, 203–204, 220–221, 224–226, 246, 253, 257, 289, 294–295, 298, 300, 303, 315, 357, 359, 364–365, 376, 388, 393, 400–402, 405, 409, 411, 415, 424, 427, 432, 437, 453 Maladministration, 88, 187–188 Malthus, Thomas, 325 Mandelson, Peter, 46, 370 Marginal constituency, 300, 304, 334 Marr, Andrew 101 Marshall, TH, 312, 357, 427

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

Index Marx, Karl, 12–13, 60, 307, 317, 319 Marxism and Marxist approaches, 10, 17, 12–13, 54, 59–61, 64, 202, 282, 307, 316–322, 326, 361, 365–366 Mass media, 137, 307, 332, 343, 346–347, 355–357, 367–368, 372, 379 Maude, Francis, 391–392 May, Theresa, xv, 13, 15, 18, 23, 33, 36–37, 46–47, 49–52, 82, 94, 98, 118, 127, 129, 132, 135–140, 142, 148, 161, 176, 194, 197, 210, 221–224, 226, 228–230, 240, 250–253, 272, 289, 292, 295–296, 308, 316, 328, 354, 358, 360, 385, 388, 402, 408, 416, 419, 436, 438, 440, 442, 445, 447, 449, 451, 458 Mayors, 195, 197, 203–205, 210–212, 235, 237 McConnell, Jack, 226, 377 McGuinness, Martin, 44, 218, 222–224 McKenzie, Robert, 26, 279 McLuhan, Marshall, 357 Michael, Alun, 228 Michels, Robert, 12, 299 Miliband, David, 48, 296, 470 Miliband, Ed, 48, 49, 136, 159, 163, 276, 281, 291, 296, 297, 320, 366, 379, 442, 448 Miliband, Ralph, 12, 317 Militant, 219, 294, 300, 319, 350 Mill, John Stuart, 12, 57, 195, 310–311, 322–323 Miller, Gina, 168, 177–178 Miners’ strike (1984), 32, 40, 189–190, 411 Minimum wage, 43, 346, 406, 411 Ministerial responsibility, 98, 147, 152–153, 166, 390–391 Ministry of Defence, 363, 459–460 Ministry of Justice, 68, 161, 185, 193 Mixed economy, 20, 22, 26, 31, 314, 319, 328, 405 Momentum, 246, 294 Monarchy, 4, 18, 20, 80, 83–87, 89–90, 94, 99–100, 106, 173, 223, 312 Monetarism, 38, 402, 409 Monetary policy, 21, 402, 404, 407–409, 417, 420 Monnet, Jean, 241–242, 259 Moore, Jo, 53 Moran, Michael, 88, 396 Morgan, Rhodri, 228

Morris, Estelle, 153 Morris, Anne Marie, 115 Mosley, Oswald, 327 Movement for Colonial Freedom, 23 Mowlam, Marjorie (Mo), 221 Multi-level governance, 16, 97–99, 126, 144, 208, 212, 217, 235, 260, 443 Multiculturalism, 30, 65, 67, 69, 401 Murdoch, Rupert, 364–366, 369–371, 402 Muslims, 65, 68–70, 76, 282, 284, 327, see also Islam

Nairn, Tom, 15, 216, 228, 235, 238 Nation State, 4, 7, 20, 97, 215–216, 237, 254, 326 National Audit Office, 110, 387, 416 National Economic Development Council, 405 National Enterprise Board, 405 National Executive Committee (Labour Party, NEC), 298, 301 National Farmers’ Union, 257, 340, 342 National Front, 295, 327 National Health Service (NHS), 18, 21–22, 38–39, 49, 104, 113, 135, 155, 186, 205, 314, 318, 354, 379, 387, 389, 393, 423–427, 431–435, 437–438, 453 National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 431, see also The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence National Interest, 463–465, 470, 475, 476 National Trust, 441 National Union of Teachers (NUT), 340–341 Nationalisation, 22, 36, 46, 204, 301, 307, 317–319, 328, 370, 379, 405, 415 Nationalism, 54, 91, 220, 306–307, 309, 315, 326–329 English Nationalism, 225, 327 Irish Nationalism, 16, 216–218, 237 Scottish Nationalism, 225, 238 Welsh Nationalism, 31, 217, 223, 228, 231, 237–238 National self-determination, 215, 307, 326 Nazi(sm), 20, 30, 136, 216, 243, 357

‘Neddy’ (National Economic Development Council and Office), 405 Neill Report, 303 Neoliberalism, 39, 64, 76, 246, 307–308, 314–311, 315, 321,389, 428, 488 Networks, 97, 158, 206–207, 209–210, 324, 332, 340, 355, 394–395, 431, 450 New Deal, 391, 411 New Labour, 42–46 and civil service, 157–161 and constitution, 92 and crime, 191 and devolution, 230 and economy, 405, 409–415 and electoral support, 281 and environment, 447 and Europe, 246–248 and foreign policy, 470–474 and Jeremy Corbyn, 297, 319–320 and local government, 196–197, 203, 206 and media, 308 and policy, 382, 386, 388, 393–395 and spin, 369–373 and welfare and public services, 429–432 as pragmatic, 301 New Liberalism, 310–311, 328–329 New Magistracy, 392 New Public Management (NPM), 147, 153–154, 165, 389, 395, 429 New Right, 12, 21, 39, 58–59, 76, 152, 155, 158, 314–315, 319, 328, 349, 388–389, 409, see also neoliberalism New Social Movements, 331, 336, 350, 352 News of The World, 364, 370–372 Newspapers, 9, 33, 53, 101, 222, 303, 355–356, 358–361, 363–367, 370–372, 422 Next Steps Agencies, 155, see also Executive Agencies Nice Treaty, 253 Nice (terrorist attacks, 2016), 474 NIMBY (‘Not in my backyard’), 341 Niskanen, William, 154–155 Nolan Report (1995), 117, 153, 157 Non-Decision-Making, 384 Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), 97

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

509

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

510

Index North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 14, 16, 24, 97, 244, 259, 319, 458 North-South Divide, 56, 283–284 Northern Ireland, 31, 55–57, 225, 282, 283 and Theresa May government, xv, 51, 140, 252 and devolution, 2, 85, 92, 96, 97, 121, 194, 209, 214–217, 224, 231–236, 388, 397 and policy divergence, 442, 444 and assembly, 47, 161, 267, 269, 271, 272, 275 and ‘British’ politics, 4, 15, 30 and Europe, 50 and religion, 68 and same sex marriage, 72 and the ‘Troubles’, 91, 172, 276, 218–220, 475 and Irish nationalism, 99, 326–327 and organisation of UK central government, 147–148, 161 and criminal and legal system, 178–179, 188 Northern Powerhouse, 123, 204, 210, 213, 235 Northern Rock, 46, 414–415 Nott, John, 153 Nuclear Energy, 24–25, 241, 441, 449, 451–452, 455 Nuclear Weapons, 30, 301, 319, 324, 338, see also Trident The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 431, see also National Institute for Clinical Excellence

O’Neill, Terence, 219 O’Neill, Michelle, 218, 223 Obama, Barack, 250, 418, 448, 458 Obesity, 59, 453 Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), 416–417 Office of Communications (Ofcom), 359 Office of Fair Trading (OFT), 391 Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem), 391, 395 Ofwat, see Water Services Regulation Authority Official Secrets Act, 172 Olympics, 67 Omagh bomb (1998), 224 Ombudsman, 88, 171, 185, 187–188, 192 ‘Omnishambles’ budget (2012), 48

‘One member, one vote’ (OMOV), 296–297, 319 Open government, 56, 60, 63, 66, 71, 111, 367 Organic farming, 453 Organic theories of society, 313 Osborne, George, 46–49, 51, 140, 194, 206, 210, 235, 394–395, 402, 408, 415–419, 432, 435–436 Outcomes (policy), 377, 386–387, 394 Owen, Robert, 317 Oxfam, 340–341

Private Member’s Bill(s), see Bills Political spectrum, 23, 318 Paisley, Ian, 31, 44, 218, 220–222, 224 Parekh, Bhikhu, 69 Paris Agreement (on Climate Change, 2015), 449 Paris (terrorist attacks, 2015), 474 Paris, Treaty of (1951), 25 Parliament, see House of Commons, House of Lords Parliamentary questions, 109–110, 115, 149, 152–153 Parliamentary scrutiny, 105, 124 Parliamentary sovereignty, see Sovereignty Participation, 8, 10–12, 17, 32, 34, 55, 77, 96–97, 197, 209, 265, 276, 287, 290, 299, 302, 311, 331, 333–337, 339, 341, 343, 345, 347–353, 365, 426, 445, 447 Parties, Bureaucracy, 292, 298 Cadre, 289 Catch-all, 278 Conference, 32, 220, 287–288, 292, 295–296, 298–299, 304, 318, 435, 443, 499 Factions, 134, 198, 288, 294, 310 Mass parties, 289–290, 297, 304–305 Membership, 289, 291, 301–302, 331, 334, 337, 345, 350, 352 Systems, 288, 305 Party political broadcasts, 300, 362 Patriarchy, 322–324 Pensions, 21, 46, 58, 74–75, 140, 162, 186, 259, 281, 297, 310,

317, 341, 391, 406, 415, 417–418, 424–425, 435 Pericles, 8 Permanent secretaries, 148, 151, 159, 165 Private Finance Initiative (PFI), 392–394, 398, 411, 429–430 Phillis report (2004), 301 Phone hacking, 364, 370–372 Pickles, Eric, 197 Plaid Cymru, 15, 31, 123, 216, 223, 228–230, 238, 250, 274, 334 Plane stupid, 340–342, 346 Plato, 307 Pliatzky Report (1980), 390 Pluralism, 11–12, 17, 348 Police and crime commissioner, 332 authorities, 191 commissioners, 191, 207, 376 complaints authority, 191 Policy and policy-making, 420 agenda, 143, 345, 398, 443 analysis, 398 cycle, 378–379, 388, 397 implementation, 386 review, 319 Political activism, 350 Political advertising, 302, 362 Political communication, 355–356, 360, 369, 371–373 Political culture, 218, 349, 353, 360 ‘Poll tax’ (Community charge), 41, 46, 96, 135, 138, 198–200, 213, 225, 273, 299, 315, 337, 376, 426–427 Popular sovereignty, see Sovereignty Populism, 3, 327, 329, 350, 327 Poverty, 14, 23, 32, 58, 67, 74–76, 158, 341, 386, 398, 405, 422, 425, 427–428, 435, 443 Absolute poverty, 58 Child poverty, 14, 32, 67, 158, 341, 405, 428 Poverty trap, 386 Relative poverty, 14, 58 Powell, Enoch, 29, 244, 249, 257, 428, 438 Power (politics as study of), 5–11 Power dependence, 209 Pragmatism, 307–308, 313–314, 431 Prerogative (royal), 86, 112, 132, 143, 186, 360, 385 Prescott, John, 148, 296, 442, 452 Presidential systems French, 27, 137, 244, 254

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

Index US, 8, 27, 69, 102, 133–134, 137, 142, 144, 183, 250, 449 Pressure groups, 12, 72, 74, 119, 202, 271, 290–291, 302, 306, 321, 331, 336, 339–340, 343–345, 347–350, 352–353, 395, 441–442, 445, 449–450, 454 Cause groups, 7, 341–342, 345, 353 Insider groups, 342, 352 Interest groups, 258, 290, 341–343, 350, 353, 441 Outsider groups, 342, 352 Primary Care Trusts (PCTs), 391, 431, 433 Prime minister, 126, and cabinet, 109, 130–132 and parliament, 112 and party, 115, 116, 136–140, 295 Constitutional position, 85–87, 90, 94 Prime Minister’s Office, 140–141 ‘Presidential’ nature of 141–144 Roles of, 132–136 Prime ministerial government, 11, 126, 141–143 Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), 110, 118, 367 Prior, Jim, 220 Private Finance Initiative (PFI), 319, 392, 398, 411 Progressive alliance, 257, 446 Proportional representation, 44, 92, 94, 122, 201, 226–227, 229, 232, 236, 249, 257, 267, 269, 271–275, 445 Additional member system, 44, 92, 204, 226, 232, 256, 271–272 List systems, 272 Single transferable vote (STV), 92, 221, 232, 250, 271–272 Public Accounts Committee (PAC), 110, 387 Public administration, 110, 153–154, 188, 392, 429 Public inquiries, 185, 187, 190, 385 Public services, 3, 13, 31, 36, 39, 43, 45, 48, 63, 153–156, 162, 171, 195, 198, 201, 208, 212, 224, 276, 306, 328, 336, 367, 375, 379, 387–389, 393, 395, 398, 403, 405, 409, 411, 413, 418, 422–425, 427–433, 435, 437–439, 445 Public-private partnerships (PPPs), 319, 393–394 Putnam, Robert, 339

Quango(s), 144, 157, 206, 385–394 Quantitative easing, 402

Race, 8, 64–65, 67, 69, 74, 125, 250, 283, 295–296, 309, 325–326, 380, 436 Race Relations Acts, 67 Race Relations Board, 64 Racism, 68, 75, 77, 179, 189–190, 205, 306, 323–324, 326–327 Radio, 2, 347, 349, 355–357, 359–360, 362, 364, 369, 372 Railtrack, 452 Ramblers Association, 453 Rationalism in politics, 310, 312, in policy-making, 383 Rayner, Derek, 154 Reagan, Ronald, 40 Real IRA, 220, 224 Redress of grievances, 169, 171, 183, 185, 192 Referendum, 8, 82, 95, 96, 236, 385, Alternative Vote (2011), 47, 94, 95, 99, 118, 132, 270, 275–276, 334 As used outside UK, 84, 87, 228, 260 Devolution (Scotland and Wales, 1979), 31, 95, 225, 228, 230, Devolution (various under New Labour), 44, 57, 92, 95, 197, 203, 204, 221, 224, 230, 234, 235, 275, 385 EEC (1975), 28, 83, 91, 95, 132, 138, 244, 252, 256, 258 Electoral reform (New Labour, proposed), 92, 275, EU (2016), xv, 20, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 83, 92, 95–96, 123, 168, 208, 215, 217, 223, 226, 227, 229, 240, 249, 250, 253, 257, 258, 295, 361, 376, 379, 400, 402, 403, 436, 458, 467 On joining the Euro and European constitution (New Labour, proposed), 247, 248, 253 Scottish independence (2014), 15, 45, 95, 227, 231, 236, Scottish independence (proposed), 45, 50, 57, 152, 227, 302

Regime change, 20, 80 Regional government, 91, 97, 234, 256 Regulatory capture, 396 Regulatory state, 98, 395–396, 398 Religious discrimination, 176 Representation, Descriptive, 88, 113, 124 Parliamentary, 43, 114, 249, 292, 310, 316–317 Substantive, 113 Republicanism, 87 Respect (political party), 282 Revolution French, 8, 309, 312 American, 312 Richard Commission (2004), 229 Rigby, Lee, 69 Rights, civil, 23, 83, 171, 218–219, 222, 224, 427 human, 2, 44, 69, 75, 92, 95, 97, 107, 169, 171–177, 179, 183, 185–186, 191–192, 205, 351, 390–391, 462, 471–472, 474–476 social, 427 Riots, 29, 31, 41, 56, 67, 199–200, 376, 379–380 Robinson, Peter, 218, 222 Roman Catholicism, 68, 282 Roskill Commission (1971), 381–382 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 342, 349 Royal Bank of Scotland, 415 Royal commissions, 134 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), 441 Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), 176, 218–219, 224 Rule of law, 84, 86, 88, 94, 100, 169–170, 192 Ruling class, 10–12, 64, 307, 361 Rushdie, Salman, 68–69 Rome, Treaty of, 25, 123, 241, 243–244, 252

Salisbury, Lord, 119, 132 Salmond, Alex, 45, 226 Sampson, Anthony, 11, 17, 401 Schuman, Robert, 241, 252, 259 Scotland and Brexit, 444 and electoral systems, 266, 269, 271, 273, 279 and Europe, 240, 250, 256 and legal system, 178–181

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

511

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

512

Index Scotland (Continued) and local government, 194, 197, 201, 209 and media, 358–359 and New Labour, 92–93 and party politics, xv, 2, 266, 286, 291, 334 and policy divergence, 442 and ‘poll tax’, 199 and the Conservative Party, 40, 43, 46, 49–50, 123 and UK central government, 147, 152, 160, 161 and Westminster, 122 and same sex marriage, 72 and Scottish Parliament, 31, 45, 47, 98, 126, 333–334, 340 and religion, 68, 282 and nationalism, 2, 15, 91, 95, 99, 326–327, 366 and devolution, 2, 44, 85, 91, 94, 95, 96, 121, 123, 214–217, 223–237, 388–397 and independence referendum (2014), 2, 45, 379 and Britain, 15, 16, 30–31, 94 and Scottish Identity, 15, 55, see also Scottish National Party Scottish Constitutional Convention, 44, 92, 225, 231 Scottish National Party (SNP) 2, 15, 45, 49, 94–95, 99, 113–114, 123, 152, 214–216, 223, 225–227, 230–231, 236, 240, 249–250, 266, 270, 273–274, 279–280, 283, 286, 289, 297, 302, 304, 326 Scottish National Party, 2, 15, 31, 45, 124, 214, 223, 230, 266, 305, 334 Scottish Socialist Party, 226 Second world war, xv, 1, 18–19, 21–22, 24, 33–34, 39, 41, 47, 54, 57–58, 64–65, 76, 91, 109, 112–113, 136, 139, 141, 161, 216, 241–243, 260, 281, 286, 289, 327, 388, 404, 406, 419, 423–424, 437, 458 Security services, 134 Select Committees, see Departmental Select Committees Separation of powers, 81, 83–84, 87–88, 99, 104, 168, 170, 177, 181, 192 Sexism, 75, 179, 321 Short, Clare, 132, 472 Sierra Leone, 25 Simon, Herbert, 194, 205, 258, 383 Single European Act, 40, 245, 253

Single member plurality system, xi, 88, 90, 91, 226–227, 229, 232, 249–250, 266–267, 269–270–271, 273, 276, 283–285, 445, 454 Single Transferable Vote, 92, 221, 232, 250, 271–272, 274 ‘Sleaze’, 92, 118, 303 Smith Commission, 227 Smith, Adam, 12, 38, 310, 311, 314, 315 Smith, Ian, 25 Smith, John, 43, 246, 296, 319 Smith, Owen, 297, 298, 299 Social capital, 339, 352 Social democracy, 26, 28, 43, 39, 64, 218, 220, 244, 274, 257, 272, 275, 288–289, 294, 317–321, 326, 328, 425, 446 Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP, Northern Ireland), 218, 220–221, 223, 271–272 Social Democratic Party (SDP, UK), 43, 244, 275, 289, 294, 319 Social Democratic Party (UK, SDP) 43, 244–245, 257, 262, 269, 275, 284, 294, 445 Social Exclusion Unit, 158, 391, 394 Social exclusion, 158, 391, 394 Social justice, 3, 13–14, 46, 48, 326 Social movements, 321, 331, 336, 350, 352–353 Social policy, 26, 42, 44, 58, 73, 246, 259, 343, 386, 401, 427, 438 Socialism, 5, 13–14, 19–21, 26, 28, 32, 38, 40, 44, 152, 198, 201–202, 205, 226, 245, 257, 289, 294, 297, 306–323, 326, 328–329, 358, 405–406, 443 Solicitors, 182, 283 Soundbites, 137, 368 Sovereignty Parliamentary, 11, 84, 86–88, 91, 93–96, 98–100, 123, 170, 174, 177, 181, 186, 192, 235, 243–244, 249, 254–255, 260, 262, 315 Popular, 8, 87–88, 100 ‘Special relationship’, 14, 25, 33, 40, 243, 259, 261–262, 449, 458 Special advisers, 126, 135, 141, 143, 146–147, 150, 159–167 Spencer, Herbert, 310 Spin, 140, 159–160, 300–301, 368–370, 372–373 Stagflation, 31–32, 244, 408 Standards in public life, 157, 303

Standing committees, 130, see also Committees, bill State, UK, 84 Growth of, 22 and Thatcher(ism), 36, 38, 39, 48, 50, 245, 306, 309, 310, 314, 315, 388, 409 Functions of, 81, 94 Hollowed out, 98, 211, 377, 388–394 and coercive powers of, 170 and Edmund Burke, 313 and David Cameron, 316 and Labour, 317, 405 and media, 372 Regulatory, 395 and Theresa May, 50 Role of in economy xv, 14, 26, 39, 64, 412 Politics as study of, 4–5, see also Welfare state Statute law, 82, 87, 100, 170, 173, 178 Steel, 22, 25, 30, 39, 57, 111, 214, 241–243, 252, 262, 318, 388, 405 Stoker, Gerry, 17, 97, 202, 212, 337–338, 353, 395 Stop the War coalition, 290, 346 Straw, Jack, 191, 344 Student fees, 378, 426, 434 Sturgeon, Nicola, 45, 215, 226–227, 302, 360 Suez crisis, 25, 27–28, 34, 86, 112, 244, 377, 460 Sunningdale Agreement, 220 Supplementary vote, 270 Supreme court, 44, 81, 83, 93, 120, 124, 142, 161, 168–169, 180–183, 186, 192, 384 Sustainability, 325, 447, 455 Swing, 43, 214, 277–279, 281, 364, 397 Syria, 5, 112, 139

Tata (steel), 111 Terrorism, 3, 44, 69, 177, 192, 224, 282, 306, 338, 367, 459 Thatcher, Margaret and ‘hollowed out state’ 388, 390, 393, and significance for British politics, 1, 22, 26, 28, 31, 33, civil service, 147, 153, 155, 158, 161–162, 164, and Conservative governments since 2010, 46–53 and constitution, 91, 96, and economic division, 64,

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

Index and economy, 401–402, 405–406, 409–411, 413, and environment, 443, and Europe, 244–246, 253, 257, and foreign policy, 459–460 and ideology 308, 311, 314–316, 319, 328–329, see also Thatcherism and local government (including ‘poll tax’), 197–200, 203–204, and New Labour, 42–45 and Northern Ireland, 220, and parliament, 109, 112, and party allegiance, 276, 278, 281, and policy-making, 376, 382, 386, and relations with cabinet, 128–130, and Scotland, 225, and the Conservative Party, 289, 293, 295, 298–299, and the media, 357, 364, and welfare reforms, 420, 426, 428, 432, 437, as prime minister, 132, 134–135, 138–143, governments, 36–41, Thatcherism, 37–38, 41, 46, 52–53, 281, 314–316, 328–329, 389, 411, 421, 443, see also New Right Third way, 158, 206, 209, 257, 319, 392, 395, 423, 431 Timothy, Nick, 160 Tocqueville, Alexis de, 195 Tories, see Conservatives Trade unions, 7, 11, 26, 31–32, 36–37, 40–41, 57, 59, 63, 117, 135, 202, 225, 245, 258, 278, 281, 290–291, 296, 300–303, 305, 309, 316–317, 322, 341, 343, 345–347, 366, 403, 406, 409, 421 Trades Union Congress, 32, 341, 349 Transgender, 113–114 Transport, 19, 63, 75, 147–148, 158, 170, 194, 204–205, 207–208, 210, 233, 256, 300, 317, 341, 377–378, 388–389, 441–442, 452, 455–456 Transport policy, 377–378, 456 Treasury, 11, 21, 26, 47, 49, 128, 130, 132, 134, 143, 149, 155, 233, 401–402, 412, 415–417, 419, 421, 454, 460 Trial by jury, 173, 179, 192 Tribunals, 88, 171, 186–187, 192 Trident, 114, 378 Trimble, David, 218, 221

Tripartism, 32, 349 Trotsky, Leon, 12 Trump, Donald, 10, 14, 142, 263, 337, 355, 400, 449, 458 Turnout (electoral) 10, 95, 191, 197, 201, 211, 228, 248, 254, 258, 270, 276, 280–281, 331–334, 336, 352 Two-party system, 88, 90, 99, 286–288, 304–305

Ulster Unionist Party (Northern Ireland), 218, 222, 244 Ultra vires principle, 170, 186 Unemployment, 21, 32–33, 38, 400, 425 Unionism (political support for United Kingdom), xv, 31, 51, 57, 68, 140, 215–223, 227, 232, 244, 252, 296 Unitary state, 84, 85, 88, 93, 94, 98, 99, 100, 121, 214, 216 United Kingdom, 14, 54–57, 214ff, see also Britishness United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), 2, 10, 48–49, 162, 229, 240, 248, 249–250, 257, 258, 262, 266, 269, 270, 274, 279–280, 284, 289, 305, 322, 327, 329, 334, 337, 340, 368, 488 United Nations, 4, 20, 462 United States (US), and economic crisis, 412, 418 and Europe 465–470 and fake news, 354 and interventionism, 471–474, 476–477 and nuclear weapons, 324 and political advertising, 362 and regulatory capture, 396 and separation of powers, 168 and the Cold War, 22–24, 464 and welfare 425 civil service, 149–150 Congress, 103–104, 118, 121 Constitution, 81–83, 99, 173 economy, 57 legal system, 177, 181, 183 Presidents 10, 27, 102, 141, 69, 133, 137, 142, 250, 354–355, 458 Pressure groups, 349 ‘Special relationship’, 14, 25, 27, 40, 44, 243, 261 University tuition fees, 376, 434

Value Added Tax (VAT), 273, 417–418

Vietnam war, 30, 461, 465 voluntary sector, 212, 386, 398 Voting, 8, 9, 14 and age, 280–281 and class, 278–280 and different electoral systems, 267–275 and ethnicity, 282–283 and gender, 281 and party allegiance, 276–278 and regional variation, 283 and religion, 282 and volatility, 283–4 decline in, 331–334 postal, 33–334 tactical, 271

Wakeham, John, 220 and Report (2000), 122 Wales, 16, 33, 55–56, 66, 73, 76, 85, 106, 180, 184, 197, 215, 229–233, 237–239, 284, 334, 444, 455 Wallas, Graham, 368 Walpole, Robert, 132 Waltz, Kenneth 464 ‘War on terror’, 44, 69, 282, see also Terrorism Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat), 391 Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), 473, 475 Weber, Max 7 Welfare state, 18, 21, 22, 26, 31, 32, 36, 39, 41, 57, 98, 113, 171, 195, 310, 314, 318, 422–437 Welfare to Work, 411 Welsh Assembly, 45, 47, 92, 96, 97, 123, 231, 228–229, 230, 237, 256, 332, 333, 335, see also devolution Welsh identity, 15–16, 30–1, 55, 57, 95, 216–217, 231, 326 ‘West Lothian Question’, 234 Westminster model, 80, 88–90, 98–100, 121, 254, 267, 389 Whigs, 286, 312 Whips, 108–109, 111, 115, 116, 120, 134, 290, 292, 293, 294, 344 White Paper, 105, 345, 382, 384 Wilson, Harold, 22, 27, 28, 31, 32, 37, 65, 91, 129, 130, 132, 134, 135, 138, 139, 141, 142, 148, 159, 196, 244, 291, 300, 319, 357, 400, 401, 425, 461, 463

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

513

Copyrighted material – 9781137603005

514

Index Wind energy, 442, 423, 448, 449 Wollstonecraft, Mary, 322 Women’s Equality Party, 72, 324 women’s movement, 50, 54, 72, 324, 350, see also feminism women’s rights, 205, 282 World Bank, 351, 461, 462

World Trade Organization (WTO), 251, 403, 461–463 Wright, Tony, 118

Young people and the economy, 64 and Jeremy Corbyn, 74, 419 and voting, 280–281

and apathy, 336 and media, 356, 360 and the Green Party, 445 Young, David, 349 Young Conservatives, 289

Zimbabwe, 25