US Parties - Using Theories to Compare UK/US Political Parties

Party System/2 Party State:

• Culturally the UK has had a two party system due to devolution leading to the rise of nationalist parties e.g SNP. Currently, no such cultural traits exist in the USA.
  • Devolution has also led to structural changes too.
• Culturally, the USAs history is nothing like the UK which leads (in the USA) to a 2 party system between the Republicans and the Democrats.
• In the USA, there have been no structural changes in the electoral system. “two fairly equally balanced large parties dominate the party system and alternate power” – Caramani 2011.
• Half a century ago, the UK was a two party state (1955 election – 96% of votes went to Conservative or Labour). Again there have been no structural changes in the electoral system but there have been cultural changes in devolved matters.
  • By 2015 6/8 parties in the Commons were nationalist parties.
• 2 party system in the USA because of the structure of the country where the President has come from one of the two main parties and Congress has been the opposite party of the President e.g Trump as a Republican and House being in Democrat control in 2019.
  • Further seen in that candidates from the two main parties can gather huge amounts of money within 24 hours of announcing their intention to run e.g Sanders and Biden who got record amounts of money.
  • “The British style divide between government and opposition is therefore absent” – Watts 2000
• Structural Theory: Nature of the Presidency which is seen as the ultimate prize in American politics, this can only be won by those who enjoy broad, national support.
  • Unlike the UK where parties can enjoy support in certain regions of the UK.

Campaign Finance:

• Issues crop up as scandal takes place.
  • USA: Watergate (Nixon using funding to send buglers to the Democrat headquarters) and Chinagate. UK: MP Expenses & Cranbourne Money/Short Money (Viable to use this in other ways)
  • This leads to calls for state funding. This may be the answer but is not without its’ problems.
• Arguments of how parties get money, Labour claim the Conservatives are in the hands of “big businesses” and this is true most come from the city of London. Conservatives claim that Labour are in the hands of “big trade unions”

Should Parties Be State Funded:
Yes:	No:
Ends dependence on wealthy donors which than ends influence being brought e.g Ecclestone £1 million to Labour for F1.	Reinforces the advantages given by FPTP
Means political parties can perform better functions e.g educate	May disconnect voters
Fill gap left by declining membership	Would make parties “legacies” of the state
Means parties have equal resources	People don’t want to bankroll parties they do not support.
Could lead to greater influence	Reinforces party role in democracy.
Will be a dependable source of income for parties

Internal Unity/Factions:

• Factions arise because it is hard to unite members under one manifesto when an election is not taking place (A rational view) – party renewal
• Factions do keep members a part of a political party who would otherwise leave
• Democrat: Blue Dog – conservative wing, fiscal conservatism
• Republican: Tea Party Movement
• Labour: Momentum bringing the hard left back
• Conservative: ERG uniting some members over Brexit and the issue of Europe.
• Factions become important during elections which may lead to negative campaigns e.g 1992 Bush (ultimately forced to choose Gore as his VP) vs Clinton, 2016 Clinton vs Sanders wing.
  • UK: Conservative 1992 GE. Split over Europe. 2015 Labour (?) split over centrist or hard left position later resolved through Corbyn’s election as leader bringing the party to the hard left.
• Factions can champion the party greats e.g Thatcherites and Reganrites
• Cultural: SPD broke away from Labour and formed with the Liberals. 2019 with the Independent group (Change)
• Cultural: The two parties keep themselves a part because there is nowhere else to go (structural). Rational choice of one of the other between the Presidential nominees
• Structure is flexible due to the broad churches of the two main parties in the USA.
  • Individuals use rational choice to change or transform a party e.g people choosing Trump in 2016 Primaries changed the structure of the Republican Party in that it become “America First.”

Party Policy:

• Cultural reasons why parties adopt certain policy e.g Labour born out the trade union groups therefore more likely to have policy which the unions agree on or like.
• The Republicans are to the right of the Conservatives whilst the Democrats are to the right of Labour. There are some policy similarities.
• Republican/Conservatives: Dislike ‘big government’, low tax, strong on law and order, high spending on defence, equality of opportunity
• Democrat/Labour: Support minorities, secure workers’ rights, equality of outcome, money back into education, high tax for the rich.

US Parties - Comparing UK/US Parties & More on Third Parties

Campaign Finance & Party Funding:

• Both the USA and the UK face issues concerning campaign finance and party funding
• In either country, the problem has resurfaced when a scandal has erupted such as Watergate in the USA whilst in the UK, the parties exchange words on how they get their funding e.g Labour from the big trade unions and the Conservatives who are the in the hands of big businessmen/women.
• The UK and the USA followed a similar pattern following this. In the UK the 2000 Electoral Commission Act was created by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. Jones & Norton found out that in 2014, almost 85% of the Labour party’s funding still comes from trade unions and that 51% of the Conservatives’ funding was still coming from big businesses.
• Parties both in the USA and the UK tend to find ways to get around regulations.

State Funding:

• Both countries have looked around the idea of state funding. In the 1970s the US tried federal matching funds whilst the UK saw the introduction of Short money and Cranborne money. Neither country has done this significantly or have they adopted it in the long term.
• The issue of party funding can be seen as a structural approach. Where structures create relationships within institutions, and within political parties and the party establishment.
• It can also be seen in the rational choice sense. Major parties will be happy with the status quo whilst minor parties will be very happy with the changes.

Party Systems:

The USA:

• There are many types of party systems and it is hard to categorise them with every state or area in the USA and UK.
• Some states in the USA have a dominant party system where the Republicans or Democrats will win in every election. The same can be said for some constituencies in the UK where the same party will always win in every election and have done for many years.
• But it can be said both the USA and the UK have a two party system Caramani described it as “a two-party system is one in which two fairly equally balanced large parties dominate the party system and alternate in power”.
• The USA is a 2 party system as the Republicans and the Democrats are swapping power whilst they are very similar in terms of policy.

The UK:

• The UK is harder to categorise. Over half a century ago, there would be a 2 party system. Where the 2 major parties controlled over 96% of the house in 1955.
• Following the 2015 election, only 67% of the house was in the balance of the two major parties. There were now 11 parties in the House.
• The reason for this lies in cultural and structural changes. The rise of nationalist parties and issue parties means there are more parties.
• In terms of executive control, it is still a two-party system. Despite all of this, it is still in a state of flux.

Changing Cultures In The UK:

• Until recently, the USA and the UK both had the same electoral system and very similar party systems. Why do they have such different party systems despite having the same electoral system. The answer lies in the cultural changes across the country.
• Trouble in Northern Ireland boosted support for nationalist parties, then the devolution debate bought the SNP in Scotland whilst popular Eurosceptic groups were the founding base of UKIP.
• Meanwhile, in the USA, no such cultural change was happening as the party system works under a structure that allows one party to control the presidency while at the same time the other party controls Congress. The way the presidency can be won is specific, it can only be won by parties that enjoy broad, national support.

Internal Party Unity:

Party Factions:

• Due to the 2 party dominance in both UK and USA politics, parties often find themselves without party unity. Parties find it hard to have unity due to the rise of nationalist and local issues which need attention.
• Members of factions tend to stress certain strands of ideology, certain traditions or even certain policies over others.
• They all believe in the party order but they tend to believe in a different priority or even different methods to achieve them.
• These differences can bring a new product or an era such as New Labour or Thatcherism.
• Party factions can be constructive by providing new ideas or policies, or they can be destructive as they fight for intra-party control.
• Some may be formal membership groups whilst some may be ‘coalition’ groups of those who are like minded. They may exist at grassroots levels or at a professional level, or it even exists in both levels.

Aims Of Party Factions:

1. To accentuate certain policies e.g income equality, free trade.
2. To focus on a particular aspect of ideology e.g hard left
3. To reflect geographic, ethnic, economic groups within the party e.g One Nation Conservatives, Southern Democrats.
4. To widen voter appeal e.g Momentum
5. To extol the party ’greats’ of the previous era e.g Thatcherites.
6. To offer diversity within a party that stresses unity
7. To offer personal support and encouragement to those politicians and voters of a similar view
8. To challenge the party establishment e.g New Labour & Tea Party Movement.

Effect On Factions of Voting Intentions:

• If the factions are destructive and the party as a whole appears disunited, then it may become a negative issue in an election. This was seen in 1992 when the Republicans when Bush fell out with Buchanan who was more in tune with the social issues facing the country and the party.
• Likewise, there was a similar fight in the Democrat party between Clinton and Sanders. For Trump, he may also face a similar challenge between the pro right and the religious right.
• In the UK, there has been a similar challenge. Mainly within the Labour party. New Labour vs Momentum. When it became truly destructive, they formed the SPD which later became the Liberal Democrat Party.

Effect Of Factions On Party Membership And Principles:

• Factions can be useful to parties, they can keep members who would have otherwise left either for another major party, or a third party. This can be said of the Tea Party Movement in the USA which kept the Blue Dog Faction the part of the Republican party. Whilst in the UK, one nation conservatives, was kept in the Tory party.
• A party faction can also go from being a faction to a leadership. This was done in 2016, with Trump’s America First and the quick change from leadership to the faction of David Cameron’s Notting Hill, the metropolitan elite within the UK Conservative Party following his replacement as party leader and prime minister by Theresa May in 2016.
• Factions tend to keep ideological and philosophically, lightweight, factions can keep the issues at the forefront of the party.

Party Policies:

• When comparing policies, it is easier to suggest that the Democrats and the Labour party policies will be similar whilst the same can be said for the Republicans and the Conservatives but the two have stark differences.
• Unlike the Democrats, the Labour party in the UK has remained at the grassroots level with trade unions and have been a socialist party for much of its life. Despite trying to become a socialist party during the Obama years, the Democrat party is not and never has been a socialist party because the appeal of socialist in the USA has never been widespread.
• The Conservative party came out of the British government in the 19^th century as a party dominated by the landed aristocracy and the established church. Nothing of this resembles that in the history of the Republican party which was born out of the Civil War.

Policy Agreements:

• Despite all of this, there are policy areas where the left-right divide does provide a match between the Republicans and the Conservatives.
• They both: Dislike big government, favour low taxes when the economy permits, talk of being strong on law, high defence spending and they want equality of opportunity than equality of results.
• The Democrats and the Labour Party are largely in agreement over the following: Right of minorities e.g racial, want better works rights, ‘green’ environmental policy, equality of opportunity than equality of results, better government spending on health, welfare and education, want to tax the rich to fund services.

Policy Differences:

• Ideologically, the centre of gravity in American party politics is further to the right than it is in British party politics.
• Broadly speaking, the Republicans are sat well to the right of the Conservative party whilst the Democrats sit to the right of Labour – more Old Labour and Corbyn’s Labour.
• The UK Conservatives in some policy areas have more in common with the Democrats rather than the Republicans – such as the death penalty (oppose), support same-sex marriage.
• Whilst the Conservatives may not be as far to the left as the Democrats, they are not as right to the Republicans.

Policy:	UK Labour:	US Democrats:	UK Conservatives:		US Republicans:
Abortion:	Support			Support but with limits as a conscience issue		Oppose
Death Penalty:	Oppose					Support
Same-sex Marriage:	Support			Support [but with some limits]		Oppose
Renewable Energy:
National Healthcare:
Role Of Central Government In Education:

Third & Minor Parties:

• Support for 3^rd parties in the USA is minimal whilst in the UK support is substantial by winning up to 1/3^rd of votes in Parliamentary elections. And they win up to half in European Elections – down to a different voting system.
• UK third parties reflect the four constituents’ parts of the UK – England, UKIP; Scotland, SNP; Wales, Plaid Cymru; Northern Ireland, SNP & Sinn Fein.
• A 3^rd party was created in the UK to tackle the EU issue. The 2 main parties supported the EU so the creation of a party against started – in the USA no such issue is present.
• Minor parties in the USA face significant problems because of the central position that the Presidential election holds in the structure. On only 4 occasions did a third party manage to mount a serious challenge in the past quarter of a century – 1912, 48, 68 and 1992.
• The structure of major parties in the USA is more flexible and responsive than their UK counterparts. The use of direct primaries makes the major parties in the US more responsive to ordinary voters who do not need reasons to create third parties. Primary voters saw the way the Republicans changed by selecting Trump as the candidate.
• Elections in the USA are much more expensive and the organisation on a national scale is much more challenging than in the UK. This makes it difficult for 3^rd parties to do well and compete in national elections in the USA.

Political Parties - Funding of Parties

State Funding Of Political Parties:

• Pence per vote and pence per member has increased in recent years
• However public funding has long already been in place for TV broadcasts, postage costs during election campaigns
• Already get £2 million to any party that has 2 or more members who have taken the oath of allegiance.

Should Political Parties Be State Funded
Yes	No
If they not funded by the taxpayer then they will be funded by wealthy individual’s.	Taxpayers can’t bankroll parties they don’t support
State funding would mean that politicians can focus on representing candidates when they rely on donors	Politicians become isolated from the real world
Smaller parties such as the Lib Dems would get equal amounts of money	Parties will always have unequal resources even if sate funding is introduced as there are differences in membership numbers

Has The Reform System Worked:

Evidence Against:

• There have been a few teething problems with attempts to circumvent the PPERA regulations of donations by offering a party long term short interest ‘loans’
• Many see this to be aimed at wealthy individuals such as Lord Ashcroft who is the Con party deputy chairman
• Labours membership has surged but it is still only worth 19% of the total income
• Wealthy individuals donations have not been put off by losing anonymity

Where To From Here:

• All the parties accept that big money should be removed, few believe that state funding would go down well with the public
• Labour would be happy with restricting regulations but the Conservatives wouldn’t unless there funding was similar to the Labour party
• Party funding like the HOL reform seems to have gone past the national interest at the moment.

Political Parties - Establishing Policy & Funding

Top Down = Autocratic – When the 3-top people in a party decide what goes into the manifesto and what policies are included.

Bottom Up = Democratic – When people who are perhaps lower down in the party decide what goes into the manifesto and what polices are included.

What Are The Differences In How The Three Main Parties Establish Policy:

• Up until the 1990s, the Conservatives policy was created by its leader
• The leader was expected to canvass the views of senior colleagues on the front benches – a top down process.
• 2010 GE manifesto was written by Cameron and a few others
• Labour’s party conference was a genuine policy making event
• From 1997, they adopted a 2-year policy making cycle
• Policy forum appointed a commissions in the national executive and then the polices were announced at the conference.
• Argued that it has reduced the conference to a rubber stamp for polices which were agreed upon
• Miliband wrote the 2010 and the 2015 GE manifesto
• Lib Dems were once believed to have been the most democratic in terms of policy making, the parties leaders influence over to a federal policy committee has steered policy making.

The Changing Basis of Party Funding:

• Most parties receive income from membership subscriptions
• Up until the 1990s the majority of Labour’s funding came from Trade Unions
• Conservatives’ funding was said to have come from wealthy, business people
• Decline in membership of parties has made funding decrease
• Decrease in trade unions for Labour has decreased funding for them.

Controversy & Regulation:

• People think political influence can be brought e.g Eccleston paid £1 million to the Labour party and the ban on tobacco in F1 as slowly reduced
• Political Parties, Elections And Referendums 2000: Imported an overall limit on party spending of £30k per constituent and additional spending on devolved bodies. Also requires parties to declare any donations over £5k.
• Political Parties Elections Act: Improved the regulations on spending making them tighter in the run-up for an election for an candidate. Allowing the electoral commission to investigate cases and issue fines and restrict donations from non-UK residents and reducing the threshold for the declaration of donations.

Political Parties - Structure of Parties

The Labour Party:

• When someone joins, they are assigned to a local branch
• Delegates to General Committee of Constituency Labour (CLP)
• CLP organises the party at constituency level, lead in national and local campaigns
• Selects candidates for Parliamentary Elections
• One Member One Vote has dimished the role of constituency party leaders.
• NEC the main national organ and it enforces party discipline and the smooth running of the country
• Policy building was once done at the conference but the role has been reduced.

Conservatives Party:

• Similar to that of the Labour Party
• Branches correspond to a local council below constituent level can associate.
• CA organise the party at grass roots level and planning election campaigns
• CA no longer have free rein
• CCHQ is at Millbank, Westminster and was previously referred to as the Conservatives Central Office

Liberal Democrats:

• Organised along federal lines where there are separate national parties in England, Scotland and Wales.
• Regional parties exist under the national parties
• English Lib Dems are governed by the English council executive – all 11 English regionals are Lib Dems
• UK level is governed by federal institutions however, the 2016 conference replaced this with a federal board – shapes the direction the policy in going in and oversees the work of parties other federal commitments.

Parties Sitting In European Parliament:

• Transnational group as opposed to single UK block
• 19 Conservatives with EU Tories and Reformists, 20 Labour with progressive Alliance of Social and Democratic
• 1 Liberal sat with the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats

Internal Party Democracy:

Power Of Rank/File Party Members:

• Votes
• Active in constituencies
• Attend conferences

Choosing Leaders:

• Conservatives: Vote in a series of ballots to narrow the field of leadership down to 2. Then the use of OMOV to choose leader
• Labour: Secure 15% nominations then OMOV to decide
• Lib Dems: Nominations of 20 local parties or 200 members than OMOV under AV

. Choosing Parliamentary Candidates:

1. First hopefuls must get their names on to a centrally vetted, approved list of prospective candidates.
2. Local part draws up a shortlist from those approved candidates
3. Constituencies party members vote for their preferred candidates, whether in person at a meeting or by postal vote.

Political Parties - Labour Factions

Momentum:

• Grassroots group set up in the wake of Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour leader and a key player in the campaign for him to be re-elected
• Founded by the left-winger John Lansman in 2015, 4 weeks after Corbyn’s successful campaign to become leader of the Labour Party
• Seeks the election of a progressive-left Labour Party at every level and to transform Labour into a more open, member-led party, with socialist policies
• Has about 100,000 supporters
• Organises through social media and local groups
• David Blunkett has called it a ‘text-a-mob’ and ‘fringe’ organisation that should create its own far-left party
• Is this group committed to grassroots power and participatory democracy, or is it a threat to the mainstream Labour Party, or both?

Saving Labour:

• Group which spearheaded the challenge to Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party in 2016
• Aims to replace Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party because ‘he has alienated almost all his colleagues in Parliament, has failed to set any kind of policy agenda and cannot meet the profound challenges of the future’
• Consists of a group of ‘concerned voters, loyal Labour members and trade unionists looking for strong leadership in uncertain times. Leaving the EU was a taste of things to come’
• Argues that new fresh leadership is required ‘to hold the Tory government to account and be ready to form a radical alternative government’
• Seeks to ‘build a party that truly works for the national interest’. Britain, it states, needs a strong Labour Party to represent the many

Labour For The Common Good:

• A parliamentary group set up during the 2015 Labour leadership election by Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt
• A moderate group which aims to bring together Blairites and Brownites to counter the Corbynite wing and regain Labour’s political and intellectual edge

Consenus:

• Launched in April 2016 to combat factionalism in the party
• Aims to bring all wings of the party together to build a consensus on key policy issues
• Key people include Stephen Kinnock, Angela Eagle and Seema Malhotra

Progress:

• An independent group of Labour Party members
• Founded in 1996 by Peter Mandelson as a Blairite pressure group
• Committed to the New Labour agenda
• Backed the neo-Blairite Liz Kendall in the 2015 leadership election
• Currently aims to promote radical and progressive policies recognising that the centre of the party has shifted in recent years

Labour First:

• A right-wing Labour group founded in 1988
• Supported Yvette Cooper in the 2015 leadership election

Socialist Workers Party:

• A revolutionary Trotskyite socialist party committed to transforming Parliament and the country
• Congratulated Corbyn on his election as leader, urging him to pursue a far-left agenda
• Backed Sadiq Khan in the London mayoral election as it saw it as a referendum on Corbyn’s leadership

Stop The War Coalition:

• Founded in 2001 in response to George W. Bush’s ‘war on terror’ after 9/11
• In February 2003 organised a demonstration against the Iraq War
• In August 2013 mobilised opposition to military action in Syria — Parliament voted 285–272 against military action
• Campaigned against military action in Syria after MPs authorised action against ISIL in Syria in December 2015
• Corbyn was chairman until he became Labour leader

Labour Together:

• Set up in 2015 as an anti-Corbynite reaction to Momentum
• Aims to bring different wings of the party together
• Members include Chuka Umunna, Tristram Hunt and John Cruddas

Open Labour:

• Launched in 2015 by 50 Labour activists as an alternative to Momentum
• Exclusively Labour and left-wing in the tradition of the Tribune Group
• Supports ideas of Ed Miliband’s 2010 leadership campaign
• Blends principles with electability

Political Parties - The Labour Party

• Created at the start of the 20^th century
• Independent Labour Party, the Fabains, Social Democrats Federation and the Trade Unions Congress
• By the 1990s, trade unions controlled 80% of the party
• Formed to represent the working class
• Decision to give all men aged 21 or above the vote meant they had a serious electoral challenge.
• Socialism has been closely linked to the party
• Revisionist Socialism aims to improve capitalism
• Revolutionary Socialism aims to abolish capitalism and bring all property into common ownership

1918 Constitution:

• Clause IV (4) provided a clear commitment to public ownership of key industries and redistribution of wealth. Old Labour liked state ownership, New Labour hated it and they changed it so that there would be less state intervention.

Labour Factions:

• Those on the right by the 1970s thought that the public sector pay demands had to be resisted whereas those on the left favoured greater wealth distribution
• Labour defeat in he 1979 General Election meant the party were in control by the left.
• Brought around the most left winged manifesto the party had ever seen as it offered state control of all major industries, enhanced workers rights and withdrawal from NATO.
• “Longest suicide note in history” – Labour MP Gerald Hupman

Old Labour vs New Labour:

• After the General Election defeat of 1979, 83 and 87 the party set to break its appeal.

Old Labour	New Labour
Dogmatic	Pragmatic approach
The party of working class	Catch all party
Interventionist	Favours market economy
Public sector provision	Favours private-public relationship
Advocates social justice	Advocates social inclusion
Supports universal welfare	Supports targeted welfare

Labour Under Brown:

• Concept of social justice was better than Blair
• Forced to nationalise many banks
• Had to return to Old Labour, the reputation of New Labour was gone
• His attempt for Constitutional reform flopped

Labour Under Miliband:

• He was keen to distance the party from New Labour
• ‘Next Labour’ was the next thing but no one knew what it was
• Backed by trade unions
• Never established enough votes to carry the party
• After an election defeat, it became clear that the party should return to its root.

Labour Under Corbyn:

• It was a shock when he was elected as he was a backbench MP
• His ideological positioning as a rebel backbench made it hard for him to demand or command the support of the party
• More polarised leadership in the run up to the 2020 General Election
• His policies were a step back to the polices before New Labour
• His policies included: Full employment and economy that works for all, security at work, secure our NHS and social care, a national education service open to all, action to secure our environment, put the public back into the economy and services, cut income and wealth equally, action to secure an equal society and finally, peace and justice at the heart of foreign policy.
• The party have been very divided as they were described my former chief “dangerously out of the touch of the electorate”